Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 113

Thread: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

  1. #21

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    True and not true. Its like saying the Gauls were just as well armored and had the capbility to be well armored as a Republican Roman army(which was a Militia army). Yes Hoplites had to provide for their own equipment. Greeks had the trade and the artisans to import the metals and metal technology and make quality armor in large quantities. This is why we see every Hoplite/Greek with a nice shield and a Linothorax. Large cities where the armor and weapons can be manufactured were available. The Gauls were not heavily urbanized and influenced by international trade till they came in contact with Massalia and then the Romans. Also, Greek armies were limited to land owning citizens(making quality over quanity) while every Gaul is expected to be levied and expected to live by a proud warrior status.
    Actually if you look at the history of the early republic, you'll notice the Gauls win more then once; according to legend, they had to on one occasion be saved by Juno's sacred geese (fittingly, the in-game geese are more useful then the historically nonsensical war dogs). Part of the reason for this is that unlike Marian and imperial armies, republican legions weren't particularly well equipped or trained; before the manipular system, they weren't particularly well organized either.

    Aside from having access to somewhat better resources due to trade, the Greeks and Romans had no intrinsic advantage over the Gauls when it came to weapons or armor manufacture. In fact, we know that certain military technologies like ring mail were originally developed by Gauls and made their way to more "civilized" land. Obviously these Gauls aren't out of their depth.
    The civilized lands also had no inherent advantage when it came to military organization, which militia armies are notorious for lacking in. At least the Romans had the good sense to steal any good idea they came across, like the manipular system, but the Greeks were often too proud to do the same.

    I'm tempted to say that the Gauls were also more warlike, and had that inherent advantage, but I'm not at all sure that's true. Greek mercenaries were highly sought after in the classical period. Of course that might not have helped the city states themselves if those mercenaries were away in some foreign land rather then slouching about in Greece waiting for a war to break out.

    One way or the other, I'm not trying to say the Gauls were somehow inherently better at war then the Greeks. What I'm trying to say, is that they weren't inherently disadvantaged either; they're not unwashed savages (well, no more unwashed then was the norm before indoor plumbing).
    Urbanization is overrated when it comes to pre-industrial warfare.

  2. #22

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    Actually if you look at the history of the early republic, you'll notice the Gauls win more then once; according to legend, they had to on one occasion be saved by Juno's sacred geese (fittingly, the in-game geese are more useful then the historically nonsensical war dogs). Part of the reason for this is that unlike Marian and imperial armies, republican legions weren't particularly well equipped or trained; before the manipular system, they weren't particularly well organized either.
    Better than the Gauls. Romulus actually set up military structure and units. By the time of the Manipular system, Polybius mentions that Romans had uniform equipment despite being self purchased.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    Aside from having access to somewhat better resources due to trade, the Greeks and Romans had no intrinsic advantage over the Gauls when it came to weapons or armor manufacture. In fact, we know that certain military technologies like ring mail were originally developed by Gauls and made their way to more "civilized" land. Obviously these Gauls aren't out of their depth.
    The civilized lands also had no inherent advantage when it came to military organization, which militia armies are notorious for lacking in. At least the Romans had the good sense to steal any good idea they came across, like the manipular system, but the Greeks were often too proud to do the same..
    I never doubted the Gauls innovative capablity. The question is are Gallic armies just as well armored as Greek/Roman ones? Obviously no. Militia=poor organization? Completely untrue. Israel is a good example of a reserve force. Gauls fight in warbands, Romans fight in organized maniples,( hastati, princepes, triarii) backed by distinct cavalry units in systematic numbers. Greeks were too proud to have any military organization? Explain why they have distinct cavalry placement, and phalanx unit deph and rank files.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    I'm tempted to say that the Gauls were also more warlike, and had that inherent advantage, but I'm not at all sure that's true. Greek mercenaries were highly sought after in the classical period. Of course that might not have helped the city states themselves if those mercenaries were away in some foreign land rather then slouching about in Greece waiting for a war to break out.
    Warlike as in every man of society had to fullfill their warrior duties despite having a career not as a soldier. However, war would depend of a state's/tribes needs. Yes per person in a population, the Gauls were more warlike.



    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    One way or the other, I'm not trying to say the Gauls were somehow inherently better at war then the Greeks. What I'm trying to say, is that they weren't inherently disadvantaged either; they're not unwashed savages (well, no more unwashed then was the norm before indoor plumbing).
    Urbanization is overrated when it comes to pre-industrial warfare.
    Saying the Gauls were just as organized and just as well equipped than the Greeks is utter madness.

  3. #23

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Warlike as in every man of society had to fullfill their warrior duties despite having a career not as a soldier. However, war would depend of a state's/tribes needs. Yes per person in a population, the Gauls were more warlike.
    No, warlike as in they relied on violent conflict as part of their sustenance. Competition with hostile tribes and other peoples have a way of making you form a preference for violent confrontation.
    This definition of "warlike" is problematic because it ignores complex social issues like who is considered a man and which men are legible to fight. Slaves or most sorts are neither obligated nor allowed to fight under Rome, for one thing. Helots fighting was definitely not something Sparta was willing to consider, not unless considerable urgency is warranted. Who fights in your war demands a careful examination of how those people might impact the war's outcome. The Greeks disliked the idea of non-citizens fighting for their city because these people don't have their homes and social status to lose. Citizen militias fight to defend their city's interests and well-being. The only reason the Celts would differ is because the farmer and fisherman has something to lose too. And not all Celtic tribes were large or prosperous enough to live in oppidiae.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Saying the Gauls were just as organized and just as well equipped than the Greeks is utter madness.
    Please explain. Better yet, start off by explaining why your response has anything to do with the reply you quoted. I do not read nor think that Caligula was implying that Celts were "just as organized" as Greeks.

  4. #24

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by daelin4 View Post
    No, warlike as in they relied on violent conflict as part of their sustenance. Competition with hostile tribes and other peoples have a way of making you form a preference for violent confrontation.
    In your context of warlike, it would depend on the politics of the situation. The Greeks just got done with major wars in the East and couldn't sustain fighting the Gauls. The Gauls were on the offensive so hence more warlike?
    No, "warlike" is best to describe a society's view of fighting in war. North Korea's society for example despite fighting no wars is probably more warlike and fanatical than Canada.

    Quote Originally Posted by daelin4 View Post
    This definition of "warlike" is problematic because it ignores complex social issues like who is considered a man and which men are legible to fight. Slaves or most sorts are neither obligated nor allowed to fight under Rome, for one thing. Helots fighting was definitely not something Sparta was willing to consider, not unless considerable urgency is warranted. Who fights in your war demands a careful examination of how those people might impact the war's outcome. The Greeks disliked the idea of non-citizens fighting for their city because these people don't have their homes and social status to lose. Citizen militias fight to defend their city's interests and well-being. The only reason the Celts would differ is because the farmer and fisherman has something to lose too. And not all Celtic tribes were large or prosperous enough to live in oppidiae.
    That is the whole point. The Gauls were more warlike than the Greeks. Many Greek artisans, merchants, and farmers didn't even know how to fight while every Gallic man is expected to fight. A Greek town that has just been attacked would likely run and hide. That is not to say a organized state cannot be warlike as shown by modern Israel. Techincally Spartans slaves were not even considered Spartans despite living in the city.

    Quote Originally Posted by daelin4 View Post
    Please explain. Better yet, start off by explaining why your response has anything to do with the reply you quoted. I do not read nor think that Caligula was implying that Celts were "just as organized" as Greeks.
    Read the previous posts. Here are some by Caligula.

    Aside from having access to somewhat better resources due to trade, the Greeks and Romans had no intrinsic advantage over the Gauls when it came to weapons or armor manufacture.
    This is not true. Only a small percentage of warriors can even afford swords. While Polybius mentions almost all Roman Legionaires have swords. Trade and urbanization is the factor as metals become cheaper.

    The civilized lands also had no inherent advantage when it came to military organization, which militia armies are notorious for lacking in. At least the Romans had the good sense to steal any good idea they came across, like the manipular system, but the Greeks were often too proud to do the same.
    Total nonsense. Greeks copied a lot of tactics from Eastern nations, and later they Romanized their infantry. Militia armies lacked organization? Completely not true.
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; June 19, 2014 at 09:01 AM.

  5. #25
    Darios's Avatar Ex Oriente Lux
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dumbrava Roșie, Romania
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Romulus actually set up military structure and units.
    With all do respect, did you really just try to justify your opinion on military history by citing Romulus?
    Under the Patronage of PikeStance


  6. #26

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Yes both Livy and Ciecero mentions the organization of the early Roman army.

    Either way, the Romans even in their hoplite form were more organized and well equipped than the Gauls. This is not to say they were better warriors as Gauls were fierce and suicidal.

  7. #27
    Darios's Avatar Ex Oriente Lux
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dumbrava Roșie, Romania
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    You have to take everything that Livy wrote with a grain of salt. He was essentially writing a propaganda piece for Augustus. Everything he wrote dealing with Rome before the overthrow of the Tarquinii is pseudo-historical bordering on mythology as you go deeper in time.

    What if I were to tell you that early Italic peoples (including Romans) and Celts were similar enough to the point where some linguists believe that they sprung from a single Bronze Age Italo-Celtic group? The early Romans did fight in a hoplite formation but the Gauls still managed to sack Rome on occasion, forcing them to give up their Mediterranean style of fighting and become more flexible like their Celtic neighbors.

    I think that you are taking this civilized vs. barbarian thing as if it were a huge chasm. The Celts were probably the most skilled metallurgists in Europe and their swords were especially prized. Their helmets and shields were adopted by the Greeks and Romans changing the nature of warfare in the ancient world. The Greeks and Romans were more developed in terms of urban structure but by the time of Caesar, even the Gauls were beginning to urbanize. It's just the gradual spread of urbanization from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean world. If anything, the gap in civilization between the Romans and Celts was probably much smaller than the gap between Celts and Germanic peoples.
    Under the Patronage of PikeStance


  8. #28

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    You have to take everything that Livy wrote with a grain of salt. He was essentially writing a propaganda piece for Augustus. Everything he wrote dealing with Rome before the overthrow of the Tarquinii is pseudo-historical bordering on mythology as you go deeper in time.
    The problem is it is not only Livy. Dionysius also records it. Distinct units, numbers of troops and officers are recorded. The numbers of the Severian reforms seem believable and not in any way overexaggerated and carried on into the Manipular army. Propaganda is for glorification. If Livy said Romulus' Royal Guard was 20,000 strong then yes, that is not believable. But no, he says 300.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    What if I were to tell you that early Italic peoples (including Romans) and Celts were similar enough to the point where some linguists believe that they sprung from a single Bronze Age Italo-Celtic group?
    That isn't the point of the thread. We are talking about military and social organizations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    The early Romans did fight in a hoplite formation but the Gauls still managed to sack Rome on occasion, forcing them to give up their Mediterranean style of fighting and become more flexible like their Celtic neighbors.
    Never said they didn't, all I said was the Celts were less equipped and less organized. Nothing to do with fighting prowess. Rome adopted Samnite tactics rather than Gallic tactics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    I think that you are taking this civilized vs. barbarian thing as if it were a huge chasm. The Celts were probably the most skilled metallurgists in Europe and their swords were especially prized.
    Yeah cause the average Gaul couldn't even afford it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    Their helmets and shields were adopted by the Greeks and Romans changing the nature of warfare in the ancient world. The Greeks and Romans were more developed in terms of urban structure but by the time of Caesar, even the Gauls were beginning to urbanize. It's just the gradual spread of urbanization from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean world. If anything, the gap in civilization between the Romans and Celts was probably much smaller than the gap between Celts and Germanic peoples.
    We are talking about the Gauls of the La Trene times and the Baltic invasions. Julius Caesar said the urbanization had a negative effect on the Celts fighting ablity by the way.

    Here is my point: organizational wise and equipment wise there is no doubt the more urbanized societies could afford it better.

  9. #29

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Better than the Gauls. Romulus actually set up military structure and units. By the time of the Manipular system, Polybius mentions that Romans had uniform equipment despite being self purchased.
    Fair enough, some city states were better organized then others. Just like certain tribal groups were better organized then others. Greeks and Latins were no more uniform then Gauls in terms of military organization; a rare few had something exceptional like the manipulator system, most were no better then haphazard militias.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    I never doubted the Gauls innovative capablity. The question is are Gallic armies just as well armored as Greek/Roman ones? Obviously no. Militia=poor organization? Completely untrue. Israel is a good example of a reserve force. Gauls fight in warbands, Romans fight in organized maniples,( hastati, princepes, triarii) backed by distinct cavalry units in systematic numbers. Greeks were too proud to have any military organization? Explain why they have distinct cavalry placement, and phalanx unit deph and rank files.
    I'm an Israeli and a former IDF soldier, actually. Don't confuse Israel's conscript army and reserves with a militia, they're very different things. Israel's system consists of every fit 18 year old, women included, serving in the military as if they were professional soldiers, and then getting stuck with reserve duty for 30 years, again, after being trained and active as proper military.
    A militia is raised in times of war, often paying for their own equipment, given a minimum of training (as there's no time, there being a war on), and is inherently non-cohesive as a unit.

    Two very different things. I can't think of any city state in the classical period that had anything similar to a modern conscript system. The vast majority had a small core of professional troops, usually nobility, and swelled up their ranks with mercenaries (great, but costly) and hastily raised militias (arrow fodder, but cheap).

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Warlike as in every man of society had to fullfill their warrior duties despite having a career not as a soldier. However, war would depend of a state's/tribes needs. Yes per person in a population, the Gauls were more warlike.
    Bad definition on my part. We'd spend all day on what war-like actually means; forget I said anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Saying the Gauls were just as organized and just as well equipped than the Greeks is utter madness.
    Again, some Gauls were better organized then some Greeks, and vice versa. Same for military technology like iron working. Neither is inherently better then the other in this respect. Being urbanized and having a trade network just doesn't give you much of an edge as a fighter in the classical era, though its not much of a hindrance either.

    After all, why would the Gauls be inherently less organized then Greek and Latin city states? What do the Greeks and Latins have that the Gauls don't in this respect? Urbanization doesn't really help stitching together a military unit. Can't be heritage or martial tradition either, the Gauls have plenty of that. Greece had ex-mercenaries, veterans of foreign wars that contributed expertise, but so do the Gauls...

  10. #30
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,727

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    The Celts weren't superior to their Greeks foes as they have been beaten totally and most of all they lacked the siege technology to lay siege in the Macedonian cities in the North or central Greek cities. Their incursion to central Greece was achieved mainly due to their failure to capture cities and their agreement with the Thessalians who agreed a clear passage for the Celts with the premise that they wouldn't ravage Thessalian farmlands.(A very clever move as the Celtic force would have been very vulnerable to a joint Macedonian-Thessalian force at the Thessalian plain)
    In the end, the Aetolian light and heavy infantry managed to face Celts using similar tactics Sosthenes of Macedon had used.
    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
    Luís de Camões

  11. #31

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    I think we should recognized that the Gauls during the Balkan invasion were in a rather specific circumstance that may very well be different from other time periods, and which naturally impacted their success in moving down all the way to Galatia. Saying they were less organized and less equipped but superior in prowess is not only a massive generalization (and ultimately very unsatisfactory answer), but also ignores those facts too. I think there's a reason why they were successful besides these essentialist attributes, including the fact that Alexander would have been a completely different foe than Antipater or the Antogonids after him.

    For one thing, the military force of one group at one time in now way reflects their military prowess in another. The Celts didn't have vast armies just sitting around until some chieftain decided to have a go at the Greeks. If there was one thing most common among all Celts is that they fought eachother. Which is no different among Greek cities either. But Philip carved an empire including all of Greece, and his son managed to go all the way to India. Antipater and the Antigonids on the other hand had to contend with a fracturing realm, perfect situation for the Celts to exploit. And that is just on the Greek side: on the Celts' side, they may have formed large and powerful confederations, and merged armies together to form a large enough host to make trouble to a people that would normally be able to hold ground.

  12. #32
    Mackles's Avatar Roma Invicta
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    309

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    If we're looking at successful ancient commanders or military organization, the defining attribute seems to be strong, unified leadership and experience in fighting as a group. In the various cultures that could be boiled down to the simplest factor of being the most successful commander/organization in your local area, with that local area expanding with your successes, thereby giving your troops experience. Phillip dealt with the Illyrians, Macedonian rivals, the Greeks. Alexander built of his successes and went even further. Then he died and the Macedonians lost that strong leadership and instead elected to tear each other to shreds, with those experienced armies then fighting each other. The Celts, and the Germans too, had a lifestyle and way of warfare based around raiding. You raid your neighboring village or tribe, and if you're successful you gain more fame, attracting more warriors to you and accruing more power. This in turn allows you to raid more and further than before, each time expanding your influence. This continues until you get characters like Brennus who busy themselves by heading south and smashing everything in his path. And with every raid and fight the warriors under you get more experience of fighting as a group.

    And the same was no different for the Romans. Don't forget, if we assume the city was founded in the 700's BC, the Romans never fought outside the Italian Peninsula until the First Punic War, some 400 years later. That's 400 years of fighting their neighboring cities/tribes, expanding their influence and power and learning how to fight. Sounds familiar, yes? Eventually even the Romans fell, and part of that was the way their politics developed so that no one could be trusted with enough power to deal with a crisis, except the emperor. Who couldn't be everywhere at once to deal with all the crises. Therefore depriving the Roman military of that strong, unified leadership. Which allowed Germanic warlords to conduct more and more successful raids, which made them strong enough to amass armies which could destabilize entire regions. And so the cycle continued.

    As people have stated many times, the Celts weren't all mindless savages. They had complex societies of their own and advanced knowledge of metalworking. And strong leaders making a name for themselves by fighting also gives their warriors plenty of practice and fighting. That experience makes them dangerous, and even if they did start off naked I'm sure they were quite capable of stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, including armour. And again, all that experience of fighting naturally lends itself to helping develop more organization and effective tactics. Once again, the exact same thing happened with the Romans in the Second Punic War. At the start their inexperienced armies were repeatedly, comprehensively crushed by Hannibal. Over time, and with wiser heads in charge, their armies were able to spend more time working together and learning how to fight in an organized fashion. Is it really any wonder that it was following the Second Punic War we see one of Rome's greatest periods of expansion? They were able to do this precisely because their armies were formed of veterans who were experienced at fighting together as an organized group. As another example of how big of a factor spending the time training together to fight as a group is, look at the naval battles of the First Punic War. Supposedly the Carthaginians were great sailors, but when it came to fighting large naval battles against the Romans they had no advantage precisely because they had never had an experience of fighting large naval battles, nor training to do so.

    I'm not sure why I'm typing this though. From what I've seen of the OP's responses they first need to get over this prejudiced viewpoint of the supposedly inherent and immutable strengths and weaknesses of the "barbarian and civilized" ways of fighting. In any case, at the end of the day it still boiled down to people beating each other up en masse. It's just certain groups were better than others at particular times.
    MacklesMod - A series of mini-mods that apply tweaks, changes or fixes to Rome II & Attila
    Sigs out of date, mods ain't!

    Patronized by Inarus. Constantly.

  13. #33

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    one thing to consider - Polybius wrote about Roman army and its tactics because there was high demand in Greece for this knowledge. And this increased after defeat at Pydna, when practically all Hellenic rulers started to field their own Legions. These Hellenic legions later played important role even in Roman civil wars, but at that time, this type of tactics was commonly used by practically whole civilized world.. Personally i find it surprising Creative Assembly completely ignored this development in Rome 2 and instead, modeled Greek/Hellenic units solely on Gallic example.

  14. #34

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Mackles raises a very important point: armies cannot be successful if they have poor leaders. I don't think we need a lesson in how to figure that out besides perhaps reading news and any basic history regarding wars. Hannibal was the sole exception in that he had to rely on the leadership of others to provide, which they failed, and the Romans had good leadership too, at least after Cannae and the sort. It takes leaders like Brennus, Vercingetorix and the Galatians to establish themselves with and through power. It also takes good cooperation skills too; the Celts that settled into Galatia were made up of at least three named tribes, and at least two named leaders. Hannibal's success in holding such a large force into Italy is commonly attributed to his charisma and ability to convince a large host of Africans and Spaniards, plus some Gauls, to fight in Italy for years on end. Even then, attrition suffered over the Alps is claimed to have been largely desertions, and stories of Hannibal keeping disguises to present assassinations from dispirited Gauls can be found from Polybius (though usually dubious). Training and social/military organization is hard enough, you also need the men that can lead these people to victory over others.

  15. #35
    Akrotatos's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    one thing to consider - Polybius wrote about Roman army and its tactics because there was high demand in Greece for this knowledge. And this increased after defeat at Pydna, when practically all Hellenic rulers started to field their own Legions. These Hellenic legions later played important role even in Roman civil wars, but at that time, this type of tactics was commonly used by practically whole civilized world.. Personally i find it surprising Creative Assembly completely ignored this development in Rome 2 and instead, modeled Greek/Hellenic units solely on Gallic example.
    One would think that Polybius wrote about the Roman army and its tactics because he was a hostage in Rome for 17 years and during that time, his benefactor was (what a coincidence!) Aemilius Paulus the winner of Pydna.
    Gems of TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    News flash but groups like al-Qaeda or Taliban are not Islamist.

  16. #36

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    yes, but he didnt had to wrote this things for Romans.. they were well aware how their army was organized. These texts were for Hellenes who usually didnt know that much about Roman weapons and tactics.

  17. #37
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,727

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    yes, but he didnt had to wrote this things for Romans.. they were well aware how their army was organized. These texts were for Hellenes who usually didnt know that much about Roman weapons and tactics.
    Not exactly, Polybius wrote in Greek because that was the most widespread language (apart from being his native tongue) and a great part of the Roman patricians would be able to read them.
    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
    Luís de Camões

  18. #38

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    yes, but thing is to whom it was intended to go... Romans knew their army structure, they didnt needed Greek historian to wrote about their own army.. Roman historians never did things like that, most of their descriptions are quite vague. Greeks after Pydna were very surprised by performance and tactics of Roman army. Pydna triggered complete military reforms in Hellenic kingdoms. (it is not just an idea i got, it is something published by modern historians who studied this topic.. check The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, written by Phillip Sabin,Hans van Wees and Michel Whitby for more details

    Look at it this way - what's the point for Greek, writing a book about Roman army which was intended to be read by Romans... They knew their army well, it was a citizen army.. Citizens knew about it even more than Polybius... So, instead, he wrote this book for other Greeks who so far had minimal idea about Roman tactics. even though Greeks fought with or against Romans in the past, it was battle of Pydna that caused complete shock to Greek/Hellenic society and triggered complete military reforms.. and Polybius book was one of means how to learn a bit about Roman military doctrine and equipment.
    Last edited by JaM; June 20, 2014 at 08:13 AM.

  19. #39
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,727

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    Again as I said it is more complicated than that as you can see here:
    http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-11-27.html
    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
    Luís de Camões

  20. #40

    Default Re: How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

    The Celts weren't all naked warriors. Thing is, they had great numbers. Most units were equipped with just regular clothing, more professional units wore a type of leather armour. The richer elites (Solduros and Arjos) wore chainmail. Most of their infantry had spears. It was only the gaesatae that fought naked but they fought on a berserker drug that made them immune to pain. The Gauls weren't some barbarian rabble, they were sophisticated in metalworking and carpentry. They were also great farmers (invention of the iron plough and scythe) although this is off-topic. The reason the Gauls probably beat them is because of their shock tactic in which they had a rapid charge at the enemies. While the phalanx is very effective, large masses of chargers can't be stopped easily.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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
  •