Less Civilized Factions

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well one thing is to point sources out of whim, another is to analyze these sources and the facts we have at hand in the right way . We have examples where the Celts ran, we also have examples where the Romans ran and the Celts won or that a Celtic line of battle was especially brave... You get it. At Arretium the Celts won over the Romans, at Alia ditto.

It seems to be common knowledge though that the Celtic warrior ethos was more focused on a)training a strong professional warrior class, b)valuing individual acts and bravery more over "group work". Equipment, training et all were more focused on individual feats, and it is also true IIRC (from my own readings on the subject) that the average Celtic militia was of lower quality, not only because it lacked the sort of attention the Germans and Romans gave to lower tier troops but because there was never an emphasis in collective training and war-making outside of the *admittedly large* warrior class.

The Romans, on the other hand, adopted the opposite approach - they had no "warrior class" in the sense of the word, rather focusing on giving militias as much collective training as possible and emphasize the "group" aspect of the legion. So a legionary in average spent more time training how to act effectively in formation, while a Gaesatae (rough comparisons, I say) would spend far more time duelling, or training alone, or being told that his own courage alone was enough to win and to earn him glory and fame, and the like.

Fact is though that the Celts seemed more impetuous and more prone to "individual challenges" on the battlefield than the rest. Literally everywhere I've read that touches the subject even remotely agrees. Last time was in a book about the Etruscans (written by Raymond Bloch) that gives a side glance at Celtic warrior ethos and says that it was not uncommon for a Celtic warrior to get off his line and challenge other individual enemies for a duel. Not that hard to imagine since we're all familiar with the Knightly Ethos too.

All in all I can presume that an "ethos" that values collective identity over individual identity would also give far more discipline to the group as a whole, since all the people would need to act in unison for most things. 1 vs. 1, though, my money is on the Celts, and it is not like Celts were completely averse to group work either, or that some Celtic bands did not equal the collective discipline of more "civilized" warriors. It's a rough generalization frankly.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

At the same times, the Romans did turn into cowards by the late Roman times. I cannot help but recount when Valentian, (frustrated at the decades of having to deal with potential recruits who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, despite the laws forbidding very specifically such form of self-mutilation) simply instituted the penalty of death by slow immolation. Then came Theodosius who repealed that, and instead decreed that landowners must supply another recruit for every mutilated one. That stopped it, but the problem did resurface some time later. That is when the Romans turned to the "barbarians" to almost wholly supply their army with soldiers.

Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements. The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.

The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.

Still, just think the desperation of the Romans - to slice off your thumb just to avoid the army... Your opposable appendage, with one that you are enabled to grasp things. Of course, the streaks of defeats, the innumerable hordes of invading nomads and other tribes, the much lower professionalism of the Roman Army, but still... The Romans were indeed decadent and pampered by then.

Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements.

Define "credible"? What use to me to cite my things when I know you will not read it? First read some material, then come back and after that I will cite things. What do you need cited? Tell me, and I will try. I have a stack of books from my Uni library that I have been reading for the past month, so I can even look up the page number, if I had all this evening to myself.

The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.

I never said that was not true. Romans lost, but also won even more against barbarian tribes. But the Romans could not afford to lose, and their losses were more numerous and disastrous in a time when their foes were uncounted, coming in waves, one after another.

The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.

I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down. I find it suspicious that you seemingly so grossly misinterpreted my post.

But while we are at it, no, it was not economical. Well, it was, but to say that it was one thing is clearly erroneous. For one thing, why do you say the money was decreasing? What is your source - this is not an obvious statement. Economy indeed was not prospering, but this was a symptom of something instead of the malady itself. Even with the weaker economy, the Romans actually held more troops, which goes directly against what you have said. In fact, it is supposed that one of the causes of the fall of the Western Romans was the fact they had too much troops. Augustus had only about 150,000, and Diocletian particularly greatly increased that amount, thus destroying the treasury, instead of what you said, or the treasury destroying the army.

And did you ever notice that it so happen that the fall of the Roman Empire coincided with momentous Migration Period, with uncounted tribes of barbarians and nomads shifting and ravaging lands, pushed by yet more peoples form the East. At the same time, the Parthians evolved into the Persians, for a time free of civil strife, ready to take on the Romans in maximum efficiency. That really was the single major factor in the fall of Rome. At no other time the Romans had to face so many significant enemies at once, with more foes to come, all driven by the nomadic tribes originating all the way from Mongolia and Eastern-Central Asia.

Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?

WTH? It is not a myth, but one of the most common problems of the 5th century and later. What makes you think it is a myth?? In what book did you ever read "the saying that Roman recruits cut off their fingers is nothing but a myth"? You do not know if what I said is true or not. What makes you think you are correct? This is ridiculous... It is like saying that decimation was a myth...

This is so obvious, as there is so much clear evidence, and you refute it? Have you actually read anything on Late Roman Times? My sources for the "cutting off thumbs" thing is Pat Southern, The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History. It is a clear fact that many laws were created to prevent potential recruits from cutting their thumbs off. Many Emperors battled this occurrence, and usually failed. This was a serious problem.


Decimation is one thing. Soldiers always run from battle when things are desperate. If not all, then at least some. Crassus instituted decimation to punish those who shamed themselves in front of Spartacus. Routs always happen. What did not happen, however, (or until Later Dominate), was such unwillingness of people to join the legions. Romans always had plenty of recruits, even in the direst of times, during the Hannibalic War. Some were unwilling during that Second Punic War, but still, they fought. In regular times, there was no trouble recruiting men.

But by the time of Valentinian and Theodosius I, very few wanted to join the army, specifically the limitanei, which was were most fresh recruits are hypothesised to have went. There were dire problems in recruiting of sufficient numbers of men. And face it, to chop off your thumb, you simply have to be more desperate than a cornered rat.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

@AP I won't reply to the whole of your post now... But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.

Anyway there's a wealth of debate in the matter, especially in TWC. Try to search for their threads, and a similar engagement between the "traditional" view and mine was fought fiercely and in detail, and by people who provided all kinds of sources yet again.

I know we're not professors and all (even though I dream of getting a history degree before my 30's), but nevertheless I stand by my position. There are many things which seem so self-evident that in fact are myth, Roman invincibility and superiority of all of them. Fair enough.

[Aemilius Paulus]

But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.

Not at all. No, that was not the point I was making. I despise those sorts of arguments myself. Not at least because the Domináte armies were tailored to deal with entirely other threats. And very well too. But once again, that is entirely not what I wanted or did debate about.

Now, I did mention the fact that Romans had a hard time recruiting soldiers, but I will make no judgment on the overall fighting quality of the army itself. Just the state of the Empire.

All this is evidenced by my previous post:

I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down.

But being an ardent debater myself, I went ahead and argued anyway:

But while we are at it...

[chenkai11]

Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians.

[Macilrille]

Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians.

No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.

[fleaza]

ummm, wow this argument started because i said i got the feeling they were inferior.

its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.

[chenkai11]

No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.

I don't really meant Germany don't have great warlords. What I meant was, imaging like you used to lived in big cities, like Las Vegas and you love it. Then you transfer to a farm land in Australia. Although both are nice place. Or if you used and love to goto work with a tie, but then you have to wear jeans with your new job. Or more precise example, ahh... hey Ceasar, a Gaul army just surrendered to our side, and we need all your professional Roman soldiers to reinforce the eastern front, so why not try out the new army, they are all yours... well at least they are twice the size of your original army. If you know what I mean.

Its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.

We are on the same boat.

[Dunadd]

can anyone give me a reason to play those factions.

To kill those Roman dogs?

Seriously, if you don't enjoy playing barbarian factions, don't play them - it's not compulsory. I mainly enjoy Carthaginians and Dacians, but in a computer game is pretty much aesthetics that decide who plays what faction. Pretty much all of them (including 'civilised' factions like the Romans and Greeks) were very barbaric, uncivilised and brutal, much like 9/11 and Abu Ghraib more recently, but without even the modern amount of dissenters against atrocities.

[Intranetusa]

Playing the "less civilized" factions is fun since it's usually harder...ie, Saba having to train loads of crap infantry to defend your frontiers against full stacks of phalangites from Silver and Gold Death...

Even playing as civilized factions, I love training mercs and using local levies as the bulk of my armies in the frontiers...I can't count the times when my stacks of barbarian levies got annihilated by enemy elite units...

I find it extremely fun to lose with levy troops, especially after you've been kicking AI arse with your regulars...

[Kevin]

True, I like playing as Saba because it requires a lot of tactics I don't have to use on my Romani campaign.

[Cyclops]

Oh the Sweboz are an ace faction to play. Their bodyguards fight like lions* and they need too. There's something about infantry generals, you just can't bug out like the horse boys can and with the lack of armoured line troops for the Sweboz you will find FM's getting bloody all the time.

I play on general-cam and you get a strong sense of putting your guys in harms way, again and again. I love the way the chevrons stack up like honourable scars. You need to plough in with the few heavies you have and savagely claw at the enemies flanks with the rest of your poor guys, but don't let your boys get sucked into a slugfest. Its rip and retreat, ambush and fall back, until the enemy are panting and ready to rout.

When you finally get the celto-German reforms c.190 you will be a practiced infantry warrior, and the next phase of tackling foes head on will be juicy revenge time. Sacking Roma is one of this game's great rewards.

...
I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, ....

No there was one, and it will be summed up in a 2-hour cable TV special consisting of 1 hour 59 minutes of waffling, and some dramatic music.

It can be adduced from a single reference in an obscure source "discovered" by a non-proffessional historian with a bad haircut, and involves fungus on the rye or lead pipes contaminating the water.

Anything more than that is getting needlessly complicated.


*"We do both kinds of combat: hand-to-hand spear and hand-to-hand sword!"

[ARCHIPPOS]

It seems to be common knowledge though that the Celtic warrior ethos was more focused on a)training a strong professional warrior class, b)valuing individual acts and bravery more over "group work". Equipment, training et all were more focused on individual feats, and it is also true IIRC (from my own readings on the subject) that the average Celtic militia was of lower quality, not only because it lacked the sort of attention the Germans and Romans gave to lower tier troops but because there was never an emphasis in collective training and war-making outside of the *admittedly large* warrior class.

The Romans, on the other hand, adopted the opposite approach - they had no "warrior class" in the sense of the word, rather focusing on giving militias as much collective training as possible and emphasize the "group" aspect of the legion. So a legionary in average spent more time training how to act effectively in formation, while a Gaesatae (rough comparisons, I say) would spend far more time duelling, or training alone, or being told that his own courage alone was enough to win and to earn him glory and fame, and the like.

Fact is though that the Celts seemed more impetuous and more prone to "individual challenges" on the battlefield than the rest. Literally everywhere I've read that touches the subject even remotely agrees. Last time was in a book about the Etruscans (written by Raymond Bloch) that gives a side glance at Celtic warrior ethos and says that it was not uncommon for a Celtic warrior to get off his line and challenge other individual enemies for a duel. Not that hard to imagine since we're all familiar with the Knightly Ethos too.

All in all I can presume that an "ethos" that values collective identity over individual identity would also give far more discipline to the group as a whole, since all the people would need to act in unison for most things. 1 vs. 1, though, my money is on the Celts, and it is not like Celts were completely averse to group work either, or that some Celtic bands did not equal the collective discipline of more "civilized" warriors. It's a rough generalization frankly.

that's quite an interesting viewpoint...

This clash between tribal "individual heroism" and the modern "disciplined mass army" model is very evident in Homer's Iliad ...
We have from one side the epitome of the hero warrior Achiles whose life evolves around notions of personal fame, glory and loot ... he's unwieldy, selfish and defies and disrespects the power of his king and army leader ... the cause of final victory is not central but merely peripheral in his lifeview...
On the other side we have the character of Hector... Hector is in fact the "Modern Man" , a product of duty, law, state and family values... he's essentialy a paradigm of the citizen-soldier ideal a soldier if need be but also a statesman, a husband , a father and a son... in short the "civil man" whose life is centered on common good (=Freudian superego) ...
The Homeric allegory is very revealing...

Coming forth from the epic era dominated by raw and primal instincts, Greeks achieved to develop a prevailing second nature, one that was characterized by their sense of rigid self discipline, measure and constraint over their all consuming and potentially destructive passions ...(of course in practice the results of this civil harnessing were not always that succesful)...
The sociopolitical roots of this self-overcoming can be genealogically outlined in a complex, copious and lengthy transformation of the Greek political model: From tribal kingdoms governed by relentless and vigorous hero-warrior-rulers (which were in fact the Mycenean societies) , to decentralized city states dominated by a dignified and dynamic middle-class citizenship. Retrospectively the content of the prevailing ideal has accordingly shifted: The qualities of classic civility, participation and modesty replaced the all domineering, warlike, assertive, traits of epic exploits and violence...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

that's quite an interesting viewpoint...

This clash between tribal "individual heroism" and the modern "disciplined mass army" model is very evident in Homer's Iliad ...
We have from one side the epitome of the hero warrior Achiles whose life evolves around notions of personal fame, glory and loot ... he's unwieldy, selfish and defies and disrespects the power of his king and army leader ... the cause of final victory is not central but merely peripheral in his lifeview...
On the other side we have the character of Hector... Hector is in fact the "Modern Man" , a product of duty, law, state and family values... he's essentialy a paradigm of the citizen-soldier ideal a soldier if need be but also a statesman, a husband , a father and a son... in short the "civil man" whose life is centered on common good (=Freudian superego) ...
The Homeric allegory is very revealing...

Coming forth from the epic era dominated by raw and primal instincts, Greeks achieved to develop a prevailing second nature, one that was characterized by their sense of rigid self discipline, measure and constraint over their all consuming and potentially destructive passions ...(of course in practice the results of this civil harnessing were not always that succesful)...
The sociopolitical roots of this self-overcoming can be genealogically outlined in a complex, copious and lengthy transformation of the Greek political model: From tribal kingdoms governed by relentless and vigorous hero-warrior-rulers (which were in fact the Mycenean societies) , to decentralized city states dominated by a dignified and dynamic middle-class citizenship. Retrospectively the content of the prevailing ideal has accordingly shifted: The qualities of classic civility, participation and modesty replaced the all domineering, warlike, assertive, traits of epic exploits and violence...

That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.

[Cyclops]

Oooh weird, my reply to AP's post 71 somehow became post 69, even though I typed it after his...

[kekailoa]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

[Kikaz]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

as a side-note AP's example was of Keltae playing a MERCENARY ROLE; and mercenaries are, as a rule, typically less reliable than soldiers who would be fighting for their homeland (although Kelts must have been somewhat of an exception, given their popularity.)
If the standard Keltic warrior was as pathetic as AP makes him out to be, they would have never managed to sack Rome in the first place (or terrify the Romans for that matter.)

and now Fleaza will say "Oh, the Keltae being tough powerful opponents was just Roman propaganda"

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.

All my notions from the Medieval Army come from Verbruggen, Contamine and DeVries; all my notions from the Celtic army come from a prolonged read of the discussions held in the EB forums plus privy conversations with Celtic experts

. I say it is too much Classicist because it portrays them in a too favourable and slightly biased light as "upholders of civic virtue", when in fact we should avoid this kind of judgment too much. Something which you should learn, and something you should know before making brusque patronizing statements like this, AP .

[Macilrille]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.

[Ludens]

Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.

Seconded.

Discuss the post, not the poster.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.

Heh, he he, he he he .

EDIT - Sorry, assumed you dismissed all the repertory. I didn't read DeVries on Hardrada so I'll let it pass.

I agree with your remark on getting personal, but... It's AP that strangely wants this to get personal. I try to simply post my opinions, and this thread shows this neatly - which is rather unconvincing because AP seems to have very vague and very biased notions of Celtic warfare.

[Macilrille]

That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

This is my view, and the general idea is accepted by most historians and sociologists. Sociologists especially likes neat models covering all societies. Harste has written extensively on the matter based on Luhman's models of Autopoietic Systems.

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

[kekailoa]

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

No, I agree. The invading Cimbrii and Teutones were most definitely Germanic in origin and nature, but what I was trying to say is that portions of the horde were most likely Celtic, proving that yes, the Celts could fight. They could stand in pitched battles against civilized troops and hold their own, and seeing as they were a part of the hordes that ran roughshod all over Roman territory, I would call that proof. And I agree, some Celtophiles can be a little much. (Even though I really used to be one...)