Barbarian Martial Prowess

[Frostwulf]

Which "barbarian" peoples do you consider the fiercest, toughest, the most skilled, and had the greatest martial prowess on the battlefield; and why do you think so?

While all the other people were without a doubt very tough, I chose the Germans for multiple reasons.
1. Reputation: Allot of the classical authors respected/feared them as did the Romans and Celts in general.
2. Battlefield performance: From the Teutons,Cimbri inflicting 80,000 casualties on the Romans to the Marcomannic wars inflicting 20,000 casualties in one battle. Caesar of all his auxiliaries praised only his German recruits, and many other leaders praised them as well.
3. Rome recruited heavily among the Germanic tribes, as they thought they were the best "raw" warriors to be had. They were chosen for things such as the elite Equites Singulares Augusti and were the bodyguard of many an emperor.

There are other reasons but these are the ones for now, also take into account these are generalized accounts, obviously the classical authors(as well as modern authors) vary on their view of the different barbarian groups.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I'll probably have to argue the Sarmatians and Germans are both even. The Sarmatians served constantly as auxiliaries during the Empire and they - with their Scythian predecessors - whacked a good lot of invading Greek and Persian armies.

[frontier-auxilia]

I'll probably have to argue the Sarmatians and Germans are both even. The Sarmatians served constantly as auxiliaries during the Empire and they - with their Scythian predecessors - whacked a good lot of invading Greek and Persian armies.

I have to agree the Sarmatians and Scythians were pretty much some of the most dreaded race of mounted nomads to grace the west. The Scythians humbled the might of Assyria, Persia and in some cases Macedonia.

The Sarmatians espacially deserve a certain mark of respect. They make their debut in Roman history during the Mithradatic wars where a large contingent of them served as Mercenaries for Pontus. At Mount Scoroba, 100 Sarmatian horsemen defeated Nicomedes's 800 elite cavalry.

During their service with the Roman, Tacitus provided an account of their duals betwen the famous Parthian Cavalry. According to Tacitus, both sides exchanged fire for a long duration of time before the Sarmatian took the initiative and charge them. After prolong combat the Parthians were forced onto a retreat.

As the thread is on martial prowess, these speak credibilities.

[The Noble Lord]

I have to agree the Sarmatians and Scythians were pretty much some of the most dreaded race of mounted nomads to grace the west.

I voted for them.

[Alkarin]

to be honest its extremely hard for me to decide. but i might have to go with thracians/dacians due to their falxmen. the only barbarians that forced the romans to change their armour to fight them

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

to be honest its extremely hard for me to decide. but i might have to go with thracians/dacians due to their falxmen. the only barbarians that forced the romans to change their armour to fight them

Barbarian is such a misnomer.. Shall we consider the Romans themselves to be Barbarians? The Greeks thought of them as such..

[Blarni]

Very tough one. The Germans overcame the Romans, but it was a long, long process and partly an inside job. And a lot of people called 'Germans' by the Romans weren't really that anyway.
The Dacians apparently required the largest military mobilization in Roman history, though they were defeated relatively quickly. And I don't know where the argument that they were latter-day Thracians is these days.
The Sarmatians/Scythians were obviously the most truly martial cultures, their warriors weren't a minority upper class. They were excellent in their mounted element but seemingly not that versatile-though famed as the ultimate warriors by some ancient sources.
The 'celts' (don't believe in that word) outlasted the Romans in Britain, the northern frontier was relatively the most heavily defended in the Empire, and even the south took 20+ years to conquer, and seemingly required a disproportionately high military garrison to police (but then came the Germanic Saxons....). In Gaul they were the tough guys of far antiquity but didn't cope with Rome that well (once again who were Germans and who were Celts is debatable).
No Huns? I guess they were more a confederation than a discernable people.

[SonOfAlexander]

It was between the germans and thracians, but since the thracians were invaded by the romans and the germans weren't...

[KingDave]

It was between the germans and thracians, but since the thracians were invaded by the romans and the germans weren't...

Lands owned by the Germans were invaded on several occasions. You mean subjugated.

[justinius]

I think that now we can see the Germans as the most martial.

[Mig el Pig]

I voted for the Celts since they managed to spread out over Europe, from Ireland to Turkey. Managed to sack ancient Rome and Greece and were expert smiths (in weaponry, tools and jewelry)
Their swords and helmets would be copied by the Romans due to it's superior design.

[diegis]

Dacians (Getians) no doubt. Their fight with Romans last quite long, and dont forget they haved a good record before too. They was the only one who fight against Persians of Darius the First, then they defeated Macedonians too, as Alexander the Great general Zopyrion, left in charge in north Macedonia/Thracia, then twice the diadoch Lisimach (who beat Pyrrus after all), and defeat Bastarnae tribes and conquer several greek cities at Black Sea. They almost exterminate too the Celts in central and eastern/south eastern Europe, and, acording to Jordanes, "burned" too the lands of Germanic peoples where in Jordanes times was Franks (probably today Bavaria). The Romans use the biggest army ever, at the peak of their power, to defeat them (during 6 years and 2 bloody wars, each one about a year long), and the celebration of their defeat was celebrated in a unprecedent extend in Roman history, for half of a year (123 days), and roman citizens from Rome was allowed to not pay the taxes anymore, and Traian build in memory of those wars the famous Traian Column (where are the only imges with Roman legionares killed, or captured and tortured) and Traian Forum, with huge Dacian statues. Dacians was as well the only "barbarians" who have even an "empire" during Burebista, and a strong centralized kingdom in Decebal times, strong fortreses, paved roads, aqueducts, developed science (had a better astronomy and calendar then Romans for ex.), the only ones who used war machines, and force Roman Army to change quickly their armours (Fronto said that Roman soldiers go to war against Parthians without fear of their arrows, after they deal with horryfing wounds made by Dacians swords).

Germans was too a powerful enemy, but the teritory betwen Rhine and Elba wasnt ocupied by Romans mainly because the costs of transform that in a province was way much bigger then the benefits. There was just swamps and forrest, no agriculture lands, no cities, no roads, no gold or silver mines, and no strategic value. As well, Tiberius was affraid that having Germanicus with a strong army conquering that teritory (he was very able to do that, marching there whenever he wished, in any direction, defeating Arminius, recovering the lost legions flags, capturing Arminius wife, etc.), and march in Rome with this glory, isnt healthy for his throne, and Germanicus might have ideas to replace him, so he send him in Orient, where he quickly died (poisoned at Tiberius order, as rumors said). Romans just control that area thru "client rulers", and Germans become a danger just when the internal problems of the empire was too heavy, and Romans becomes more and more weaker because of that. Before that, they wasnt such a great danger, for ex., Traina, for his campagnes against Dacians, use the troops from german and Britania too, leaving practicaly undefended those borders, without to fear of problems from there.

Celts was at the begining, when Rome was just at the begining of his glorious times, but later they wasnt a too much danger

[Charontas]

..., the only ones who used war machines, ...

What do you mean by that excacty?

[Atterdag]

The Cimbri, so that would mean either the Celts or the Germans.

[MaximiIian]

I voted for the Celts since they managed to spread out over Europe, from Ireland to Turkey. Managed to sack ancient Rome and Greece and were expert smiths (in weaponry, tools and jewelry)
Their swords and helmets would be copied by the Romans due to it's superior design.

IAWTC.
The only reason the Celts aren't considered a true civilization is because they lack a written language. They had agriculture, advanced social dynamics and government systems. Yes, they weren't every unified as a single polity, but then neither were the Mayans; they were held together by a common culture, and a vibrant one at that. Their militaries were rival to those of Rome for a good while, prior to Caesar's victory in Gaul.

The military prowess of the Celts shows in that their enemies copied wholesale from them, and both Romans and Egyptians used Celts as elite mercenaries. The vast amount of Celtic, particularly Welsh and Brythonic, epic literature is about fighting heroes and their martial exploits.

[Knight of Heaven]

IAWTC.
The only reason the Celts aren't considered a true civilization is because they lack a written language. They had agriculture, advanced social dynamics and government systems. Yes, they weren't every unified as a single polity, but then neither were the Mayans; they were held together by a common culture, and a vibrant one at that. Their militaries were rival to those of Rome for a good while, prior to Caesar's victory in Gaul.

The military prowess of the Celts shows in that their enemies copied wholesale from them, and both Romans and Egyptians used Celts as elite mercenaries. The vast amount of Celtic, particularly Welsh and Brythonic, epic literature is about fighting heroes and their martial exploits.

Indeed i vote for the celts too, not to mention they sacked rome a couple of times. The ideia of the celts werent unified is quite true, however, nor the Greeks, or even the romans were unified. Constant rivaliry,and civil wars. The "Non Barbarians" werent that diferent. You have manny examples of Celts martial powerness. The ones Maximilian stated, and aswell from the celts of ibéria, who everyone miss then, but it take allmost the entire longivity of the roman empire, for the romans to conquer all of Ibéria.
Only in the life time of Ceaser Augustus this was achieved, with great pain i might add.
Its very safe to say, that from the ancient cultures/civilizations, the celts and their culture,were the ones who last longer.

[Dr. Croccer]

Celts and Germans. The Germans inflicted quite horrible defeats upon the Germans and the Celts were just plain unnerving to fight against.

[Romano-Dacis]

Voted Dacians. It is interesting to note that Greeks believed their gods came from Hyperborea, which was ironically where the Dacians came from. I have also read quotes from Roman authors saying that the god Mars was born among the Dacians.

Julian the Apostate: "We have conquered even these Getai ( Dacians ), the most warlike of all people that have ever existed, not only because of the strength in their bodies, but, also due to the teachings of Zalmoxis who is among their most hailed. He has told them that that in their hearts they do not die, but change their location and, due to this, they go to their deaths happier than on any other journey"

This is a short list of why I vote for them:
1) It took the Romans some 200 years of near-constant warfare to conquer them. This is going from campaigns of Hybrida all the way up to the Dacian Wars of Trajan.
2) Despite what could be considered a cultural genocide carried out by the Romans, some Dacian tribes actually survived. It is well known that Constantine the Great was still fighting the Carpi, a Dacian tribe, even after Roman Dacia was abandoned.
3) The Goths, who were probably the most serious threat the Romans faced in Europe, venerated the Dacians and Getai as their ancestors. One only needs to read Jordanes to see that these people had a high degree of respect for the Dacians.
4) Their metal-working was if not on par, at least extremely close to that of the Celts. Their weapons forced the Romans to change their armor, which is a bonus all by itself.
5) The Dacians/Getai are the only barbarians whom I see as truly mastering the art of combined arms. They had shock infantry, horse archers, heavy cavalry, peltasts, foot archers, and even gained some appreciation of siege weapons. I do not see the Celts, Germans, or Sarmatians as showing such all-around martial prowness.

[Manco]

This is a short list of why I vote for them:
1) It took the Romans some 200 years of near-constant warfare to conquer them. This is going from campaigns of Hybrida all the way up to the Dacian Wars of Trajan.
2) Despite what could be considered a cultural genocide carried out by the Romans, some Dacian tribes actually survived. It is well known that Constantine the Great was still fighting the Carpi, a Dacian tribe, even after Roman Dacia was abandoned.
3) The Goths, who were probably the most serious threat the Romans faced in Europe, venerated the Dacians and Getai as their ancestors. One only needs to read Jordanes to see that these people had a high degree of respect for the Dacians.
4) Their metal-working was if not on par, at least extremely close to that of the Celts. Their weapons forced the Romans to change their armor, which is a bonus all by itself.
5) The Dacians/Getai are the only barbarians whom I see as truly mastering the art of combined arms. They had shock infantry, horse archers, heavy cavalry, peltasts, foot archers, and even gained some appreciation of siege weapons. I do not see the Celts, Germans, or Sarmatians as showing such all-around martial prowness.

You forgot the most important reason:" I'm Romanian and I couldn't possibly vote for anyone but my own ancestors!"

I think this is a silly question. Barbarian and non-barbarian is just making an arbitrary distinction, and I don't see how you can properly judge the martial prowess of a people. Their environments, resources, capabilities were all vastly different and varied greatly in time as well.

[Romano-Dacis]

You forgot the most important reason:" I'm Romanian and I couldn't possibly vote for anyone but my own ancestors!"

As opposed to Anglo-Saxons who vote for Germanic people or Celts... right? Must you assume everything is motivated by nationalism? Could it not be that I vote for them because I know a lot about them? In any case, if you want me to exclude them then I will say the Goths are the best. They brought down the Western Roman Empire.

Anyway, I've played Europa Barbarorum. I loved using falxmen. For me that's case closed.

I think this is a silly question. Barbarian and non-barbarian is just making an arbitrary distinction, and I don't see how you can properly judge the martial prowess of a people. Their environments, resources, capabilities were all vastly different and varied greatly in time as well.

Ditto. Barbarian just means someone who speaks a different language. Carthaginians and Parthians therefore also count as barbarians.

I also find the way the thread is set up to be a little questionable. How can we put a people as diverse and as spread out as Celts and Germans under the same option but the Dacians and Thracians are different options? I'm willing to be Dacians had more in common with Bulgarian thracians than the Arveni had in common with the Galataeans. Nevermind that the "Germanics" title could be anyone from Arminius's troops to the Vandals.