Gallic fighting style

[Quinn Inuit]

How did the ancient Gauls fight? I'm finding contradictory info about this. A lot of their units have the word for spear as the root of their name, but I'm pretty sure the fought with swords. Similarly, I'm pretty sure a lot of their warriors fought with swords, but there seems to be evidence for spear use, too.

Also, did they all fight with throwing spears or javelins? If not, what percentage do you think might have?


Oh, speaking of throwing spears, one unrelated question: should I make German framae more powerful and/or AP, or should they have the same impact as your average (i.e., not Iberian or Roman) javelin?

 

[lelouchx99]

I don't get it... There should be no reasons for making 1 type of javelin stronger than the other, unless it should be a specific type of javellins in the history book, then it should get bonus stats. Otherwise all the javelins and spears should be the same.

Think about it the earliest weapon ever invented was a spear. Look at the Celts, besides sword shouldn't they be also experts at spears too? They are the less civilized people at that time. They should resemble those earlier type of people who mainly uses spears. Giving them less stats in spears would only make the Celts sound inferior, and their units would get wiped by the Romans, Greeks, etc.

I also get annoyed by how the celts' towns couldn't get more population, and move into city level? the max limit / city improvement should be increased or so.

 

[Hyrcanus]

The celts used a very wide array of weapons. The most common where probably swords and spears. Javelins, even Harpoons were used too in addtion to slingers and bows. There are some gravesites mostly of nobles who are burried with hammers and axes indicating their status. But in actual battle the axe was probably used by those who couldn't afford a sword. An "educated guess" would be that their armies where largely mixed. The vanilla "warband" isn't that far off.

To pick up the axe idea... that might be an idea for a cheap unit with high attack stats (-> axe = armor penetration) but on contrast has very weak defense stats and tires pretty quickly.

 

[Wien1938]

Having just finished reading a book on the Celts, I would say that the majority of celtic warriors fought with spear, sword and shield. Now, the sword is clearly the primary weapon from the ancient accounts - and furthermore a sword is an expensive weapon, so it would make no sense to have a sword as a secondary weapon.
The evidence seems to indicate that Gauls hurled spears before charging. Now a mistaken assumption commonly held is that a hurled spear is a javelin - not so. A javelin is light and designed to be hurled some distance - it is a poor close combat weapon. Spears can be hurled at close range or used in melee.
Using a volley of spears before charging would make sense as it would give your side the upper hand. Also if we think about the heroic nature of Celtic society, the spear would be hurled during duels or even during combat as two warriors square off. Obviously this would not apply against civilised armies, whose infantry fought in formations, so a hurled volley of spears to disrupt a phalanx or a legionary line prior to the massed rush of sword-wielding Celts would make sense.

The framea was used equally effectively as a thrusting or throwing spear. I would make it more powerful than a javelin but with shorter range. The ancient Germans probably fought much like the ancient Spanish with an equal amount of skirmishing and full blooded charges.

 

[lelouchx99]

Just as what Wien said it doesn't make sense that only the romans have the privilege of hurling a bunch of missles at you. That is way too historical inaccurate...

For the Roman infantries, someone alread suggested to limit their spear throwing* 2 per unit?

I also suggests we should have some special unit that utilizes both spear and sword. *hurl spear first* then *charge with sword*

 

[Quinn Inuit]

The last time we brought up axe units for this time period, Wien1938 was firmly against them: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=192247&highlight=axes

Regardless, we really do need to get the Gallic basic infantry some throwing spears. Does anyone know if those are easy to add to a unit?

That's an interesting point about the spear vs. javelin issue. I hadn't thought of that. Current javelin range is 50 yards. Should I drop that for all units that use pila, Iberian heavy javelins, or framae (or Celtic throwing spears, if we implement those)?

Also, on that topic, what about the heavy javelins of Greece? I've read that thureophoroi may have been equipped with javelins that could be used in close combat, and Xenophon specifically mentions his preferred cavalry weaponry as two heavy cornelwood (no idea what that is) javelins that could be thrown or used in melee.

 

[dharos]

why wouldn't it make sense to use a sword as a secondary weapon? it was the secondary weapon for the spear wielding phalanx in pretty much all of its incarnations. it seems doubtful that the majority of celt warriors used swords, or at least those of high quality since a sword was an expensive weapon and only elite units or nobles would carry them. but it seems that most of their units did hurl some spear/javelin before the battle lines met.

and the reason why some javelins are armor piercing was because they indeed were heavier all-iron implements, or designed to hinder the defender in some way, especially by bending upon impact and penetration.

 

[pannonian]

why wouldn't it make sense to use a sword as a secondary weapon? it was the secondary weapon for the spear wielding phalanx in pretty much all of its incarnations. it seems doubtful that the majority of celt warriors used swords, or at least those of high quality since a sword was an expensive weapon and only elite units or nobles would carry them. but it seems that most of their units did hurl some spear/javelin before the battle lines met.

AFAIK the engine limits units to 2 weapons only, so if a unit can throw javelins, it can't have both spear and sword as backup. Also, PE dispensed with secondary sword weapons for phalanxes because 1.5 introduced the moshpit - the disposal of the secondary sword aimed to stop phalanxes from mixing it close range. The removal of the phalanx ability from hoplites took place around the same time IIRC.

 

[lelouchx99]

Really?



There is really no way to add it? What about the Romans aren't they wielding 2 weapons? Gladius and the Pillums?

 

[pannonian]

Really?



There is really no way to add it? What about the Romans aren't they wielding 2 weapons? Gladius and the Pillums?

Pick any 2 from sword, spear and javelin. Romans have sword and javelin. Some units, eg. thureophoroi, have spear and javelin. However, one can't have all 3 for the same unit.

 

[Hyrcanus]

The last time we brought up axe units for this time period, Wien1938 was firmly against them: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=192247&highlight=axes

Reading up on this thread Wien1938's position on this topic is perfectly understandable. However, at the end for some factions we don't really know for sure and all we can do are educated guesses. Some may be right, some may be wrong. Facts we know for sure is that the sword and spear were the main weapons used by the gauls. But since many celtic chiefs were indeed burried with axes and hammers it is not far fetched to say that at some point in celtic history axes were used in battle and that they were still used as status or ritual objects when the sword was introduced into celtic society.

The reasons why the sword replaced the axe and hammer in most cultures is also its main argument against it. Even when the axe and the mace had a small renaissance during the middle ages due to full body armor the sword gradually replaced it again.

The axe is heavy, defensive capabilities are minimal. By the time you need to swing the axe you've been stabbed to death by the gladius twice or more... From a practical point of view I could see them deployed against heavy armored spear units.

So... there is no real evidence that it was used be the gauls in roman times. However, based on the history of warfare and from the knowledge that the axe was once used by the celts it is not far fetched that celts of the non-warrior class who had no access to the sword used the axe when they formed militia. So I could see a cheap defensless trow-away unit to split and break down heavy armored units. But certainly no axe elite units as the axe is one of the most impractical weapon in that time period. If there are other options to diversify their units they should be explored first.

 

[Quinn Inuit]

That's not a bad idea, but why not a spear as a melee weapon for a peasant unit instead? Wouldn't that have been somewhat more useful and even cheaper, or at least just as cheap?

 

[Clearchus of Sparta]

Regarding the Pilum

The exact dimension would vary, but an average of 7 feet long is generally accepted.
if a pilum penetrated a shield, its weight prevented the shield from being used properly, forcing your enemy to abandon his shield and fight unprotected.

According to some tests with reconstructed weapons, the maximum range was about 100 feet (approx 33 yards), and have shown them capable of piercing 30mm (1 inch) of pinewood or 20mm of ply when thrown from a distance of 5 meters (16 feet).

One of the reasons the romans did not use deep formations was because of the range of the pilum. If each legionary occupies 2 meters, the men in the eigth and ninth rows would have to throw their pila 16-18 meters just to clear their own front rank. By which time the pilum would have been on its downward trajectory and lethal to the front ranks.

The book also agues that it would be virtually impossible to go into battle with 2 pilum. You may have the chance to throw one against a closing enemy, but where would you store a 7 foot long pole while fighting.

Anyway here is the link to a section from the book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA199,M1

If it doesnt take you to the page im reading, you need page 199

 

[despot_of_rhodes]

Hm, 2 pilas as a nominal "ammunition", but only one would be taken into battle itself ( the second is left in camp ). Sounds good imho - the roman infantry won´t decimate 1/3 of the pure warband, but instead will have to fight in melee with disciplin to shake the barbarians

 

[Caligula Caesar]

Thats what I had heard (from the history channel, my history teacher. Not the most reliable of sources, I must admit).

 

[Wien1938]

I actually don't agree.
One pilum was light, the other was heavy. Secondly, the examples I have seen are not seven foot long! Bear in mind that this would would make a pilum taller than than a Gaul, let alone a Roman whom were noted as shorter than the Gallic races.
I would gamble that Goldsworthy is misinterpreting his source. I would think that he is confusing the spear of the triarii with the pilum. Other interpretations (such as AMPW) would posit that the pilum was NOT as tall as a man and the heavier could easily be carried while gripping the shield grip.
I would therefore argue for the retention of two missiles for Roman pila wielding foot.

 

[Clearchus of Sparta]

Im not going to argue with you LOL, Im merely showing another presons work and reporting what I have found. 7 Feet long does seem excessive, however I find the distance needed to be thrown believable from the rear ranks. He doesnt say whether this is a standing throw or with a run up. I suspect a standing throw would be safer.

 

[lelouchx99]

Thats what I had heard (from the history channel, my history teacher. Not the most reliable of sources, I must admit).

In reality this is hardly possible when you have a shield in procession. However, in the game it is almost possible...

The ratio i would say is 1/5.

By the way how long exactly was the 2 pillums? I gotta agree throwing a 7 feet long spear is not easy.

 

[Caligula Caesar]

What??? I was referring to the number of pila (i.e. 1). BTW, wikipedia agrees with Wien1938

 

[dharos]

what i meant is that some gallic units should definitely utilize either sword/javelin or largely spear/javelin since it seems most units used spears as a main weapon (cheap) and most seemed to use javelins when carrying either sword or spear (or both, but of course only 2 weapons are allowed in game per unit at any given time). could get away with giving javelins to most of their units as long as someone can do the artistic adjustments for in game, i believe giving units the ability in the edu won't affect play except in battle you just won't see the javelins prethrow, oh except you do have to change the skeleton for the animation and add some sort of javelin tossing skeleton.

 

[mcantu]

pila ranged in length from 5-7 feet with the larger ones weighing around 3 pounds...

 

[Scutarii]

I'm no expert, but Wien's position seems to make a lot of sense, not to mention its backed up by the EB team, who have many of the Gallic units throwing spears before the charge.

 

[betto]

about their fighting style ,well if the gallic really had a strong need to prove themsenves in combat and used long swords...they would do a bigger charge damage and run faster for compensate the lack of armor... i always disimate gallic with slingers... putting ai to rush into a meele fight(specialy when the enemy had a lot of missile troops) on early combat would suit better the gallic faction.

 

[Quinn Inuit]

I'm definitely going to give them a better charge.

btw, I've been researching Gauls some more, and I'm wondering if we should make the Gauls in southern France more civilized in some way and, if so, how their armies would be different. Anyone have any ideas? The Gauls in that area had been exposed to Greek and Roman culture for centuries, and I believe they were starting to become more settled.

 

[Scutarii]

A Celto-hellenic hoplite type unit could be a good representation of Hellenic influence on the celts. Recruitable in large areas in S. Gaul, and maybe other areas too, like Galatia...

 

[despot_of_rhodes]

Aren´t the Gauls suppose to be tribal people? How would the hoplite training work? Once per year there is a great meeting, where hoplite fighters excersize together
I maybe don´t get smth. but the chosen infantry was kind of "hoplite" style fighter, but compared with the normal or even levy hoplites, they were horribly slow, quickly tired, and there were not only expencive, but took also 2 turns to recruit. A hoplite based army would need lots of those units, to be effective. But i doubt that this would help Gauls against javelin throing barbarian neighbours, despite the Romans. In autoresolve hoplite armies are pretty tought, but in manual fights they can be outmanovered, tired, isolated and crushed by human player with ease. Personaly i hate to fight skirmisher based armys, and when i would take gauls, i would like to be able to give a damn pressure on the enemies battle line, but that´s the point: they simply don´t hold out long enought. But well, thats more game play thing, than a historical discussion, sorry

 

[Scutarii]

Celto-Hellenic units certainly existed, in areas like Massilia, and its area of influence. EB has a celto-hellenic infantry that operates like Thureophoroi (except heavier), and Massiliote hoplites are hoplites with celtic influence.

 

[Quinn Inuit]

Besides the EB unit, I haven't found much evidence for the existence of such a unit. I'm pretty sure it did exist, though.

I'm just not sure how to model the differences between the more settled Gauls of northern Italy and southern France and the more tribal ones from further north. I'm tempted to make those cities larger and then make the change in unit recruitment happen as a building upgrade available only in the larger cities.

 

[Arkaeyn]

In my current game, I'm engaged in a two-front war with the Gauls in northern Italy and Epirus in southern, without the money to really wage both successfully. So I've got a moderate stack firefighting against Epirus while I work on the Gauls.

The problem with the Gauls is that they have way too many easily routable troops. The pattern, when I don't have an army in the area seems to be that they besiege my city with 3/4 stacks (usually Bononia, though I took Jenuensis and they've started on it), and build 3-4 rams. Next turn, they attack.

I have 3-4 units and a general inside. The units are a couple heavy infantry and maybe skirmishers. I put them up on the crest of the hill in the Gallic city. The Gauls come in and charge up the hill. I take the general, charge into their flanks, and the rout is on. This is even playing on Very Hard battles.

Then I move the battered troops out, bring in some new heavy infantry, and hope that I can get just enough money to take another one of their cities after 10 more of these. The repetition is a bit much, and the money isn't really coming because of the seiges. So basically: too many crappy Gallic armies.

A few solutions: increase their upkeep is most obvious, in addition to improving the troops. Slowing their campaign movement speed might help too, and maybe fewer Gallic mercenaries?

 

[despot_of_rhodes]

Arkaeyn: If you play on VH battle diff. i assume that your campaign diff. is also very hard? In this case there is no wonder, that Gauls are able to recruit those 3/4 stacks and send it towards you every turn, because those pure barbarians become a 10k denari cash bonus.
But wat are you actually complaining about? I love it to fight the Gauls - unless you are hopless outnumbered, you allways win with your uber roman troops. And winning outnumbered and with battle odds against you is great, because your generals become military monsters within a few years.
Btw: It never has happened to me, that i had to fight on 2 fronts at the same time, while kicking Epirots out of Italy. My last roman campaign was on VH/VH ( i wanted a challenge ), but even then Gauls kept quite in the north, though i conquered Bononia. ( let me guess: you don´t go after the rebell italic towns, but attack Epirots in the first place? Ok, that´s a most toughest way to play Romans - i think i did it in my first RTR PE campaign and had a lot of fun ).