Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Is Spain basically Vietnam?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Is Spain basically Vietnam?

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    You heard it here first, major revamp of the Lusitanians coming in the next full release (not the upcoming patch).
    Mouzafphaerre, aka Urwendur, Urwendil...

  2. #22
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,312

    Default Re: Is Spain basically Vietnam?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trarco View Post
    Sorry, I cannot share passages because I am writting with a mobile phone and I won't be at home until next week (where I have my computer).

    The scholary consensus use traditional sources whose historiographical orgin dates back the XIX/early XX centuries. This is why I use terms as "stereotype". Now modern historiography is refuting this "scholary consensus". The English studies you have quoted aren't focused on the Iberian Peninsula and it seems they aren't using the Spanish updated bibliography. For example, Max Boot's quote says that Lusitanians used curved swords (falcata) and that Viriathus was a serphed. Sorry but it shows a limited knoweldege of the ancient Iberian Peninsula. His Spanish sources are the traditional ones that defend stereotypes. The falcatas were very rare in Lusitania (it's mainly a weapon from the Iberian Bastetania and Contestania/ SE of the Iberian Peninsula). Instead, the typical swords used in Lusitania were Alcacer do Sal-type and Arcobriga-type whose blades were straight. Also, Viriathus was not a sherped. That is clearly a Roman interpretation strongly influenced by Stoic philosophy. An anthropological-historian exercice can show that these Lusitanian "shepherds" were actually aristocratic lords of cattle. Something that is also attested in the Vettonian archaeology (Warfare, redistribution and society in western Iberia. Eduardo Sánchez-Moreno in Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory. Proceedings of a Prehistoric Society conference at Sheffield University, 2005).

    As you can see Boot is using obsolete sources when he speaks about the western Iberian Peninsula. The guerrilla tactic is just one of the stereotypes he's using.

    About Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley's publication. It dates back to 1992. At that year, the anti-guerrilla historiographical bibliography wasn't "consolidated". In fact it's when these ideas were appearing for the first time. Anyway, what are his primary sources? IMO this is not a valid argument.

    About the quotes of your previous post:

    -Sara E. Phang: She is not speaking about a Pre-Roman context but uses the term "Celtiberian guerrilla". This concept has been excellently refuted by Quesada (Los Celtíberos y la guerra: tácticas, cuerpos, efectivos y bajas. Un análisis a partir de la campaña del 153, Fernando Quesada Sanz, in Segeda y su contexto histórico. Entre Catón y Nobilior. F. Burillo, Zaragoza, 2006).

    This study uses both written sources and archaeological data to show that Celtiberians didn't use guerrilla tactics. What is true is that Celtiberian armies did have skirmishers to support the line infantry like in the case of Roman and Carthaginian armies. However that cannot be understood as guerrilla tactics. Just one example (you can find a lot of them in the above quoted paper also available on Internet): written sources used the term "iusta legio" to name the Celtiberian line infantry that was part of a Celtiberian army recruited by Carthaginians. This army also had "levis armatura" (the minority of the army and skirmishers). (Livy 28, 1, 5).

    -Francisco Queiroga: when he speaks about a Pre-Roman context, he writes about a Cantabrian context. That is the same northern-Vaccei context that I have mentioned several times. So, nothing to add here for my part.

    -Daniel Varga:

    1-This author is comparing two different areas that must be studied separately. His opinion shows a poor knoweldege about the ethnogenesis of the western Iberian Peninsula: Viriathus acted to the south of the river Tagus and the Brutus's campaign happened to the north of the river Tagus. These areas were not inhabited by the same Lusitanian peoples. The Viriathus' lands were inhabited by Lusitanian groups that must be understood as a supra-ethnic category formed by different substrates (Tartessian, Atlantic, Indo-European and even Punic). To the north of the river Tagus the Lusitanian groups were much more related with the Callaeci (Proto-Celtic/Atlantic substrate).

    2- The part that says that the Lusitanian bands of the north of the river Tagus were "influenced by Viriathus" is really ambiguous. You can understand with the following meaning "they used the Viriathus's tactics" but what it actually means is that these bands were inspired by Viriathus or that they occupied the power vacuum after the Viriathus's death. So, these bands (similar to the ones that fought against Caesar) cannot be understood as the same (southern) Lusitanians that fought in the Viriathus' War whose area of influence wasn't in the north of the river Tagus but in the Baeturia and northern Baetica.

    3- So, the robbers of the north of the river Tagus aren't the same peoples that formed the Viriathus's pluriethnic army. As you can see this doesn't prove the guerrilla tactic among the southern Lusitanians who fought in the Lusitanian War. BTW, in this campaign Callaeci fought against Brutus in order to support northern Lusitanians. They gathered 60.000 warriors and lost 50.000. Obviously the number is exaggerated but the number of warriors and losses reveal a pitched battle. Only in a pitched battle the losses could be so high (Oros. V, 5, 12; Livy. per. 56; Flor. I, 33, 12).

    I don't agree with you about Viriathus's using guerrilla tactics. First of all he didn't use small bands but a huge army. He could divide it in order to take advantage of their mobility but after that all the warriors were gathered to fight. You could say that the ambushes would be guerrilla tactics but once the ambush was made, it became a pitched battle like Hannibal did in Italy and like Celtiberians did against Nobilior. This is not guerrilla tactics but an ambush on a large scale that is followed by a pitched battle. (Un heroe para Hispania. Viriato. Fernando Quesada Sanz, 2011).

    You still ignore Appian, Iber. 65. Why when sources clearly speak about Iberian armies fighting in pitched battles (in this case Viriathus) are not valid? That is a stubborn way to think.

    BTW, the sources that qualify my evaluation of the Daniel Varga's passage:

    Lusitania. Historia y etnologia. Luciano Pérez Vilatela, Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 2000. Specially pp. 218-227.

    Imperialism and multipolarity in the Far West: Beyond the Lusitanians (237-146BC), Eduardo Sánchez Moreno in War, Warlords, and Interstate Relations in the Ancient Mediterranean.

    It is true that Quesada is my main source to defend the fact that guerilla tactics weren't the rule in the Iberian Peninsula and specially among Iberians (non-indoeuropean eastern peoples), Celtiberians and Viriathus/southern Lusitanians. But there are more authors who follow this idea (and they are more expert than the authors you have quoted). In regard with this matter my quotes have a better quality because these authors are really specialised in military matters.

    Some suggestions:

    Las panoplias numantinas y romanas. Alberto J. Lorrio Alvarado and Fernando Quesada Sanz in Numancia eterna. 2150 aniversario: la memoria de un simbolo. Junta de Castilla y Leon. Consejeria de cultura y turismo, 2017.

    Los antagonistas en las guerras numantinas: Mitos, concepción y practica de la guerra y efectivos. Fenando Quesada Sanz in Schulten y el descubrimiento de Nvmantia, 2017.

    El armamento de influencia La Tène en la península ibérica (siglos V-I a.C.) Gustavo Garcia Jimenez. Universitat de Girona, 2011.
    Now this was a solid response! I still don't agree with it but now at least I understand where you are coming from, now that you've listed other sources, not just Quesada Sanz, and laid out a methodical approach and criticism of the sources I brought to the table. I wasn't sure there even was a historiographic trend towards this way of thinking, but now you have convinced me to investigate these sources. Iberian military history is definitely not my field of study, so perhaps this new branch of thought in the realm of Iberian history is so recent that it just slipped my radar? After all, you said 1992 was way too long ago. Bro! Freaking Wayne's World and Reservoir Dogs were in theaters that year. You're making it sound like I'm blowing off the dust on the earliest leather-bound book cover Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and defending his arguments.

    Your argument about the quality of the sources and credentials plus specialties of the authors is obviously important, so I will weigh that when coming across additional sources that talk about guerrilla warfare. I generally tend to trust things printed by a university press, though, especially something so recent as Queiroga (2003), which has been obviously vetted and peer reviewed by people who have access to all the latest scholarship on any given matter. Still, your sources are within the same caliber, such as Jimenez (2011), so that's not something I will protest about. Max Boot is a legit military historian and Yale University alumni, but he is more into general military history and popular history, so admittedly his work that I cited (2013) isn't one that focuses exclusively on ancient Iberian warfare.

    I am concerned, however, about the overall acceptance of Quesada Sanz's works and interpretations of primary sources like Dio Cassius and Appian, if encyclopedias by ABC-CLIO are still producing statements as late as 2016 with contradictory terminology for subjects like Quintus Sertorius and the Celtiberians under his command labeled as guerrillas. Laqueur (1976) might be an old source, but he laid out a rather convincing argument for why the guerrilla term has been applied to Viriathus' Lusitanians and some other Iberian groups, as emphasized in Roman historiography. The "robbers" and "highwaymen", whether they were appropriately applied to Viriathus or not, seem to be general terms the Romans used to describe rebels in Hispania, as Laqueur mentioned. It doesn't mean the Lusitanians didn't have proper field armies, it just means that guerrilla warfare existed alongside it, as far as I can tell, which would be no different than the Napoleonic occupation of Spain when Spanish armies fought French ones in the field but loosely related guerrilla forces fought elsewhere simultaneously along remote country roads and in steep northern valleys.

    Edit: thanks for your kind words about my modding of the Iberian Peninsula. I think that the new Lusitanians will be great and fun.
    You're welcome. I look forward to seeing them. I always thought the Lusitanians looked a little rough and preferred the Celtiberians over them, but judging by the new models on the Twitter feed they look stupendous! Keep up the good work there.

  3. #23
    Genava's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    649

    Default Re: Is Spain basically Vietnam?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    I am concerned, however, about the overall acceptance of Quesada Sanz's works and interpretations of primary sources like Dio Cassius and Appian, if encyclopedias by ABC-CLIO are still producing statements as late as 2016 with contradictory terminology for subjects like Quintus Sertorius and the Celtiberians under his command labeled as guerrillas. Laqueur (1976) might be an old source, but he laid out a rather convincing argument for why the guerrilla term has been applied to Viriathus' Lusitanians and some other Iberian groups, as emphasized in Roman historiography. The "robbers" and "highwaymen", whether they were appropriately applied to Viriathus or not, seem to be general terms the Romans used to describe rebels in Hispania, as Laqueur mentioned. It doesn't mean the Lusitanians didn't have proper field armies, it just means that guerrilla warfare existed alongside it, as far as I can tell, which would be no different than the Napoleonic occupation of Spain when Spanish armies fought French ones in the field but loosely related guerrilla forces fought elsewhere simultaneously along remote country roads and in steep northern valleys.
    For the moment nobody answered to the view of Quesada Sanz. Even Visoni-Alonzo in his chapter is not disputing his view, he is only quoting his work in a reference as a rebuttal but he is not giving his opinion. The reference is neutral.



    Names and works invoked as authority is not a valid argument. In general, only the arguments should be disputed.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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