Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81

Thread: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

  1. #41
    Mulattothrasher's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    With the Thrash Metal Maniacs!
    Posts
    2,599

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Sure ambushes and hiding and attacking weaker and more non existent forces is effective - time and again in history this is shown. My point thought is that it does not seem to be the braver tactic when less risk is involved. Go big or go home. And no, Celts were not anti ambush. Ambiorix and his forces ambushed slew around 8-9,000 Romans in the Gallic War; the battle of Litana in 216 B.C. could be seen as a type of ambush where the Boii felled trees upon the Romans as they marched.

    And fighting naked has to be one of the ultimate expressions of bravery that I can think of in the ancient world .

    But like I was showing, the Celts did have the more advanced culture but some of this was from it's proximity to the Mediterranean. Lets say the Jastorf culture was closer to the Hellenistic world and the La Tene and Halstatt was farther north, then the Jastorf culture would have been the more advanced form overall from being closer to the Mediterranean world. Excavations show that in Gaul, Germany, Britain, and other places the financial centers in the oppida were very nice for the time, and this enables the great growth of Celtic economical power, population and trade. This resulted in the 'shrinking' or reduction of the constant need for warfare. The Celtic warrior classes and aristocracy now after the great migratory expansions all over Europe could consolidated the gains. There was less need to pursue warfare, since you are not expanding all over the place, when business and agricultural and other pursuits could net you wealth of various levels. Part of the attraction of the the La Tene world that the Germanic tribes coveted was this wealth, at least Caesar makes it known, but that is reasonable. Look that the Celtic incursions in Northern Italy. Perhaps it was only wine, but there was much wealth and trade to be had regardless, especially from prolific mercenary activity for just about every power in the known world at the time.

    This comparison bwtween Celt and Germans is as different as it is the same. In the late 1c B.C. Ariovistus and the Seubi elite would have looked much like the Gallic elite. Archaeology shows a continued presence of La Tene items on the east bank of the Rhine where both Celts and Germans lived, in addition to the newly arriving Jastorf culture. Ariovistus and his soldiers would have used La Tene blades, likely chainmail, and Agen or Port helmets for Celtic make. Maybe the Montefortino helmets of the Volcae and Boii used in central Germany would be used by many Jastorf elite. Although, it is know that the Germans wore more tight fitting clothing, while the Celts wore typically looser fits.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    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:

    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.
    Why do you use this quote when you know it's erroneous? Do you still refuse to look it up yourself as I have asked you to multiple times? Have I not shown you the translations of multiple historians? There are multiple methods for you to use online Latin translators, or dictionaries or many other methods. This 1908 rendition is simply wrong, but to prove it yet once again I'll list some of the same passage from professionals:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Caesar-"The Gallic War"
    the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet can not have been a match for our army. If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus... Book 1,40
    Caesar's Gallic War: Interlinear ... - Google Books
    the Gauls being wearied by the long-continuance of the war,

    Quote Originally Posted by Caesar-"The Gallic War"
    -and yet the Helvetti had proved no match for our army.
    Perhaps, he went on, some of those present were disturbed by the defeat and flight of the Gauls. But if they took the trouble to inquire they would discover that the Gauls had been worn down by the long duration of the campaign, before Ariovistus...... book 1, 40 Carlyn Hammond

    pg.64
    http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html
    might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...vistus&f=false
    ...that Ariovistus confining himself many months to his camp and fastnessess, and declining a general action, had thereby tired out the Gauls with the length of the war; who despairing of at last of a battle, and beginning to disperse, were thereupon attacked and routed, rather by conduct and craft,...

    The one by Loeb (H.J.Edwards) uses the term "worn out" and in some interpretations I have seen fatigued.

    Nothing about being exhausted by internal struggles, your author is simply wrong. Again all you have to do is an easy Latin translation yourself and you will see he is wrong. The Gauls just got tired of waiting for Ariovistus to come out and battle. Please take the time to do the research yourself instead of using a poorly translated document.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    And it was this internal warfare, so endemic of the Celts, that was their undoing.
    It depends on what you consider endemic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Caesar-"The Gallic War"
    The second class is that composed of the knights. When necessity arises and some war flares up -which befoe Caesar's arrivals used to happen almost every year, so that they were either on the offensive themselves or fending off attacks - they are all involved in the campaign. book 6,15 Carlyn Hammond
    Yes it was endemic, there were the cattle raids and petty squabbles but not the huge slugfest's your thinking of.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    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.
    The only mention of the Aristocracy being heavily defeated is by Ariovistus and his "Germani"
    Quote Originally Posted by Caesar-"The Gallic War"
    that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry... book 1,31
    Furthermore when the historians I post refer to saving manpower, that especially was true for the nobility!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon James "The World of the Celts"
    " The complex web of clientage and alliance which Caesar reveals in Gaul was largely based on the outcome of frequent wars. The theater of combat was where many personal and tribal relations were tested, broken and forged. We may suppose conflicts ranged from great wars associated with migrations of whole peoples to mere brigandage, inter-family feuds, and cattle raids by individual warriors seeking quick wealth and prestige. Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause. Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms. War did not threaten the fabric of society as a whole, even if the fortunes of the individual clans and tribes did wax and wane. It would be probably also be wrong to think that love of war was confined to the nobility, at the expense of the suffering of a pacifist peasantry: admiration for the warrior ethic appears to have been general, and was not restricted to men either (see box). Violence was endemic, but sufficiently intermittent for most people to get on with their lives successfully most of the time: warlike display was at least as important as actual fighting." pg. 74
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cunliffe-“The Celtic World”
    Only if spirits ran high would general battle ensue, and then if such a situation threatened, the priests could intervene. In other words, we are dealing with ritualized warfare sparing of manpower. Contact with the Romans, of course, changed all this. Pg.58
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"
    "Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home. As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56
    So yes most of the battles were among the elite- aristocracy, but there was still limiting social mechanisms, ritualized sparing of manpower, moral defeats, etc. You will notice that the amount of men mentioned are a few score, Goldsworthy mentions the Nobles and yes warfare is endemic, but again the sparing of manpower and etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    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.
    Read Caesar book 6 and you will see how Gallic society was set up at this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caesar-"The Gallic War"
    "The same principle applies to the country of Gaul as a whole; all the tribes are grouped in two factions. When I first came to Gaul, the Aedui were leaders of one of these groups, and the Sequani of the other. The Sequani were the weaker of the two when considered as a power by themselves, because the Aedui had from ancient times enjoyed very great prestige and had many dependent tribes. Pg.119/ book 6,12 Wiseman,Cunliffe
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cunliffe-“The Celtic World”
    Another factor affecting the tribal map was the changing fortunes of the individual tribes - a tribe, powerful at one moment with many lesser tribes dependent upon it, might suddenly lose prestige and sink into oblivion. The situation in Gaul in the middle of the first century B.C. provides an insight into these matters. There were two principal factions headed, respectively, by the Aedui and the Sequani. Caesar sums up the situation: “As the Aedui had long enjoyed very great prestige and had many satellite tribes, the Sequani were the weaker of the two since they depended on their own resources”. It would seem then that a system of clientage existed at tribal level, the principal tribes receiving tribute from the satellites, presumably in return for protection. Pg.66
    Of course the Sequani/Arverni called in the "Germani", as this would be a big boost to their prestige, as the Aedui had prestige for being "friends of the Romans". After multiple battles the power's changed and many tribes came over to the Sequani/Arverni faction. It was a balance of power situation that dealt with prestige, and even though Ariovistus and his "Germani" heavily defeated the Aedui, you can read that there were still plenty of nobility left for that particular tribe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    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.
    Well these people would disagree with you:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelius Tacitus-“Germania”
    To retreat, provided that you return to the attack, is considered crafty rather than cowardly. They bring in the bodies of the fallen even when the battle hangs in the balance. To throw away one's shield is the supreme disgrace; the guilty wretch is debarred from sacrifice or council. Men have often survived battle only to end their shame by hanging themselves. 6
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelius Tacitus-“Germania”
    On the field of battle it is a disgrace to the chief to be surpassed in valour by his companions, to the companions not to come up to the valour of their chief. As for leaving a battle alive after your chief has fallen, that means lifelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect him, to put down one's own acts of heroism to his credit that is what they really mean by `allegiance'. The chiefs fight for victory, the companions for their chief. Many noble youths, if the land of their birth is stagnating in a protracted peace, deliberately seek out other tribes, where some war is afoot. The Germans have no taste for peace; renown is easier won among perils, and you cannot maintain a large body of companions except by violence and war. The companions are prodigal in their demands on the generosity of their chiefs. It is always `give me that war-horse' or `give me that bloody and victorious spear'. As for meals with their plentiful, if homely, fare, they count simply as pay. Such open-handedness must have war and plunder to feed it. You will find it harder to persuade a German to plough the land and to await its annual produce with patience than to challenge a foe and earn the prize of wounds. He thinks it spiritless and slack to gain by sweat what he can buy with blood. 14
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrian-“The Campaigns of Alexander”
    [1]The third day after the battle Alexander reached the Danube. Europe’s largest river, the Danube traverses the most territory, and beyond it dwell the most warlike races, principally the Celtic tribes in whose territory the river’s springs emerge, the farthest of whom are the Quadi and the Marcomanni. [2]It then flows past the Iazyges in the land of the Sauromatai, the Getae, who think themselves immortal; the many tribes of the Sauromatai; and then through the Scythians’ territory until it flows to its outlets and empties through five mouths into the Black Sea. Book 1.3.1-2
    Arrian calls "Germani" - "Celts" as with most Greek writers of his time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Caesar-“The Gallic War”
    “Our men started asking questions and the Gauls and traders replied by describing how tall and strong the Germans were, how unbelievably brave and skillful with weapons. Often, they claimed, when they had met the Germans in battle they had been unable to stand even the way they looked, the sternness of their gaze. Book 1.39 Carolyn Hammond.
    Quote Originally Posted by Josephus-“The Antiquities of the Jews”
    The men of that country are naturally passionate, which is commonly the temper of some other of the barbarous nations also, as being not used to consider much about what they do; they are of robust bodies and fall upon their enemies as soon as ever they are attacked by them; and which way soever they go, they perform great exploits. When, therefore, these German guards understood that Caius was slain, they were very sorry for it, because they did not use their reason in judging about public affairs, but measured all by the advantages themselves received, Caius being beloved by them because of the money he gave them, by which he had purchased their kindness to him; so they drew their swords, and Sabinus led them on. Book 19.15
    There are battles that exemplify this, but also lets look at some modern authors and their take on these things:
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Sidnell
    "Warhorse"-"Caesar sent out his Gallic cavalry to engage them but these, being identical to the enemy but far fewer in numbers, quickly got into difficulties. Caesar now sent in his four hundred German riders, whom he had held back as a reserve, and 'their charge overpowered the enemy, who were put to flight and fell back with heavy loss on their main body'. The town surrendered." pg.232
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldsworthy “Caesar”
    "Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldsworthy “Caesar”
    “The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael P. Speidel-"Riding for Caesar"
    "Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
    Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"
    One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Freeman-“Julius Caesar”
    Caesar conveniently downplays the fact that he himself had been a major supporter of Ariovistus when the Germanic leader had earlier sought Roman friendship. Nevertheless, as disingenuous as Caesar is in his narrative at this point, he was absolutely right to call the Germans a threat to Rome. For many years the Germanic tribes had been spreading steadily southward out of their homeland in northern Europe. With their exploding population and unmatched skill in war, they had already pushed the Celts out of southern Germany and were now threatening Gaul. Pg.134
    That was but a few samplings of both classical and modern, I have many more citations claiming the "Germani" to be bold and excellent fighters. Of course you could read Caesar and see the battles that happened there, this also flies in the face of your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    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.
    True Ariovistus hid until the break up of the united Gallic forces who greatly outnumbered his 15,000 warriors:
    "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.
    Yet Ariovistus consistently defeated the Aedui faction and gained a fierce reputation for those battles. You know the unbelievably brave and skillful with weapons reputation.
    Arminius also had two stand up fights against Germanicus which he did lose. Of course Arminius almost destroyed a good portion of the Romans there as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Shotter-"Tiberius Caesar"
    In the event, Tiberius' misgivings were completely vindicated; despite Germanicus' obvious conviction that success could be won at no great cost, little was achieved, and losses were incurred both at the hands of the enemy and as a result of atrocious weather conditions. Further, conditions were so unpredictable that one of Germanicus' battle-groups very nearly suffered the same fate as that of Varus six years previously - and at the hands of the same enemy, Arminius, chief of the Cherusci tribe. pg.36
    There is much much more to these situations, but I have run out of time. I will leave you with this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Goldsworthy-"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"
    It was not a question of the Roman army having to provoke unwilling Germans into a massed encounter which these were likely to lose. Normally the Germans were only too willing to confront an attacking Roman army. pg.53
    Looking at the warfare of the "Germani" they were more prone to have a massed encounter then ambush's. Reading the history it is surprising how many times the Romans used ambushes or flying columns (quick surprise attacks) to defeat the "Germani". Are the Romans cowardly?

  3. #43

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Gosh, this remind me all over again the good ol' threads about who was the best among "Barbarians" (obviously the Thraco-Getae-Dacians) .

    In this particular case of Celt vs Germans (that was much discussed as well) I think is obvious Celts have a more developed society and technology, is hard to argue here.
    About warfare, well, this can be debatable indeed, and Germanics can claim to be the better at least as much as Celts can claim if not more, especially from a point on.
    Last edited by diegis; June 28, 2014 at 09:04 AM.

  4. #44
    Mulattothrasher's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    With the Thrash Metal Maniacs!
    Posts
    2,599

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf View Post
    Why do you use this quote when you know it's erroneous? Do you still refuse to look it up yourself as I have asked you to multiple times? Have I not shown you the translations of multiple historians? There are multiple methods for you to use online Latin translators, or dictionaries or many other methods. This 1908 rendition is simply wrong, but to prove it yet once again I'll list some of the same passage from professionals:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Caesar's Gallic War: Interlinear ... - Google Books
    the Gauls being wearied by the long-continuance of the war,




    pg.64
    http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html
    might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...vistus&f=false
    ...that Ariovistus confining himself many months to his camp and fastnessess, and declining a general action, had thereby tired out the Gauls with the length of the war; who despairing of at last of a battle, and beginning to disperse, were thereupon attacked and routed, rather by conduct and craft,...

    The one by Loeb (H.J.Edwards) uses the term "worn out" and in some interpretations I have seen fatigued.

    Nothing about being exhausted by internal struggles, your author is simply wrong. Again all you have to do is an easy Latin translation yourself and you will see he is wrong. The Gauls just got tired of waiting for Ariovistus to come out and battle. Please take the time to do the research yourself instead of using a poorly translated document.
    Not sure what the issue is. I am aware of this source that you linked above:

    In short, that these were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet can not have been a match for our army. If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor.

    And I quoted this, which you have an issue with this:

    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.


    These seem to show the same point, but am I misunderstanding you?


    It depends on what you consider endemic:

    Yes it was endemic, there were the cattle raids and petty squabbles but not the huge slugfest's your thinking of.

    The only mention of the Aristocracy being heavily defeated is by Ariovistus and his "Germani"
    Furthermore when the historians I post refer to saving manpower, that especially was true for the nobility!

    So yes most of the battles were among the elite- aristocracy, but there was still limiting social mechanisms, ritualized sparing of manpower, moral defeats, etc. You will notice that the amount of men mentioned are a few score, Goldsworthy mentions the Nobles and yes warfare is endemic, but again the sparing of manpower and etc.
    Mass warrior burials do not show evidence of petty squabbles. Ribemont sur Ancre, Ham Hill, and plenty other burial sites show that violence between the Celts was normal. The evidence clearly show the Gauls were a warrior society that evolved faster ways of killing. Sword suspension belts were designed to draw a sword faster as you advanced to fight, helmets designed to deflect blows, spear tips to rend flesh instead of simply pierce it. There is more evidence of Celtic warriors killing than of simply warring against cattle thieves and minor incursions. We've seen the skeletal remains at burial sites, inside and outside of oppida and in mass graves. Entire sites and fortress oppida were not besieged over petty squabbles as it take thousands of men, both nobles and levies, to even begin to take one.


    For example, the BG says:
    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 inflecting injuries or repelling those which others inflected on them), are all engaged in war.

    Certainly Caesar would know the difference between a real war and minor raids. Were he was talking about noble bands vs each other, how would only a few score of men on each side, as you quote, be called a 'war'? This does not sound reasonable. War would entail larger forces fighting each other repeatedly if needed - not just a few score nobles raiding through the land.


    Well these people would disagree with you:
    They are not attempting to compare Celt vs German in anything, though.

    “Our men started asking questions and the Gauls and traders replied by describing how tall and strong the Germans were, how unbelievably brave and skillful with weapons. Often, they claimed, when they had met the Germans in battle they had been unable to stand even the way they looked, the sternness of their gaze. Book 1.39 Carolyn Hammond.
    This is obvious propaganda, like much in the BG (a very large list can be made), where Caesar repeatedly hypes up certain aspects of the story to his audience to make his action seem greater. Who doesn't love an easy identifiable big bad guys (Ariovistus) beating up on some helpless people (Gaul), who can be saved by a good guy (Caesar)?

    But notice immediately after Caesar defeats the Germans, who were the bad guys at first, he suddenly starts to offer them are praise throughout the BG.

    Originally Posted by Josephus-“The Antiquities of the Jews”
    The men of that country are naturally passionate, which is commonly the temper of some other of the barbarous nations also, as being not used to consider much about what they do; they are of robust bodies and fall upon their enemies as soon as ever they are attacked by them; and which way soever they go, they perform great exploits. When, therefore, these German guards understood that Caius was slain, they were very sorry for it, because they did not use their reason in judging about public affairs, but measured all by the advantages themselves received, Caius being beloved by them because of the money he gave them, by which he had purchased their kindness to him; so they drew their swords, and Sabinus led them on. Book 19.15

    Arrian-“The Campaigns of Alexander”
    [1]The third day after the battle Alexander reached the Danube. Europe’s largest river, the Danube traverses the most territory, and beyond it dwell the most warlike races, principally the Celtic tribes in whose territory the river’s springs emerge, the farthest of whom are the Quadi and the Marcomanni. [2]It then flows past the Iazyges in the land of the Sauromatai, the Getae, who think themselves immortal; the many tribes of the Sauromatai; and then through the Scythians’ territory until it flows to its outlets and empties through five mouths into the Black Sea. Book 1.3.1-2
    Well it should be said that this is the general description every Mediterranean nation gave every Celt, German, or barbarian in general.

    Cornelius Tacitus-“Germania”
    On the field of battle it is a disgrace to the chief to be surpassed in valour by his companions, to the companions not to come up to the valour of their chief. As for leaving a battle alive after your chief has fallen, that means lifelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect him, to put down one's own acts of heroism to his credit that is what they really mean by `allegiance'. The chiefs fight for victory, the companions for their chief. Many noble youths, if the land of their birth is stagnating in a protracted peace, deliberately seek out other tribes, where some war is afoot. The Germans have no taste for peace; renown is easier won among perils, and you cannot maintain a large body of companions except by violence and war. The companions are prodigal in their demands on the generosity of their chiefs. It is always `give me that war-horse' or `give me that bloody and victorious spear'. As for meals with their plentiful, if homely, fare, they count simply as pay. Such open-handedness must have war and plunder to feed it. You will find it harder to persuade a German to plough the land and to await its annual produce with patience than to challenge a foe and earn the prize of wounds. He thinks it spiritless and slack to gain by sweat what he can buy with blood. 14
    Virtually the exact same praise and description is used to describe Celts, Celtiberians, Dacians, other Germans, and barbarians in general. Most of these cultures were very much alike.

    There are battles that exemplify this, but also lets look at some modern authors and their take on these things:

    One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

    "Warhorse"-"Caesar sent out his Gallic cavalry to engage them but these, being identical to the enemy but far fewer in numbers, quickly got into difficulties. Caesar now sent in his four hundred German riders, whom he had held back as a reserve, and 'their charge overpowered the enemy, who were put to flight and fell back with heavy loss on their main body'. The town surrendered." pg.232

    "Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274

    “The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229
    Understanding the background of this, it is apparent that a rather fresh force, no matter if Celt or German, whose men are not exhausted through years of war, perform admirably, especially when intact and allied with Roman troops.

    The reputation of most nations of cultures could be enhanced by warring against exhausted foes. Replace the Germans with the Dacians, or the Numidians, or the Illyrians. It would be a similar outcome against a weary foe.

    "Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
    Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12
    Caesar says the battle was very close - a cavalry charge made the difference. And there are countless examples of cavalry, of all sizes, turning a battle in history.

    That was but a few samplings of both classical and modern, I have many more citations claiming the "Germani" to be bold and excellent fighters. Of course you could read Caesar and see the battles that happened there, this also flies in the face of your claim.
    Every culture had brave and excellent fighters. However between the accomplishments militarily between Celt and German, the Celts showed themselves to be the braver in battle throughout history, overall, compared to the Germans. Your sources do not mention Celts vs German in a normal, not one side having Roman help or a large advantage in war weariness vs fresh troops.

    True Ariovistus hid until the break up of the united Gallic forces who greatly outnumbered his 15,000 warriors. Yet Ariovistus consistently defeated the Aedui faction and gained a fierce reputation for those battles. You know the unbelievably brave and skillful with weapons reputation.
    He defeated a force that had partially demobilized and went home. There is nothing inspiring about that. Again, there was no pitched battle between Celts and Germans here. He most likely knew that he would be overwhelmed, so he waited until things were more in his favor numerically and surprise attacked them when they were unready - nothing wrong with that, but it was not really a valid comparison between the two forces.

    The Nervii, on the other hand, thought nothing of crossing a river, running uphill, and then attacking the Romans. Even Caesar mention what a disadvantageous place it was for them to attack.

    There is much much more to these situations, but I have run out of time. I will leave you with this:

    Looking at the warfare of the "Germani" they were more prone to have a massed encounter then ambush's. Reading the history it is surprising how many times the Romans used ambushes or flying columns (quick surprise attacks) to defeat the "Germani". Are the Romans cowardly?
    Rome was not an ambush designed army. They lived for pitched battle and did not do much lurking in the shadows. That being said, yes, they were a cowardly lot. They never picked on anyone their own size it seems like

  5. #45

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    @diegis
    Yes same old thing
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Not sure what the issue is. I am aware of this source that you linked above:

    In short, that these were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet can not have been a match for our army. If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor.

    And I quoted this, which you have an issue with this:

    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.


    These seem to show the same point, but am I misunderstanding you?
    Your source claims that the exhaustian, fatigue, worn out, tired out etc. was due to "internal struggles" which is completely wrong, as evidenced with the rest of the paragraph:
    Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement
    Again this fatigue was due to the Gauls waiting for Ariovistus to come out to fight, not due to internal struggles as your author wrongly interprets.Read the other interpretations I have posted and you will see that I am correct.
    ..that Ariovistus confining himself many months to his camp and fastnessess, and declining a general action, had thereby tired out the Gauls with the length of the war; who despairing of at last of a battle, and beginning to disperse, were thereupon attacked and routed, rather by conduct and craft,...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Mass warrior burials do not show evidence of petty squabbles. Ribemont sur Ancre, Ham Hill, and plenty other burial sites show that violence between the Celts was normal. The evidence clearly show the Gauls were a warrior society that evolved faster ways of killing. Sword suspension belts were designed to draw a sword faster as you advanced to fight, helmets designed to deflect blows, spear tips to rend flesh instead of simply pierce it. There is more evidence of Celtic warriors killing than of simply warring against cattle thieves and minor incursions. We've seen the skeletal remains at burial sites, inside and outside of oppida and in mass graves. Entire sites and fortress oppida were not besieged over petty squabbles as it take thousands of men, both nobles and levies, to even begin to take one.
    I have asked you many times before to give me a source, will you actually do so this time. I would really like to see who disagrees with S.James, King, Kahn, Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist etc. etc. You know the ones I have posted multiple times.
    Will you give me a real source this time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Certainly Caesar would know the difference between a real war and minor raids. Were he was talking about noble bands vs each other, how would only a few score of men on each side, as you quote, be called a 'war'? This does not sound reasonable. War would entail larger forces fighting each other repeatedly if needed - not just a few score nobles raiding through the land.
    I don't disagree with this, and neither do the sources I have posted either. Yes sometimes these confrontations got big, but that doesn't change that there were still limiting social factors, moral defeats etc. still being in place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    They are not attempting to compare Celt vs German in anything, though.
    Did you not read these quotes?
    "Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation"/“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”./One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. / and most the others did to.
    I'm starting to get that old feeling that I'm wasting my time with you!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    This is obvious propaganda, like much in the BG (a very large list can be made), where Caesar repeatedly hypes up certain aspects of the story to his audience to make his action seem greater. Who doesn't love an easy identifiable big bad guys (Ariovistus) beating up on some helpless people (Gaul), who can be saved by a good guy (Caesar)?
    Yes there was propaganda, but this part of the story makes sense. The Gauls had been thrashed multiple times by Ariovistus and his "Germani" and were afraid of them. Caesar's men started to become afraid from the stories of the Gauls. If this part were fictitious don't you think his men would have said something, certainly Caesars enemies would have. One other thing, Caesar does not portray the Gauls as helpless. When fighting the Helvetii he gives reason as to why the Gallic cavalry fled, he does this throughout his book.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    But notice immediately after Caesar defeats the Germans, who were the bad guys at first, he suddenly starts to offer them are praise throughout the BG.
    He praised them whether they were friend or foe. With the Usipi/Tencteri he said they were treacherous but at the same time he was impressed with their first engagement with the Romans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Well it should be said that this is the general description every Mediterranean nation gave every Celt, German, or barbarian in general.
    Except Arrian in this case was saying the most warlike in this area were the "Germani", especially the Marcomanni and Quadi.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Understanding the background of this, it is apparent that a rather fresh force, no matter if Celt or German, whose men are not exhausted through years of war, perform admirably, especially when intact and allied with Roman troops.

    The reputation of most nations of cultures could be enhanced by warring against exhausted foes. Replace the Germans with the Dacians, or the Numidians, or the Illyrians. It would be a similar outcome against a weary foe.
    It didn't happen to the Cimbri, the Romans, the north Italian Celts, the Suebi, the Usipeti/Tencteri/ the Helvetii (who fought the "Germani" almost daily), the Belgae (again who constantly fought the "Germani") and etc. etc. etc. But not only that, again as Caesar stated, the Gauls fought a war almost every year. The Aedui, Sequaini/Arverni were not at constant war, they might have cattle raids, but the wars were almost every year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Caesar says the battle was very close - a cavalry charge made the difference. And there are countless examples of cavalry, of all sizes, turning a battle in history.
    The difference is as the author said, the amount of men fighting. It's hardly just me, look at what the historians say about it. "It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference".
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Every culture had brave and excellent fighters. However between the accomplishments militarily between Celt and German, the Celts showed themselves to be the braver in battle throughout history, overall, compared to the Germans. Your sources do not mention Celts vs German in a normal, not one side having Roman help or a large advantage in war weariness vs fresh troops.
    I have given many examples of the "Germani" thrashing the "Celts", can you give me just one of the reverse? What of the Usipi/Tencteri 800 horse defeating the 5,000 Gallic cavalry of Caesar? Your statement is wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    He defeated a force that had partially demobilized and went home. There is nothing inspiring about that. Again, there was no pitched battle between Celts and Germans here. He most likely knew that he would be overwhelmed, so he waited until things were more in his favor numerically and surprise attacked them when they were unready - nothing wrong with that, but it was not really a valid comparison between the two forces.
    I mostly agree with you here, he would have been heavily outnumbered and waited. But there were many pitched battles between Ariovistus and the Aedui, in which Ariovistus never lost. If your implying the "Celts" were always brave, there are multiple battles where they turn tail and ran.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    The Nervii, on the other hand, thought nothing of crossing a river, running uphill, and then attacking the Romans. Even Caesar mention what a disadvantageous place it was for them to attack.
    Yes the Nevii were brave, but they don't help your argument as they are "Germani". That being said throughout the BG there were many instances were the "Celtic" Gauls were brave and effective. The only point here is that they lost to the "Germani" every time (according to the BG battles).
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Rome was not an ambush designed army. They lived for pitched battle and did not do much lurking in the shadows. That being said, yes, they were a cowardly lot. They never picked on anyone their own size it seems like
    I agree with the army description but disagree on courage, this has been shown many times in their history. The part about the ambush's was limited where the flying column was used frequently in the attacks on the unsuspecting "Germani"

    For me the most important thing I would like to see is you backing up your statement of the "Mass warrior burials do not show evidence of petty squabbles. Ribemont sur Ancre, Ham Hill, and plenty other burial sites show that violence between the Celts was normal." Where can I read about this.
    The second source would be about the "Celts" being braver then the "Germani".
    Last edited by Frostwulf; July 01, 2014 at 04:18 AM.

  6. #46
    Mulattothrasher's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    With the Thrash Metal Maniacs!
    Posts
    2,599

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    EDIT: Had to add and change things around....

    Again this fatigue was due to the Gauls waiting for Ariovistus to come out to fight, not due to internal struggles as your author wrongly interprets.Read the other interpretations I have posted and you will see that I am correct.
    The Aedui tired themselves out simply waiting for a fight to happen?

    John Collis, in Urbanization of Europe in the Iron Age shows much evidence for things in Arverni territory becoming disrupted that in the D1 period. There are signs of open settlements being abandoned with frequency. There is evidence of small, 'nucleated oppida' and fortified sites popping up in regions belonging to the Arverni. This turmoil was significant enough to cause entire populations to run to these small oppida for protection.

    I have asked you many times before to give me a source, will you actually do so this time. I would really like to see who disagrees with S.James, King, Kahn, Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist etc. etc. You know the ones I have posted multiple times.
    Will you give me a real source this time?
    What are you wanting sourced?

    "Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation"/“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”./One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. / and most the others did to.
    I'm starting to get that old feeling that I'm wasting my time with you!
    Why do you believe that technology guarantees a victory?

    Both Gaul and German, especially the elites, at this time used similar a similar panoply. It can argued that the Gauls were fighting similarly armed/armored opponents, using the same swords, shields, etc. The four horned saddle, with all it advantages, did not guarantee a victory on it's merits alone. With this the combined German-Roman alliance was more than a match against the Gauls.

    Still, sources of yours avoid examining the whole picture and they/you are only focused on a result, not the causes leading up to them. Looking for a source that examines the context of the *whole picture* may very well waste your time. They do not seem to account for, as an example, the issue of Gallic morale being damaged by various rumors of the German threat - all the more so after the Aedui were defeated. Seeing the big kid on the block get beaten can easily shake the confidence of others, can't it? How many armies, even knowing their enemy intimately and living right beside them, have been robbed of some of their fighting spirit by rumor spreading?

    Caesar's men started to become afraid from the stories of the Gauls. If this part were fictitious don't you think his men would have said something, certainly Caesars enemies would have.
    No other account of the BG exist. Of course dissenting accounts were done away with or did not survive.

    For me the most important thing I would like to see is you backing up your statement of the "Mass warrior burials do not show evidence of petty squabbles. Ribemont sur Ancre, Ham Hill, and plenty other burial sites show that violence between the Celts was normal." Where can I read about this.
    The second source would be about the "Celts" being braver then the "Germani".
    Skeleton weapon trauma of various forms is known in a Celtic/Gaulish context in Gaul and Britain. Even the surface of the weapons uncovered show repeated signs of being used in combat +2100 years later despite the weapons being in states of corrosion. I mean, you could look up Brunaux, Cadoux, or really anyone involved in dig where there are skeletons, and depending on the function of the site, you can see that mass violence involved in constructing many of them.

    Even if you only look at headless skeletons or things like that, there is an abundance of war related deaths. In addition, many of these sites are used over and over, with bodies continually being deposited over a century or more. As one really viscous example of this, there was an altar of sorts discovered, (though I think the jury is out if it was used as a death cult last I read), that was assembled of human arm and leg bones. These things can only be seen as very, very violent.

    It didn't happen to the Cimbri, the Romans, the north Italian Celts, the Suebi, the Usipeti/Tencteri/ the Helvetii (who fought the "Germani" almost daily), the Belgae (again who constantly fought the "Germani") and etc. etc. etc. But not only that, again as Caesar stated, the Gauls fought a war almost every year. The Aedui, Sequaini/Arverni were not at constant war, they might have cattle raids, but the wars were almost every year.
    This supports my argument in a different context.

    Notice how these Celts were rather successful against their German neighbors? It seems they were able to check them at the least. These tribes you mention are not the most wealthy or powerful in Gaul and most of all they did not have a violent war among themselves before fighting the newly arriving Germans. It is very reasonable to conclude that in the face of the successes of 'weaker' Celtic tribes 'winning' against Germans that the Arverni or Aedui or some other strong tribe, that was not racked by heightened warfare for years, would have stood a high chance of victory against Ariovistus and his warriors.

    Cattle raids, limiting social factors, and only a few scores of warriors running around would never cause these things.

    It is clear that Caesar decided to stay in Gaul for so long because of the fact he noticed how weak the major Gaulish tribes were from years fighting. He would not have hung around to fight against the Gallic tribal powers of unspent forces. This would have been too much to risk for even a sane Roman otherwise. And it is not a stretch of the imagination to understand that Arovistus profited from Sequani and Aedui warfare and seized some of their lands.
    Last edited by Mulattothrasher; July 05, 2014 at 04:24 AM.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    @Mulattothrasher
    This is almost an exact retread of what went on in our previous discussion. You say my sources "avoid examining the whole picture" when they are leaders in their field and among them is John Collis of whom you speak of. I have read his book and he in no way supports your view. Once again put a citation from him that supports you view. I have put many down, including from Collis! Once again all I get from you is your interpretation of things which is very faulty. You tell me to look up these digs myself, but obviously if there was something of substance you would have quoted it. Nope, all I get is your interpretation.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=1#post7895232

    Unfortunantly in the last debate you decided to distort citations to try to prove your point (Miranda Green), now you either just dont know what your talking about or your trying again to deceive me. First I say this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    For me the most important thing I would like to see is you backing up your statement of the "Mass warrior burials do not show evidence of petty squabbles. Ribemont sur Ancre, Ham Hill, and plenty other burial sites show that violence between the Celts was normal." Where can I read about this.
    The second source would be about the "Celts" being braver then the "Germani".
    Then you reply with this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Why can't you look these digs up yourself? I can tell you they will definitely not support your view of a few scores of men fighting, or moral defeats, and handfuls of nobles pretending to kill but stopping when the whistle is blown.
    Well I did look up the digs:
    http://archive.archaeology.org/0103/...cts/blood.html
    So what does this say:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean-Louis Brunaux-" Gallic Blood Rites"
    Archaeologists have now revealed that the Gauls did, in fact, build permanent ritual sites at places like Gournay-sur-Aronde and Ribemont-sur-Ancre in northern France. Dated to the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century B.C., these cult centers were the work of warlike tribes called the Belgae, thought to have arrived in northern Gaul from central Europe at the end of the great Celtic invasions of the fourth century B.C. The rituals performed at Gournay-sur-Aronde and Ribemont-sur-Ancre, however, went well beyond animal sacrifice, a commonplace rite among the Greeks and Romans, and included the triumphant display of the remains of enemies killed in battle or sacrificed to the gods of the underworld, from whom the Gauls believed they were descended. Jean-Louis Brunaux directs excavations at Ribemont-sur-Ancre and is the author of Les Religions Galoises (Paris: Editions Errance, 1996).
    Not only are these in the wrong time frame, they have nothing to do with the Aedui and the Arverni/Sequani! This deals with the Belgae which has nothing to do with your so called "Devastating Civil War".
    Ham Hill is in Britain and again has nothing to do with this situation.

    I know you have a good knowledge of "Celts" in general, and we both know they were very good warriors. But this so-called "Devastating Civil War" never happened, and I have shown you many times from multiple sources (Doctorates in archaeology and history) that your simply wrong. When you have a hard time grasping what Caesar was saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting for Ariovistus to appear:
    that Ariovistus confining himself many months to his camp and fastnessess, and declining a general action, had thereby tired out the Gauls with the length of the war; who despairing of at last of a battle, and beginning to disperse, were thereupon attacked and routed, rather by conduct and craft,...
    I can't make it any simpler, and as I have said before, check it out yourself. There are plenty of interpretations online and tools so you can do it yourself.
    When you decide to put down something other then your own opinion then we can continue this discussion, until then it is pointless.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    The Gauls were better warriors than the Germans.....in the La Trene culture. The trade from foreign nations plus the division of Gaul made military service less attractive. Caesar clearly says this in the beginning of his commentaries. The Gauls used to have set up long colonies across the Rhine, now they were constantly raided by the Germans.

    You don't believe Caesar? Then don't him as a source for the fierceness of the Germanic warriors.(where almost all modern sources come from usually)

  9. #49

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    The Gauls were better warriors than the Germans.....in the La Trene culture. The trade from foreign nations plus the division of Gaul made military service less attractive. Caesar clearly says this in the beginning of his commentaries. The Gauls used to have set up long colonies across the Rhine, now they were constantly raided by the Germans.

    You don't believe Caesar? Then don't him as a source for the fierceness of the Germanic warriors.(where almost all modern sources come from usually)
    I have no problem with Caesar and most of his writings. The thing is he was ignorant of the situation on the east side of the Rhine of the time he was referring to. There were no "Germani" in the region Caesar refers to when the Volcae Tectosages went across the Rhine. There were only other "Celtic" peoples.

  10. #50
    Mulattothrasher's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    With the Thrash Metal Maniacs!
    Posts
    2,599

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf View Post
    @Mulattothrasher
    This is almost an exact retread of what went on in our previous discussion. You say my sources "avoid examining the whole picture" when they are leaders in their field and among them is John Collis of whom you speak of. I have read his book and he in no way supports your view. Once again put a citation from him that supports you view. I have put many down, including from Collis! Once again all I get from you is your interpretation of things which is very faulty. You tell me to look up these digs myself, but obviously if there was something of substance you would have quoted it. Nope, all I get is your interpretation.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=1#post7895232
    I have no problem with Collis. How do you dismiss his archaeology on the turmoil that seemed to affect the Arverni's population?What were they running to these oppida for?

    Unfortunantly in the last debate you decided to distort citations to try to prove your point (Miranda Green), now you either just dont know what your talking about or your trying again to deceive me.
    No idea what you mean. You points are buried in a wall of quotes so you are going to have to tell me....

    Well I did look up the digs:
    http://archive.archaeology.org/0103/...cts/blood.html
    So what does this say:
    Not only are these in the wrong time frame, they have nothing to do with the Aedui and the Arverni/Sequani! This deals with the Belgae which has nothing to do with your so called "Devastating Civil War".
    Ham Hill is in Britain and again has nothing to do with this situation.
    Connect the dots.

    Did Celtic religious practices die after this? They did not, and what impressive is similar sights were found in far apart places showing that similar acts where shared. This continued until the BG, if Caesar is correct. Even the Cimbri after on of their battles was said to sacrifice Roman soldiers to their deities, and this was just a generation before the BG. It's very possible that the Central Gallic states continued these cult killings or ones involving captured enemies until conquest. Of course there is still the possibility that JC was making this up...but the massive amount of bones found at site show some of these victims were sacrificial, killed in war, or ones that may have had their flesh removed.

    But this so-called "Devastating Civil War" never happened, and I have shown you many times from multiple sources (Doctorates in archaeology and history) that your simply wrong. When you have a hard time grasping what Caesar was saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting for Ariovistus to appear:
    I can't make it any simpler, and as I have said before, check it out yourself. There are plenty of interpretations online and tools so you can do it yourself.
    When you decide to put down something other then your own opinion then we can continue this discussion, until then it is pointless.
    Warning: My interpretations/conclusions on some things:

    You should drop the "Devastating Civil War" motto. Only you seem to use or resurrect it...

    There was not a big disparity between the Celtic and Germanic nobles or armies. Both sides of the Rhine the elites used La Tene long swords, wore mail, some used helmets, had similar spear style, used theuros-type shields, infantry fought in close formation, known to sometimes use wedges in battle, rode horse w/ or w/o saddles, armies composed mainly of spear men etc... If the Sequani and Ariovistus did heavily defeat the Aedui, it may have been armies of comparably equipped warriors - it's reasonable to conclude that no one side had a big technology advantage if there was a pitched battle between the Aedui vs. Sequani/Ariovistus.

    The BG says Ariovistus arrived with 15,000 Germans, yet did not say these were warriors - maybe these were made of families. Then some 120,000 or so supposedly coming soon after - an inflated figure, obviously. The way it's worded, it sounds like the 120,000 was involved with the fight against the Aedui. Anyway, I think you, for your argument, have to believe in 15,000 warriors, because you know that 15,000 warriors defeating the Aedui and lording over the Sequani is at least somewhat possible. But if you think this was 15,000 tribesmen and their families, then that is only around 2-4,000 warriors, at the most, which you know you cannot believe because you'd be arguing, impossibly, that number of Germans lorded over the Sequani and defeated the Aedui and defeated "all the Gauls".

    And if you claim there were more Germans in Ariovistus' army then that takes away from you claims that the Germans (east bank Celts, Germans) were "much better fighters" as they did not overcome greater numbers or some great disadvantage to prove they were "better". This is what I have said all along that the Gauls could fight large pitched battles and those numbers, if around the mark, prove that this could have happened.

    You appear to continue to think Ariovistus subjugated "all the Gauls" after Magetobriga, as if entire France and Belgium was at his feet afterward. I do not even think you have a source that explicitly says, with seriousness, that Ariovistus ruled over Gaul. As I have already mentioned many times in the past, he would have had territory in Alsace, France. Nothing else.

    You appear to seem to think, too, that he could subject "all the Gauls" along with your belief in Caesar where he says that "all of Gaul" fought against Ariovistus and lost in ONE battle. I guess Caesar should have taken a page from this tactic. It would have saved him 8 years of trouble...

  11. #51
    Mulattothrasher's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    With the Thrash Metal Maniacs!
    Posts
    2,599

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    For anyone curious about a brief overview of the composition and makeup of a typical Gallic Army, and how warfare, power and prestige shaped Gallic society, can take a look at this picture .pdf.


    Free Download
    https://www.academia.edu/5824795/Str...he_Gallic_Wars

  12. #52

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Good discussion

    Frosty .. I recall us have a similar discussion some several years ago.

    Still plugging the same theory eh?
    PSYCHO V



    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, Meditation 17)

  13. #53

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    Connect the dots.
    And this is the problem. It's you who are connecting the dots. You don't know what your writing about. I have posted professional historians/archaeologists who disagree with what your posting. This should be really simple, post citations from historians/archaeologists that support your (new) view that the "Celtic" elite wiped themselves out. But there is a reason why it's not simple, because there is no professional who supports this view.
    Still waiting for you to put just one citation down, just one! Until then there is no point.

    @PSYCHO V
    Yep, and supported by the professionals.

  14. #54
    Mulattothrasher's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    With the Thrash Metal Maniacs!
    Posts
    2,599

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf View Post
    And this is the problem. It's you who are connecting the dots. You don't know what your writing about. I have posted professional historians/archaeologists who disagree with what your posting. This should be really simple, post citations from historians/archaeologists that support your (new) view that the "Celtic" elite wiped themselves out. But there is a reason why it's not simple, because there is no professional who supports this view.
    Still waiting for you to put just one citation down, just one! Until then there is no point.

    @PSYCHO V
    Yep, and supported by the professionals.

    Where did I say the Celtic elite "wiped themselves out?"

    You are misunderstanding what my argument is. I am not saying the elites wiped themselves out to a man, or some drastic 90% casualty rate. No, what I am saying is that the major powers of the Gauls, if the BG is accurate on that, were having a war. It's very possible as this was a war for many years, there would have been many casualties. This in turn that would have contributed to Caesar, or Ariovistus, to hang around after seeing the effects of the war. That is it, a war of some scale for some amount of years. Who knows the casualties there in over what appears to be a war over the wealth generated by river tolls. But the Celts could, and did, go to war among themselves many times for various reasons before Caesar showed up. My link a few posts above sums it up. To think Gaul was some utopia of peace where wrist slapping was as violent as it got is funny....


  15. #55

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    The Celts were definetley more advanced for sure. They had the advanced ironworking from the La Trene Culture, rich resources like Gold, chainmail, hill forts. Tactitus' account of Germania was that they were free peoples. "Germania" was really a Roman definition of the place and really like calling all Native Americans the same race. After the fall of Rome, the definition wasn't really used for the Germanic tribes were already formed into their own subcultures.

    The Germans were defineltey more warlike by the time Caesar came by. They were put in a life of poverty and desperation where war was the only thing they knew along with farming and other shallow forms of economy. The Gauls previously warlike from raiding other provinces were too privitized by trade and war became a second nature. Add that with the division and you get chaos.

    Nowadays, while the Germans still endure the same life of poverty and privation as before, without any change in their diet or clothing, the Gauls, through living near the Roman province and becoming acquainted with sea-borne products, are abundantly supplied with various commodities. Gradually accustomed to inferiority and defeated in many battles, they do not even pretend to compete with the Germans in bravery.
    The Gallic War (Julius Caesar)


    Celtic cavalry were very good when the Romans provided them with horses and training. Plus they have chainmail and Spatha swords. However individual cavalry commanders led by their nobles were probably not in the best fighting condition for Caesar mentions how they were afraid to damage their expensive mounts. With Roman training and discipline, the Celts made up the majority of the Roman Auxiliary cavalry. German horses were not always the best quality for Caesar mentions he had to mount them with Iberian horses. The fierceness of the German cavalry comes from their infantry support probably and the weak Celtic morale. Keep in mind cavalry led by Publius Crassus probably routed the German cavalry at Vestonia.

    ""The whole race which is now called both "Gallic" and "Galatic" is war-mad, and both high-spirited and quick for battle, although otherwise simple and not ill-mannered." "Now although they are all fighters by nature, they are better as cavalry than as infantry; and the best cavalry-force the Romans have comes from these people. However, it is always those who live more to the north and along the ocean-coast that are the more warlike."
    Strabo.


  16. #56

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher
    I am not saying the elites wiped themselves out to a man, or some drastic 90% casualty rate. No, what I am saying is that the major powers of the Gauls, if the BG is accurate on that, were having a war. It's very possible as this was a war for many years, there would have been many casualties.
    Yes a war almost every year. There is no indication that there were many casualties, as the professionals have written "moral defeats", "limiting social mechanisms", "ritualized warfare sparing of manpower". This is what prevented what you claim to have happened. The only time the aristocracy, elite etc. of the Aedui and their clients were "wiped" out was due to Ariovistus, not due to internal "struggles". And even then when reading The Gallic War you still read about thousands of elites from the Aedui alone, not to mention their clients.
    Your link does not support your argument, S. James had a similar one.
    So once again, where is your professional source?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    The fierceness of the German cavalry comes from their infantry support probably and the weak Celtic morale.
    The German cavalry used the infantry as support:
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Sidnell "Warhorse"
    "The Germans were trained in the use of a special battle technique. They had a force of six thousand cavalry, each of whom had selected from the whole army, for his personal protection, one infantryman of outstanding courage and speed of foot. These accompanied the cavalry in battle and acted as a support for them to fall back upon. In a critical situation they ran to the rescue and surrounded any cavalryman who had been unhorsed by a severe wound. They acquired such agility by practice, that in a long advance or a quick retreat they could hand on to the horsees' manes and keep pace with them.
    Caesar reports this tactic as something novel, but his descriptions of later fights demonstrate that some Gallic cavalry were familiar with the practice, and he would employ it himself in the Civil War. Of course, similar methods had been employed by various people over the centuries, notably the Numidians but also the Romans themselves at Capua in the Second Punic War." pg. 229
    This is echoed by Goldsworthy as well, and Caesar. Also the infantry did not always follow the cavalry, especially when they were mounted on the mounts given by Caesar. There is no mention of this with the Tencter/Usipete and certainly not with the Sugambri. The operation of the infantry and the cavalry are mentioned once again during the civil war.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    the weak Celtic morale
    During the Gallic wars the Gauls were quite brave as shown what they would go through and continue to fight against superior Roman soldiers. The Celtic warriors did have some lapses, but overall were very brave, and continued to fight even after losing multiple times.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    and the best cavalry-force the Romans have comes from these people.
    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    the weak Celtic morale
    So the best cavalry force of the Romans had a weak morale?
    That the best cavalry of the Romans being the Gauls could very well be, considering what time frame the writing represents (not when it was written but the time frame it was written about). I would have to wonder about Augustus dismissing his "Germanic" horse guard and the time frame mentioned. That being said, the "Celtic" cavalry is an impressive force, as shown throughout history, including the "Gallic Wars".

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    Keep in mind cavalry led by Publius Crassus probably routed the German cavalry at Vestonia.
    There is no suggestion of this happening at all. Most authors believe the cavalry had fought dismounted as they are not mentioned in the battle. There are multiple scenarios of what could have happened, and Crassus moved up his forces to support the infantry that were already in trouble. It would not have been cavalry on cavalry.

  17. #57

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Weak celtic morale as during the war. After the war when the Romans took them in they were the majority force.

    Cavalry usually always forms the flanks of an army. Either way if they have dismounted, and Caesar saying Germanic horses were poor, the idea explains the German cavalry's efficency on why they dismounted and their preformance in battle. Hmm didn't Caesar's accounts say that Ariovistis did have cavalry?

    Yes the Germanic peoples were better individual warriors during the war due to how divided the Gauls were and their matieral culture, but lets not go off how they were better horsemen.

  18. #58

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    Weak celtic morale as during the war. After the war when the Romans took them in they were the majority force.
    There are morale failures of the Romans as well, that doesn't mean during the entire conflict they were cowardly. There are many examples of "Celtic" bravery throughout the Gallic campaign. Vercengetorix's cavalry riding three times through Caesar's column, Gergovia and multiple other battles. Yes the "Celtic" Gauls lost almost everyone of the battles, but the thing is they continued to fight back. That is not a morale that is weak, had it been they would have ceased to fight early on. Yes they were inferior to the "Germani" in fighting and bravery, and more so then that of the Romans. But they were very brave as shown in Caesar's memoirs.
    If you disagree please put down the examples and compare them to the failings of the Romans. If they had a "weak" morale then why did the continue to fight as long as they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    Cavalry usually always forms the flanks of an army. Either way if they have dismounted, and Caesar saying Germanic horses were poor, the idea explains the German cavalry's efficency on why they dismounted and their preformance in battle. Hmm didn't Caesar's accounts say that Ariovistis did have cavalry?
    Yes Ariovistus did have cavalry, this is where Caesar explained about the cavalry/infantry situation. I'm not sure what your trying to get at, but suffice to say that the Tencteri/Usipete had 800 horse and defeated Caesars 5,000, and these were without the fast infantry. The same situation with the Sugambri when they beat up a like number of Roman soldiers (2k vs. 2k).
    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar
    Yes the Germanic peoples were better individual warriors during the war due to how divided the Gauls were and their matieral culture, but lets not go off how they were better horsemen.
    Not just better individuals but as Ariovistus proved in group battle situations and cavalry. This is portrayed quite well in Caesars book. But again why believe me, what do the professionals say:
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Sidnell
    "Warhorse"-"Caesar sent out his Gallic cavalry to engage them but these, being identical to the enemy but far fewer in numbers, quickly got into difficulties. Caesar now sent in his four hundred German riders, whom he had held back as a reserve, and 'their charge overpowered the enemy, who were put to flight and fell back with heavy loss on their main body'. The town surrendered." pg.232
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldsworthy “Caesar”
    "Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldsworthy “Caesar”
    “The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael P. Speidel-"Riding for Caesar"
    "Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
    Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"
    One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Freeman-“Julius Caesar”
    Caesar conveniently downplays the fact that he himself had been a major supporter of Ariovistus when the Germanic leader had earlier sought Roman friendship. Nevertheless, as disingenuous as Caesar is in his narrative at this point, he was absolutely right to call the Germans a threat to Rome. For many years the Germanic tribes had been spreading steadily southward out of their homeland in northern Europe. With their exploding population and unmatched skill in war, they had already pushed the Celts out of southern Germany and were now threatening Gaul. Pg.134

  19. #59
    Edelfred's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Baltic sea
    Posts
    484

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    The Celts had no democracy , but have taken the clanish system . Has it been from Iberians ,with whom their intermixed in Spain .
    Sooner not ....( 'Klan' is a word in Sanscrit means extended family,dynasty )
    Germanics had more democracy . Their kings were not absolute rulers, but the leaders of armies ,like war-kings of Sparta and dukes of Novgorod .
    Admittedly they also have been judges in tingi .
    This is why Germanics were contributing not taxes ,which can lead to corruption ,but military service to help their people in the case of war .
    Germanics lived in tens farmers settlement . They needed that number to deforest land . The agricultural methods of that era demanded often deforestation of new areas
    to go on farming . Reasonably those Germanics ,who were rewarded by their work by some fortune had money to arm themselves better .
    With Celts it was different they were like Indo-Aryans of Brahmanism only priest class and warrior class were counted other were shudras and chandalas - servant and untouchables (Induism has reformed that partly .allowing Tamils join and making varnas not racial but professional groups)
    Caesar has said it was the case with Celts too . Only their Druids and professional warriors ,bodyguards of kings mattered.
    The simple people was exploited by rich and almost enslaved .
    Such systems are good only before the war then corruption shows it's weakness . The states ,whose middle class citizens had some freedom to protect and means to arm themselves fared better in the long run then states whos citizen were nearly enslaved by the corruption of rich classes
    Last edited by Edelfred; July 22, 2014 at 02:58 AM.
    Har du inte levt mitt liv
    Vet du ingenting
    Laglöst Land

  20. #60

    Default Re: Who were more advanced Celts or Germanic peoples?

    Yet Caesar claims the Gauls were be effeminated by foreign products and crying for the Romans to help them. The Gauls were brave yes, just not as much as the Germans due to the warrior society of Germans. Why wouldn't they fight back against the Romans? They were grabbing their land. They would fight the Romans like they fought the Germans. Keep in mind the Romans probably made great modifications to both the Gauls and the Germans like give them better horses and training.

    Please give me Ancient source BTW.

    While these things are being transacted in the conference it was announced to Caesar that the cavalry of Ariovistus were approaching nearer the mound, and were riding up to our men, and casting stones and weapons at them.

    Gallic wars

    The same day he moved his camp forward and pitched under a hill six miles from Caesar's camp. The day following he led his forces past Caesar's camp, and encamped two miles beyond him; with this design that he might cut off Caesar from the corn and provisions, which might be conveyed to him from the Sequani and the Aedui. For five successive days from that day, Caesar drew out his forces before the camp, and put them in battle order, that, if Ariovistus should be willing to engage in battle, an opportunity might not be wanting to him. Ariovistus all this time kept his army in camp: but engaged daily in cavalry skirmishes. The method of battle in which the Germans had practiced themselves was this. There were 6,000 horse, and as many very active and courageous foot, one of whom each of the horse selected out of the whole army for his own protection. By these [foot] they were constantly accompanied in their engagements; to these the horse retired; these on any emergency rushed forward; if any one, upon receiving a very severe wound, had fallen from his horse, they stood around him: if it was necessary to advance further than usual, or to retreat more rapidly, so great, from practice, was their swiftness, that, supported by the manes of the horses, they could keep pace with their speed.
    Here is Caesar on the Tencteri in book 4.

    Merchants have access to them rather that they may have persons to whom they may sell those things which they have taken in war, than because they need any commodity to be imported to them. Moreover, even as to laboring cattle, in which the Gauls take the greatest pleasure, and which they procure at a great price, the Germans do not employ such as are imported, but those poor and ill-shaped animals, which belong to their country; these, however, they render capable of the greatest labor by daily exercise. In cavalry actions they frequently leap from their horses and fight on foot; and train their horses to stand still in the very spot on which they leave them, to which they retreat with great activity when there is occasion; nor, according to their practice, is any thing regarded as more unseemly, or more unmanly, than to use housings. Accordingly, they have the courage, though they be themselves but few, to advance against any number whatever of horse mounted with housings. They on no account permit wine to be imported to them, because they consider that men degenerate in their powers of enduring fatigue, and are rendered effeminate by that commodity.

    But the enemy, as soon as they saw our horse, the number of which was 5000, whereas they themselves had not more than 800 horse, because those which had gone over the Meuse for the purpose of foraging had not returned, while our men had no apprehensions, because their embassadors had gone away from Caesar a little before, and that day had been requested by them as a period of truce, made an onset on our men, and soon threw them into disorder. When our men, in their turn, made a stand, they, according to their practice, leaped from their horses to their feet, and stabbing our horses in the belly and overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight, and drove them forward so much alarmed that they did not desist from their retreat till they had come in sight of our army.
    The fact is they were in negotiation and the Germans ambushed them with infantry support. And you don't think individual leadership was a factor? The Aedui was known to be highly corrupt and poor fighting capablity with all the wars and defeats and were hammered by the Helvetii cavalry.

    The whole race which is now called both "Gallic" and "Galatic" is war-mad, and both high-spirited and quick for battle, although otherwise simple and not ill-mannered." "Now although they are all fighters by nature, they are better as cavalry than as infantry; and the best cavalry-force the Romans have comes from these people. However, it is always those who live more to the north and along the ocean-coast that are the more warlike."
    Strabo.
    Is Strabo lying? The fact is the Gauls although weakened, probably have better horses, and under Roman leadership can be a potent force.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •