Slavs were the most advanced. It is known.
Well at farming anyways, which was like 80% of economic activity then
I remember reading a byzantine chronicle saying that the slavs were not that big of a threat of launching a large invasion into the empire, but once they were established in an area, they had such a large population growth rate and so many different well armed warring clans that removing them was nigh on impossible.
Low speed, High Drag
Seriously, though, the Slavs? If you don't have a source for that, at least formulate an argument, at least after the timeframe Cyclops has pointed out. For that matter, the ancestors of the Slavs were far outside the Germanic world and not much is known about them before the first few centuries BC, not even with existing archaeological finds.
Then, as throngs of his enemies bore down upon him and one of his followers said, "They are making at thee, O King," "Who else, pray," said Antigonus, "should be their mark? But Demetrius will come to my aid." This was his hope to the last, and to the last he kept watching eagerly for his son; then a whole cloud of javelins were let fly at him and he fell.
-Plutarch, life of Demetrius.
Arche Aiakidae-Epeiros EB2 AAR
It has nothing to do with silly 19-century-style ideas about inherent, racial or biological supremacy and everything to do with a civilization's geographic position, availability of resources, and random chance discoveries by some of its members. Archimedes was a brilliant man, and thank God he was a Greek, because if he had been born a Germanic Marcomanni tribesman he would have had no form of writing to put down his mathematical theories and technological engineering masterpieces. He would also not have had any schools or academies on which to build a base of knowledge painstakingly achieved by his predecessors and passed down to him. Nothing is born out of a vacuum, his genius, for instance, was fostered by his environment. Yet most of his Greek contemporaries weren't wandering philosophers, they were just ordinary commoners who didn't make much of a difference aside from inventing new farming tools and techniques on occasion. The Slavs, living in the far corners of northeastern Europe that were far removed from the developed world at the time, had no chance to deliver opportunities of higher education to the members of their tribes, nothing beyond oral storytelling which is a poor instrument at precisely preserving information.
This attitude is precisely the fallacy I was pointing out. This is plainly untrue. Recent finds in Central Europe about the Early Bronze Age for example indicate an extremely unexpected level of sophistication that was only uncovered with most modern archaelogy. Why? Because the main building material of Central Europe was wood and they have no known writing (which would not know about anyway) because wood rots. In fact there seems som indication of proto writing. The danger here is the factor of our ignorance about what has been lost.
"Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
Mangalore Design
The west bank of the Rhine was clearly more integrated with the larger classical world than the east bank and had more trade and technology as a result, but neither were terribly far behind the Italians and Greeks. The Greeks had some technological marvels under their belt but they were hardly widespread. Just because you can build a mechanical computer or various other gadgets is not really shaping society if they aren't widespread. Its the difference between the Victorians and Steam Punk. In Steam Punk what was actually the cutting edge technology is widespread and the cutting edge is brought even further forward as a result.
A German was living a pastoral existence with his crops and his flock and his family with little form of government beyond that. The old forests made each farmstead its own little kingdom fostering the uniquely German liberties. There were towns and a few cities though, many of which are still in existence today.
Gaul was ruled by petty kings and formed more cohesive tribal states with cities and laws and order. They had coinage and crafts and were quite wealthy. Caesar conquered Gaul for the loot and the glory. He got both in spades.
Last edited by Col. Tartleton; June 23, 2014 at 09:25 AM.
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
Lol the funny thing is, despite the trolling, the slavs did manage to take over most of the Balkans and Central Europe to the Elbe from like 500A.D.-1000, and the populations of peoples like the Serbs, Poles, and the cities of the Kievan Rus were pretty much unprecedented for the areas they settled. I mean, when you look at it from a sense of weather the slavs had more advanced science or engineering or literature, obviously they are inferior to most medditerranian Ancient/late antiquity/dark ages/early/high middle ages culture, but the managed to take a huge area of territory in a rather short ammount of time, and not just conquer it, but actually settle and occupy it for the rest of history. Sure, the slavs didnt have Libraries of Alexandria or steam engines or whatnot, but they excelled at the Mundane basics of civilization of farming/population growth and defensive warfare
Low speed, High Drag
Yes the Slav culture and language certainly suited the crashed out economy and environment of post Classical Eastern Europe. They absorbed the older Iranian steppe peoples as well as dominating the mountainous Balkans and the forests of the north, in competition with traces of older Thrakian and Illyrian ways of life as well as the very attractive Hellenic/Roman/post-classical Roman ("Byzantine") civilisations. A vigorous and adaptive culture for sure.
So if you were drwing up a culture profile in computer game terms, I'd guess Gallic (Keltic) culture would start with a tech bonus and an elite status bonus to encourage uptake by other cultures leaders, but a political division penalty making it hard for them to form lasting polities. Germanic culture would have a tech negative and a marginal region survival bonus as they did well in swamps as well as horde-formation bonus late game, and the later spawning Slav culture would have a military leader neg (usually they were pushed around by Avars, Magyars, Varangians etc before they absorbed them), a population increase bonus and a multiple enviroment adaption bonus.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
The "Celts" were certainly more advanced in every technological field that I know of, with perhaps agriculture being equal. The one aspect in which the "Germani" surpassed the "Celts" in was warfare. Even though the Gauls and "Celts" elsewhere had a technological advantage (some having chain armor, metal weapons, bigger horses, etc.), they just got trounced whenever warfare erupted between the two cultures. Starting with the Teutons and Cimbri whirling through Gaul (of course the Boii rebuffed them) Ariovistus and his lot crushed the Gallic coalition, the Suebi pushing out the Boii, and many other situations throughout history after the 50's AD. Even in the east you have the "Celtic" culture was being subjugated and displaced by the "Germani" such as Vandals, Guthones (Goths) etc.
To add where gaming was mentioned I would add:
So if you were drwing up a culture profile in computer game terms, I'd guess Gallic (Keltic) culture would suffer a substantial negative when fighting "Germani", as well as a there being a very low uprising chance amongst the Gallic (Keltic) when dominated by the "Germani".
Hello, Frostwulf, how have you been? I would disagree with you assessment for various reasons. Ariovistus came into the picture at the end of things. For example, The Germans of Caesar states:
And it was this internal warfare, so endemic of the Celts, that was their undoing. It must be stressed that warfare in Celtic circles (except for migratory expansion) was among the aristocracy and warrior classes - not the entire populace taking up arms. This warfare was meant to spare non-combatants and 'civilians' from devastation. And it was this ravaging and loss of the aristocracy that enabled Caesar to wage war against the Gauls successfully. Same with Ariovistus. Had Caesar, or Ariovistus, fought a battle after battle against the intact professional forces of the Gallic tribes, things may have been different.These same Helvetians had
recently proved themselves no match for the Romans, and if
Ariovistus had defeated the Gauls it was after they had been exhausted
by internal struggles, and, further, it had been more by
strategy than valour.
Also, consider the context of how/why Ariovistus was hired. The Sequani were warring, unsuccessfully, with the Aedui. Now, do you hire forces when battles are going your way? Do you spend countless gold coins on extra forces because you are victorious? D you wager land and hostages to troops when victory is near? No, you do not, but these things are mentioned as happening. We can reasonably conclude that the overall need for Ariovistus' forces were to aid the war effort of the Sequani.
No I would not say that the Germans were better fighters - at all. In fact I would say that the Germans were cowardly.
Yes, I said they were more cowardly overall.
Consider these accounts. Hengst and Horsa, Arminius, Ariovistus, etc..these guys seemed to never fought a pitched battle against equal forces or overwhelming odds that I have read. Instead they ambushed and/or preyed upon weaker forces. It is a fact if you look at the accounts of these Germans. Ariovistus hid, yes hid in a swamp while the Aedui were calling for him to fight. Arminius ambushed a column of Romans in a forest while lying his way all along. Hengst and Horsa noticed the absent forces of the Romano-Britons and decided to invade. Where is the overcoming of great battles and daring campaigns against mighty foes. There are none. Now, look at Celtic accounts and see how they compare. The Celts were the braver of the two cultures I'd argue, overall, in how they executed warfare.
______________________
The Celts and Dacian iron tools and metal working were not equaled until the 16-17th centuries. I think the Celts showed a greater ability to use and shape the iron IMHO, though. Agriculturally the Celts have the edge. Plows that could turn soil twice, the burying and preserving of grain in underground 'silos', etc... is something they were a first in. Even the vallus, the Belgic mule/donkey/horse harvester was awesome, even if it did not revolutionize harvesting. The Celts were the most, or among the most, advanced in medical ability. Most of us are aware of skulls found with healed bore holes and accounts from the Romans of hiring Celtic surgeons throughout the late B.C. and A.D.
The Celts breed the better horses, even though they pale in comparison to the eastern Scythian breeds in size and power. However, the smaller pony breeds the Celts used (and, I presume, the even smaller Germanic ones found east of the Rhine from skeletal remains) were more hardy and disease resistant as modern medicine shows. The Romans had the larger cows and bovines though. IIRC mules were first brought to Gaul from the Romans.
Anyway, the Germans and Celts were awesome, and I love the whippin' that they laid on the Romans
EDIT: I'd say that the Germans were opportunists fighters more than the Celts. This served them, well in the big picture of things.
Last edited by Mulattothrasher; June 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM.
Caesar wrote in "Gallic Wars" that some of the Gallic towns were fortified. The long drawn out Siege of Alesia testifies to this. The Germanic Saxon towns and Visigothic/Vandal ones were largely old Roman ones. The Germanic peoples seem to have more successfully resisted Roman conquest though. The Celtic Picts were never conquered unlike their continental cousins. The Irish weren't either but as far as we know the Romans didn't try though Agricola toyed with the idea.
Last edited by Geronimo2006; June 27, 2014 at 02:35 PM.
Colonialism 1600AD - 2016 Modding Awards for "Compilations and Overhauls".
Core i7 2600 @ 3.4ghz - NVIDIA GTX950 2GB
Colonialism 1600 AD blog
^I blame the infrastructure.
So basically the Germanics realized battles and wars were about winning, while the Gauls thought it was a friendly football match?
Because acting cowardly, as in hiding, raiding, seizing targets of opportunity and ambushing, is exactly how wars are supposed to be fought. Gathering in a big field and getting yourselves slaughtered is not brave, it's dumb.
Some day I'll actually write all the reviews I keep promising...
I never got this attitude that the victories acomplished by ambushes and clever out manuvering were cowardly, It seem's a bit disconnected from reality to assume, for example, that the german victories over romans are less impressive because they were fought in ambushes and exploiting enemy weakness. I mean god forbid an inferiorily armed defender not engage the enemy in terms that suit the invader.
That fits with what I've read. At the time of Caesar's conquests, the Gauls already had a society based on agricultural surplus, which leads to specialisation and social stratification. It's been argued that it is precisely this why the Gauls readily adapted to the Roman way of life afterwards. What has become apparent, though, is that, probably due to exposure to their new Roman neighbours, the Germanic peoples very rapidly became civilized. Perhaps that should be put in parentheses though. Civilisation here meant you'd find warlords and their entourage forming a new social elite, who depended for their wealth and status on repressing others. Though the development of an elite means we see find evidence of an advanced material culture, it's really doubtful whether ordinary folk would have considered this an improvement.
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -