Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[Digby Tatham Warter]

Thankyou for the excellent read gentlemen.

So, from reading Caesers account of the germanic mercs in action(been a while since I read his account), what sort of stats would make germanic cav fair, a higher charge and attack, to represent what appears to be their obviously superior ferocity?

Seen as germanic cav didn't seem to be available in large numbers, would a smaller unit size of say 80 men instead of 100(huge unit size) be in order? Perphaps this is better than just making them expensive(to keep the numbers low)?

[Frostwulf]

Im a bit hesitant to reply as I dont know how the stats are applied or what they are based on. If the stats are straight forward then I would base the German cavalry similar to the Remi Mairepos but I would give them a stronger charge and attack factor as well as higher morale. I didnt find anything on how many casualties the Germans took but there must have been enough of them left to continually chase off the Gauls. If this is the case and with the number of Gauls they were facing I would give their defense at least on par with the Remi Mairepos if not higher.

[blitzkrieg80]

This discussion and supplimentary citations are indeed very interesting thanks to you guys who spend time carefully supporting your arguments with real evidence and clear logic. This thread does much to support the continued development and evolution of the Sweboz faction, so great job people! Keep up the good work done by supplying proof whether it be logic (as most of the time we must go on with so few sources) or actual references, for these kinds of changes we're actually noting to consider/propose to the team, such as with the new cavalry and reform. The Sweboz have been neglected in the consuming greatness of so many other great elements of EBness but not for long!

If anybody wants to disagree, POST IT! We need information, we need dialogue and comments and the synthesis that can only come through the interaction of your great minds, devout and casual, fan and historian alike. Please try to base your argument on game balance or historical/archaeological evidence because that will be most effective.

Good news! Thanks to the great generosity of Shigawire, I will have additional resources so that I may truly begin translating/reconstructing ProtoGermanic for the Sweboz voice mod

[QwertyMIDX]

Im a bit hesitant to reply as I dont know how the stats are applied or what they are based on. If the stats are straight forward then I would base the German cavalry similar to the Remi Mairepos but I would give them a stronger charge and attack factor as well as higher morale. I didnt find anything on how many casualties the Germans took but there must have been enough of them left to continually chase off the Gauls. If this is the case and with the number of Gauls they were facing I would give their defense at least on par with the Remi Mairepos if not higher.

Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.

[Laundreu]

Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.

Quite. Wouldn't the Brihentin work better, if indeed Celtic heavy cavalry needs to be the base used?

[QwertyMIDX]

In fact in most of the examples we're not even talking about heavy cavalry, but about light cavalry like the Luce Epos (that unit is actually sort of a conglomeration of the light and medium cavalry of gaul, but its the closest we can get).

[Frostwulf]

Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.

Quite. Wouldn't the Brihentin work better, if indeed Celtic heavy cavalry needs to be the base used?

The reason for using the Remi Mairepos is for their defensive skill based on skill not on armor as well as their high moral. The stats for the Brihentin are very similar to the Remi Mairepos. Also there were Belgic troops at Alesia though I do not know if they were mounted or not.

In fact in most of the examples we're not even talking about heavy cavalry, but about light cavalry like the Luce Epos (that unit is actually sort of a conglomeration of the light and medium cavalry of gaul, but its the closest we can get).

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Given the Celtic reputation as mounted warriors and of Gaul as a source of horses, it was inevitable that cavalry should play a major role in Caesar's campaigns there. His Gallic auxiliary cavalry fought in their native equipment in units led by their own chieftains, although large groupings of units would be put under a Roman officer. Most would have helmets of various designs, the best of which formed the basis of Roman legionary helmets, having cheek-pieces and good protection for the back of the neck. Those that could afford them would have chain mail shirts, and this would apply to an increasing number of warriors as the rewards of Roman service were accrued. All would have carried shields and various styles of spear, many of them suitable for both throwing and thrusting, in addition to long-bladed swords." pg.220

Caesar started with his cavalry in 58 BC. and it was in 55 BC when the Germans defeated Caesar's cavalry. The Gallic cavalry had roughly 3 years to better equip themselves with Roman war materials. Mail shirts, shields, various styles of spears and long-bladed swords sound like heavy cavalry to me.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"He completed the initial conquest by the end of the following year, 57 BC, by defeating a confederation of the Belgic tribes of the north east. Learning that the combined Belgic army was approaching the River Sambre, he crossed and fortified a strong position on the far bank to await their attack. Greatly outnumbered by enemies with a 'great reputation for bravery', Caesar began tentatively by sending out the cavalry to test them and 'soon found that his troops were as good as theirs'." pg.221

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Caesar sent out his Gallic cavalry to engage them but these, being identical to the enemy but far fewer in numbers, quickly got into difficulties. Sombre now sent in his four hundred German riders, whom he had held back as a reserve, and 'their charge overpowered the enemy, who were put to flight and fell back with heavy loss on their main body'. The town surrendered." pg.232

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"a tendency encouraged by the fact that his cavalry were usually fighting against identical opponents (his auxiliaries had to bare their right shoulders in battle to distinguish themselves from the foe)." pg.223

These statements seem to me that there was Brihentin as they had the same equipment as Caesar's cavalry. Im sure not all were Brihentin but there must have been many that were. Vercingetorix had around 15000 cavalry at his disposal, many of them had to be chieftains and their body guards just as in Caesar's cavalry.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Caesar reinforced his outnumbered cavalry with light infantry, hurriedly trained to cooperate closely in amongst the squadrons. Here Caesar was clearly drawing on his experiences in Gaul. For his German horseman, at least, this was merely a return to what had been their mode of operation before Caesar had turned them into his reserve shock force." pg.248

This last statement shows that under Caesar they didnt always have the light infantry with them.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

[Watchman]

Just a general reminder, but the distinction between "light" and "heavy" cavalry isn't really one of equipement but of primary tactical role - "heavies" being those trained and intented for shock action rather than skirmishing and such. It's just that the heavier equipement tends to be concentrated among the shock types for some fairly obvious practical reasons.

Remember also the Equites Auxilia Gallorum - much of Caesar's better-equipped Gallic cavalry would in EB terms be that rather than full-blown Brihentin.

Note also that in many instances the Germans were employed as a reserve that was only committed after the enemy cavalry was already fully engaged - and in cavalry battles it by and large tends to be the side that last has uncommitted squadrons that wins. Could really just be that old Julius didn't relly trust his Gauls all that much and thus used them for the somewhat attrition-heavy duty of tying down the enemy horse before sending in his more reliable Germans to smash the engaged and disordered foe with minimal casualties to themselves...

Anyway, in general I'd say that the Ridonharjoz do not need to be able to beat Brihentin or Remi one-on-one (which would be pretty difficult anyway given the importance of armour in the RTW system, and the fact the RHs wear just shirt and pants against the Gauls' and Belgaes' mail and helmets...); they just need to be able to reasonably reliably beat the lighter Epos, after which they can proceed to swamp the presumably rather few Gallic heavies by numbers. After all, you don't need to be better than the enemy elite so long as your rank and file is sufficiently superior to his rank and file...

Which is really probably the same thing as happened with the infantry during the more succesful Germanic invasions. The better Celtic warriors were probably rather superior to the majority of the invading tribesmen, but that didn't really matter as the rank-and-file Germanic tribal warriors were better than the low-quality militias and greenhorn lower warriors that made up the majority of the Celtic armies at that point... once the chaff had been dealt with the few harder nuts were easy enough to get rid of.

[Frostwulf]

Well I guess this is were we start disagreeing Watchman.

Just a general reminder, but the distinction between "light" and "heavy" cavalry isn't really one of equipement but of primary tactical role - "heavies" being those trained and intented for shock action rather than skirmishing and such. It's just that the heavier equipement tends to be concentrated among the shock types for some fairly obvious practical reasons.

Michael P. Speidel "Riding for Caesar"-"Caesar's German horsemen had served well as a crack battlefield unit and an escort."pg.15

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Caesar reinforced his outnumbered cavalry with light infantry, hurriedly trained to cooperate closely in amongst the squadrons. Here Caesar was clearly drawing on his experiences in Gaul. For his German horseman, at least, this was merely a return to what had been their mode of operation before Caesar had turned them into his reserve shock force." pg.248

Remember also the Equites Auxilia Gallorum - much of Caesar's better-equipped Gallic cavalry would in EB terms be that rather than full-blown Brihentin.

Why? These units did have chieftains and their retainers, they had the arms and armor of the Brihentin. If we are talking historical here, there isnt any difference that Im aware of. Caesar did use his Gallic units in many ways, raiding, mop-up,charging other cavalry and infantry etc. etc. The Germans were simply better.

Note also that in many instances the Germans were employed as a reserve that was only committed after the enemy cavalry was already fully engaged - and in cavalry battles it by and large tends to be the side that last has uncommitted squadrons that wins. Could really just be that old Julius didn't relly trust his Gauls all that much and thus used them for the somewhat attrition-heavy duty of tying down the enemy horse before sending in his more reliable Germans to smash the engaged and disordered foe with minimal casualties to themselves...

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231

This battle happened before the Germans were with Caesar, they didnt have attrition units here and all units were committed from the begining. It was strictly the Germans vs. the numerically superior Gauls, and the Germans won.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"It was the German cavalry, possibly with their own light infantry in support even though they are not mentioned, who made the breakthrough.
At length the German horse gained the top of some rising ground on the right, dislodged some of the enemy, and chased them with heavy loss to a river where Vercingetorix's infantry was posted. At this the res of his cavalry fled, afraid of being surrounded, and were cut down in numbers all over the field.pg. 234

This is one of the instances where there was a non-charge, non-reserve situation. There are others. You are correct in that Caesar was lacking in trust in the Gallic cavalry during the Vercingetorix uprising. Prior to and after there doesnt seem to be the lack of trust as before.

Anyway, in general I'd say that the Ridonharjoz do not need to be able to beat Brihentin or Remi one-on-one (which would be pretty difficult anyway given the importance of armour in the RTW system, and the fact the RHs wear just shirt and pants against the Gauls' and Belgaes' mail and helmets...); they just need to be able to reasonably reliably beat the lighter Epos, after which they can proceed to swamp the presumably rather few Gallic heavies by numbers. After all, you don't need to be better than the enemy elite so long as your rank and file is sufficiently superior to his rank and file...

I agree that the Ridonharjoz do not need to be able to beat Brihentin or Remi one-on-one, there should be a heavy German cavalry as well as a Noble German cavalry and each should be stronger then there Celtic counterparts. One thing you seem to be neglecting is that the Gauls seriously outnumbered Caesars cavalry. If you will look at the above quotes the Gauls had the same type of units that Caesar did. Caesar's Gallic cavalry would get swamped and have to be rescued by the Germans. The Germans though greatly outnumbered would attack and chase off the Gauls, including the elites. Some times this was done with charges other times it would be stand and fight situations, and the Germans always came out on top even though inferior in numbers.

Which is really probably the same thing as happened with the infantry during the more succesful Germanic invasions. The better Celtic warriors were probably rather superior to the majority of the invading tribesmen, but that didn't really matter as the rank-and-file Germanic tribal warriors were better than the low-quality militias and greenhorn lower warriors that made up the majority of the Celtic armies at that point... once the chaff had been dealt with the few harder nuts were easy enough to get rid of.

15,000 German warriors(Suebi) were dominating several Gallic factions and thats why they called for Caesar. The Germans were outnumbered and still managed to win. There should have been at least that many elites from the Gauls.

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-"Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274

[Zero1]

Well, I'm back after having been gone for a very long time 'looong story, don't need to bore the EB team and others with details' but I'm here to lend my weight to this particular issue.

Now, my knowledge of the early Germanic peoples is modest in comparison to many here but I daresay I have something of a working knowledge, that said, I think it would be fair to give the Sweboz a significant bump in calvary and I more or less echo Frostwulf's sentiments/arguments on this point.

I also think it makes sense for the Sweboz as a faction to have a rather large berth of sorts between their units I.E. well armored heavies and not so well armored lights with little in between. I feel this would best echo how the Germanic peoples tended to fight and operate I.E. with a large number of light infantry/calvary/general soldiery supporting a smaller 'core' armored noble elite. If one examines how the Germanic peoples of later ages fought and how that tradition influenced the later medieval periods they more or less followed that model, and I see no reason why earlier 'proto' Germanic peoples would deviate much from that, indeed, there is even evidence supporting just an assumption.

I bring this up also because it makes sense from a gameplay standpoint, having a sort of tribal and forested faction centered around northern Europe with a force consisting of a large number of unarmored but nevertheless skilled and reliable light infantry supporting a crack force of heavily armed/armored nobility would balance out the region nicely with the more 'balanced' infantry-centric Romans to the south and less extreme in their unit division Celtic counterparts to the west.

To address this issue I would suggest leaving such units as the Gastiz and Sweboz general as-is, maybe even make them a little stronger, BUT, making them FAR FAR FAR more expensive to reflect how rare and valuable they were as well as their noble status, as well as adding a similarly armed/armored calvary compartment which is equally expensive. Personally, I'd like to see this as more of something you have to 'build up' to and less of a 'reform', it seems to me that the development of these forces could be better represented through old-fashioned building upgrades, time and effort rather then with a hard capped 'reform date' as such.

Just two cents from a long time fan coming back from a far too long absence =D.

[Lowenklee]

Thanks for the info Frostwulf.

Let me ask for a bit of clarification on a few points.

Would it be accurate to characterize the use of the double rider as a cultural norm among native Germanic cavalry? Should the Ridoharjoz in fact be represented this way...technical limitations not withstanding?

There seems to be conflicting accounts. Were these two men sitting in tandem atop the horse? Or, was there a single rider alongside which ran another? Tacitus' account seem to suggest the latter. In the case of Caesar we have the Sweboz specifically mentioned as frequently dismounting from their horses to engage the enemy, conspicuously absent is the mentioning of a second rider or galloper. However I have a feeling I'm missing a source...in fact I know I am.

Also, what are your thoughts on the evolution of arms and armament among the German cavalry as frontier tribes increasingly found themselves rendering military service to Gallic and Roman employers? More specifically, within the EB time frame would it be accurate to characterize the standard Germanic cavalry in use as lightly equipped? Or, do you see a trend toward, or is there evidence to suggest the existence of more heavily armored (i.e. expensive) Germanic cavalry?

Well, I'm back after having been gone for a very long time 'looong story, don't need to bore the EB team and others with details' but I'm here to lend my weight to this particular issue.

Now, my knowledge of the early Germanic peoples is modest in comparison to many here but I daresay I have something of a working knowledge, that said, I think it would be fair to give the Sweboz a significant bump in calvary and I more or less echo Frostwulf's sentiments/arguments on this point.

I also think it makes sense for the Sweboz as a faction to have a rather large berth of sorts between their units I.E. well armored heavies and not so well armored lights with little in between. I feel this would best echo how the Germanic peoples tended to fight and operate I.E. with a large number of light infantry/calvary/general soldiery supporting a smaller 'core' armored noble elite. If one examines how the Germanic peoples of later ages fought and how that tradition influenced the later medieval periods they more or less followed that model, and I see no reason why earlier 'proto' Germanic peoples would deviate much from that, indeed, there is even evidence supporting just an assumption.

I bring this up also because it makes sense from a gameplay standpoint, having a sort of tribal and forested faction centered around northern Europe with a force consisting of a large number of unarmored but nevertheless skilled and reliable light infantry supporting a crack force of heavily armed/armored nobility would balance out the region nicely with the more 'balanced' infantry-centric Romans to the south and less extreme in their unit division Celtic counterparts to the west.

To address this issue I would suggest leaving such units as the Gastiz and Sweboz general as-is, maybe even make them a little stronger, BUT, making them FAR FAR FAR more expensive to reflect how rare and valuable they were as well as their noble status, as well as adding a similarly armed/armored calvary compartment which is equally expensive. Personally, I'd like to see this as more of something you have to 'build up' to and less of a 'reform', it seems to me that the development of these forces could be better represented through old-fashioned building upgrades, time and effort rather then with a hard capped 'reform date' as such.

Just two cents from a long time fan coming back from a far too long absence =D.

I'll respectfully disagree, a reform suits the situation better I should think. If a sudden pronounced increase in material wealth and the concentration of that wealth in the hands of an aristocracy was made possible by increased contact with Celtic neighbors then we are talking about sudden external stimuli and not a natural progression of the earlier social customs.

The egalitarian nature of early Germanic society and the rudimentary nature of Germanic agricultural practice made it very unlikely that an affluent land owning aristocracy could have emerged and amassed the personal wealth required to field such infantry as the current Gastiz and Herthoz without this external stimuli. It's only after this stimuli that we begin to find signs of the immergence of a priveleged aristocracy, and then only in those tribes that occupied the frontier with Celtic lands.

The "pre-reform" nature of germanic society would also suggest less of a gap between the haves and have nots in terms of how warriors were equipped on the battlefield. Small but significant differences probably abounded, such as sword and horse ownership. But I doubt differences in armament were that severe. Just my opinion though!


P.s.
welcome back!

[blitzkrieg80]

This is great discussion here, please continue. Thank you so much for your interest and devotion!

I would say that any culture who practices agriculture around 300BC is not very egalitarian, because agriculture in practice makes those who hoard and own "haves" and those of less means "have nots" and thus aristocracy begins to grow and have influence rather quickly- I think the typical depiction of the Germans as democratic and egalitarian is really more of a "noble savage" characterization that was invented to contrast the Romans' sensibility.

On the other hand, I think the material wealth of the Germanics was a result of Celtic influence, but wasn't a result of cultural/societal influence unless we're speaking militarily, because the loan-word vocabulary we find in the various old Germanic languages shows a steady flow of brunjo "mail/body-armor", isarna "iron", "wire", rik "power/authority" but not land-use or aristocratic composition. The Sweboz reform we're proposing would be more directly because of increased pressure/migration coupled with increased mobilization/militarization which would bring about the conquest and acquisition of metallurgical sources that would allow heavier armor and a larger warrior aristocracy. I am hoping we can make the conditional reform dependent on the Sweboz possessing 1 city in a mountainous/ore-rich region with significant MIC, besides large markets to simulate the trade network necessary to equip the new Sweboz nation. The two times are currently dubbed by me, Druhteztîdiz - "Time of the Warband" (only Sweboz Reform) and Theudôztîdiz - "Time of the Tribe" (pre-Reform period for Sweboz). This is based on the vocabulary of "king" that originated in primary usage as Theudanaz "Lord of the people" then became less used while Druhtinaz "Lord of the warband" was more popular later, this before the "of the kindred" dynasty/lineage-based title seen finally in Kuniz/Cyning. The unconditional reform date will be 140BC so the AI can actually take advantage of it and the conditional reform date will start 190BC... I find it awesome that these dates seem to coincide with the dates Lowenklee mentioned from the Wikipedia information (not that I'll ever claim that is a valid authority).

One of the considerations we have to make within the unit list is space and so that might limit some of the heavy infantry even though I would fully support the idea of a heavy infantry/retinue. The early sword-unit is going to be renamed to reflect their status as thegnoz/retinue so this sort of class differentiation is going to be implemented- I am so very happy to hear your own comments that this stuff is missing.

I think the Ridaharjoz is the only unit which shouldn't get its' name changed by me and I feel that it doesn't need any stat change either because it is an effective unit but not incredible, similar to the Leuce Epos which shouldn't outshine other cavarly but shouldn't be worthless.

The initial heavy cavalry unit I have proposed is actually a noble cavalry or as I call it for now (until I have my additional Proto-Germanic sources): Ehwathegnoz (Companion Cavalry) because I think the idea that they would be retinue, thegnoz or gesithas is implicit and of course they would be very similar to Brihentin, being the forebearers of knights, although the standard thegn would not be mounted, as seen in the Harthaz/Sahsthegnaz. Indeed, much of the time cavalry did not fight from horseback, Celts included, because the stirrup was not invented so the ability to have a "platform" is much reduced, but this reasoning allows me to justify within my mind the idea of a Sweboz heavy cavalry, despite records stating infantry being more common. Unfortunately the RTW engine does not allow dismounting for combat of noble cavalry, but if the Brihentin exist, so too would the elites of the Sweboz, but they will definitely be a reform unit. I think they need to cost a lot (elephantish) to reflect their rarity in large-scale army-use. Another possibility is to half their troop number, but this might not be possible.

I am also thinking of adding a medium cavalry unit, so I am wondering what you guys have in mind for the heavy cavalry/noble cavarly that is not the unit I just mentioned? The idea of a regional Tencteri unit has been discussed and this could be a medium cavalry (unarmored) type similar to the Remi. Is there another idea you guys have in mind?

The Merjoz will definitely be changed since 2-handed Huscarl axes were not in use, so the question is whether we keep a shock axe unit or use that space for another? I would really like to keep 1 axe unit, give it 1-handed axe with shield and make it naked but I know I will always have trouble defending the use of axes in "ironless" Germania even though they had to chop wood somehow and the fact that Bronze Age cultures had had them in use for a long time. I have found some information about axes found in the Netherlands and of course in the Carpathians, but is there anything that you guys know that could be added? Feel free to tell me how much you don't like the idea.

I have no idea if this will get me beheaded, although these are just ideas being thrown around anyways, but I just felt excited enough to let you guys have a sneak-peak and am interested to know what you guys think

[Watchman]

I don't think there have been serious arguments put forth for the Germans having been economically equal - which is indeed virtually impossible anyway, even if actively attempted. There would naturally have been those who owned richer farmland (or more of it), were more succesful in trade, invested the "spoils of war" wisely or just luckily, and so on and so on. The point is that they were politically equal - all free men had the same basic political rights irrespective of wealth level and such, although naturally the prosperous had that much easier time amassing influence through all manner of clients and followers.

Given the importance the culture by all accounts attached to warfare, it would also seem perfectly logical that the wealthy invested in gear that both made them better at it, and showed off their prosperity - "luxury" items like swords, horses and armour, not as such available to the common tribal warrior owing to their ruinous expense.

[blitzkrieg80]

Although it can be argued that no government fits the mold I refer to, I still cannot agree with the idea that egalitarianism was truly existent in ancient Germania, although I pretty much agree with everything you say. So compared to other cultures it can be said they were more politically equal before their assembly and had higher social mobility, but the usage of "wise" men" as the priest-like judicial authorities (who could be influenced) and big men / lords who rallied followers and kin for the majority of votes, then so family and status meant a great deal regardless of equality, as recorded by Tacitus in his relation of how they chose their kings. I would say that describes an aristocracy exactly, especially considering the idea that participation in battle was required when called upon. The "thing" although seemingly a democratic assembly was in practice more an affirmation of society and government, ritual participation that satisfied disconent through its seeming fair distribution of rights to the common man, who as always is the backbone of society. Just like a "pep rally" at high school, the morale of the people is heightened by its encouragement and pretend participation of everyone within its activities but the true benefactors and deciders are a select few. The more tribal the government the more equal it will seem but in the end the wise men / most influencial (chieftain and bodyguard, elders, priests) always decide how things turn out even if a common man can lead a decisive battle and possibly move up in station. I know, it's a petty argument, but the idea of a "noble savage" is just that kind of romanticism that distorts perception from practice. If other cultures' societies have stricter caste structures and less social mobility then shame on them, but that doesn't change the inequality of Germanic society which was very Indo-European and quite developed even in 300BC.

[Watchman]

Meh. That's how it always ends up working out in democratic systems anyway - when everyone has one vote, the guy with the real power is the one who can one way or another convince the owners of those votes that his idea is the best etc, just as in autocratic systems the power lies with whoever has the ruler's ear (or acts as his brain). The Graeco-Romans for example (what they now actually bothered practicing the "one man one vote" stuff) tended to do that with good old-fashioned rhetoric and general BSing. Far as I know things hadn't changed much by the American and French Revolutions...

If you have a clan/tribal social structure on top of that (not that comparable institutions were exactly uncommon in the Mediterranean republics either), well, duh; all other things being equal relatives tend to stick together, especially when the clan and family are ultimately the root sources of security and support in the absence of proper impartial authorities. Didn't the Athenians employ a corps of Scythian mercs as a kind of communal police independent of local tribal and family loyalties for one example ?

[blitzkrieg80]

Yeah, it's true I am very bitchy when it comes to democracy and it's false representation, especially in America where there is no democracy at all yet we say we have it more than any other- rather pathetic... and it's true that the nature of man is to give up power to leaders and be swayed and for some to sway others and manipulate them... so, pardon my passion for arguing because I think we agree, actually.

The benefit and virtue of a military democracy is the fact that those in power actually do a great deal of service unlike modern day politicians who are leeches... but some might try and manipulate the military system regardless, yet the basis is much more proper than being a draft-dodging, spoiled, oil-tycoon

[Frostwulf]

Would it be accurate to characterize the use of the double rider as a cultural norm among native Germanic cavalry? Should the Ridoharjoz in fact be represented this way...technical limitations not withstanding?

There seems to be conflicting accounts. Were these two men sitting in tandem atop the horse? Or, was there a single rider alongside which ran another? Tacitus' account seem to suggest the latter. In the case of Caesar we have the Sweboz specifically mentioned as frequently dismounting from their horses to engage the enemy, conspicuously absent is the mentioning of a second rider or galloper. However I have a feeling I'm missing a source...in fact I know I am.

Phillip Sidnell "Warhorse"-"The Germans were trained in the use of a special battle technique. They had a force of six thousand cavalry, each of whom had selected from the whole army, for his personal protection, one infantryman of outstanding courage and speed of foot. These accompanied the cavalry in battle and acted as a support for them to fall back upon. In a critical situation they ran to the rescue and surrounded any cavalryman who had been unhorsed by a severe wound. They acquired such agility by practice, that in a long advance or a quick retreat they could hand on to the horsees' manes and keep pace with them.
Caesar reports this tactic as something novel, but his descriptions of later fights demonstrate that some Gallic cavalry were familiar with the practice, and he would employ it himself in the Civil War. Of course, similar methods had been employed by various people over the centuries, notably the Numidians but also the Romans themselves at Capua in the Second Punic War." pg. 229

Cultural norm Im not sure, as there were many tribes,Sugambri,Ubii,Tencteri, Batavi and others of whom I havent found out about their battle styles.
For traveling they may have rode together on the same horse but when it came to battle they did not. The runner would grab the main and enter battle. It has been said that the Romans liked to use the native units in their native fighting style, including Caesar. Their are times when Caesars troops would attack without the runners, times when they would dismount to fight and times when they would charge headlong into battle. In the second encounter Caesar had with the Germans, the Germans charged his cavalry then dismounted. This is the 800 vs. the up to 5000 battle already described in this thread.

Also, what are your thoughts on the evolution of arms and armament among the German cavalry as frontier tribes increasingly found themselves rendering military service to Gallic and Roman employers? More specifically, within the EB time frame would it be accurate to characterize the standard Germanic cavalry in use as lightly equipped? Or, do you see a trend toward, or is there evidence to suggest the existence of more heavily armored (i.e. expensive) Germanic cavalry?

My guess to this would be the same as what was going on with the Gallic cavalry. They would eventually be better armed and armoured in Roman service.
Ill have to return to this later as Im being pressed for time, I did want get to the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones and their arms and armorment, but that will have to come later.

[PSYCHO V]

15,000 German warriors(Suebi) were dominating several Gallic factions and thats why they called for Caesar. The Germans were outnumbered and still managed to win.....Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Greatly outnumbered by enemies with a 'great reputation for bravery', Caesar began tentatively by sending out the cavalry to test them and 'soon found that his troops were as good as theirs'"....Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen..Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage."....

LOL ... Frosty still propagating the same line huh!? I commend you on your labours but I'm sorry mate, this and much of the other material you cite in defence of your argument is just so contextually wrong. Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements. Trying to take select points out of any semblance of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis is just bolox!


my2bob

[blitzkrieg80]

Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements.

To disagree and say so is one thing, but making judgements that you have no authority on (like what someone would think if they read something) is inappropriate.

[Watchman]

By what I've seen mentioned of it the horse stock available to the Germans wasn't exactly awe-inspiring (Caesar apparently remounted his mercs on imported Spanish beasts at one point), which might actually directly explain the relative lightness of equipement of their cavalry - the poor beasts may well have already been heavily enough burdened by the warrior and his weapons without the weighty metal body armour being added into the equation.

On the same vein it would seem unlikely that their "horse runners" were carried by the animals except in dire emergencies, to conserve the already-taxed stamina of the animals and maintain a reasonable turn of speed.

Anyway, I'd hazard a guess that such hamippoi-type light support infantry and their equivalents (such as the "chariot runners" of old) normally operated behind the squadrons they were attached to for entirely practical reasons.
First off, if they were directly mixed into the ranks the formation of the cavalry proper would have to be left rather loose to accommodate the men in the intervals, which would seem to go directly against some of the very basic principles of how close-combat cavalry is formed into squadrons.
Second, the speed the cavalry could maneuver in would be directly dictated by the top running speed of the infantry, and while a fleet-footed human does accelerate faster than a horse the latter tends to be by far faster over any longer distance. Moreover one suspects it would create problems of maneuvering, as the mens packed in the intervals would quite likely get in the way if the horses had to wheel or turn this way or that.
Third, when the infantry are one mass behind the squadron they can in certain situations give the horses the impression that they are being chased, which may trigger one interesting facet of the animals' herd instinct - the stampede. When the herd is on the move, and they can clearly feel the anxiety of both their closely packed peers and their riders, and closely "pursued" by smaller creatures, it should be rather obvious what sort of scenarios the horses instinctively associate the situation with; and the safest thing for them to do in such cases is to keep on going forwards, even over obstacles they would normally flatly refuse to have anything to do with... like closely packed bodies of infantry. I understand this sort of creative use of the skittish animals' natural "fight or flight" responses is just about the only way to get them to physically charge into close-order infantry en masse, and given the general extreme importance of psychological factors in cavalry attacks (particularly against infantry) has a number of other benefits. ('Course, if the waiting infantry nonetheless hold steady without wavering and have spears, the front rank horses will still get skewered...)
Fourth, mixing the infantry among the horses would not seem terribly useful most of the time. Not only would, as already mentioned, they be frankly getting in the way of both the horses and riders much of the time, they'd force the cavalry to adopt a looser order than is really good for shock actions while contributing little "weight" and impact (both physical and psychological) to the mixed formation, and conversely detaching them for other duties - close terrain combat, flanking, pinning etc. - ought to be quite complicated. On the other hand if they acted as a distinct unit both they and the cavalry they supported could go their separate ways if tactically necessary, and on the attack the massed horsemen would deploy their full physical and psychological weight with the added bonus of the horses being hopefully convinced they must keep going forwards. Naturally they are going to outpace their support infantry at high speeds (the stuff about hanging onto tails and manes sounds primarily like a good way to get kicked by accident or out of sheer irritation...), but it is questionable if this were exactly a problem during such maneuvers anyway. If the cavalry then gets locked into a pitched melee, be it against horse or foot, the infantry could then try to wrap around the flanks or work their way through the ranks to pitch in the melee among the horses once they catch up. In battles between cavalry units the latter was AFAIK often decisive, if one side lacked such support - the nimble infantrymen being able to duck between and under the struggling beasts and do all kinds of nasty things. Conversely against infantry that refused to present a suitable weak spot in the line for the cavalry to attack (the usefulness of the cavalry wedge against infantry being, AFAIK, that the whole thing could be easily steered into just such a soft spot) the light infantry could be sent forth to pin the enemy formation down at the front, while the cavalry swung around and struck at their flanks - a mounted attack against an unformed side having a tendency to trigger mass panic but fast, particularly in already engaged formations.

Or that's my take on it anyway.

When it comes down to that there's actually a whole lot of units in EB that could be used for such hamippoi duty, the most obvious requirements being fast legs and preferably a decent moral backbone for frontal pinning. Actual fighting ability of course hardly hurts, and should they have spears for anti-cavalry bonuses all the better.
...which description really more or less covers most Sweboz infantry when you think about it. The Swainoz would appear to me like a particularly good choice though - being skirmishers rather than real line infantry they'll mostly be running all around the place and flanks anyway, and will obviously benefit from close horse support; on the other hand they seem tough enough that their presence in support of friendly cav should be well able to have a decisive effect, especially against enemy horse.

Most other factions have something comparable available. The Celts could do worse than using Lugoae or those shortsword guys for similar purposes, or just about any fast infantry not immediately needed in the main line really. Iberia is just rotten with suitable troops - even the local spear-carrying light skirmishers might well do the job - while the Koinon ought to be able to get some decent mileage out of the Ekdromoi Hoplitai...

[Lowenklee]

Good points guys,

"I would say that any culture who practices agriculture around 300BC is not very egalitarian, because agriculture in practice makes those who hoard and own "haves" and those of less means "have nots" and thus aristocracy begins to grow and have influence rather quickly- I think the typical depiction of the Germans as democratic and egalitarian is really more of a "noble savage" characterization that was invented to contrast the Romans' sensibility".

Well here's what Caesar had to say,

"The nation of the Suevi is by far the largest and the most warlike nation of all the Germans. They are said to possess a hundred cantons, from each of which they yearly send from their territories for the purpose of war a thousand armed men: the others who remain at home, maintain [both] themselves and those-engaged in the expedition. The latter again, in their turn, are in arms the year after: the former remain at home. Thus neither husbandry, nor the art and practice of war are neglected. But among them there exists no private and separate land; nor are they permitted to remain more than one year in one place for the purpose of residence. They do not live much on corn, but subsist for the most part on milk and flesh..."

I'm not prepared to call Caesar and romantic but I do understand your point.

Even in using the term egalitarian I do make allowance for a healthy dose of cynicism, human behavior doesn't differ that dramatically regardless of the political structure in place. But there does seem to be a consistent characterization of the Germans that, a description of which other than egalitarian, I haven't sufficient eloquence to give justice to. At any rate Watchman did a fine job of that in an earlier post.


"...The Sweboz reform we're proposing would be more directly because of increased pressure/migration coupled with increased mobilization/militarization which would bring about the conquest and acquisition of metallurgical sources that would allow heavier armor and a larger warrior aristocracy...".

...I am hoping we can make the conditional reform dependent on the Sweboz possessing 1 city in a mountainous/ore-rich region with significant MIC, besides large markets to simulate the trade network necessary to equip the new Sweboz nation...I find it awesome that these dates seem to coincide with the dates Lowenklee mentioned from the Wikipedia information (not that I'll ever claim that is a valid authority)...

I'm in total agreement with that suggested implementation of a Sweboz reform! This to me makes the most sense in terms of the development of the German faction. While I am in no position to discount the importance of more peaceful means of cultural cross pollination I do concur that military expansion more likely contributed to the rapid development of a large affluent aristocracy. Thank you for the insights into Germanic linguistic developments, thats very interesting indeed. Do you recommend a single reference book on proto-Germanic/old German languages as a starting place for further study?

About the Wiki source, I referenced only two specific quotes.

But, those quotes weren't posted here until after I checked the sources myself. I first read the dissertation piece in full and verified Dr. Looijenga's credentials. I also tried to be clear in presenting the work as a thesis dissertation as opposed to a formal academic publication. Dr. Looijenga's thesis is available in full as a pdf and is sponsored by Prof. Dr. T. Hofstra professor of protogermanic languages and literature at the university or Groningen.
Prof. Pearson is well known enough, professor of archeology at Sheffield...but I did order his book for context's sake before posting here. I don't trust Wiki at face value and mainly use it for it's bibliography

Next on my list is the article "Early Germanic Warfare by E. A. Thompson" a twenty-eight page article first published in 1958. It's available from the Oxford University Press, I'm just reluctant to spend money on it sight unseen. Has anyone by chance read this yet?

In terms of unit stats and composition I should perhaps point out a certain thing? Ignoring the Brihentin and Remi Mairepos for the moment, if it should be accepted that Germanic light cavalry was superior to at the least it's light counterpart among the Celts then I believe it a worthwhile effort to continue looking into the creation of a suitable light infantry compromise to approximate the German cavalry tendency of dismounting or bringing an accompanying warrior racing on foot into combat.

While the Celts seem to be mentioned as not unfamiliar with this practice the Germans are distinctly noted for it. I apologize for seemingly harping on this but I believe this to be a potentially important cultural trait.
As is the Ridoharjoz will fail in direct confrontation against an equal number of Leuce Epos. This does not seem to be an accurate representation of the superiority of Germanic light cavalry or?

The LE also possess the “fast moving” stat. Perhaps the Ridoharjoz should have superior mobility and perhaps even stamina in the absence of stats to properly approximate a dismounted combatant or much in the way of armor in their graphic depiction? I was actually shocked as I assumed they already possessed these advantages.

I've read nothing yet to suggest that the early German cavalry mentioned in the classical texts were heavily armored as they scored victories against greater numbers of Celtic cavalry. So, any later evolution of Germanic heavy cavalry doesn't address the current deficiencies of the Ridoharjoz.

Speaking of horses, an interesting thread came to mind as I thought about a possible post reform heavy cavalry for the Germans. Psycho V, perhaps you recall this thread?...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42138

Here is a teaser, courtesy of Frisian28ad,



What ever became of this? Was it decided that the Batavian elite cavalry was simply too late a development within the EB time frame? Beautiful picture though.

The basic idea behind the Marjoz seems fine to me even if we accept the theory of iron scarcity among the prereform Germans. Although it would be ideal to find a historically verifiable unit, given the scarcity of detailed information, you may simply have to suffice with sn educated guess in the name of playability? Besides, the axe is an efficient and effective use of iron. Any discussion on the size of the axe is another matter and reminds me of an amusing thread pertaining to Ethiopians and dinosaurs

[blitzkrieg80]

Sorry for the comment about Wikipedia, it is more of a disclaimer for criticism against me than anything because I find many people use Wikipedia like it is the ultimate authority and I myself love to use Wikipedia for easy reference. Thanks for pointing out those specific references because I will probably be using them as basis for the reform dates and having real work/thesis to quote is much better than general Wikipedia so I am glad you did the work of tracking down the information already

There are specific texts which are best for learning the various old Germanic languages (Old English, Old Norse, Gothic, ect.) but I assume that you don't want such a long-term and challenging endeavor but rather "a single" book which might have elements of the linguistic similarities but be an easy ready and have some interesting information. My Old English professor reccomended this book to me at one point, which I got easily from Amazon: D.H. Green's Language and history in the early Germanic world Cambridge University Press 1998. Although this book might not be the easiest read, because it is packed with information and highly academic, it is possibly the best book I've ever read on the subject. He uses the various old Germanic cognates and texts as much of his basis (rather than conjecture) and he stays true to what can be proven while still elaborating much detail that is otherwise overlooked, such as the fact that the true Germanic word for lord was similar to OE frea, ON Freyr rather than Herr, because Herr originally means "hoary" or "grey" and is directly from the influence of Latin senior, whereas Frau comes from the IE root pro- similar to Latin Principes, "(one who propels) foward", or "first". The book has devoted sections pertaining to loan-word traffic in Contact with the Celts, the migration of the Goths, Germanic loanwords into Latin, and Latin loanwords in Germanic. There is even some Proto-Germanic discussion in the book, but not so much, because most Proto-Germanic isn't widely accepted in the academic world, but what can be claimed to be known is used by him, although he never states it as fact but rather as different possibilities of word transformation.

I find many other books on Germanic history, warfare and such to be rather general, always talking about the same basic and easy to find information of late Germanics and never really using any evidence that can prove anything meaningful. Herwig Wolfram's History of the Goths is pretty awesome though and there's others that don't come readily to mind, but Malcolm Todd is one I do not like much at all. It's funny because I think most would like the easy general reference of Todd and hate Green- but that's exactly why I like Green, because I don't need to read Wikipedia-type information in a volume.

[Watchman]

The LE also possess the “fast moving” stat. Perhaps the Ridoharjoz should have superior mobility and perhaps even stamina in the absence of stats to properly approximate a dismounted combatant or much in the way of armor in their graphic depiction? I was actually shocked as I assumed they already possessed these advantages.

Both the RH and LE ride "light" or "medium" horses, which both use the fs_fast_horse skeleton. Lightly equipped guys on quick horses tend to be pretty fast. Moreover, making the RH faster and/or more "enduring" would hardly appear logically justifiable given the rather small and unimpressive horses they had to make do with most of the time. Deep forests with scant good farmland kinda suck for horse breeding after all.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Both the RH and LE ride "light" or "medium" horses, which both use the fs_fast_horse skeleton. Lightly equipped guys on quick horses tend to be pretty fast. Moreover, making the RH faster and/or more "enduring" would hardly appear logically justifiable given the rather small and unimpressive horses they had to make do with most of the time. Deep forests with scant good farmland kinda suck for horse breeding after all.

Dear Watchman,

I'm sorry, but most of what you write in this thread is more a guess than anything else. Size of the horse has generally not much to do with its endurance, or speed, or durability (hope this words applies to animals in the english language). Ever heard of the Iceland-horse? I know it's a breed not existant in EB-timeframe, but these horses are very durable, and quite speedy as well - and all that despite of the harsh and cold climate, the long periods of darkness and the presumably meager pastures available to them.

The "Pro-better-German-Cav-Faction" in this thread has delivered a quite sufficient amount of proof for the need for a better cavalry. I understand that, concur and I kindly ask the mighty EB-Thengaz for better Ridoharjoz, a German reform and heavy cavalry.

[Lowenklee]

Thanks for the information Blitzkrieg80. My thanks to you as well Watchman, i suspect how the Germans may have implemented close infantry support for thier cavalry will involve lots more information to know with any degree of certainty. I grew up around horses..well ponies actually, and can certainly speculate how it may have been done. But speculation is a facr cry from factual knowledge.

Where we disagree however is with the inferiority of the native mounts available to the Germans. If these early mounts were anything like the native ponies and pony-like horse still used in rural communities of the Alps, Germany, and Scandanavia, then I must come to their defense.

“small and unimpressive...” is highly subjective. Ponies and pony-like horses (henceforth I will use the term pony for all small breeds for simplicity although I understand it to be inaccurate) are the aboriginal horse type and make excellent mounts in their larger varieties. These small shaggy mounts come precisely from lands unsuitable for the cultivation of large herds of standard horse and yield a superior animal for rough broken ground.

Speaking from personal experience, my village breeds ponies which I have much experience being around and observing during our spring festivals. I've also ridden Halflingers many many times as a younger man while in the Italian Tirol, these small animals have no problems carrying a rider at a brisk pace. I've also have seen first hand the hauling strength of Scandinavian ponies and the Icelandic pony during my stays at farm hostels while traveling farther north from home.

These native types of ponies are wonderfully hardy and even tempered. They have great stamina, disproportionate strength from their sturdy muscular bodies and short legs, are sure footed and quick footed. Ponies are capable of admiralable bursts of speed as well as they are better able to leverage their strength due to being closer to the ground and having more compact builds. Its for this reason I suggested the superior speed, not to suggest ponies are “faster” than horses but I wouldn't know how else to represent the quick turning ability and agility of a pony or pony-like horse not impaired by an armor wearing rider or, as is currently not implemented, a second infantryman holding on to the mane.

Ponies also tend to be more durable to inclement weather and able to live off a far less nutritional vegetation than finely bred horses, so for luggage transport you just bring more ponies! They do quite fine ranged in the open and left to graze. So perhaps the Ridoharjoz should have a lower upkeep cost! Or perhaps I'm getting a little carried away now

The German cavalryman carried little else than his spear and shield, rode saddleless, and was documented as covering large tracts of ground quickly,

“They (Caesar refers to the Usipetes and the Tenchtheri), finding themselves, after they had tried all means, unable either to force a passage on account of their deficiency in shipping, or cross by stealth on account of the guards of the Menapii, pretended to return to their own settlements and districts; and, after having proceeded three days' march, returned; and their cavalry having performed the whole of this journey in one night, cut off the Menapii”

Sounds like a light highly mobile cavalry to me, a cavalry not impaired by any inferiority on the part of their sturdy ponies? Whatever advantages spanish mounts may have provided the Germans seemed to have done quite well for themselves with their smaller shaggy mounts.

And, it makes more sense to me that a lightly armed rider riding bareback on a pony makes a quicker (not faster, just quicker) and more nimble opponent.

Anyway, I'm a little defensive perhaps as I grew up around such animals. But I maintain that the stamina of the Ridoharjoz should be superior. Small legs may make for a slower animal but a ponies big barrel chest and compact musculature, I might argue, makes for larger lungs and greater stamina.

I also have articles from a travel log (some entries dating to the 19th century) with very interesting accounts of local breeds of horses as far east as the Himalayas. Time and again and from several differing western authors, the stamina of small shaggy horses is related as being superior to all but the most exceptional of more “noble” breeds. I shall search for this article tomorrow if anyone is interested, it may be a bit off topic though?

All this aside the documented evidence suggests that Germanic light cavalry, for whatever reason, were able to consistently defeat larger bodies of Celtic cavalry in direct combat. Presently the Ridoharjoz are handily beaten by the Leuce Epos in direct conflict.

It's not really that important if a reform introduces a superior German cavalry. I'm simply nitpicking potential historical inconsistencies as a means of possibly opening up new ideas for units and unit balance. I'm happy with the Ridoharjoz as is.

Here's a small shaggy pony for reference. It's an Icelandic pony.



photography by Joe Szurszewski.

[the_handsome_viking]

I think that certain club soldiers should be definitely more powerful, because according to what I've read on the subject, it wasn't so much a lack of weapons technology or resources for club warriors, but in many cases an actual natural preference for the advantages of the weapon, for example, the Eastern Romans recognized its potential and used Germanic club warriors against various Sassanid Cataphracts to stunning effect, though this was much later on than the period in EB, this ancient weapons potential would not have changed.

Also the Germans seem to lack berserker elites wearing wolf hoods or bear hoods which were actually pretty common believe it or not.

[Lowenklee]

Also the Germans seem to lack berserker elites wearing wolf hoods or bear hoods which were actually pretty common believe it or not.

Sources please?

[Sarcasm]

My God man! It was in vanilla RTW! Get your act together!

[Sarcasm]

Btw, I should probably drop a line or two about ponies here.

During the Cantabrian wars, the natives used ponies rather than proper horses as their primary mount. And it was not because of it's speed but rather for their stamina, resistance to the bad weather and ability to operate successfully in rugged terrain or even low vegetation.

The more southerly Iberian breeds were certainly much faster and could catch the ponies that the Cantabrians used, or even the small horses the Numidians rode when Hispanic Auxilia campaigned in Africa. The trick in both cases for the locals was to use rough terrain as a place to strike and which to retreat afterwards.

Anthony can probably also tell of stories of Irish ponies giving headaches to more heavily armed cavalry (like late Armorican cavalry, or Norman knights) by operating in wooded or boggy country.

[Frostwulf]

LOL ... Frosty still propagating the same line huh!? I commend you on your labours but I'm sorry mate, this and much of the other material you cite in defence of your argument is just so contextually wrong. Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements. Trying to take select points out of any semblance of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis is just bolox!

First of all your throwing quotes together and Im not sure which one(s) your having problems with. The ones on this thread answer here but the others you must be talking about lets discuss this on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475

To disagree and say so is one thing, but making judgements that you have no authority on (like what someone would think if they read something) is inappropriate.

Agreed and thank you.

Also the Germans seem to lack berserker elites wearing wolf hoods or bear hoods which were actually pretty common believe it or not.

Sorry, as much as I would like to see a beserker style unit I have a hard time believing there were enough around to produce even one unit. I have to agree with Lowenklee and would like to see the source. I hope your not referring to speidels "Ancient Germanic Warriors".

All this aside the documented evidence suggests that Germanic light cavalry, for whatever reason, were able to consistently defeat larger bodies of Celtic cavalry in direct combat. Presently the Ridoharjoz are handily beaten by the Leuce Epos in direct conflict.

I completely agree with Lowenklee's above statement

To all the EB guys please answer these questions.
First of all what is the arms and armor of the Luece Epos?
Second Where are all the chieftains during these battles? Were they all on foot? Did they simply not engage in fighting therefore losing prestige in the eyes of their followers? If they did fight woundnt they be Brihentin and therefore engage the German units?
Third what cavalry units use these arms and armor - Mail shirts, shields, various styles of spears and long-bladed swords?

Lastly as far as Germans and armor it seems the majority went without armor.

Malcolm Todd "The Early Germans"-"Body armor was virtually unknown among the German people in their early contests with Rome and indeed for centuries after that." pg.39

John Warry "Warfare in the Classical World"-"Nor were the Germans ill-armed. Their cavalry wore lofty plumes on helmets grotesquely shaped like animal heads. Their breastplates were of iron and they carried two javelins each and heavy swords for hand to hand fighting." pg.132

John warry is speaking of the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones here. With this I think that the reform of 190bc seems fair. But again Im weak on this subject.