Celtic levies

[Frostwulf]

I tried to find this subject using search but have failed to find it, so if this is a repeat I apologize.

I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the "Celtic levies" were going to start of strong then gradually weaken as the decades go by, is this so?
If this is so what sources is this based on? Caesar, others? Thanks for any information on this, and again if this is a repeat I'm sorry for bringing it up again.

[Andy1984]

I believe the rationale behind this would be the gradual professionalization of the celtic military: instead of levied bands, one would see more and more professional full-time soldiers recruited from strata above the ones the levies would be recruited from. As a result, those levies would see less conflicts and therefore be less experienced.

[Foot]

I tried to find this subject using search but have failed to find it, so if this is a repeat I apologize.

I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the "Celtic levies" were going to start of strong then gradually weaken as the decades go by, is this so?
If this is so what sources is this based on? Caesar, others? Thanks for any information on this, and again if this is a repeat I'm sorry for bringing it up again.

I can't remember that at all. It sounds impossible though. We cannot change stats, midgame. Certainly low-strata troops will become less numerous (through recruitment mechanism), as they are replaced by semi-professional middle-class.

Foot

[Cute Wolf]

I can't remember that at all. It sounds impossible though. We cannot change stats, midgame. Certainly low-strata troops will become less numerous (through recruitment mechanism), as they are replaced by semi-professional middle-class.

Foot

maybe you can give them 2 chevroned recruitment at the start, tone down to 1 experience in the middle of the game, and 0 exp in later era.... and M2TW can handle recruitment by specific time....

[Frostwulf]

I can't remember that at all. It sounds impossible though. We cannot change stats, midgame. Certainly low-strata troops will become less numerous (through recruitment mechanism), as they are replaced by semi-professional middle-class.

It seems you as well as Andy1984 seems to have answered my question(though my question was poorly worded).

I believe the rationale behind this would be the gradual professionalization of the celtic military: instead of levied bands, one would see more and more professional full-time soldiers recruited from strata above the ones the levies would be recruited from. As a result, those levies would see less conflicts and therefore be less experienced.

While I see the sense in this, I'm not sure I agree with it. Thanks for the responses!

[Foot]

It seems you as well as Andy1984 seems to have answered my question(though my question was poorly worded).
While I see the sense in this, I'm not sure I agree with it. Thanks for the responses!

There is no indication by the team that Andy1984's response is in anyway shared by the team. As far as I'm aware we have never stated that there will be a change in the strength of any troops. Apart from experience chevrons (the use of which is somewhat questionable in that fashion) there is no method to do this, anyhow. However, I do know that recruitment will change over the different eras for the celts to reflect changes in their society.

Foot

[Cyclops]

I like the idea of changes being modelled by the relative strength of old and newer units and their refresh rates.

This will tie in nicely with the possiblity that militia troops will disband reguklarly (ie go back to bring in the harvest or whatever), keeping experience down for the non-professional units.

There's another side of the disbanded militia funtion (if it comes in), which is that the team could fit in an "insurrectio " type script where a force of militia spawns when a home province is invaded:those troops would then disband alnong with the other militias so you wouldn't get the hydra effect ("Oh I crossed the border into Latium three times and they raised a gazillion troops in response...and now they're blitzing the map").

[geala]

The better or "elite" units formed always only a small part of Celtic or Germanic armies. There is no reason to presume that levies were better trained in the early times and later not so. They would not have had become obsolete only because a little bit more better troops became available. So I think the mechanism of EB (and EB II?) that later on more better troops become trainable is enough. The levies so become relatively worse, not absolutely.

[Power2the1]

Expanding on that:

In 272 B.C. the Celts had just ended their great migratory period over Europe. The size of the armies was composed of overwhelming amounts of levies, led by the professionals. After this period, large scale militaristic migrations are not the norm, and everyone settles down a bit to enjoy their gains. Overtime the military tradition among the average Gaul decreased as the nobles and other leading men consolidated this for themselves and their own retinue of vassals, or 'slaves'. Perhaps the levies in the earlier 279 B.C. migration period have more exposure to warfare and campaigning, and might have had an edge on their 50 B.C. levy, but rigorous training, overall, doesn't seem to have been common for either era in wartime. For one there are big differences in the society between the two timeframes.

First, 272 B.C. era Gaul was not on the same level of agricultural advancement as 50's B.C. era Gaul. The Celts were typically the most advanced metalworkers and agriculturalists for their time. The iron boom in the La Tene world occurred around 200 B.C., when metal weapons, tools, farming instruments, etc... began showing up all over the place, although Britain wasn't affected by this boom. This increased availability and use of metal provides for more farmland and varied industry which, of course, needs increasingly more manpower to expand and take advantage of this. Warriors of course got a boost in their equipment with more long lasting available weapons, helmets, and the like. Despite all these advantages in the culture, the warriors classes were not really expanding too far outside their own locations after the 279 B.C. migration era, and their focus was no longer external in finding new lands to conquer, but mainly internal by waging warfare against their fellow Celt. Obviously since the professionals in a Celtic army were not huge to begin with, the need to maintain a great number of standing warriors probably was not as needed in the post migration period, especially as you were not continually facing huge numbers of opponents. Basically one needs a larger group of warriors when expanding your territory and gaining new lands, but when this expansion ceases, then the need for great numbers of warriors decreases as well, and this is the overall gist of the situation.

XIII.—Throughout all Gaul there are two orders of those men who are of any rank and dignity: for the commonality is held almost in the condition of slaves, and dares to undertake nothing of itself and is admitted to no deliberation. The greater part, when they are pressed either by debt, or the large amount of their tributes, or the oppression of the more powerful, give themselves up in vassalage to the nobles, who possess over them the same rights without exception as masters over their slaves. But of these two orders, one is that of the Druids, the other that of the knights...

XV.—The other order is that of the knights. These, when there is occasion and any war occurs (which before Caesar's arrival was for the most part wont to happen every year, as either they on their part were inflicting injuries or repelling those which others inflicted on them), are all engaged in war. And those of them most distinguished by birth and resources, have the greatest number of vassals and dependants about them. They acknowledge this sort of influence and power only.

One should note the the slaves in Gallic society had rights, but Roman and Spartan slaves possessed the opposite. It depends on the culture apparently with Northern Europeans valuing their slaves, and most Mediterranean cultures abusing them. The Irish writings on 'slavery' and vassals were humanely treated, with big penalties if one mistreated a slave without cause. What Caesar says about Gallic slaves in those passages is true to a point. Celtic tradition gave slaves rights as brought out in the Irish law books, make no mistake about that. For example slaves, vassals, and the like would accompany their master and be sent off on certain duties and tasks and the like (think along the lines similar to the inferior position of the charioteer, Laeg, to the leadership of Cu Chulain). They be given gifts and positions of authority. Assuming that the "greater part" of the slaves, as Caesar mentioned, some of the indebted men showed skill in warfare (its prestigious to have the best and most numerous warriors alongside you, such as Orgetorix's 10,000 vassals) then they'd too go to war alongside their masters when the time came, as was the norm in those times, the Dark Ages, and the Medieval era when one of rank and position would bring his own armed retinue to battle. Celtic champions and nobles on each side would duel among themselves, with their retinue cheering them on. Should one side get the worse of it all, then the opposing retinues could be overcome by their rage and join in the fight if the druids or other judges (like referees) could not control them.

Only when larger threats loomed, such as the Roman invasion of Gaul, would levies be assembled from the mass of farmers and craftsmen other general non combatants of the tribe or state. Their role was to form into each mans tribal contingent, and from there to 'hold the line'. Meanwhile the Gallic nobility, the knights, sought to turn the battle on horseback, most likely by routing the opponents own cavalry and chasing them off, and closing in for the kill against the remaining infantry, thus gaining the fame for themselves. A vicious never ending cycle of warfare that escalated among the Aeduoi and Aruernoi. This post was meant to be this long lol...

In EB2, given the restrictions of the game, we'll try to get close to this overall situation.

[Frostwulf]

There is no reason to presume that levies were better trained in the early times and later not so.

I agree with this statement.

Overtime the military tradition among the average Gaul decreased as the nobles and other leading men consolidated this for themselves and their own retinue of vassals, or 'slaves'.

I might be misunderstanding what your saying here, but I agree with what geala said. The farmers/craftsmen etc. would be no different from 3rd century B.C. till 50 B.C., they still had the same martial spirit and attitude. The only exception was as you pointed out the migration time, and "perhaps some longer term exposure to some battles in the late 200's B.C. and the early 200's till the late 190's. But again the only advantage would be from experience(the little that there would have been), not from training.

A vicious never ending cycle of warfare that escalated among the Aeduoi and Aruernoi.

Cattle raids, small score of men fighting it out and as you pointed out:

Celtic champions and nobles on each side would duel among themselves, with their retinue cheering them on. Should one side get the worse of it all, then the opposing retinues could be overcome by their rage and join in the fight if the druids or other judges (like referees) could not control them.

Sometimes things would get out of hand.
Everything else you wrote I agree with. It seems to me your doing a very good job on the factions, keep it up.

[seienchin]

I agree with this statement.
I might be misunderstanding what your saying here, but I agree with what geala said. The farmers/craftsmen etc. would be no different from 3rd century B.C. till 50 B.C., they still had the same martial spirit and attitude. The only exception was as you pointed out the migration time, and "perhaps some longer term exposure to some battles in the late 200's B.C. and the early 200's till the late 190's. But again the only advantage would be from experience(the little that there would have been), not from training.
Cattle raids, small score of men fighting it out and as you pointed out:

Definitly NO. Of course we dont know anything about the celtish society and rankings in 270bc.(As far as I know you have only archaelocigal evidence from that time) But there is the probability, that the gauls in the early EB Timeframe were a society based on freeman. The gauls in 50bc. had a two (Or maybe three, if counting the religious druid class) class society, with the majority of the gauls beeing dependent farmers or even slaves. Also the fighting spirit is hard to compare to earlier times, because we do not know too much, but still: It is military common sense, that free man fight with higher moral, than people forced to fight by their leaders. Also the gaul warrior class wouldnt have any power, if the normal levies and slave had military training.

[moonburn]

as anyone considered that perhaps the levies were worse not because they where trully worse but because they where facing better troops and thus seem worse in comparison to previous victories where they had faced half ragged hoplities romanoi ?

i mean if they are facing better and more organised armies then ofc they will fare worse then their ancestors who had faced "worse" soldiers

[Frostwulf]

Definitly NO. Of course we dont know anything about the celtish society and rankings in 270bc.(As far as I know you have only archaelocigal evidence from that time) But there is the probability, that the gauls in the early EB Timeframe were a society based on freeman. The gauls in 50bc. had a two (Or maybe three, if counting the religious druid class) class society, with the majority of the gauls beeing dependent farmers or even slaves.

Posidonius,Polybius,Dio,are off the top of my head but there are others. Early "Celtic" society still had elites and just about the only difference from 270's until Caesar shows up was the transition to statehood(still in dispute I believe). The farmers/craftsmen were not slaves, they had rights even if they gave themselves up for clientage. Power2the1 will have the much more detailed information.

Also the fighting spirit is hard to compare to earlier times, because we do not know too much, but still: It is military common sense, that free man fight with higher moral, than people forced to fight by their leaders. Also the gaul warrior class wouldnt have any power, if the normal levies and slave had military training.

As pointed out above they were the same social status. When Caesar went into Gaul there were plenty of the farmers/craftsmen who volunteered to fight against the Romans. Vercingetorix mostly recruited from the lower end folk and with these he forced many nobles to capitulate.

as anyone considered that perhaps the levies were worse not because they where trully worse but because they where facing better troops and thus seem worse in comparison to previous victories where they had faced half ragged hoplities romanoi ?

i mean if they are facing better and more organised armies then ofc they will fare worse then their ancestors who had faced "worse" soldiers

Yes in some other threads further back this was brought up, the difference of the conscript/militia compared to the drilled/trained professional armies of Caesar.

[Power2the1]

The differences concerning the free men compared to their vassalized kin in battle are twofold at his point:

Morale and Spirit
The free men will have a bit better morale than those who are vassalized. Think volunteers vs. draftees. Typically an all volunteer group, fighting with their own free will and determination will have some amount of greater drive then those who are forced into fighting and perhaps do not wish to take up arms, but must.

Panoply and Arms
A retinue of warriors, led by their own chief or king, would be outfitted with spoils of war, gifts of arms and armors for their service, and others necessities of war. The vassal units will have a greater propensity for damage and attack, as their gear is, overall, more standardized and in greater amounts. The free warriors, on the other hand, must attain their panoply through personal wealth and personal spoils of war,

Recruitment and Numbers
The free class warriors do not have the numerical advantage or availability when going to war. The chief's retinue is there to fight, protect, and serve. These are year long troops, or house troops, on the state's payroll. The free man fights when he wishes, but also has to attend to farms or other domestic activity. The vassals are numerous in the later reforms simulating the rise of their class throughout the Celtic society, while the free class shrinks over the reforms with their recruitment and availability diminishes in response to the growing vassal class. The vassals are available year long, while the free class is only available in certain seasons, again to simulate returning home to share in farming, sowing, harvesting, trade, etc.


This arrangement allows/forces the player to use a bit of tactical planning when preparing a campaign. Both troop types can be used and both have their advantages when you fight a strong opponent. A decision need to be made between superior attacking power and damage, vs. staying power and superior morale. Obviously the elites combine both, but they will have restricted availability. Hopefully should a battle go badly for the A.I. or the player, one will see the vassals break and run before the free warriors will in similar situations.