Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 113

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

  1. #41

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

    Leather is worthless against spears and pikes. You would have to wear multiple layers of hardened leather and final result would be still inferior to metallic armor, but if you cannot afford anything else, it had to suffice. But leather armor that would protect you against a spear thrust, would be quite heavy, much heavier than what metallic armor would weight, and it would be quite rigid and inflexible.

    I would not underestimate Gauls, but also do not overestimate them. Gaesatae, while fearless warriors were completely obliterated by Roman light infantry (Velites) who showered them with javelins and kept their distance from them at Telamon. Taking Drugs has more to do with their willingness to charge against formed enemy than being pain-resistant. Melee weapons of ancient times were brutally effective, taking a javelin or spear into chest was lethal for everybody no matter how stoned person was. They took these to lose the (natural) fear of death.

    Yet Gallic armies were quite flexible even though not as disciplined as Romans. They still managed to break the Macedonian Pike Phalanx on several occasions, their heavy cavalry was a nasty surprise for Greeks as well.

  2. #42

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

    Ancient warfare was 1% pitched battle and 99% scouting, skirmishing, raiding, etc. In these regards the Celts were probably far superior to the "peace-loving" Greeks.

  3. #43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    There is alot of myths about the gauls, or other barbarians at the time. They werent as uncivilized as one might think.
    Or disorganized military.
    Remember the greeks though of Persians the same way, if not worse... and we know they were everything but primitive.
    To resume Gaulic armies, as a bunch of rable, naked gauls, its laughable at best as well. Imo.
    They had better armor, and weapons then Greeks, or Romans, they were much more advanced technologicaly, in the manipulation of metals for instance, they invented, chain mail, and the use of montefortino helmets, wich the romans later on adopted for their legions.. i mean lets give the gauls a bit of credit here, there is a reason they were prized mercenaries as well.
    Also the celts invented soap

    Also i would recon, their armies, were much more mobile then greek phalanxes, and phalangytes, its not hard to imagine them outmaneuver this troops. They were also capable of forming shieldwalls when necessary, wich is basicaly a phalanx.
    They deserve more credit, then they get imo historicaly. I mean the celts were able to expand troughout Europe and into anatolia, that means something.

    I mean does this dudes look like it cant take on macedonian, or Greek troops?
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Not all of them fought naked... in fact a selected few did...
    Those you show are probbaly nobles. MOst of gauls did not have expensive armors, helms, or even swords. They had, and archeological findings prove this, spears. Long spears with long blades, something similar to germans. Yes, they did not fight naked, generally, but not even with super expensive armor you show.
    This is why romans beated them quite easily. Playing "stabbity stab" against a human unprotected chest is quite easily.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  4. #44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    Those you show are probbaly nobles. MOst of gauls did not have expensive armors, helms, or even swords. They had, and archeological findings prove this, spears. Long spears with long blades, something similar to germans. Yes, they did not fight naked, generally, but not even with super expensive armor you show.
    This is why romans beated them quite easily. Playing "stabbity stab" against a human unprotected chest is quite easily.
    In a society where around 10 to 15 percent of the population are a warriorclass/nobles it is clear that the majority of them would have decent equipment. Those are the guys you see in battles and that is the reason why your argument is very weak on its own. "Stabbity stab" was the exception because the Romans rarely faced non-warriors/nobles. Alesia is the exception in a phase when they made their last stand.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  5. #45

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

    One thing to consider - When Romans faced Macedonians at Cynoscephalae and later at Pydna, Macedonians were shocked by their brutality in battle. When Pikemen thought they were defeated, they rose pikes up as a mark of surrender, but Roman legionary, not accustomed to fighting Pikemen, didnt recognized it as a sign of surrender (or maybe did, but didn't care) and slaughtered whoever they caught. This brutality can be explained if you look at what type of men was serving in those legions - at Pydna, majority of veterans were legionaries who served in brutal "low level small war" in Iberia, full of skirmishes and traps in broken terrain. They were accustomed to that brutal type of fight. Greeks/Hellenes were not familiar with such a type of warfare. yes, they had occasional raids from celts living on borders, but usually, they fought them before they could concentrate and present a huge problem. Brennus invasion was different, Celts came in huge numbers and rolled everything down. Seeing the brutality of Celts shocked Greek society same way, Roman brutality shocked them hundred years later. Plus, after Pydna, Paulus marched back through Epirus, who betrayed Rome and allied with Perseus. Paulus gave his Legionaries free hand at raiding and pillaging countryside, and several cities as a punishment for that betrayal.
    Last edited by JaM; November 16, 2014 at 02:40 PM.

  6. #46

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    One thing to consider - When Romans faced Macedonians at Cynoscephalae and later at Pydna, Macedonians were shocked by their brutality in battle. When Pikemen thought they were defeated, they rose pikes up as a mark of surrender, but Roman legionary, not accustomed to fighting Pikemen, didnt recognized it as a sign of surrender (or maybe did, but didn't care) and slaughtered whoever they caught. This brutality can be explained if you look at what type of men was serving in those legions - at Pydna, majority of veterans were legionaries who served in brutal "low level small war" in Iberia, full of skirmishes and traps in broken terrain. They were accustomed to that brutal type of fight. Greeks/Hellenes were not familiar with such a type of warfare. yes, they had occasional raids from celts living on borders, but usually, they fought them before they could concentrate and present a huge problem. Brennus invasion was different, Celts came in huge numbers and rolled everything down. Seeing the brutality of Celts shocked Greek society same way, Roman brutality shocked them hundred years later. Plus, after Pydna, Paulus marched back through Epirus, who betrayed Rome and allied with Perseus. Paulus gave his Legionaries free hand at raiding and pillaging countryside, and several cities as a punishment for that betrayal.
    Yeah i can imagine that and had to think about Napoleon handled the rebellious Tirolians or the Germans soldiers dealt with resistance especially in Yugoslavia. I can imagine how these Legionaries had little space for gestures of goodwill after fighting such a war. The Iberians really perfectionized this kind of warfare. I am always full of respect when i read how many year the small Numantia was able to resist against the Roman legions. But still Iberian resistence lasted until long after Traian. Even in his time it was necessary to station 2 or 1 Roman legion in the middle of nowhere in Northern Spain.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  7. #47
    =ANTiKES='s Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Long Walls
    Posts
    345

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

    but macedonians were barbarians as well as far as the greeks were concerned

  8. #48

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

    Quote Originally Posted by =ANTiKES= View Post
    but macedonians were barbarians as well as far as the greeks were concerned
    Not true, they were called 'barbarians' mainly by the Athenians and their allies as Macedonians were Dorians (like Spartans) and thus spoke Dorian Greek (very little difference though with Ionian Greek). The Thessalians/Thessalonians for instance were their allies, this is why Philip II later became Archon of Thessaly. Sparta wasn't really concerned, only part of the Southern City States considered them 'Barbarians' so saying that Greeks considered them barbarians is inaccurate

  9. #49
    =ANTiKES='s Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Long Walls
    Posts
    345

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ImperatorAndreas View Post
    Not true, they were called 'barbarians' mainly by the Athenians and their allies as Macedonians were Dorians (like Spartans) and thus spoke Dorian Greek (very little difference though with Ionian Greek). The Thessalians/Thessalonians for instance were their allies, this is why Philip II later became Archon of Thessaly. Sparta wasn't really concerned, only part of the Southern City States considered them 'Barbarians' so saying that Greeks considered them barbarians is inaccurate
    Thanks for keeping up the accuracy, andreas. I admit, I felt like trolling a bit the macedonians on this forum
    Last edited by =ANTiKES=; November 20, 2014 at 08:09 PM.

  10. #50

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

    Quote Originally Posted by =ANTiKES= View Post
    Thanks for keeping up the accuracy, andreas. I admit, I felt like trolling the macedonians on this forum a bit
    You are welcome

  11. #51

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    In a society where around 10 to 15 percent of the population are a warriorclass/nobles it is clear that the majority of them would have decent equipment. Those are the guys you see in battles and that is the reason why your argument is very weak on its own. "Stabbity stab" was the exception because the Romans rarely faced non-warriors/nobles. Alesia is the exception in a phase when they made their last stand.
    10 tp 15 percent nobles? please, tell me sources of this. If we only take into account that men in the age to fight could be about 20% of population (more or less half is women, of the half population made by men you need to exclude old men and children or teen). So you are saying that among the men who can fight, more than one on 2 is a noble warrior. Yes, sure...and who makes the farmer? who makes cattle breeding? In celtic society each man is a warrior, but that does not mean he is a Noble and equipped as a noble (sword, armor, are things for noblemen).
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  12. #52

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

    LOL, no There are also noble women, old noblemen, noble children and noble teenagers, who are clearly not expected to fight Among your 20% of population being soldiers, perhaps less than 5% are from the noble class.

  13. #53

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

    10 to 15 percent of the population being nobles is a generalization considering societies in general. The more exclusive an elite is the smaller the numbers become. RGA is right that you have to consider the non-combatants of this elite as well. I am sorry that i forgot to mention that. Actual numbers for mobilizations are much smaller down to 3 %, the Romans were quite the exception with their possible man-pool. Noble and Warrior in the most celtic cultures is pretty much the same because it is the obligation of the nobles to fight, similar to the citizen soldiers in the greek states. The contingents are rather small but well equipped. To answer your question who makes the farmer. Call them servants, slaves whatever you like, but it is the household, people that are not considered free. If the celts would ever used some form of conscription than i have never heard of it. Gauls did not practiced like the Romans in a Total War style. Like the Greeks they would sent their Warriors, let them fight and the winner could decide the future. Like for the Greeks, for the most people warfare was just another form of politics and when it was done, one speak with each other again. For the Romans politics were just a peaceful form of war. In a Greek or Celtic world there wouldn't ever be the need to use more than the warrior class for war. The only exception was when this world was going to be destroyed and the most of these class were already dead. This was the case at Alesia.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  14. #54

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    10 to 15 percent of the population being nobles is a generalization considering societies in general. The more exclusive an elite is the smaller the numbers become. RGA is right that you have to consider the non-combatants of this elite as well. I am sorry that i forgot to mention that. Actual numbers for mobilizations are much smaller down to 3 %, the Romans were quite the exception with their possible man-pool. Noble and Warrior in the most celtic cultures is pretty much the same because it is the obligation of the nobles to fight, similar to the citizen soldiers in the greek states. The contingents are rather small but well equipped. To answer your question who makes the farmer. Call them servants, slaves whatever you like, but it is the household, people that are not considered free. If the celts would ever used some form of conscription than i have never heard of it. Gauls did not practiced like the Romans in a Total War style. Like the Greeks they would sent their Warriors, let them fight and the winner could decide the future. Like for the Greeks, for the most people warfare was just another form of politics and when it was done, one speak with each other again. For the Romans politics were just a peaceful form of war. In a Greek or Celtic world there wouldn't ever be the need to use more than the warrior class for war. The only exception was when this world was going to be destroyed and the most of these class were already dead. This was the case at Alesia.
    again, I am not gonna read you withouth you tell me sources (some good books or internet links -if it gives sources- can be ok). History is not "what i personally think people did back then"
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  15. #55

    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.
    Of cource Polibius was not objective at the Macedonian wars as he was not at Punic and Cleomenian War(226-222 b.c.). He didnt wrote about Roman history and army couse he wanted to help Greeks to learn from Romans and make Greeks stronger after that. He wrote about Romans when he was hostage at Rome to tell us just how <<great>> the Roman country was and thats all. At Macedonian war he dont try to say what Macedonians should do to win the war, he just try to say to Macedonians and other Greeks that they are just worst from Romans. He write as Roman and thats all. He didnt give advices to Greeks, he just say that Greece is worst and have to conquered from Rome. He wanted to tell the Greeks to accept the Romans into Greece couse Romans want the <<freedom>> of Greek Cities against the Macedonians and Seleusid and that was just silly. Only a fool could believe that, that was good for Greece. At Cleomenian war he is not objective too couse as member of Achaean league talk 100% againts Sparta and Cleomenes. At Punic wars he dont lose his opportunity to show fealings for Rome and he always try to make excuses when Romans Armys lose from Hanibal but when Rome win then the victory its glorious. The fact that Romans beat Macedon in some battles doesnt mean that Macedon army Romanized or should be Romanized...Macedonians just need a profesional and flexible pikemen and hoplite phalanx like Alexander had and not the non-profesional and slow pikemen of Philip V and Perseus. The only think that we know about the Romanized Greek troops its one case that Polibius talk about 5k Seleusid troops with Roman weapons. Even if they was silver sield legionaries that not mean that the hole army romanized. Seleusid and Ptolemaic armys had shiled barrers and galatians swords at flank of phalanx so that 5k was for that job too...to cover the flank of phalanx, but the bigger part of heavy infatry was still the pikemen. Macedonians fight with pikemen at the revolt of 148b.c. too and the army of Mythridates had pikemen at the center too so pikemen was not outdated even after Rome conquer Greece.

    When the Macedon lost from Rome all was talking about how Macedon lost. Was thinking that was a Macedonian defeat more than Roman victory and they had right. Aetolians was believing that Romans won couse of their help and they had right and they was mad with Romans couse Romans didnt give anythink after the Second Macedonian war. Pyrrhus and Hanibal shock Rome more than Rome shock Greeks with its wins but that was not a reason for Romans to copy Epirus or Carthage army. So was not a reason for Greeks to copy Roman army after their defeats. And modern historians didnt agree if Seleusid and Ptolemaic Kindom really Romanized(check Tim Everson), but even they was Romanized then only for some troops at the flank of phalanx but not that mutch that the new Legions to take the place of Phalanx.

  16. #56

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

    Pyrrhus definitely not shocked Romans more than Hannibal.. Romans were never pushed against the wall, they were against Hannibal. Pyrrhus was actually shocked by complete unwillingness of Romans to negotiate with him.. they declined all offers he gave and kept fighting (but actually, same thing happened to Hannibal, who was also surprised by the same thing..)

    And for Macedonians and Greeks not being shocked by Romans? Then how do you want to explain complete shock describing terrifying wounds made by "roman swords", or complete awe when Romans pillaged the Epirus on their way home? Or another total shock when Romans destroyed Corinth?

    And for Pikemen, i just repeat what i wrote earlier - Romans managed to fight on equal terms with Pyrrhus and his army of veterans. At that point of time, Roman Legions were just citizen militia force, with fighting experience from fights against other Italic tribes... at the time of Macedonian wars, Romans already defeated Carthage... their soldiers had ton of experience fighting against disciplined enemy.. at Cynoscephalae plenty of veterans of Zama were present, while at Pydna, a lot of veterans from Spain were present.. those men were not some citizen militia force, but men who knew how to fight.. Spanish veterans maybe didnt had many experience fighting against phalanx, but were extremely effective in small unit combat.. they could cooperate in small groups effectively, something very important in antiquerilla warfare.. and that knowledge helped them a lot against Macedonian Phalanx at Pydna, where it was those small units that managed to create dents in Macedonian line, and then exploit them and massacre defenseless Macedonians.. battle ended by incredible slaughter of whoever couldnt ran away...

  17. #57

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    Pyrrhus definitely not shocked Romans more than Hannibal.. Romans were never pushed against the wall, they were against Hannibal. Pyrrhus was actually shocked by complete unwillingness of Romans to negotiate with him.. they declined all offers he gave and kept fighting (but actually, same thing happened to Hannibal, who was also surprised by the same thing..)

    And for Macedonians and Greeks not being shocked by Romans? Then how do you want to explain complete shock describing terrifying wounds made by "roman swords", or complete awe when Romans pillaged the Epirus on their way home? Or another total shock when Romans destroyed Corinth?

    And for Pikemen, i just repeat what i wrote earlier - Romans managed to fight on equal terms with Pyrrhus and his army of veterans. At that point of time, Roman Legions were just citizen militia force, with fighting experience from fights against other Italic tribes... at the time of Macedonian wars, Romans already defeated Carthage... their soldiers had ton of experience fighting against disciplined enemy.. at Cynoscephalae plenty of veterans of Zama were present, while at Pydna, a lot of veterans from Spain were present.. those men were not some citizen militia force, but men who knew how to fight.. Spanish veterans maybe didnt had many experience fighting against phalanx, but were extremely effective in small unit combat.. they could cooperate in small groups effectively, something very important in antiquerilla warfare.. and that knowledge helped them a lot against Macedonian Phalanx at Pydna, where it was those small units that managed to create dents in Macedonian line, and then exploit them and massacre defenseless Macedonians.. battle ended by incredible slaughter of whoever couldnt ran away...
    I think now we agree for first time just you didnt realized that yet . The battles hoplites vs pikemen vs legions was about who had better general, more profesional army and more cavalry. At cynoscepalai Macedonians had 2k cavalry against 2,5k of Romans included 400 Aetolain cavalry whitch the best on Roman side and the only whitch really could face the Macedonian cavalry. The half pikemen of Macedonians(right side) had lot of expirience and was winning but the other half (left side) was untrained. The elephants broke the left side of Macedonians and the legions rush from the frond against broken Macedonian Phalanx. After they turn to hit the other half part of Macedonian phalanx. So the fact that the Romans had Aetolian cavalry and Numidian elephants on their side and of cource the fact that Romans had 100% expirienced troops against Macedonian army with 50% experienced troops made the diference. Its not that Roman legions was better its that at the historical battles that we know the Romans usually had more expirienced troops. The army of Alexander was more profesional than the Armys of Romans from 280-146 b.c so could won the legions on that period. The Romans create 100% profesional army after they conquer the Greece(Ceasar for example). The legions at Pydna and Cynoscephalai had lot of expirince and had more than the enemy Macedonian pikemen but was not 100% profesional like the Spartan army or Alexander army. If legions have better general and are more expirienced then they will win, if hoplites and pikemen have better general and more expirience they win will. We never saw a really fair battle between a very good legion against a really good phalanx. So Romans won couse on second century b.c. had better diplomacy, better generals and more expirienced troops and the most important they had the luck to face a non-united Greece with unprofesional army. Btw its not Greece and Macedon. Its Greece included Macedon. You have the right to believe that Macedonians was worst than Romans as i believe that Greeks included Macedonians was way better but you have not the right to call them as non-Greeks.

  18. #58

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

    War is never fair.. it is always about finding enemy weakness and exploit it to the hilt if you fight fair, you are unnecessarily risking lives of own men. You must use all advantages you have to defeat your enemy while taking minimal losses on own side.

    And regarding strategy, main advantage of Legions was in their universality. They could fight in whatever terrain they had to, while Pikemen required flat ground to be effective. That gave legions huge advantage over their foes as they could dictate the course of campaign, chose where to attack etc... Yes, genius general would make it very hard for Romans (clear example is Hannibal), yet whenever they managed to give command to somebody at least competent, results were clear.

  19. #59

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    War is never fair.. it is always about finding enemy weakness and exploit it to the hilt if you fight fair, you are unnecessarily risking lives of own men. You must use all advantages you have to defeat your enemy while taking minimal losses on own side.

    And regarding strategy, main advantage of Legions was in their universality. They could fight in whatever terrain they had to, while Pikemen required flat ground to be effective. That gave legions huge advantage over their foes as they could dictate the course of campaign, chose where to attack etc... Yes, genius general would make it very hard for Romans (clear example is Hannibal), yet whenever they managed to give command to somebody at least competent, results were clear.
    Well if we check the Alexander campaign from one side and Romans wars against Carthage and specially Greece from the other we will see that Alexander win couse of his strategy skill and great army without diplomacy or enemy beyards or other dirty thinks when the Romans could never beat the Carthage and Greece without diplomacy and enemy beyards. Rome lost four battles against Hanibal and on that battles was always losing at the flank. They have superiority at the infantry but their sword infantry could do nothink against the cavalry and elephant...so when they was losing the cavalry battle they was losing the hole battle after that. At the last battle was the beyard of Numidians that allow them to make the battle more balance or they could lose again for fifth time for sure.


    Against Greek Kindoms of Macedon and Seleusid they had lot of Greek allys(Pergamus,Rhodes,Athens,Epirus,Aitolian League,Achaean League,Ptolemaic Greek Kindom,Sparta etc.) and the nobleman of Macedon(4000 cavalry) and 9000 missiles of Macedonian side on last battle at pydna that never fight for Macedon. So the Romans win more couse of dirty diplomacy and Alexander win 100% couse of military streanth.Its little stupid to talk about a superior Roman army and bad Greek army when Romans win couse of diplomacy and Greeks win couse of army. So victorys of Alexander was more fair than Roman victorys if we think from clearly military side only.


    Also was not only Hanibal that make problems for Rome but Pyrrhus and Xanthipus too. What about the win of Xanthipus against the Romans? Was after Pyrrhus. Romans already knew how to face the elephants and they did the job well against them at the third battle against Pyrrhus. Also their generals was winning all the battles at first Punic war until they lose from Xanthipus...Will you make again exuses like Romans lost couse of <<elephants> or they had worst <<general>>?. The win of Xanthipus was tecnically a Greek win couse he had 4000 greek mercenaries(hoplites and missiles) and Carthaginians had Greek weapons and war style(Hoplites.Pikemen,Heavy Shock cavalry,Elephants).

  20. #60

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

    read something about Scipio Africanus and Marcus Claudius Marcellus.. they bought defeated Hannibal in open field..its not like Alexander was good commander, but so was Hannibal, and Scipio... and you cannot compare Alexander with later Macedonian rulers either.. those lived in a different world...

    Greek way of fighting was surpassed by Romans. thats why they become the dominant power.. it was not some betrayal of Greeks or something like that... Greeks were conquered because they were weak and couldn't resist Romans at that time... Greek states were always small. after all they were just city states with limited manpower, they couldnt face Romans alone... not even Brennus Celts...
    Last edited by JaM; June 26, 2015 at 06:54 AM.

Page 3 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
  •