Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[blitzkrieg80]

my current idea on the addition of a new MED-ish cavalry is an alternate skin for some horseman model (we have no space for new units) which will be a "proven" or "champion" rider or early "horse retainer" unit. This horse unit will represent the superiority of the higher class Germanic horsemen over the standard issue Leuce Epos and yet still be very similar to the Ridoharjoz. The regular Ridoharjoz should not be automatically superior, because the examples of Celtic defeat against German cavalry was not a representation of the Celts during their heyday and the Germans at that time suredly had experienced units on that front rather than conscripts more accurately portrayed by the normal Ridoharjoz.

I personally would like a wolf-skin/"werewolf" if you will/berserkr type unit based on common Indo European wolf-cults, shamanistic rituals, totemism. Of course there is no direct evidence of this being in use other than widespread records of Indo-Europeans worshipping the wolf and dressing like them, naming themselves after the wolf, and late Germanics following this practice, I should not have to go into the berserkr which is widely attested (Bǫðvar Bjarki! haha, how's that John) but other examples as such with the "boar" being a representation of a god's protection (Freyr! back to the original Germanic word for lord ) and subsequent decoration/invocation on helmets as mentioned in Beowulf, and many other accounts, and esp. found at Sutton Hoo. The "Seafarer" is an Old English poem with many shamanistic allusions including ecstatic trance and astral travel and if Christian monks are recording theses things which is against Christian teachings, then they must be based on a core practice maintained from those early times. I could scramble together more vague shamanistic/totem worship/shapeshifting references within Germanic and provide the examples I mentioned for Indo-European (such as the infamous Dacians' use).... BUT like I said there is nothing that we can dig up and say "ah hah!" so I won't waste my time at the moment. So, IMO it cannot be argued that it's pure fantasy to have a drugged out naked wolf/berserk type unit for the Germanics, but fiction and unproven enough that it should not be in EB.

[Frostwulf]

blitzkrieg80 If you wouldnt mind I have a question for you on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475 I'm trying to keep this thread to the German topic.

As for your second paragraph I mostly agree with you. I do believe there is enough evidence for what I call the "true" beserker, those of the viking type. I know Speidel in his book has a wider definition of beserker, but just in my opinion the ones he talks about are not in the same mold as the Norse ones. Also just to make things clearer its not just the Norse that have beserkers, they are just the well known ones. My only problem is with what I said earlier that there is just not enough of these type of individuals around to make up a unit. This again being my opinion based on the books and articles I have read.

[blitzkrieg80]

I agree they would also not be common enough to justify a unit, but I am planning a character trait, although I have not developed the idea yet (like Proto-Germanic or whatnot)- Shapechanger: "believes himself able to transform into an animal, +2 morale to troops on battlefield, -1 command, -1 Management... so it would still exist and no one can claim that that character does not believe it to be so whether it was historically common or not, like madness and Roman Emperors

Frostwulf, I don't see any question to me on the other thread? Are you asking for me to justify keeping the Ridoharjoz at their current strength? Or the question on this thread concerning weapons, ect... you say "these arms and armor" but then don't specify? I can't really answer for decisions of the Celtic Faction people concerning who has what, nor the specifics of their leadership in battle during that era... otherwise I'm pretty sure the Brihentin are only buildable post-reform similar to the non-existent Sweboz reform and they have a cavalry spear, sword, mail and helm, although generals are early Brihentin... the Leuce Epos (just checking the EDU) has javelins, cavalry spear, leather armor, helm... sorry I didn't think theres paltry answers merited a different post.

[Watchman]

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.
---
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.

No offense, but I'm afraid your analysis is falling prey to what could be maliciously termed "fanboyism" here. To put the counter-argument in very simple and brief terms: historically, nobody ever used them little tough horses as the war-mount of choice if and when something bigger and stronger was available and sustainable. And there were some pretty good reasons for that.

Oh, the little critters may be hardy and enduring, well able to "live off the land" (although grazing takes so much time the usefulness of this to a military unit is a bit debatable), and decent enough for overland transportation; but what is needed of a warhorse is a fair bit different. People did not devote enormous time, attention and resources to producing specialized breeds for the job just for fun after all. The little horses were used when nothing better was available for one reason or another; I don't think anyone ever hesitated to swap when something bigger and stronger became an option.

[Frostwulf]

The little horses were used when nothing better was available for one reason or another; I don't think anyone ever hesitated to swap when something bigger and stronger became an option.

I agree. The bigger and stronger horses had advantages of kinetic energy for charges, leverage for the height, speed(most of the time) and later in history strength for the heavier armor and arms. From my readings the viking raiders did the same thing, they would raid or conquer and area and "trade up" their horses. The little horses did their job well, but they just weren't as good as the larger ones with the exception of stamina which generally was impressive.

Sorry blitz I wrote the question to late, but its there now. The question does have an effect on this thread as to the relation of German unit to Celtic unit. I chose to put in on the other thread since that is where it was started. It is an important subject for the German troops, as now they will be guided by the idea that the Celtic "heyday" is over with. It shouldn't be that difficult to come up with the author(s) and book(s) that the team is using that they based the idea that the Celtic "heyday" is over with. I would think this kind of information would be one gladly shared by the team so others who have an interest in this can read it themselves without bothering the team. So if you don't mind could you get us this information?

[Lowenklee]

No offense, but I'm afraid your analysis is falling prey to what could be maliciously termed "fanboyism" here. To put the counter-argument in very simple and brief terms: historically, nobody ever used them little tough horses as the war-mount of choice if and when something bigger and stronger was available and sustainable. And there were some pretty good reasons for that. Oh, the little critters may be hardy and enduring, well able to "live off the land" (although grazing takes so much time the usefulness of this to a military unit is a bit debatable), and decent enough for overland transportation; but what is needed of a warhorse is a fair bit different. People did not devote enormous time, attention and resources to producing specialized breeds for the job just for fun after all. The little horses were used when nothing better was available for one reason or another; I don't think anyone ever hesitated to swap when something bigger and stronger became an option.

Hello Watchman,

Thanks for the reply but there's no fanboism on my part. I'm not emotionally invested in any one specific faction or unit. I'm more concerned with the enjoyment and educational merit of the mod as a whole. This forum presents a wonderful chance to explore such subjects and I approach this discussion with a lighthearted curiosity, no offense taken

On the issue of horses I just happen to have a background growing up with small native breeds and am personally familiar with their historical use in southern Germany and Tirol where, often times, ponies were specifically desired over horses due to their hardiness, stamina, and sure footedness. Ponies also tended to be cheaper for a number of obvious reasons.

I'd also like to mention that I have no evidence to suggest the Germans actually used ponies other then reasonable likelihood and the existence of such small native horses, some with long histories of use, within German speaking countries today. It's conjecture on my part.

My point however was that the use of ponies or small horses does not equal inferiority. The small steppe ponies employed by, among others, the Mongols make as good an example as any to illustrate that. Regardless of the merits of larger horses German cavalry are documented as being quite able to successfully engage and route larger numbers of opposing Celtic cavalry, this isn't currently represented, so to refocus on the original issue with the Ridoharjoz...

As currently implemented within the mod, a player may be led to believe that the ancient Germans fielded poor quality cavalry compared to the Celtic light cavalry. If this is not the EB team's position then perhaps something is amiss with unit balance? Even with the inclusion of a Sweboz reform the ability to recruit heavier cavalry does not really address the Ridoharjoz question.

If an implementation for swift runner accompaniment is impossible, or some novel approach to approximate dismounting during close-in fighting is impossible, should the Ridoharjoz be compensated with a stat adjustment to give them an advantage over the Leuce Epos? If not, why?

*edit*

"my current idea on the addition of a new MED-ish cavalry is an alternate skin for some horseman model (we have no space for new units) which will be a "proven" or "champion" rider or early "horse retainer" unit. This horse unit will represent the superiority of the higher class Germanic horsemen over the standard issue Leuce Epos and yet still be very similar to the Ridoharjoz. The regular Ridoharjoz should not be automatically superior, because the examples of Celtic defeat against German cavalry was not a representation of the Celts during their heyday and the Germans at that time suredly had experienced units on that front rather than conscripts more accurately portrayed by the normal Ridoharjoz".

Whoops, seems I missed that post. Thanks Blitzkrieg, apparently I have my answer! I still hold out hope that the Hrussáthêwáz might make an appearance and I"m still interested in your thoughts on the Batavian cavalry? Perhaps there is information on the Batavian cavalry thats more within the EB timeframe? It's so hard to find specific unit references for the various Germanic tribes it seems such a waste to not use what little we do have.

[the_handsome_viking]

Sources please?

Ancient Germanic Warriors

Warrior Styles From Trajan's Column to Icelandic Sagas

Michael P. Speidel.

I made a thread about it a while ago to see if anyone else has read it.

It was something of a famous Indo-European warrior style, or warrior thing to emulate the wolf and wear wolf hoods.

When it comes to the Germanic people, there are clear depictions of wolf hood wearing germans on trajan's column scene 36, you also see depictions of bear hooded Germans.

As I've said before, it was a very big thing amongst the Indo-Europeans to emulate various animals I suppose they saw something quite likeable in, and this is why you have examples of Romans, Germans, Greeks etc wearing wolf hoods or referring to Wolf skin clad bersekers and elite warriors.

We know that there were clearly Wolf skin wearing warriors in the late Roman empire, and we definitely know they existed to some extent still in the middle ages, the top of a seventh century scabbered from Gutenstein shows a wolf headed warrior with a giant sword, he also seems to be wearing chain mail.

A silver foil from Obrigheim, depicts a wolf skin wearing warrior offering his sword to Woden. A bronze die from torslunda depicts Woden with a twin-dragon helmet and a wolf headed warrior standing near him drawing his sword and holding a spear.

I can understand that a lot of people get wary when it comes to things like depictions of ancient Germanic warriors wearing things like wolf hoods, at least elite berserker types or sort of moral boosting elite soldiers, but it seems evidently clear that not only did they exist amongst the Germans, but that it was something commong throughout the Indo-European world in general.

There should be at least one band of German warriors in EB that wear wolf skins because it seemed to be quite a common thing in general, or at least perhaps the standard bearers in German units could wear wolf hoods.

[the_handsome_viking]

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

It wasn't that far off then. Some German warriors carried war clubs, and EB's revised version has some German warriors still carrying war clubs.

[the_handsome_viking]

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".

I am.

And I started a thread on it a while back asking if anyone else had read it. Though I don't agree with everything in it, it did make a pretty strong case for the existance of wolf skin wearing warriors amongst the Germans.

[the_handsome_viking]

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

You get my vote for the simple fact that you mentioned naked men.

[Frostwulf]

I am.

And I started a thread on it a while back asking if anyone else had read it. Though I don't agree with everything in it, it did make a pretty strong case for the existance of wolf skin wearing warriors amongst the Germans.

I liked Spiedel's book and I thought it was well written. I had a few problems with his book. The first one may get me jumped on but I'm just trying to be honest here. I tend to be wary when I read a history book by a German about Germans, just as I would a Spaniard writing about historical Spain, a Frenchman about France, etc. etc. From my experience in these type of readings some tend to become enamored with their subject and over glorify them. In Spiedel's book I saw a little of this but nothing I think that would skew his historical perspective. The second problem I had was in this book he didn't talk enough about the Germanic tribes enough. I know the sources are small and thats why he relied so much on the column. As far as purposes in EB there also wasn't much mention of performance in battles of varying units. My last criticism is his criteria for beserkers. It seemed to me that Speidel was saying all you had to do was fight naked and your a beserker. I always think of the Norse type for being what I call a "true" beserker. I thought he did put some real interesting information in there and I really enjoyed the book. I like that he uses allot of references and he seemed logical to me. His book "Riding with Caesar" I thought was even better.

I also agree with you that he did make a strong case for the wolf warriors, but in EB with no references in battle all you can do is make supposition on their effectiveness. I think it would be fair to assume that the wolf warriors would be a stronger unit then the average tribal unit, but by how much is hard to say. And by the way thanks again for mentioning this book in your last post, I doubt I ever would have heard of it if you didn't post about it.

[the_handsome_viking]

I liked Spiedel's book and I thought it was well written. I had a few problems with his book. The first one may get me jumped on but I'm just trying to be honest here. I tend to be wary when I read a history book by a German about Germans, just as I would a Spaniard writing about historical Spain, a Frenchman about France, etc. etc.

I completely understand the logic behind this judgement, but interestingly enough he didn't really glam the Germans up very much. I read the book because I wanted to know more about Indo European ghost faced warriors, I sort of always find the psychological impact of aesthetics to be quite fascinating and primal, and still highly effective.

From my experience in these type of readings some tend to become enamored with their subject and over glorify them. In Spiedel's book I saw a little of this but nothing I think that would skew his historical perspective. The second problem I had was in this book he didn't talk enough about the Germanic tribes enough.

In the thread I made on the book my major criticism was that I felt that economics and enviroment had a greater impact upon the Germanic Warriors weaponry and tactics moreso than a tradional warrior style, that said I undoubtably think that these appreciations for ancient warrior styles were persistent, effective and can still be seen to this day to some degree, and in that I found the book quite interesting.

I've never been fond of the notion of filthy mentally retarded barbarians weilding primitive weapons due to the simple fact that it just didn't seem that rational and I always felt a fairly close affinity to them in general.

When I encountered the arguments about club warriors I rolled my eyes a little but upon actually reading the guys arguments, I became somewhat convinced that this wasn't so much a primitive stereotype but actually a weapon selective for its low cost, and practicality, in short, it was a bloody effective weapon, it took down heavily armored cataphracts for example, so these club weilding Germans weren't all that daft.

My view of a Germanic warrior of the period is still essentially a man wearing a colored tunic, perhpas a cape, armed with a bossed round shield and holding several frame, I'm quite convinced that there would have been elite warriors within these extremely vicious fighting cultures that would have, like many other Indo Europeans saw the shock effect and psychological, dehumanising advantages of basically wearing a wolf hood, we know that this persisted through history, we know that myths like the werewolf and historical factual peoples like the berserkers actually do seem to make it evidently clear that this practice wasn't all that especially rare and most likely did have some sort of factor with the Germanic peoples collisions with Rome.

In the mod we have club warriors, we have ghost warriors such as the wolves of woden, (I forget the Germanic spelling) and both of these warrior styles seem to be discussed in the book, I just don't see why the wolf hooded berserkers are that far fetched.

I'm not just supporting this for fun or a love of the aesthetics of it, I just think that it wasn't such a far fetched Idea. If anyone can discredit the book thats fair enough, objectivly speaking, truth is paramount and I have no shame in accepting that I might have goten suckered into a dodgy historians rhetoric, but really, I don't see anything that far fetched about the concept of wolf hoods being worn by certain warriors.

I know the sources are small and thats why he relied so much on the column. As far as purposes in EB there also wasn't much mention of performance in battles of varying units. My last criticism is his criteria for beserkers. It seemed to me that Speidel was saying all you had to do was fight naked and your a beserker.

Perhaps he simplified it a bit but I definitely recall him discussing the psychology of someone that goes into the berserker state and the value of the aesthetics, one thing I felt was a bit suspicious about his book was that it was actually really really easy and enjoyable to read, you can fly through chapters without realizing it.

I personally thought his arguments for the evolution of the Germanic crown were very intersting and I was actually quite convinced by them.

I always think of the Norse type for being what I call a "true" beserker. I thought he did put some real interesting information in there and I really enjoyed the book. I like that he uses allot of references and he seemed logical to me. His book "Riding with Caesar" I thought was even better.

I've not read riding with caesar but I'll probably get round to it eventually, a lot of his references actually I felt were really good, like the horse stabbers sections, I actually rolled my eyes a few times at the start of chapters thinking "er, ok" but upon looking at the plates and reading the sources it started to seem quite convincing, what was actually also interesting was that the ironic stereotype of a sort of insane barbarian, actually sort of came up again, but transformed itself into something that actually seemed a bit more logical than most people would give the stereotypes credit for.

The horse stabbing technique was nothing short of extremely physcially demanding trickery and if pulled off is perhaps one of the most effective anti cavalry tricks in history, it is essentially tricking a rider into thinking he has an easy target, sliding under the horse and killing it, taking the horse down then taking down the rider, that is nothing short of brave and clever.

I'd personally rather train athousand bears to desire to copulate with war horses and sort of just set them loose and laugh from a distance, but that's me, but either way, I do respect the horse stabbing technique also.

[QUOTE=Frostwulf]I also agree with you that he did make a strong case for the wolf warriors, but in EB with no references in battle all you can do is make supposition on their effectiveness. I think it would be fair to assume that the wolf warriors would be a stronger unit then the average tribal unit, but by how much is hard to say.

It's definitely something a historical accuracy mod should heavily debate before releasing, I totally agree there and I'm not quite sure how people on the forum react to things like comparitive historical and cultural study, linguistic study, and experimental archeology, which could all have to be used if you were to sort of scratch out a sort of general idea as to how these warriors fought, what their purpous was and what kind of effect they had on people.

In Late Roman times and Early Medieval times these wolf skin wearing warriors seemed to definitely come over as quite a scary lot, which was probably the whole point in general, but unfortunatly I can't seem to find many contemporary EB period references to how they would fight, I can sort of just assume they would have fought like the army of the dead warriors depicted in EB, basically a shocking warrior type.

If I was to outline a sort of idea as to how I'd assume them to fight however based on what I've read, I would say they should have the capacity to hide in tall grass sort of similar to the Iberians, definitely have an intimidation factor which would make them somewhat tactically ideal for anyone wanting to ambush and scare the pants off (did Romans wear pants?) their enemies.

As for what weapons they would use? I'm really not sure, I can't really see them as a ranged weapon sort, if they sort of emulated the wolf I can see them just charging in very quickly, lightly armored and using perhaps a slashing weapon. Medieval depictions of these warriors show them weilding spears and swords, so really, who knows.

Perhaps its safe to assume that they would just fight like a band of wolves...loyal, swift, vicious and cunning.

And by the way thanks again for mentioning this book in your last post, I doubt I ever would have heard of it if you didn't post about it.

It's no problem, I sort of assumed it was a fairly rare book when I saw that there were no reviews for it on Amazon.

It was also eye catching because it was somewhat expensive, but really, a look at the free contents made me really want to read it when I saw the words "frightening warriors" and the subsection "ghosts".

[Lowenklee]

The problem is that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support the existence of such a warrior cult within the EB timeframe. Even if the likelihood exists that such men existed as wore animal skins in imitation of wolves and bears it may prove presumptuous to classify them as a warrior caste. We simply do not know enough.

Especially with the potentially inflammatory nature of this type of depiction it's my opinion the EB team should exercise caution and insist on solid information before proceeding with this sort of unit. With such information being currently lacking I'm personally opposed to the fabrication of a unit based *purely* on conjecture.

Besides, i'm sure there are other more evidentially supportable unit suggestions?

[the_handsome_viking]

The problem is that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support the existence of such a warrior cult within the EB timeframe. Even if the likelihood exists that such men existed as wore animal skins in imitation of wolves and bears it may prove presumptuous to classify them as a warrior caste. We simply do not know enough.

Especially with the potentially inflammatory nature of this type of depiction it's my opinion the EB team should exercise caution and insist on solid information before proceeding with this sort of unit. With such information being currently lacking I'm personally opposed to the fabrication of a unit based on conjecture.

Besides, i'm sure there are other more evidentially supportable unit suggestions?

Hawk men.

[Frostwulf]

Hawk men.

LOL, guess that beats pheasant men.
I do agree with your responses to my post.I also agree with your view of the German warriors. The Germans did have elites as they were generally a chieftains or nobleman's bodyguard but there would have been others as well.

My point however was that the use of ponies or small horses does not equal inferiority. The small steppe ponies employed by, among others, the Mongols make as good an example as any to illustrate that. Regardless of the merits of larger horses German cavalry are documented as being quite able to successfully engage and route larger numbers of opposing Celtic cavalry, this isn't currently represented, so to refocus on the original issue with the Ridoharjoz...

As currently implemented within the mod, a player may be led to believe that the ancient Germans fielded poor quality cavalry compared to the Celtic light cavalry. If this is not the EB team's position then perhaps something is amiss with unit balance? Even with the inclusion of a Sweboz reform the ability to recruit heavier cavalry does not really address the Ridoharjoz question.

I still disagree with you on the pony vs. larger horse debate I do completely agree with you on the documentation of the superior German cavalry.

The regular Ridoharjoz should not be automatically superior, because the examples of Celtic defeat against German cavalry was not a representation of the Celts during their heyday and the Germans at that time suredly had experienced units on that front rather than conscripts more accurately portrayed by the normal Ridoharjoz.

Blitz this isn't a hit on you, but it's hard for me to buy this exaggeration. I see others putting forth the same claim that all the Celtic "elites" were wiped out in this civil war. Yet not one has put down any information to confirm this nor any information contrary to these quotes below:

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56


Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" The complex web of clientage and alliance which Caesar reveals in Gaul was largely based on the outcome of frequent wars. The theater of combat was where many personal and tribal relations were tested, broken and forged. We may suppose conflicts ranged from great wars associated with migrations of whole peoples to mere brigandage, inter-family feuds, and cattle raids by individual warriors seeking quick wealth and prestige. Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause. Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms. War did not threaten the fabric of society as a whole, even if the fortunes of the individual clans and tribes did wax and wane. It would be probably also be wrong to think that love of war was confined to the nobility, at the expense of the suffering of a pacifist peasantry: admiration for the warrior ethic appears to have been general, and was not restricted to men either (see box). Violence was endemic, but sufficiently intermittent for most people to get on with their lives successfully most of the time: warlike display was at least as important as actual fighting." pg. 74

The italics in this last quote are what I added from when I posted this on another thread. The bold I added for obvious reasons.

Its one thing for the Celts to be overpowered but now the Germans are being diminished due to this exaggeration. Both of these books are easily accessed through just about any local library.

Does anyone else have a problem with this exaggeration? If there is any information to contradict this please put down the author and book(article etc.). If I'm wrong on this-great, if not-great. The only thing that should matter is getting as close to historical as possible.

[the_handsome_viking]

I personally don't feel that the Celts are overpowered, they typically seem to have a bit of trouble with the Germans, at least when I play the game, and I typically enjoy fighting ther Germans the most because though different to the Celts they are similar in the sense that they are somewhat heroic for a lack of a better term.

The difficulty with the nature of the Celtic situation was that basically they were a loose patchwork quilt of tribes bound by a similar culture and language which is probably why some people will argue that Celts didn't actually exist at all.

I personally think they did and feel that denying their existance based on a multi ethnic or highly stately nature would be like saying the Romans didn't exist because the republic was made up of a multitude of Italic peoples not just the Latins, and some non-Italic people too, though I'd say these peoples differences were probably more distinct than the differences between the Celtic tribes, but even then the revision process is constantly in progress.

De Bello Gallico is I suppose a good source of information, though I'm not really all that sure if I can trust it, the battles always seem to follow a similar patterm, bascially the Romans encounter a group of Celts, the Celts charge and theres this big fight, and it looks like the Romans are in trouble, then suddenly Julius Caesar does something clever and the Celts rout.

Perhaps thats an oversimplification but I recall a lot of battles in the book that went along those lines, that said, perhaps that is the way it unfolded anyway, Caesar complimented the Celts, I recall the best one being somethin along the lines of "the most innovative people in the world", so obviously there was something he liked about them, and I don't see why a propagandist would want to paint all too nice a picture of his enemies, though perhaps he was setting down the foundations for the idea that these people could become good Romans also, who knows, either way what he does mention is that the most vicious Celtic people were the Belgae, because they were the closest to the Germanic people and fought the Germans on a regular basis and probably came from Germanic stock originally.

Now whether or not this is true, who knows, but his reasoning for many other Celts being softer was more that they had become too civilized, which isn't too far fetched and idea due to the seemingly liberalistic nature of the Celts with their tendnancy towards living in free states.

The Celts were undoubtably the masters of their territory and the replication by others of Celtic weapons does present them as at least a technologically adpet people when it comes to warfare, but as to how good they actually were at fighting? who knows, what we do know is their culture covered a very large amount of territory and really, if you were to view the Celts as a single unit were probably the dominent force in Europe prior to being conquered, so in short, there must have at least at one point been a highly formidible warrior culture in place to have allowed them to hold so much territory and keep it for as long as they did, and the fact that they were still raiding the Italian Peninsula goes to show that there must have been a very expansionist cultural element there.

The question now really is, what made them saps when it came to the Romans? civil war? possibly, being pressed by both Germans and Romans? that could be it, or perhaps it was the simple political fragmented nature of the civilization in general that made them weaker.

In terms of gaming I think the solution would be to have various celtic settlements not being able to initially produce as adept warriors as more eastern and northern cultures to sort of keep in line with the notion that these people had become more business and state orientated than like the more vicious Northern and Eastern Celts.

But in many ways these factors are already in place in the modification anyway.

The Celts seem quite powerful at times in the Mod but really the Germans seem to be explosivly expansionist, which seems quite realistic, they are also bloody good fighters.

Perhaps this is a problem that only EB2 will be able to fully solve.

[Frostwulf]

I personally think they did and feel that denying their existance based on a multi ethnic or highly stately nature would be like saying the Romans didn't exist because the republic was made up of a multitude of Italic peoples not just the Latins, and some non-Italic people too, though I'd say these peoples differences were probably more distinct than the differences between the Celtic tribes, but even then the revision process is constantly in progress.

Thanks for replying, I agree with you exactly for the reasons you state. Yes they constantly fought but they shared the same language and culture.

I answered allot of what you said on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475
The reason it's being posted there is most of your statements are answered in this thread. I also want to keep this mostly with the Germans. I'm trying not to blend the two threads. Go to the last page.

The Celts seem quite powerful at times in the Mod but really the Germans seem to be explosivly expansionist, which seems quite realistic, they are also bloody good fighters.

I agree that the Germans were "bloody good fighters" I just feel that in comparison to the Celts that is not shown. In general the Romans should be stronger then the Germans and in general the Germans should be stronger then the Celts. Its not that way in EB.

What I'm trying to get at is the Germans consistently beat the Gauls during this period, but with the units the Celts get this wouldn't happen. The Celtic units are much more powerful then the Germanic units because of this exaggeration that the Germans were fighting "weaker" Celts. Not only are the Celtic units more powerful then the Germans they are more powerful then the Roman units. You have several Celtic elite units as powerful or more powerful then the Praetorian guard.
I'll restate that the Germans are being diminished because of this exaggeration.

[blitzkrieg80]

actually there are Hawk men in EB- Habukoz Swaiut (or however that word of questionable Proto-Germanic origin is spelled [my version is Habukadruhtiz]), of course habuka is not a definitively proven source of the Chauci name, it is very likely and better than nothing

The Wolves of Wodan should be renamed to "Host" of Wodan (wolves being the wolf-skin concept, completely separate) if it were to stay, but their subjective existence is also not quite justifiable either, besides the general lack of unit space... so don't count on seeing them, especially alongside a berserkr

No worries guys, the great thing about discussion and academia is that one doesn't have to feel personally attacked, because the information should speak for itself. So I agree my argument is pathetically weak for the Celts being overall less than their prime during the Germanic invasions- I don't claim to be an expert I have not read any argument put forth that they were at their prime then so I still believe that peculiar circumstances were afoot- unfortunately both oral cultures did not bother to mention their own military strength and tradition in relation to generations past concerning that era. I am trying to get Anthony who is an expert to put his 2 bits on that thread, so have patience.

I think the Celts should be stronger than the Romans- they sacked their ass early and kicked it aplenty in comparison to a large-scale lucky conquest by Rome. I think the Germans should be stronger than the Celts and Romans because obviously the Germans formed the real military power in the late Roman era for good reason. It's interesting that the pacification of the Celts is mentioned as being possibly in part from their redirection to business and infrastructure orientation, which sounds exactly like how the Anglo-Saxons handed Celtic Britain it's ass (can't forget the Picts who really caused it to happen). When a civilization doesn't bother protecting itself, like France in WW2, it pathetically gives up without much of a fight. This is no disparage against France- they had more tanks and heavier tanks than the Germans at the time, so they weren't pacifists, but when it came time to fight to the end like they did heroically in WW1, they stopped way short. I don't know why I brought that up, it's totally inappropriate to ancient warfare

[Watchman]

"Germans should be stronger than Celts" is an absurd statement in the context. The former only began making any major inroads against the latter centuries after the starting-date of the mod, as for that matter was the case with the Romans. It should be pretty darn obvious this was due to changing fortunes at the strategic level (such as both the Romans and Germans having gotten sufficiently organized and well armed) and not some "inherent" difference in strenght.
Moreover it contains an element of selling the rightly feared Celtic warrior class rather short.

This is no disparage against France- they had more tanks and heavier tanks than the Germans at the time, so they weren't pacifists, but when it came time to fight to the end like they did heroically in WW1, they stopped way short.

France suffered the highest proportional casualties in WW1 you know. They lost something like one-fifth of an entire generation there. Small wonder they weren't keen on repeating the experience.

And yes, it's very irrelevant to the discussion.

[Sarcasm]

And coming from an equally costly defeat at the Franco-Prussian war, which the idiot Napoleon III instigated.

No offence but Americans are very quick to downplay the French in WW2. Guess it comes from never having to fight a major modern fight on their own soil.

All strategic and tactical blunders aside, having had the mobile crack element of their army cut-off or destroyed and half the country lost, what were they supposed to do? Sedan, Dunkirk and El Alamein are more than enough examples of French bravery in spite of overwhelming odds.

Really...

[QwertyMIDX]

Off topic!

[Sarcasm]

My bad.

[blitzkrieg80]

Nah, my bad.
It's true that if the French populace had the right to bear arms then it would be much more reasonable for them to keep resisting but being unarmed makes them akin to peasants, so I agree that the French weren't nec. extraodinarily cowardly but somewhat practical. Although my point was that the French proved themselves capable of not giving up so easily regardless- being a coward is still being a coward- being American has nothing to do with it. Similarly, America was quite cowardly to join both wars only at the end and try to claim credit by swooping in at the last minute while sacrificing nothing in comparison to others. By your own argument, unless you partook in a modern war on YOUR soil then you are just as unknowlegeable as I toward the subject.

One can argue that warfare is wrong, but it cannot be argued that one can surrender and then have the right to anything except honorable suicide or slavery. Surrendering after bearing arms and engaging an enemy is like a brawl where one of the combatants decides they don't want to get hurt anymore and they'll just stop- it's rather ridiculous. One is better off fighting to the death or being a complete tool- so the cultural misconception that other civilizations won't follow through with killing/enslaving their people (and neighbors who look similar but aren't considered their people) especially after a fight is naive and most likely one of the primary causes of conquest of Celtic Gaul and most of Europe. The Celts of Gaul and Iberia put up a better fight than most as well. I personally firmly believe that danger can happen to myself anywhere at any time and do not have the ridiculous notion that I am being "protected", so when random people kill students or smash into businessmen sitting in their cozy trade-tower, I am not surprised- it's too bad, but it's very naive of them. Guns and bombs have nothing to do with anything either, it just takes a random pissed off person to stab you. Therefore, even in this high tech. business and infrastructure-minded society, the people are pathetically weak and one has to have the ability to defend themselves because others won't do it for them... That was the weakness of Post-Roman Celtic Britain, the Roman Empire, and possibly Celtic Gaul, as has been mentioned, when the small elite is exhausted the majority has to pick up the slack and the culture which has the freedom to do that will succeed.

[Sarcasm]

Well I didn't, but the generation just prior to mine did (1974). We had our Vietnam, except it was on our soil.

And I was referring to the usual jokes of "What are French good for? Surrendering." It's part of American pop culture, to the point where you can actually sense it through your television shows overseas.

And I'll just have to disagree with you on the fighting part.

Last post on this btw. Promise.

[Frostwulf]

actually there are Hawk men in EB- Habukoz Swaiut (or however that word of questionable Proto-Germanic origin is spelled [my version is Habukadruhtiz]), of course habuka is not a definitively proven source of the Chauci name, it is very likely and better than nothing

The Wolves of Wodan should be renamed to "Host" of Wodan (wolves being the wolf-skin concept, completely separate) if it were to stay, but their subjective existence is also not quite justifiable either, besides the general lack of unit space... so don't count on seeing them, especially alongside a berserkr

Thanks for the info Blitz. One of the reasons I like the Sweboz is for the tribal aspect of it.

I am trying to get Anthony who is an expert to put his 2 bits on that thread, so have patience.

Most excellent, I hope he is willing to give author and book names.

"Germans should be stronger than Celts" is an absurd statement in the context. The former only began making any major inroads against the latter centuries after the starting-date of the mod, as for that matter was the case with the Romans. It should be pretty darn obvious this was due to changing fortunes at the strategic level (such as both the Romans and Germans having gotten sufficiently organized and well armed) and not some "inherent" difference in strenght.
Moreover it contains an element of selling the rightly feared Celtic warrior class rather short.

When I say the Germans should be stronger I'm referring to the units. One reason they may have taken along time to make major inroads is because they havent migrated there yet. You also have to remember that the Belgae ended up in Gaul and the TCA (Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) stomped around in Gaul for awhile. As far as the Celtic warrior one on one against a Roman I would put my money on the Celt almost every time for two reasons. First is the Celt trained for individual combat where the Roman trained in units. Secondly the Celt in general is a larger and stronger man which is a big asset in melee combat. The Celt vs the German I would put my money on the German for the simple reason that the German tended to be a larger man and would have the same individual fighting style as the Celt. I'm not selling the Celt warrior short, I think in EB he is overpowered.

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

[Redmeth]

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

I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.

[blitzkrieg80]

sorry to go way off topic, last for me on that too- I Promise!

I think I neglected to respond to the idea, but the Batavian guard/ cavalry is a very late unit and too much of Roman influence to be justified for EB. The Batavi were considered off-shoots from the Chatti I believe and much later than the early tribal configuration that's trying to be represented- I would argue that Chauci, Cherusci, and Chatti are even late tribes rather than having a solid identity at the start of EB, which would mean they should also not be included, but because they are among some of the earliest mentioned after the Hermunduri and Suebi, I think it is good to keep them for flavor. Therefore, the Batavi tribe was interesting and unique, but not very important long-term besides being late, although much more important than other tribes who flat-out disappeared like the Cherusci. The Ubi and many others fall into the same category, very interesting, but just not widespread and early enough to justify a unit.

The only reason I am proposing a heavy cavalry is because the idea of the heavy cavalry will be based on Germanic origin, the use of retainers who are armed and armored, but on horseback. There should be very little Roman influence other than helmet technology, ect. because that sort of cultural exchange did not happen until just before the end of EB. The Celts might have influenced the Germanics partly through technology- the byrnie mail-coat and high quality double-edged iron swords, but the concept of horsemen and retainers is truly Germanic and not borrowed whatsoever. The lack of contemporary primary sources stating so is not evidence to the contrary whatsoever, especially in light of the ulterior motivation for such writers to portray the Germanics as different and backward. It is common sense that a warrior aristocracy was a predominant feature of Germanic culture- Bronze Age cultures were signifcantly composed of such and it is highly unlikely that any culture would revert backwards from such an evolved social state, even if politically semi-autonomous and dispersed. The use of horses among Indo Europeans and their travel from their homeland where pastoralism most likely originated is a great example of how a heavy cavalry (earlier- chariots! [btw, did everyone know that one of Thor's names was "Driver" like driving a wagon/chariot? and that he had a magical goat pull his special chariot?) in the sense of companion cavalry would not be unknown to any related culture. The primary factor being the amount of wealth necessary to field armor and horsemen and the subsequent development of strategic use of them on the battlefield. The Germanics and Celts used their horsemen similarly so any justification for a Celtic heavy cavalry can be used for the Germanics- they dismounted a large part of the time... No warrior stayed atop a horse for long without stirrups, except for bow/skirimishing. It's a simple fact that nothing can keep a rider atop a horse without stirrups when under significant force in an opposite direction. The cataphracts and knights of the medieval era are a direct result of stirrups and horse technology, so any heavy cavalry that is not steppe based should be a representation of horsemen who fight light while on horseback or dismount with heavy weaponry.

My point being that the idea of this Horse-thane unit is not a fantasy "what-if" early knight (even though a "knight"-OE cniht is really just a retainer in training) but a common feature of Indo-European warrior aristocracy based upon wealth/strategy. The idea is that these units existed even if they were undocumented because of their rarity. The Goths fielded such units in response to contact with steppe culture, but the response was the increased need to have horsemen to counter horsemen rather than getting a new idea, nonetheless the superior access to high quality horses and horse-using people (Indo-Iranian/Proto-Turks) integrated into their tribal structure. If it was a new idea then they simply would not have been as effective as they were. The Goths rather quickly conquered and spanned across the Carpathian/Ukrainian/Black Sea steppe considering the prowess of the Sarmation/Scythian/Alans of the time that they would have contended with.

PS- I am going to try and get the Ridaharjoz upgraded instead of any new cavalry, because a new unit is going to be much harder to find space for (because the model needs to be Germanic), besides the fact that I am convinced by the evidence given (good job, people!) that the Ridoharjoz is an equal to the Leuce Epos. I still think the Celts were fielding quality troops less effectively by the time they got swamped but cannot put forth any proof worth mentioning.

PPS- I just want to mention that I am changing the name of the sword-thane unit because there is no evidence of that word construction unlike horse-thane (AngloSaxon Chronicle I believe), and I plan to change it back to similar to the original configuration because I figured out why sahs-"notoz" didn't make sense- it wasn't Proto-Germanic, a mix of Old High German and Old Saxon from Seaxneat, a god name for the mythological ancestor of the Saxons, also a name for Tiw, which explains why someone picked that for the name of that Swordsman unit... The word form 'not' isn't the right word and what threw me off- it should be 'nauta' like the new Hearth-companion word I'm going to use (since they weren't an actual "hearth"), so it was sword-companion... although some sources say 'not' IS accurate but then means "Sword-ox/bull" which is what I originally translated and thought "huh?" which is so specific and not of Proto or Common Germanic that I deem it inappropriate, or as appropriate as "Sword-Wulf" or "Sword-Elf" which I actually like but think is a little too much. After careful comparison I have judged that the best swordsman term is actually based similar to the original term but slighly different. In Old Norse hjör-njótr is a kenning for warrior meaning "sword possessor" constructed similar to Saxnot, although most people error and attribute "enjoyer/possessor" the same as "comrade" and they are much the same but the ge-/ga- prefix found in PGmc herthaganauta and OE gesitha, ect. implies a relationship of past tense sometimes (seen easily in modern German past participle) or "as a result" in the same sense, also a sense of "with" comparable to L "con" and more importantly- "to come together/togetherness", thus ga-nauta is "enjoy together" = "comrade", rather than "enjoyer" which we have sure evidence for (rather than speculation in Saxnot) and thus what I am picking for the sword-warrior. Also after comparing sword terms, even though Sahs comes from a very common Indo European root for "saw," it does not have as many cognates (Gothic) as PGmc heru which actually is more popular with compound names and kennings as well. So we have an exact compound-word cognate and common basis, so herunauta is good for me. We also do not have to change the unit because the title implies their luck and quality in having a sword, but does not denote any special status otherwise, so a group of poor bullies could be so just because they found or earned them, rather than having to be prestigious warriors like retainers and hearth-troop. Sorry if this seems inappropriate and unrelated, but I wanted to explain because I was embarassed about Sahsthegnoz which was artificial in comparison.

[Frostwulf]

I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.

The Gauls also fought for and against Caesar. He praised the Belgae for their toughness, his elite 10th legion, Germans both for and against him. He praised those who fought with valor whether friend or foe.

PS- I am going to try and get the Ridaharjoz upgraded instead of any new cavalry, because a new unit is going to be much harder to find space for (because the model needs to be Germanic), besides the fact that I am convinced by the evidence given (good job, people!) that the Ridoharjoz is an equal to the Leuce Epos. I still think the Celts were fielding quality troops less effectively by the time they got swamped but cannot put forth any proof worth mentioning.

I agreed with your post up until here. Take into consideration not only the quotes I provided but also since the 4th century there has been infighting amongst the Celts as well as the Germans. Why all of a sudden would it be so drastic here and not in the po valley and other places where such documentation shows? The archaeological evidence speaks against this. Hopefully Anthony will provide us with some information, preferably with sources.

As far as your pps, very interesting stuff.

[Frostwulf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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

I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.

The Gauls also fought for and against Caesar. He praised the Belgae for their toughness, his elite 10th legion, Germans both for and against him. He praised those who fought with valor whether friend or foe.

This is what I get for posting while my eyes are half shut. Redmeth its not Caesar who is saying this quote, its the author Goldsworthy in his book "Caesar"

[Watchman]

You know, I kinda took a look at the EDU and I'll have to say all this talk about the Sweboz being "too weak" compared to the Celts (or conversely the Celts being "too strong") is almost entirely Simply Not True. The damn Swainoz, wet-behind-the-ears pups that they are, are pretty much the equals of the Belgae Batacorii, and the various tribe-specific spear guys and the Frameharjoz are at least the equals if not betters of the Gaeroas and Gaelaiche. The Sahsnotoz have the edge on the Botroas and are the lessers of the Bataroas and Milnaht solely on basis of lack of armour. Heck, the Frankamannoz (the "levy" unit of the Sweboz) can go head on with the lighter representatives of the Celtic warrior class and not do half badly, although I wouldn't expect them to win. Didn't bother comparing the elites, but they ought to be more or less matched as well.

The Celts do have way better access to armour (at least after the reforms start kicking in) though, but then again isn't that what the Sweboz have their clubmen and Wodanawulfaz and Merjoz and whatnots for ?

I'll have to agree that the Ridonharjoz are really statted a bit on the low side IMHO, although that's my opinion on the overhand spear cavalry units in general. No wonder they don't do too spectacularly against the Epos.