Quote Originally Posted by Arjos View Post
No, my point was that those "civilized" factions had the economic possibility to arm and train more people, while the "barbarian" factions couldn't...
But shouldn't that be reflected in the number of units they can field rather than unit sizes? Following that reasoning, legionary cohorts should have more men than phalanx formations.

Quote Originally Posted by Arjos View Post
I was explaining that it is not an issue of mere numbers, but who could boast more soldiers (men specialized in operating as a unit) opposed to warriors (men experienced in single combat actions)...
I agree with your point (that the Romans could field more well-trained men than the Celts), but I am not sure if you can make this distinction. I guess it depends on how you define the terms. I would define a warrior as someone who made war his profession. A soldier is a warrior that is a member of a formalized military, rather than a loose warband.

Also, I'd say single combat is something for expert warriors rather than poorly-trained levies. Roman legionaries were drilled to employ complex formation, but all non-skirmisher levies had to rely on some form of formation-combat in order to survive.