Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[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