Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[blitzkrieg80]

Wedge formation is impossible for infantty even if we wish it were so. the Jugunthiz / Dugunthiz, Youth/Proven spearmen structure of the wedge formation WILL be represented though

There will be no work on the Gaizaharjoz' hair because there is more important work to be done, such as with the crazy non-hair of the Hearth-troop, who btw need to be completely redone, it is high on my priority list. the Gaizaharjoz is possibly the best looking and most accurate Germanic noble warrior in the game (great job, Tank!), so I really don't understand why MORE work needs to be done for that one... the Framaharjoz needs to be redone for sure

The problem with the "Wolves of Wodan" all along has been the association between Harii, Wolves, and Wodan- ?!? that is the strangest thing I can think of... they are COMPLETELY separate... It is SUCH a fact that Wodan (Odin) was not worshipped as we know him in Norse culture, until VERY late... which means the primary war-god is Tyr, much evidenced... with fertility gods like Frea and Thor also more important... Wodan is like "Mercury/Hermes" for a reason though, god of change "wind/travel/inspiration" and thus god of shamanic ecstasy (later runes)... Harii by themselves work fine working from Tacitus' account primarily but it's not unbelievable... I have yet to actually read documentation of other similar black painted warriors and tactics... it is very true though, that the living dead were very much predominant in Germanic mythology... like draugar! Grettir's fight with Glam... awesome! (he rides a house!) one of the coolest motifs, used in Lord of the Rings even, is fighting the undead spirit who guards his treasure horde... c'mon- you know you love it

one of the reasons for the look of the Harii regional "Hosts of Wodan" unit is it is using a skin of a Celtic model... if we wanted to change him, NO UNIT... there is no extra space... the Cherusci swordsman uses the extra sword-space, replacing that horrible red shriner hat unit. keep that in mind.

i totally admit that mullets are unacceptable for any individual, fictionalized or living... where's it at?! BURN HIM

and speaking of wulf-skins, i have figured out a way to get both bear and wolf-skin warriors into the game (not because people ask, although I realize people want it- because I too have thought it missing) but- how? using the Merjoz slot (since this warrior is completely baseless) and take away the one element people have to argue about concerning history- the drugged-fanatic/berserk-like nature... so instead, we will have them fight as great warriors, but no ecstatic trance or frenzy. this is in the works as the number 1 priority now, since the Germanic General aka đruxtīnaz (incredibly beautiful btw) is done, thanks to the mighty Blank. Don't worry about losing the Merjoz-like unit though, because a two-handed spiked (ample evidence has been found for some wicked/nasty pieces) clubman has been promised who doesn't use a Germanic model slot.

interesting bit of info about the TV program, SaFe... i wish i lived in europe

I completely agree that the repeated reference to Germania being iron-poor by Romans is complete propoganda and much used as a technique to make the Germans (such as with Tacitus) seem like noble savages... they might have been poor compared to others, but that is no qualification in itself.

PS- I forgot to mention for all who do not know... the idea of FAST infantry to accompany Horsemen has been tried and it doesn't work, similar to the wedge formation for infantry... it isn't missing from the game because we don't like the idea- RTW hardcode sucks, pretty simple.

[the_handsome_viking]

The Tank,


Every warrior was buried with his weapons, but almost every time burned with them before his ash was buried ina urn. Weapons were even destroyed to fit into the urn along with the ash.
The fear of "wiedergänger" - the living dead was vey common among germanic beliefs, and so the body had to be burned along with his weapons.

Is this also the probable origin of some warriors descision to dress up as the undead to scare the crap out of their enemies?

[the_handsome_viking]

Wedge formation is impossible for infantty even if we wish it were so. the Jugunthiz / Dugunthiz, Youth/Proven spearmen structure of the wedge formation WILL be represented though

There will be no work on the Gaizaharjoz' hair because there is more important work to be done, such as with the crazy non-hair of the Hearth-troop, who btw need to be completely redone, it is high on my priority list. the Gaizaharjoz is possibly the best looking and most accurate Germanic noble warrior in the game (great job, Tank!), so I really don't understand why MORE work needs to be done for that one... the Framaharjoz needs to be redone for sure

The problem with the "Wolves of Wodan" all along has been the association between Harii, Wolves, and Wodan- ?!? that is the strangest thing I can think of... they are COMPLETELY separate... It is SUCH a fact that Wodan (Odin) was not worshipped as we know him in Norse culture, until VERY late... which means the primary war-god is Tyr, much evidenced... with fertility gods like Frea and Thor also more important... Wodan is like "Mercury/Hermes" for a reason though, god of change "wind/travel/inspiration" and thus god of shamanic ecstasy (later runes)... Harii by themselves work fine working from Tacitus' account primarily but it's not unbelievable... I have yet to actually read documentation of other similar black painted warriors and tactics... it is very true though, that the living dead were very much predominant in Germanic mythology... like draugar! Grettir's fight with Glam... awesome! (he rides a house!) one of the coolest motifs, used in Lord of the Rings even, is fighting the undead spirit who guards his treasure horde... c'mon- you know you love it

one of the reasons for the look of the Harii regional "Hosts of Wodan" unit is it is using a skin of a Celtic model... if we wanted to change him, NO UNIT... there is no extra space... the Cherusci swordsman uses the extra sword-space, replacing that horrible red shriner hat unit. keep that in mind.

i totally admit that mullets are unacceptable for any individual, fictionalized or living... where's it at?! BURN HIM

and speaking of wulf-skins, i have figured out a way to get both bear and wolf-skin warriors into the game (not because people ask, although I realize people want it- because I too have thought it missing) but- how? using the Merjoz slot (since this warrior is completely baseless) and take away the one element people have to argue about concerning history- the drugged-fanatic/berserk-like nature... so instead, we will have them fight as great warriors, but no ecstatic trance or frenzy. this is in the works as the number 1 priority now, since the Germanic General aka đruxtīnaz (incredibly beautiful btw) is done, thanks to the mighty Blank. Don't worry about losing the Merjoz-like unit though, because a two-handed spiked (ample evidence has been found for some wicked/nasty pieces) clubman has been promised who doesn't use a Germanic model slot.

interesting bit of info about the TV program, SaFe... i wish i lived in europe

I completely agree that the repeated reference to Germania being iron-poor by Romans is complete propoganda and much used as a technique to make the Germans (such as with Tacitus) seem like noble savages... they might have been poor compared to others, but that is no qualification in itself.

PS- I forgot to mention for all who do not know... the idea of FAST infantry to accompany Horsemen has been tried and it doesn't work, similar to the wedge formation for infantry... it isn't missing from the game because we don't like the idea- RTW hardcode sucks, pretty simple.

Though I do personally feel quite sympathetic towards the Idea that Iron and various other resources weren't as easilly accessable for the Germanic people I have read of examples of very large smithys that could be used for manufacturing surplus arms of high quality, so I definitely don't think that they were as overwhelmingly ill equipped as many would believe, but I generally think that their heavy emphasis on spear and shield formation fighting was motivated more by resources than a simple interest in dence formation.

The psychological impact restrictions actually have on people I personally think is really fascinating in that it can drive people to creating new technologies and techniques because their creative power is sort of forced out of them, I think that the ancient Germanic people were a lot more innovative than many give them credit for.

I once again say this as someone of minimal Germanic ancestry, (I'm a low lander Scot and I have distinct and traceable Anglo-Saxon ancestry like many or most lowlander Scots)

[Frostwulf]

Not better armored than the Roman legionaries full stop, some undoubtably would have been better armored, across the board? no, but I think that the Celts had nothing stopping them from producing armor in high enough quantities for me to make the argument that they should have more armored units earlier on. I was simply trying to "make" or "break" the argument by logically and objectivly questioning my own, and others ideas and views on the Celts.

Considering the game starts in 270 something BC and the Celts started making chain around 300 BC there is no reason not to have Celtic armored units earlier. Connolly's book "Greece and Rome at War" does a good job at describing the arms and armor of the Romans and Celts during these periods, might be worth while to look at. I wonder if its possible to make a limit on the amount of armored units in the beginning of the game to reflect the scarcity at that time?maybe some kind of limit coding(before 250 BC Aedui can only have 4 solduros or something along those lines)?

But you agree that Celtic elite cavalry should be much tougher in the game? and also more accessable earlier on?

I said they should be tougher in another thread but that was before I saw the Remi Mairepos and the Brihentin, they could be bumped a little but also would be acceptable the way they are. As far as being available earlier I would think they could, especially if they can do the limit coding as I mentioned earlier.

It wasn't so much also a form or barbarity and lack of military and cultural sophistication, this is paramount to understanding the Celts, in more technologically and in my opinion much more advanced and civilized times, in the 14th cenutry onwards, knights often fought under strict codes of conduct which strayed very much from the brutal practicality seen in total war orientated battles and conflicts of old.

There is something almost instinctual in certain people to want a very clean and cerimonial fight, it would seem that the very culturally rich and technologically adept Celts were literally obsessed with heroic deeds on the battlefield and epic single combat.

In the end of the day though, war isnt a game, fighting isnt for fun, and anyone that thinks it is is in for a big surprise, the nature of war and survivalism is utterly brutal and you must be relentless, wicked and vicious in order to win, if you aren't going to be this way then theres no point in fighting in the first place.

I can respect the Celts very civilized philosophy on warfare but really it's not the way I would fight my enemies, the way I see it is any enemy that deserves respect and a fair fight shouldn't be your enemy in the first place.

I agree with this statement, thats the way that I understand it as well.

I think that the Celts weren't necissarily all suffering terribly, I've sort of outlined my argument about the visciousness of parimiter Celts before, as in islander Iberian, Belgic etc Celtic folk were quite adept and viscious when it came to fighting, but I do think that there is a lot to be taken into consideration when it comes to the fact that the Aedui and Arverni were knocking lumps out of each other and calling in backup from all angles.

I agree with your idea, but I would have to throw in the Arverni,Aedui and Sequani(and their clients) as well. They would surely have some good veterans in their midst from the fighting they did. The Celts as the Germans had infighting and I believe the Celts had their inhibitors to prevent serious damage as mentioned by Goldsworthy and James. What you have in bold is what I have been saying, its when the Germans come in and kill off the Aedui Nobility,Senate and etc. It wasn't from the infighting but with the coming of the German mercenaries that this happened. The Aedui and the Sequani/Arverni had been fighting back and forth then the Sequani invited the Germans in around 71BC. It was at this time that the Aedui were getting slammed and then they gave hostages to the Sequani(sued for peace). The Germans began to take the land of the Sequani and so the Gauls(Aedui,Sequani,Arverni and clients) joined in the battle of Magetobriga.

Magetobriga



Related Biographies:
Ariovistus

Related Subjects:
Suebi



Unknown site of a military engagement fought in 61 BCE between the Gallic tribes of the Aedui, Averni and Sequani on one side and the Germanic Suebi, under their King Ariovistus. The Suebi had moved into the region of Gaul comprising modern Alsace and had emerged as a powerful rival to the Gauls on the Rhine. Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, the local peoples, headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the Suebi, for the tribes were crushed. Ariovistus established his rule over much of eastern Gaul. By 58 BCE, Rome was willing to listen to the pleas of the Gallic chieftains, and war erupted once again.
Citation Information:
Text Citation: Bunson, Matthew. "Magetobriga." Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994. Facts On File, Inc. Ancient History & Culture.

I hope I wasn't misunderstanding what you were getting at.

I think that the Gaulish civil war was definitely a determining factor in the decline of the Celts and their later 'inferior' soldiery, for all extensive purposes the Gauls were killing off each other's professional soldiery and noble classes for centuries and by the time the Romans came upon them they were levying citizenry enmasse to fight due to a stunning lack of professional soldiery.

Zero where did you get this information from. Everything I have read which even talks about the subject is contradictory to this. I have been asking this question but no one seems to have an answer to it, if you do please state the source.

I also think the Gauls should have access to heavily armored infantry far earlier, as others have said they had access to advanced metallurgy during the time period and there is no reason why they shouldn't.

I completely agree.

As far as the Germans, I think a good balance which also echoes historical accuracy would be to give them superior light/medium infantry it makes sense to me from reading accounts and from a personal contemplative standpoint that due to their environment they would be more accustomed to fighting and fighting exceptionally well with lighter arms then their Celtic neighbors. The Celts for their part should have access to a wider variety of armored/heavy troops at a cheaper cost as well as have much earlier access to them

I agree with this except I'm not so sure about the cheaper cost, I don't know if that would balance out the game.

as far as Germanic heavy soldiery I feel they should be limited to two noble units, one mounted, one infantry, be very VEEEERY expensive, available only mid-way into the game but be EXTREMELY good at what they do I.E. function as Shock Troops with virtually no equals in the region.

Interesting but why two noble units only? Also when you say virtually no equals in the region I'm fine with as long as your not counting the Romans.

As far as cavalry goes, I find it improbable that the Germanic cavalry was indeed far superior to the Celtic cavalry due to the inferior horses that and as far as is known the Germanic people did not as of yet have as much of an equestrian culture as the Celts, my personal view on the matter is that the Germanic cavalry managed to defeat their Celtic counterparts through usage of mixed-unit tactics which are difficult to emulate via the RTW engine I.E. more then one rider on a single horse and whatnot.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=26
This link is just some of the incidents of the Germanic cavalry, there were many others as well. Goldsworth says "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." The Germans didn't always use the runner with them as shown in Alesia and some of the other battles. The methods used by the Germans don't necessarily have to be shown as long as the numbers reflect their ability to defeat their opponent.

Very interesting and again many archaeologist agreed that germanics had not so few iron weapons many of us believed (or better were told again and again with a rather disturbing small-mindedness) till now, though the archaeologist agreed that swords were of poorer quality than roman or celtic weapons.

I believe Malcolm Todd mentioned this in his book "Early Germans"

[the_handsome_viking]

Considering the game starts in 270 something BC and the Celts started making chain around 300 BC there is no reason not to have Celtic armored units earlier. Connolly's book "Greece and Rome at War" does a good job at describing the arms and armor of the Romans and Celts during these periods, might be worth while to look at. I wonder if its possible to make a limit on the amount of armored units in the beginning of the game to reflect the scarcity at that time?maybe some kind of limit coding(before 250 BC Aedui can only have 4 solduros or something along those lines)?

I will look out for this book at some point in the future.

I said they should be tougher in another thread but that was before I saw the Remi Mairepos and the Brihentin, they could be bumped a little but also would be acceptable the way they are. As far as being available earlier I would think they could, especially if they can do the limit coding as I mentioned earlier.

A limitation on the amount of forces you can produce would be a massive advantage in terms of historical accuracy, especially if the amount of units you could produce would reflect your peoples resources, that would add a whole new and more realistic dynamic on the games geopolitics, for example invading a region for its surplus of metal so you can bolster your heavily armored units, that would be amazingly fun, sending spies around to study the resources of neighboring territories.

I agree with this statement, thats the way that I understand it as well.

I agree with your idea, but I would have to throw in the Arverni,Aedui and Sequani(and their clients) as well. They would surely have some good veterans in their midst from the fighting they did. The Celts as the Germans had infighting and I believe the Celts had their inhibitors to prevent serious damage as mentioned by Goldsworthy and James. What you have in bold is what I have been saying, its when the Germans come in and kill off the Aedui Nobility,Senate and etc. It wasn't from the infighting but with the coming of the German mercenaries that this happened. The Aedui and the Sequani/Arverni had been fighting back and forth then the Sequani invited the Germans in around 71BC. It was at this time that the Aedui were getting slammed and then they gave hostages to the Sequani(sued for peace). The Germans began to take the land of the Sequani and so the Gauls(Aedui,Sequani,Arverni and clients) joined in the battle of Magetobriga.

I think we are in agreement then, for the record the infight I was referring to would include the situation that unfolded with the German mercinaries just deciding to take over, I consider that to be an extention of the infighting because really they were only there because the Sequani invited them over, much to their later shame.

[blitzkrieg80]

well, 50BC is a very different time than 270BC, just like 270AD is much different than 50AD... so while the debate on "strength" and represenation can continue concerning the Late Period Project, the rest of EB hardly has enough evidence for any change.

Game limitations are very much a real issue and there's no way to limit the number of x troop... that is precisely why the reforms make such a nicely armored unit possible only later... besides the fact that you WANT the reforms for that... if you already had the unit, why would anyone bother?

[Frostwulf]

I think we are in agreement then, for the record the infight I was referring to would include the situation that unfolded with the German mercinaries just deciding to take over, I consider that to be an extention of the infighting because really they were only there because the Sequani invited them over, much to their later shame.

Then yes we would be in agreement.

Game limitations are very much a real issue and there's no way to limit the number of x troop...

That could have been good if it were possible.

besides the fact that you WANT the reforms for that... if you already had the unit, why would anyone bother?

You would be able to have more units later on and potential better units as well.

Ill post a question for you on Celts overpowered Blitz because I'm trying to keep this to German related topics. I hope your able to answer it.

[Frostwulf]

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

The theory that has been advanced in this chapter as the most likely is that the material influence of Jastorf slowly expanded into an area in which oppida were already in a state of heightened turmoil from unknown but sui generis causes. In their efforts to restore order and to achieve a new local hegemony, the leaders of some or all oppida in southern Germany turned to mercenary recruitment in an effort to upset the balance of power that was perpetuating endemic warfare. By necessity they turned outside the oppida zone itself because the men within it were already committed to one side or another. This combative climate attracted the attention of young men seeking profit through arms. Rather than one or two large groups of people migrating many hundred kilometers over exceedingly rugged terrain-and that is precisely the view given in the ancient sources-it seems much more likely that the Romans first confronted numerous groups calling themselves or being identified first by the Celts and then later by the Romans with the same two or three names, which are themselves Celtic or derivative of Celtic terms. These various groups consolidated briefly when Roman legions approached. Chronologically their appearance in the in the historical records seems to coincide with an early, but not the first, stage of the diruption of oppida settlements east of the Rhine. This seems to have occurred at least two generations before their general collapse. pg.85

Burns is putting forth the theory that the TCA were called in as mercenaries in the oppidas of Southern Germany and that ended up disrupting the Celtic oppida settlements.
Some of his reasoning for this theory is that the oppida did not seem to be destroyed by a cataclysm(battle or natural) and they didn't collapse at the same time. Burns figures that if the TCA numbered 300,000 they could have overwhelmed any of the oppida. Also "The gradual denouement of oppida in the area of southern Germany does not correlate with the type of invasions attested to in the literature for the Cimbri and Teutones. Moreover, the archaeological data assembled from the areas most likely to have produced "invaders: strongly suggest that anybody coming from those areas would have been very hard-pressed to besiege oppida."

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

An attractive theory is that the oppida destroyed one another in a series of hegemonic struggles such as we see half century or so later in Gaul in the opening book of Caesar's narrative. Just as the origins of the great wall may lie in the needs of new elites that came to power during civil wars, so too their abandonment may have so shaken the authority of the leading families and their religious and ideological underpinnings that in this one area oppida civilization, in effect, imploded. Elsewhere Caesar cut this scenario, always possible given the highly competitive nature of Celtic elite families, short. The Cimbri and Teutones may fit obliquely into this scenario, perhaps as recruits drawn into Celtic civil wars. They may also have profited as recruiters themselves from the societal self-questioning that these wars may have produced. pg.78

Before the " devastating Celtic civil" war theorists start saying "see see, proof", here is what he says in the very next paragraph.

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

Several facts are worth recalling in this context. There was no such thing as a unified Celtic civilization. When it came to political and military power, whatever was going on in Bavaria need not have had any parallel in Gaul. Although Caesar's account opens with some of the oppida in Gaul at war over regional hegemony, there is no hint that Gallic oppida were on the edge of a general disillusion. Nor is there any indication whatsoever that the basic ethos of living in these large manufacturing and marketing centers was questioned in Gaul. Instead, in Gaul there was a heated realignment of allies and aristocratic families. This process had reached a level of regional warfare, in which a few principal oppida were struggling for interregional supremacy. Onto this stage strode Caesar, who quickly became the major player pg.78-79

Another thing of interest:

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

If this scenario approaches historical reality, then if foreshadows the circumstances surrounding Roman involvement in Gaul under Julius Caesar by half a century. The oppida in souther Germany were more likely to have first turned to "Germanic" sources of recruits simply because of proximity and necessity. pg.86

I thought this theory was of interest because it relates to my thoughts on Ariovistus and the Suebi and how they gained control of parts of central Gaul. I was wondering what others thought of this theory of Burns, I personally don't buy into it.

[Frostwulf]

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed from small-scale feuding between family groups and neighboring communities to large conflicts between tribal confederations and the life and death struggle against Roman domination. The Celtic urban centers were ruled by the most powerful clans, which constantly sought to increase their power and territory. A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry as the preferred tactical arm of the Celtic noble elite, who were now comparable to the equites, the 'knighly' class of the Roman Republic." pg.83

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"The prestige of the Celtic heroic ideal was probably undimmed by the settlement of the armed groups that criss-crossed Europe in the 3rd century BCE in search of battles and adventure. Similarly, by establishing a warrior aristocracy, especially the cavalry, in the oppida, the old principles were maintained." pg.204

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Celtic cavalry by the beginning of the 1st century BCE, as shown on a panel of the Gundestrup Cauldron and several other illustrations, had saddled horses with full harness, ridden by cavalrymen wearing spurs. The frequency with which these spurs are found when excavating oppida may reflect a proportionate concentration of cavalry troops. Their equipment consisted of the long sword, but also a spear, helmet and shield, sometimes also a coat of mail or light breastplate.
Trained in formation manoeuvres, the cavalry became the Celtic armies strike force; the effectiveness of its charge could determine the outcome of a battle." pg.110

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"These elite troops were well trained and drilled, but, engaged as they were in all the battles of a Celtic world on the defensive, their numbers eventually dwindled. As they did so, they lost their effectiveness. Caesar makes it clear that the enfeeblement of these elite units was the key to the defeat of the Gaulish cities." pg.110

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Most of the tribes raised horses for riding, which were of a smaller size than most modern mounts bu of good quality. Gallic cavalry were famous, and the mounted arm of the professional Roman army would subsequently copy many aspect of equipment, training and terminology from them. However, while very effective in a charge, the cavalry of the tribes, which inevitably consisted of the wealthier warriors, often showed little enthusiasm or aptitude for such important roles as patrolling." pg.204

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Both sides sent forward their cavalry, and the allied horsemen gained a slight advantage over the Belgian horse before Caesar withdrew them. Realising that a full-scale battle was not going to develop, the legions were ordered back to camp to rest. Reaching the same conclusion, the Begic commanders sent a part of the army fo ford the River Aisne and either threaten the Roman supply line by capturing the fort protecting the bridge, or draw Caesar off by ravaging the lands of his new found allies, the Remi." pg.241

Later in 51 B.C.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" There were frequent skirmishes-both sides were using German troops, for Commius had managed to persuade 500 of these to join the Bellovaci-and on one occasion the Gauls ambushed and cut up a foraging party of the Remi who were fighting as Roman allies." pg.352

I believe the Remi were outnumbered and caught off guard when this happened, I put this quote in to show that Caesar had been using Remi cavalry.
These were to show that the cavalry were indeed the elite shock troops of Gaul. These were not just Leuce Epos but Brihentin and Remi Mairepos.

I have some more quotes on the German cavalry coming up next, the purpose is to show the clear superiority of the German cavalry over the Gallic cavalry.

[blitzkrieg80]

eh, great selection of quotes, but this is the Sweboz thread

I don't suppose we can focus on the Cimbri, so we might have that unit... we need details, like what armor, since a "breastplate" might not seem realistic, recruiting them in Jutland.

I found some other possible models for the basis of the Cimbri regional skin:
1.(hellenistic_cavalry_prodromoi) ! armored and non-skirmisher! GERMANIC skin FREE
2.(belgae_cavalry_taramonnos_myrcharn) skirmisher and ! large skeleton! GERMANIC skin FREE
3..(dacian_cavalry_tarabostes) ! armored and non-skirmisher medium cavalry! GERMANIC and MERC skin FREE

[Sirfiggin]

How about this: German reforms. I'm no expert, so I can't say when they happen (do they have the general gallic reform?) but at first the Sweboz only get the "angry savage" barbarian infantry- great shock units with high attack but little or no armor and fragile morale, but then, say when the Romans reach the Marian age or the Sweboz win enough battles against them, they train more professional, but still true barbarian; heavy cavalry, infantry, missile and light artillery (if not too unhistorical) also, were did the Suebi King who fought Caesar get such good horsemen when the germans don't get cavalry the game?

[blitzkrieg80]

thanks for the comment.

well, 1 added HVY cavalry already in the game, and after this upcoming work, 1 added MED cavalry, which = 3 cav and that should represent those cool guys Caesar admired on the other side of the Rhine...

Sweboz Reforms already planned... the tentative plan is: no recruitable Bodyguard before the Reform and no Heavy cavalry either, but afterwards those units are available to reflect increased access to iron and metallurgical centers/ weapon market...

otherwise, there are some happy stat changes coming which involve Clubmen not being fodder and hopefully a more expensive and more effective light cavalry... the Chatii spearman will be a nice high quality regional of the "Proven" Spearman. the Chatti clubman will indeed be a shock troop but with less defense because of zeal... a wolf-skin shock troop who lives on the fringe of society's borders deep in the forest, so only recruitable as a MERC similar to the Gastiz. The black skinned Harii regional will be changed to a night-raider who merely references the practice used in Lugi territory. leather helms all around on appropriate units... denser formations for appropriate units, to represent the shield-wall in the absence of phalanx ability, such as for the pike unit, whose name is going to be AWESOME (it's a suprise)

[Frostwulf]

eh, great selection of quotes, but this is the Sweboz thread

The reason for the quotes is to back up some of my claims, I ran short of time and was not able to continue my quotes. The quotes I posted of the Celtic cavalry do have a relevance which I will put down at the end of the quotes on this post.

were did the Suebi King who fought Caesar get such good horsemen when the germans don't get cavalry the game?

There is German cavalry currently in the game, but they are not of the quality of the ones of Ariovistus nor of the Germanic mercenary cavalry Caesar had.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"A cavalry combat took place in the fields outside the town, and the Romans eventually won this when Caesar threw in his band of 400 Germans."pg.323
This took place at the town of Noviodunum.


Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"On the following day the Gaulish cavalry attacked in three groups-one striking the heead of the column and th eothers threatening the flanks. Caesar's cavalry were heavily outnumbered but he likewise divided them into three groups and moved up the infantry as close support whenever they were hard pressed. The legionaries could not catch the enemy horsemen, but they provided a solid block for their own horsemen to rally behind and re-form. In the end the Germans won the combat on the right, routing the warriors facing them and causing the rest to withdraw. pg.335

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The Romans began to work on a monumental set of siegeworks, with a rampart stretching for 11 miles and including twenty-three fortlets as well as larger camps in which the soldiers would rest. The Gauls did not let this go unmolested and sent their cavalry down to attack. They were met by the auxiliary and allied cavalry, but it was not unitl Caesar committed his reserve of German horsemen and formed up some of the legionaries in support that the Gauls were driven back."pg.336-337
At Alesia.


Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"As a gesture of confidence, Caesar sent his cavalry out from the lines to engage the horsemen of the relief force. A whirling fight developed and lasted throughout the afternoon, and seemed for a long time to have been going the Gauls' way,when once again Caesar's German cavalry charged and won the day for the Romans." pg.339-340
When Gallic relief forces showed up at Alesia.

There is an obvious theme here. The outnumbered Roman(Gallic allies) cavalry is having problems with the Gallic("rebel") cavalry and income the outnumbered German cavalry to save the day.

As to how the Germanic cavalry worked:

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Ariovistus' horsemen worked closely with picked light infantry-who in later centuries were known to the Germans as the 'hundred'(centeni)-capable over short distances of keeping pace with the horses by grabbing onto their manes. The warriors on foot acted as a solid support, behind which the cavalry could retreat if worsted, and rest and re-form before advancing again. The tactics and quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over Gaulish cavalry." pg.229

The German cavalry as explained above didnt have the light infantry intermingled with them when they engaged their enemies. I'm sure they did fight with them at times but in general they were simply support.

So your asking why did I revist this subject! The reason is Blitz did something I didnt think anyone would be able to accomplish, he got heavy cavalry for the Sweboz!WOOT! I think it's a very good thing. The problem I have with this is as follows:

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

The Remi were not mentioned in my earlier quotes but Caesar did have them in his Cavalry, so yes the German cavalry did fight the Remi. 800 German cavalry charged and defeated 5,000 of Caesar's cavalry which would have included Remi Mairepos.

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).

Not only did I show that most of the units Caesar fought against were NOT Luce Epos in this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=37 I added even more from more authors a couple of posts ago.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=219 These quotes saying "elite","shock" etc. not to mention the arms and armorment of the cavalry that Caesar used and that was used against him show without a doubt that these units are brihentin and Remi Mairepos.

I also added more 2 more authors and their quotes and books which dispells the devastating "Gallic Civil War" theory.

What I'm getting at is that the stats that are to be awarded to the German heavy cavalry will be woefully inadequate from a historical perspective. The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry. The stats that the German cavalry have will be at best marginally better, certainly not even close to doing what they did historically.

Blitz like I said before you did something I didn't think would happen and I glad for that. I will try to get more TCA information to you, but most likely it will be or their movements and vague remarks on their martial prowess. What you got from Plutarch is the most descriptive I have come across but I will continue to look.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hm, to me, Sweboz was one of the most difficult factions to fight against, as Romani (second only to horse archer factions)... Gameplay-wise they don't seem too underpowered to me... Any tips on how to beat them with Camillan units and bad economy?

[Sarcasm]

Hm, to me, Sweboz was one of the most difficult factions to fight against, as Romani (second only to horse archer factions)... Gameplay-wise they don't seem too underpowered to me... Any tips on how to beat them with Camillan units and bad economy?

Break them at your walls, and then counter-attack directly at their cities. If you don't want them after that, then just give them to a buffer faction or allow it to rebel, taking down all the buildings inside.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Thanks, that's what I should do! Additionally, I should probably create a better spy network in order not to be surprised by their reinforcements when counter-attacking their cities. One problem though, is Germanic family members: starting out with nothing or very few units, outside the city I besiege, they hire mercs from 2 zones, and suddenly come at me with a full stack of ridoharjoz and gastiz, and as if it wasn't enough, the enemy general already had 8 command stars I've had that at least twice But with good spy network and slower advance + siege defense/sally, I should be fine, I hope

[PSYCHO V]

The reason for the quotes is to back up some of my claims, I ran short of time and was not able to continue my quotes. The quotes I posted of the Celtic cavalry do have a relevance which I will put down at the end of the quotes on this post..

I’ve said this elsewhere, but quoting the same select examples over and over again does not a compelling argument make.

800 German cavalry charged and defeated 5,000 of Caesar's cavalry.

Oh brother, here we go again. The mighty 800! ..evidence of the Master Race!
So these 800 defeated 5000 enemy cavalry. What about the 400 Gauls who defeated 4,000, or the 4,000 Romans and Gauls who defeated 6,000 German cavalry!? Do you see anyone else grabbing a few incidents in isolation, devoid of context and making grandiose claims?

I will continue to look.

Please do

What I'm getting at is that the stats that are to be awarded to the German heavy cavalry will be woefully inadequate from a historical perspective..

According to you

The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry..

According to you

The stats that the German cavalry have will be at best marginally better, certainly not even close to doing what they did historically..

According to you

There is German cavalry currently in the game, but they are not of the quality of the ones of Ariovistus nor of the Germanic mercenary cavalry Caesar had..

According to you

There is an obvious theme here..

Ain’t that the truth!

[Frostwulf]

I’ve said this elsewhere, but quoting the same select examples over and over again does not a compelling argument make.

From this time period there are not very many examples which are as detailed as Caesar's. For the time frame of EB you have the TCA and a very few others. I am using multiple authors with their own analysis on the subject.

Oh brother, here we go again. The mighty 800! ..evidence of the Master Race!
So these 800 defeated 5000 enemy cavalry. What about the 400 Gauls who defeated 4,000, or the 4,000 Romans and Gauls who defeated 6,000 German cavalry!? Do you see anyone else grabbing a few incidents in isolation, devoid of context and making grandiose claims?

Please expand on this, what battles are you referring to? The last one of the 6,000 Germans seems to be the battle with Ariovistus, please give more information on this, I would like to see what you have on it.If it is on the battle with Ariovistus there was skirmishing going on but not much information after that. For them being the master race, hardly. The Germans were defeated regularly by the Romans, as were the Gauls. The grandoise claims? Goldsworthy, Sidnell,Speidel, etc. etc. pretty much say it was impressive. Perhaps I'm missing your meaning, but if you mean isolated incidents such as Caesar's campaign, then yea I guess I would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry..

According to you

And Sidnell,Goldsworthy and Speidel

As for the rest of the things you put down the "According to you" yea when it comes to the EB thing it is the way I believe. As far as the Germans being superior to the Gauls, that's not just me, thats also from the authors I had quotes from.

[burn_again]

I could have needed a heavier cavalry unit in my Sweboz campaigns, but as a student of history I have to agree with Psycho that you cannot project evidence from Caesar's time to the whole EB timeframe. Even if there was evidence about such a powerful cavalry around the time of Caesar's wars in Gaul, and if such a unit would be included in the game, it should not be available before somewhere between 70 - 50 BC.
In terms of gameplay I think that this whole discussion if celtic or germanic cavalry is better is rather pointless. The Sweboz have a huge advantage over the Gauls because they are surrounded by Eleutheroi provinces. I have played several campaigns where I gave all reforms to the Celts from the beginning and although they recruited Brihentin and all the other post-reform units they were absolutely no match for the Sweboz and the Romans.

[SaFe]

While Psycho has a point in his proofed knowledge of the celtic tribes he simply ignore some authors he doesn't like as Frostwulf shows.

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong.

Every historian could take this numbers and show with simple archaelogical findings that the climate and agriculture in germanic territory could not feed such numbers of healthy male adults who could fight as warriors. There is simply no chance that Ariovist and his Suebians could have an army of so many thousands of warriors.
It is rather so that the Suebians and their allied tribesmen were numerally in the minority at the battle vs. Caesar and his legions.

By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers.
They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen.

It would show much more fairness, if we just don't pick the writers we like and ignore the others.

[burn_again]

I'm no expert in that field of study, so I have no idea if there are any writers ignored or not. I'm just pretty sure that the germanics of 50 BC were different from the germanics of 270 BC. As long as this is reflected in some kind of reform, I have no problem with heavier units.
I'd like to see a medium and a heavy cavalry unit as Blitzkrieg proposed - but I don't care that much wether they are better than Brihentin or not. Somehow I even think it's realistic in the game when you can beat a strong enemy because of better tactics and/or better economy.

[Geoffrey S]

From this time period there are not very many examples which are as detailed as Caesar's.

Detail should in no way imply better accuracy compared to other authors; it just means there are more things to check carefully.

[Frostwulf]

I could have needed a heavier cavalry unit in my Sweboz campaigns, but as a student of history I have to agree with Psycho that you cannot project evidence from Caesar's time to the whole EB timeframe. Even if there was evidence about such a powerful cavalry around the time of Caesar's wars in Gaul, and if such a unit would be included in the game, it should not be available before somewhere between 70 - 50 BC.

As far as the time frame is concerned the Germans really don't appear till the Bastarnae around 200BC, then the TCA around 113BC and finally with Ariovistus in 71BC, these of course of written sources. If your going to include Sweboz there is no reason not to include these cavalry units. The cavalry that Caesar encounters (with a few exclusions like Ariovistus) were not well armored yet were able to rout numerically superior Gallic troops. There is no reason to assume these cavalry units would not have been around. If you do consider the armored cavalry units you have to look to the TCA which is thought to have left around 120 BC, they did have armored cavalry.

In terms of gameplay I think that this whole discussion if celtic or germanic cavalry is better is rather pointless. The Sweboz have a huge advantage over the Gauls because they are surrounded by Eleutheroi provinces. I have played several campaigns where I gave all reforms to the Celts from the beginning and although they recruited Brihentin and all the other post-reform units they were absolutely no match for the Sweboz and the Romans.

So would you rather have realistic units or should some game play issues be changed? I personally would rather have the realistic units. Tone down the Eleuthori around the Gallic areas if thats whats needed. One of the threads that was started before was complaining of the Celts being to powerful.

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong.

Every historian could take this numbers and show with simple archaelogical findings that the climate and agriculture in germanic territory could not feed such numbers of healthy male adults who could fight as warriors. There is simply no chance that Ariovist and his Suebians could have an army of so many thousands of warriors.
It is rather so that the Suebians and their allied tribesmen were numerally in the minority at the battle vs. Caesar and his legions.

Taking into the account of Caesar and his battle with Ariovistus John Warry puts the numbers as:
Caesar:21,000 legionairs plus 4,000 Gallic horse and other auxillaries
Ariovistus: (from a community of 120,000) 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.
I don't have a problem with these numbers. In general it is thought Caesar exaggerated his enemies numbers but by how much is uncertain. I also would be careful with what archeology can provide as it can often be misread.

By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers.
They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen.

I do believe this. It was after all Caesar's troops that were defeated and it is a rare thing to put your own numbers higher. After reading from the different authors, I think the numbers are realistic.

I'm no expert in that field of study, so I have no idea if there are any writers ignored or not. I'm just pretty sure that the germanics of 50 BC were different from the germanics of 270 BC. As long as this is reflected in some kind of reform, I have no problem with heavier units.

I think there is a reformed planned around 150 BC which would make sense as the TCA were to begin their trek around 30yrs later. As far as them being much different from 270 till 50BC only for the armored units, which would still leave a heavy cavalry such as most of those that Caesar came across, not heavily armored.

I'd like to see a medium and a heavy cavalry unit as Blitzkrieg proposed - but I don't care that much wether they are better than Brihentin or not. Somehow I even think it's realistic in the game when you can beat a strong enemy because of better tactics and/or better economy.

This would get down to the realistic units again. You can curb unit output by other ways like cost. You can still have it realistic with better tactics and economy but I think the units realism is more important. If the units aren't important why have this mod? The reason for this mod to begin with is because the EB guys felt that vanilla RTW didn't have realistic units.The goal is realism and you can lock down economy and realistic units.

Detail should in no way imply better accuracy compared to other authors; it just means there are more things to check carefully.

I completely agree with you. I have to go with more modern authors because I don't have the time nor the expertise to compile the information they have. I use multiple authors trying to get a consensus on historical happenings to see if most agree, and to date on this time period and situations they do.The authors I use such as Goldsworthy, Warry and etc. don't just use Caesar, but Tacitus and others.

Since I'm not sure which battles Psyco V was talking about I'll make a guess about the 4,000 Gallic cavalry vs 6,000 cavalry as being that as Ariovistus. If thats the case then you could be right, but very doubtful you are. Caesar never elaborates about the cavalry in the battle. He mentions several skirmishes they had prior but says nothing one way or the other. Sidnell seems to think that because of the terrain they were in the cavalry fought on foot.
As far as the 400 defeating the 4,000 that sounds like the Helvetii defeating Caesar's 4,000 cavalry. Caesar's cavalry ended up getting spread out and the 400 Helvetii charged them and chased them off. There were no Germans involved here.

[blitzkrieg80]

Wait... how do we know about the ACTUAL productivity in agriculture concerning a people during a time period we don't even have references to until almost 200 years later?! That seems absurd to me. Even if we knew FOR SURE what technology they were limited to (which we don't- we have theories based on evidence of a select few, as is the case for all ancient Germanic evidence- we do NOT have a comprehensive sample of the entire population of the area) there are still other methods to feed and support a population which include but are not limited to fishing, hunting, pastoralism and gathering practices that can supplement and add to any baseline "theory" historians have about how much population an area can support. It can't even be claimed that a single iota of information is FOR SURE even from the strongest cases available in archaeological and linguistic evidence, since literary evidence is completely lacking.

Pastoralists can be said to be of such low populations because it is science fact that their methods of food acquisition are based on their animals' needs and an environment based on quantifiable factors. The Huns in similar propogandic tendencies (as said of the Germans) are called HORDES even though pastoralist populations are limited by their lifeways and huge areas of steppe can still only support so many. Of course saying "that small group over there kicked mine with less than half our number" isn't going to come across naturally for any proud people.

Now if that is the same reasoning to claim that Germans could not possibly field an army of 4,000, it is not wrong to use similar logic concerning enivromental facts and lifeways, but where is this evidence? I find it very hard to believe that agriculturalists (whose purpose is to support larger populations than nomads and pastoralists) can't even support a very small number of warriors like 4,000 in all of Germania, especially considering a diet consisting of readily available fish on the coastline or game in vast forestland. Surely their agricultural practices were limited by the cold climate of the North and the lack of a heavy iron tool technology, but if that was the case, how did the Germans EVER field an army to cause the "Migration Age" without a population to migrate? We know that not all Germanic warriors were considered professional and were part-time, so it really can't be said that they were lacking in manpower.


Good point, Frostwulf, we don't even know a single thing for sure before the Bastarnae who we know almost nothing, and much is also NOT known about the Teutons, Cimbri, and Ambrones, so Caesar is are earliest (although certainly biased) authority. Tacitus isn't even very good but quite valuable in comparison to nothing. Jordanes is similarly useful but limited.

There is absolutely no reason that a unit should unbalanced for any reason. There is no winner or loser in an open-ended computer game and it is up to different players playing different teams to use their differently balanced game pieces to achieve victory. I find it odd that our new Germanic heavy cavalry unit needs to be further pumped up in stats which is among the best if not THE BEST unit available for its region. Why have a battle at all if you want to decide its result?


Psycho, it seems ridiculous to me to claim that someone needs to lay out every possible context behind a citation when the whole point of doing the citation is so someone can check it and make up their mind for themselves (although you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument). It seems to me there is no validity to your criticism if you want someone to go beyond using EVIDENCE, which is all that is available... ok, Classical writers tend to exagerate and history is not truth but perspective, but what CAN we know then? NOTHING. By your own logic, you'd say that nothing can be said about any archaeological finds because we have to know the context first, even though that is where context comes from (chicken before the egg)... who defines when someone has achieved the appropriate context? Argument is all well and fine and the whole purpose of citation is to have arguments about data and reference, but to claim that someone needs more than that like rhetoric seems less much like you want to find truth (since you're speaking openly WITHOUT citation) and more like you want to create an effect, persuading people, rather than informing.

[PSYCHO V]

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

Then why are you so hung up on citing the example of 800 German cavalry?

Taking into the account of Caesar and his battle with Ariovistus John Warry puts the numbers as:
Caesar:21,000 legionairs plus 4,000 Gallic horse and other auxillaries
Ariovistus: (from a community of 120,000) 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.
I don't have a problem with these numbers. .

I believe Caesar had 6 legions, so he may have had a little more than 21k, we don’t know for sure as several legions were under strength.

But this begs the question....

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’!

I use multiple authors trying to get a consensus on historical happenings to see if most agree, and to date on this time period and situations they do.

I’m afraid that is just your interpretation. You take quotes like Goldsworthy on how during the Gallic campaign the German horse appeared superior and want to extrapolate that (devoid of context) to several hundred years prior. See my post in the "Celts are overpowered" thread for more detailed cross analysis.

Since I'm not sure which battles Psyco V was talking about I'll make a guess about the 4,000 Gallic cavalry vs 6,000 cavalry as being that as Ariovistus. If thats the case then you could be right. Caesar never elaborates about the cavalry in the battle. He mentions several skirmishes they had prior but says nothing one way or the other.

Yup

As far as the 400 defeating the 4,000 that sounds like the Helvetii defeating Caesar's 4,000 cavalry. Caesar's cavalry ended up getting spread out and the 400 Helvetii charged them and chased them off. There were no Germans involved here.

No Germans..so?

The point is anyone can grab an isolated incident out of any semblance of context and start making grandiose claims. What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country ...when 330,000 Gauls attacked 11 well entrenched Legions? Should we assume all Germans were cowards and the Gauls brave and ferocious warriors?

This would get down to the realistic units again. The goal is realism …and realistic units.

Yup, which is what EB have. They don’t take Imperial Legions and use them as a bench-mark for all Romans throughout several hundred years of history prior… nor do they take Germanic feat of arms in the mid 1st BC – 1st C Ad and do the same.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

Psycho, it seems ridiculous to be to claim that someone needs to lay out every possible context behind a citation.

I didn't ask him to “lay out” any context. I merely encouraged him to consider context before grabbing a few select pieces of data and jumping to conclusions. See my analogy of the 5 blind men and elephant in the “Celts are overpowered thread”.

you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument.

It just turns into ‘noise’

It seems to me there is no validity to your criticism if you want someone to go beyond using EVIDENCE, which is all that is available... ok, Classical writers tend to exagerate and history is not truth but perspective, but what CAN we know then? NOTHING. By your own logic, you'd say that nothing can be said about any archaeological finds because we have to know the context first…etc etc.

Ridiculous... of course we can know something, but we are still learning. Hence when we come across data, we need to cross-reference it with everything else we know about the subject. This is not only true for history / archaeology but for every scientific discipline.

Been to the doctors lately? If you turn up complaining of a number of ailments, one of which is numbness in the legs, your doctor won’t jump up and go “right… early stages of gangrene, we’re going to have to cut that leg off I’m afraid!” He look at the big picture and your ailments in context to all available data.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

While Psycho has a point in his proofed knowledge of the celtic tribes he simply ignore some authors he doesn't like as Frostwulf shows..

What prey tell have I ignored?

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

The numbers are inconsequential… you’ve missed the wood through the trees here my friend.
The whole point here is demonstrating how flawed the idea is that you can take select data, devoid of context, and draw conclusions from it.

By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers. They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen. .

I rest my case.

It would show much more fairness, if we just don't pick the writers we like and ignore the others.

Ain’t that the truth!

[Zero1]

Hello, again deciding to add my two cents.

Now while I admit that my knowledge of the Celts and Germans of the classical erra, which my community college professors and friends/family find impressive, is meager in comparison to many here...that said, after reading this over it seems to me that Frostwulf is using single incidents to support some sort of agenda...specifically that the Germanic peoples were superior to the Celts and the Romans superior to everyone...if that's the case then isn't this exactly the kind of over simplification that EB seeks to avoid?, Isn't this the same kind of ethnocentric nationalistic nosense that spurred on the legendary and sometimes ridiculous Greek language arguments?

If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, please correct me

[Frostwulf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

Then why are you so hung up on citing the example of 800 German cavalry?

Sorry this wasn't my quote, it was safe's. I accidentally added it to my post. I'm not hung up on the 800, thats just one of the examples I used along with the Sugambri and the German mercenaries of Caesar.

I believe Caesar had 6 legions, so he may have had a little more than 21k, we don’t know for sure as several legions were under strength.

But this begs the question....

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’!

It wasn't 120,000 combatants, the total number of people (woman,children,warriors etc.) is 120,000. For combatants you have 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry. As far as the 80,000 Gauls I dont know of which battle you are referring to.

I’m afraid that is just your interpretation. You take quotes like Goldsworthy on how during the Gallic campaign the German horse appeared superior and want to extrapolate that (devoid of context) to several hundred years prior. See my post in the "Celts are overpowered" thread for more detailed cross analysis.

I did and put a reply that basically says that this is the only written information of battles other then the TCA. With the TCA the battles are not well documented while with Caesar they are. All we know is that the TCA (granted they had Celts among them) defeated some Roman armies. These are the same type armies who defeated the Gauls in 120's BC. We don't know what the situation was when the TCA was rebuffed by the Boii and the Scordisci nor do we know what the situation when the TCA was in Spain for a few years. We do know fairly well how the TCA was deployed and some of the tactics they used against the Romans, both before and after Marius. We also know how the southern Gauls(Arverni,Allobreges etc.) were dealt with by the Romans. There is some that can be done by proxy here.

No Germans..so?

The point is anyone can grab an isolated incident out of any semblance of context and start making grandiose claims. What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country ...when 330,000 Gauls attacked 11 well entrenched Legions? Should we assume all Germans were cowards and the Gauls brave and ferocious warriors?

No Germans=thought we were only talking to them, didnt know what you were getting at till now.
430,000 tribesmen most were not warriors.
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The legions marched out in three columns, which could readily be converted into the battle line of the triplex acies, and advanced the 8 miles to the German camp.The Usipetes and Tencteri were surprise and leaderless, so that what followed was more of a massacre than a battle." pg.275
I have a hard time believing that this was open country and yet being able to be taken by surprise.
For the most part when I talk of battle sequences I do put down factors that are relevant, I don't just throw out numbers.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=26

(although you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument)

It just turns into ‘noise’

Ill have to disagree with you guys on this. Putting quotes gives validity to an argument. I'm sorry but just because you say something is so doesn't mean I will believe you. If you get a quote from a noted scholar then it holds more weight. The quotes I put down are perfectly legitimate and in context, I even went so far as to type out an entire Simon James page to prove it wasn't out of context, yet there will be some that just don't want to believe it and want me to type out the whole book.

Hello, again deciding to add my two cents.

Now while I admit that my knowledge of the Celts and Germans of the classical erra, which my community college professors and friends/family find impressive, is meager in comparison to many here...that said, after reading this over it seems to me that Frostwulf is using single incidents to support some sort of agenda...specifically that the Germanic peoples were superior to the Celts and the Romans superior to everyone...if that's the case then isn't this exactly the kind of over simplification that EB seeks to avoid?, Isn't this the same kind of ethnocentric nationalistic nosense that spurred on the legendary and sometimes ridiculous Greek language arguments?

If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, please correct me

What are you considering single incidents? If you are referring to the Germans in the Gallic war, then yes. If your saying a single battle then you are incorrect. The reason for most of this thread was to push for a heavy German cavalry and to increase the strength and moral of some of their units, to flesh them out by using scholars of history and archeology. True most of the data comes from the Gallic war, but do you know of a better source? Outside the TCA and Gallic war time frames, where can we get some information? When I said that the Romans >Germans>Gauls it's based on the battles that were fought and the circumstances behind them, yes this part was simplistic and a generalization. I showed how the German cavalry was superior to the Gallic cavalry and that there was a need for an improvement from the only German cavalry now in the game.How is this "ethnocentric nationalistic nonsense"?

[blitzkrieg80]

Frostwulf, when I say that using quotes exclusively is not an effective way of argumention, it doesn't mean you at all, but is rather meant as factual... if you re-read what i posted, you'll see i support your use of citation and quotes because that's the only thing that can be claimed at all where otherwise there is only ignorance and a void of information. Using facts is where it's at and quoting is doing that, which I applaud you for, something I do not always do because i do not have time to dig out books and my university access these days is limited.

You don't need to repeat yourself, although I understand you're only trying to defend your argument. You've done that.

You mentioned something of tactics concerning the Cimbri, Teutons, ect... it would be awesome if we could recreate a historical battle with that knoweldge. Currently I am wondering if the word "breastplate" mentioned in reference to the Cimbri might not actually be mail since the word for mail originates in "breast" and such can be easily mistranslated. I am also wondering what evidence we could use besides the Hjortspring deposit (which supports mail) to support a more diversified armor assortment and actually portray some kind of Gallic breastplate or whatever was used.