Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[Caratacos]

Thanks Watchman, you said what I have been trying to say this whole time... but was unable to in such a succint and well articulated way. I completely agree with you here .

[blitzkrieg80]

I must add that any argument that the Celts were better warriors because they had more time to devote to training doesn't exactly have support, because both had a warrior aristocracy... So neither (of them) had an advantage in quality or training, just real world factors like arms/armor. One might argue that Tacitus said so and so, but that is hardly proof... Tacitus may be the only source concerning the time, but he calls them "Germans" for Christ's sake, something that is a fact that they never called themselves unless it was to explain their identity to their retarded neighbors- that's evidence enough to say he's full of it... Distinct grave sites found with greater riches does not prove anything either, other than those noblemen had more wealth... it's just a simple fact that the lower classes do farming and grunt-work, and it's really doubtful that the upper classes would participate for personal fun. Cultures who have drastic changes in their infrastructure as proposed by an egalitarian-to-aristocracy switch would then have traces of that change and difference in their oral culture... there is no evidence of that concerning Germanic culture, in fact, the culture shows itself to be very solid and steady... the few linguistic changes which happen are in terms of kingship because of their unique curbing of that power, but otherwise... loan-words for trade from Romans, so we know they didn't have a money-market system... what else? they borrow the word for a byrnie mailcoat...

[Frostwulf]

Frankly, it is quite likely that all other things being equal a random member of the Celtic warrior class was a better fighter than the equally random German tribesman. This is suggested already by the simple difference in the time both could dedicate to combat training (given that both got engaged in small-scale raids on a regular basis) - the difference between a specialist and a part-timer.

I agree with this statement, barring wars and things being abnormal. The elite Celts and Germans would be better for the reasons you gave. The difference for the average German tribesman is from what I understand is he trained but he may not have had the practical experience of training in groups nor real experience in raids.Things of course change when it comes to wars or major raids.

My bet is that where the Germans were superior (eventually anyway) was tactics, "what the weak use to overcome the strong" as it's also been described. The shieldwall, which they appear to have been very fond of but which was apparently rather rare among the Celts, is basically the formation for multiplying the fighting power of not-so-well-armed or -trained troops; part-time militias fighting in such fashion regularly proved themselves the match of even quite high-calibre troops, assuming enough confidence and a passable degree of arms and skill. The individual tribal warrior may well have been outmatched by his better-trained Celtic opponent, but there was a lot of the tribesmen - certainly a deeper pool than of the Celtic specialists - and mutual support and cohesion, the raison d'êtres of the shieldwall, very much make a battlefield formation unit more than the sum of its parts.

It is also entirely possible that they lucked out in terms of leaders. A sufficiently capable commander could regularly win battles that lesser leaders would almost certainly have lost, and in the right circumstances tear an empire apart. Given the issues the Celts had with their fighting manpower pool I doubt if it would have taken too many bloody routs in the hands of a capable German war chief or few to leave them so weak that even if the original "great leaders" died off the balance of power would have been irrecovably skewed in favour of the encroaching Germans.

These are as usual, logical statements. Here is something to back up your hunch. I have to paraphrase Caesar here but when he was addressing his troops he talked about how sneaky the Germans were and thats why they beat the Celts. Also Caesar did call Ariovistus a good leader and from what I read he was.
Now here are the reasons why I don't think it was just tactics or good leadership. The Celts were very well versed in battle field formations as represented at Telemon, Alesia and others. Caesar talks of pinning Celt shields together with pilum just before they clash with the Romans. So they did have close formation tactics.
The Battle of Magetobriga in which the Aedui were to come to an end was a pitched battle. It was the 15000 German merceniaries that won the battle. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani.
When Caesar talks of the Germans being sneaky its because of the morale of Caesars troops. Allot of Caesars junior officers were getting worried at the tales the Celts were saying of the Germans. Caesar had to down play the Germans as well as up lift his own men for morale's sake. At the Battle of Magetobriga Ariovistus was in charge of his own men but to my knowledge not the leader of the battle.
The Celts told tales of these well trained savage men who were superior to all (that is before Caesar came though) in arms. The Celts and the Romans feared the Germans as it is mentioned many times. You also have to take into consideration Caesars comments like what he said of the German cavalry and also his 3000 German foot soldiers used against Pompey. Caesar talks of the valor and ferocity of the German troops.
Take a look at some of the battles between the Germans and the Celts. The Germans destroyed the Menapii, The 800 cavalry already talked about routing the 5000 Roman/Celtic cavalry.

Thanks Watchman, you said what I have been trying to say this whole time... but was unable to in such a succint and well articulated way. I completely agree with you here

I think your selling yourself short. I for one understood what you were saying and for the most part agreed with you. I just think the soldiers do make more of a difference then you give them credit for. I really think Caesar would have failed if he didnt have the quality of troops he had with him.

I must add that any argument that the Celts were better warriors because they had more time to devote to training doesn't exactly have support, because both had a warrior aristocracy... So neither (of them) had an advantage in quality or training, just real world factors like arms/armor.

I agree with you here except for the quality of the warriors. I believe the German warrior to be superior. Why do I believe this, because allot of the ancient authors and people who lived and saw these things said so, including the Celts themselves.

One might argue that Tacitus said so and so, but that is hardly proof... Tacitus may be the only source concerning the time, but he calls them "Germans" for Christ's sake, something that is a fact that they never called themselves unless it was to explain their identity to their retarded neighbors- that's evidence enough to say he's full of it... Distinct grave sites found with greater riches does not prove anything either, other than those noblemen had more wealth... it's just a simple fact that the lower classes do farming and grunt-work, and it's really doubtful that the upper classes would participate for personal fun.

I wouldn't dismiss any of the ancient authors out of hand for misunderstandings they had. You are correct though that the only time the Germans of this period referred to themselves as Germans instead of their tribal names was for the understanding of the Romans and others.

[Frostwulf]

Why is it that allot of you on these forums think that the Celts should be as powerful as they are in respect to units? Why is it ok to have Celt elite units higher then there German counter parts not to mention the Romans!

[Watchman]

The differences between the Celt and Sweboz elites stem primarily from the level of equipement carried, which obviously is purely a factor of resources and as such has nothing to do with the warriors themselves. Complaining about that is roughly akin to complaining about the Roman heavy infantry being better armoured than most "barbarian" equivalents.

Didn't we already go this over once, anyway ?

As for the Romans, please keep in mind the differences in the whole underlying military philosophy. The whole point of the Celtic system was the creation of mighty warrior-heroes; anyone who reached the elite status was quaranteed to be one hard case indeed. The Romans, conversely, were soldiers in the modern sense; their whole way of war was based on iron discipline, seamless teamwork and well-practised drill. The actual skill of the individual soldier was somewhat secondary to his "moral fibre", ability to carry out orders posthaste and operate as part of his unit. A veteran or elite soldier produced by such system is not so much a better warrior as that much better a cog in the war machine - better able to carry out his orders and hold his nerve in the face of often quite extreme adversity.

Moreover, looking at the stats I don't really see where the Roman high-end infantry - Antesigniani, Evocatae, Praetorians (who incidentally are AFAIK statted a bit wrong, and should have a bit more armour) - are supposed to be meaningfully inferior to their Celtic peers. Anything but. They're more or less matched in stats actually, and both the Evocatae and Praetorians come in meaningfully larger units (base size 50) than the high-end Celtic units while the Antesigniani (who are not actually line troops anyway) have equal numbers. And man for man the Romans are cheaper. Oh, the 0.225 lethality of the Celtic longswords certainly beats the 0.13 of the gladius, but I'd imagine the nasty AP pila more than compensated.

[Caratacos]

These are as usual, logical statements. Here is something to back up your hunch. I have to paraphrase Caesar here but when he was addressing his troops he talked about how sneaky the Germans were and thats why they beat the Celts. Also Caesar did call Ariovistus a good leader and from what I read he was.
Now here are the reasons why I don't think it was just tactics or good leadership. The Celts were very well versed in battle field formations as represented at Telemon, Alesia and others. Caesar talks of pinning Celt shields together with pilum just before they clash with the Romans. So they did have close formation tactics.
The Battle of Magetobriga in which the Aedui were to come to an end was a pitched battle. It was the 15000 German merceniaries that won the battle. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani.
When Caesar talks of the Germans being sneaky its because of the morale of Caesars troops. Allot of Caesars junior officers were getting worried at the tales the Celts were saying of the Germans. Caesar had to down play the Germans as well as up lift his own men for morale's sake. At the Battle of Magetobriga Ariovistus was in charge of his own men but to my knowledge not the leader of the battle.
The Celts told tales of these well trained savage men who were superior to all (that is before Caesar came though) in arms. The Celts and the Romans feared the Germans as it is mentioned many times. You also have to take into consideration Caesars comments like what he said of the German cavalry and also his 3000 German foot soldiers used against Pompey. Caesar talks of the valor and ferocity of the German troops.
Take a look at some of the battles between the Germans and the Celts. The Germans destroyed the Menapii, The 800 cavalry already talked about routing the 5000 Roman/Celtic cavalry.

This all makes complete sense. The Gallic armies were no stranger to battlefield tactics or manuovers-- which at no point does Watchman deny. Also it does not contradict Watchman's argument-- that the Germans used superiour tactics (possibly even an innovation made and used by Ariovistus himself--? my idea) and that it was this fact that contributed considerably to their victories. Among other things.

I agree with you here except for the quality of the warriors. I believe the German warrior to be superior. Why do I believe this, because allot of the ancient authors and people who lived and saw these things said so, including the Celts themselves.

Well if the attribute of "sneakiness" can be used for propagandic purposes could not the attribute of "martial prowess" be used in the same way? To explain defeats such as that in A.D 9...? As did those Gauls who were defeated by Ariovistus and co. You have selected the meanings that best suit your argument here... which is still valid, but noted.

Clearly the Germans were capable warriors but in no ancient source have I specifically read that "German warriors are superior to Celtic warriors". And even then I'd seriously question their reasoning.

But this argument does seem to be going around in circles... perhaps we should agree to disagree?

Either way I think that the stats will stay the same unless by some finding of new evidence... which is... unlikely.

Also I'd just like to add that it has been a very informative and enjoyable discussion

[Watchman]

Heck, the German tactical formations weren't even necessarily inherently superior to the Celtic ones. Put this way, the Germanic tribal-levy spearmen may well have fought in shieldwalls because they had to in order to compensate for their relatively poor equipement and training, particularly against well-equipped and -trained opponents like the Romans and the Celtic warrior class, whereas the better-trained and more confident Celtic longswordmen could afford - and for that matter probably needed - to fight in more open order. Of course the Celts had their share of spearmen better suited for close-packed ranks and the Germans their mobile loose-order shock infantry as well...

Their warlords may just have eventually worked out the best ways to get the most out of the troops at their disposal, to which the at that point rather frazzled Celts were not able to respond in time.