Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 75

Thread: I, Caesar: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1997)

  1. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    206


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Julius Caesar was a very controversial figure in his own time. After all, it is his naked ambition that eventually caused Roman senators to assassinate him. And among his assassins were officers that were with him in Gaul, like Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus or Gaius Trebonius. Even Titus Labienus, his most senior lieutenant during the Gallic Wars, and one of the few officers to serve as legate during the 8 years of Julius Caesar's campaign in Gaul, eventually defected Caesar to join Pompey after Caesar crossed the Rubicon. In Gaul, Labienus had been trying to convince Caesar to seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts and to help Romanise the Gauls in the most helpful, peaceful and positive manner so as to prevent rebellions, rather than seek glorious victories at the cost of tens of thousands of human lives.

    Nevertheless, Caesar's claim that he killed about a million Gauls and Germans (Suebi) seems to be greatly exaggerated. For example Caesar besieged the oppidum of the Aduatuci in what is now the citadel of Namur, where he claimed some 100,000 Aduatuci had huddled, and were eventually all killed or enslaved. It's hard to believe that 100,000 people could fit at the location of the modern citadel, and even harder to believe that there would have been so many people living around it, when the modern city with its suburbs has just 100,000 people today. That would assume that the Belgae could support population densities as high as modern Belgium (one of the highest in Europe today) with modern agricultural technologies and medicine. What's more, the Condrusi tribe occupied the land immediately south of modern Namur, so that Aduatuci would only be the people in the northern section. I would tend to think that there couldn't have been more than 10,000 Aduatuci, 10x less than what Caesar claimed. Let's not forget that De Bello Gallico is first and foremost a work of propaganda designed to aggrandise Caesar's reputation as a great military leader, and numbers could easily be cooked up for that purpose.

    EDIT : Note that the Romans surrounded the oppidum of the Aduatuci and built a huge siege tower. Seeing that, the Aduatuci surrendered, dropping their weapons over the oppidum's walls. Caesar was about to spare all of them in the name of the pax romana. When the Romans entered the oppidum, hidden archers and spearmen tried to kill them by surprise. Confronted with that treachery, Caesar ordered a counter-attack with no quarter. The Aduatuci were ultimately responsible for their own demise.

    It's true that many people died during the conquest of Gaul. But then the ancient world was also far more violent than the modern world. At the battle of Arausio (Orange) in Provence in 105 BCE, a Roman army of 120,000 people were exterminated almost to the last one by the Cimbri, Teutones and some Gallic allies. Huge percentages of casualties in war were relatively normal back then. Defeated tribes could be wiped out or enslaved by the victor (if they considered them a too important threat) anywhere in Europe or the Mediterranean world. Caesar was not particularly more bloodthirsty than average for his time. What people reproached him back home was that he did it for his own glory and for the political control of Rome.
    Thank you for the nice story Maciamo.
    I visited the Citadel of Namur once. When you admire the view, it's impressive, you immeadiately realise it must have been an interesting stronghold for millenia, at the confuence of 2 rivers.

    Can you elaborate on the Roman colonisation of Belgium?
    Afaik the 2 most important cities were Tournai and Tongeren.
    Tournai because it was on an important crossroad, and it also became the capital city of the Merovingian king Clovis on his way to conquer Gaul.
    Tongeren because it was nearby the most fertile plains, where already the first LBK farmers had settled, and foremost because it was nearby the frontlines along the Rhine where the legions had to be fed and supported with logistics.
    For the rest, I have the impression that Rome showed little interest in Belgium, certainly not for Flanders without fertile plains and with hard to cultivate lands and swamps where rebels could hide.
    I wonder even more why they bothered to conquer nothern Germania, where they could do even less.
    Tiberius and Germanicus spent a fortune trying and conquering it, only because they hoped it would bring them the same aura and glory as Julius Caesar?

  2. #27
    Baron
    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    483

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Comparing random cities in space and time-Rome,Detroit,Mainz. Without going into the reasons why decline happens like in Rome. Is it possible to reverse, by actions like "reporting to watchdog organizations"? Or do cities age no different than a bag of expired milk, and depopulate?

  3. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    687


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Julius Caesar was a very controversial figure in his own time. After all, it is his naked ambition that eventually caused Roman senators to assassinate him. And among his assassins were officers that were with him in Gaul, like Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus or Gaius Trebonius. Even Titus Labienus, his most senior lieutenant during the Gallic Wars, and one of the few officers to serve as legate during the 8 years of Julius Caesar's campaign in Gaul, eventually defected Caesar to join Pompey after Caesar crossed the Rubicon. In Gaul, Labienus had been trying to convince Caesar to seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts and to help Romanise the Gauls in the most helpful, peaceful and positive manner so as to prevent rebellions, rather than seek glorious victories at the cost of tens of thousands of human lives.

    Nevertheless, Caesar's claim that he killed about a million Gauls and Germans (Suebi) seems to be greatly exaggerated. For example Caesar besieged the oppidum of the Aduatuci in what is now the citadel of Namur, where he claimed some 100,000 Aduatuci had huddled, and were eventually all killed or enslaved. It's hard to believe that 100,000 people could fit at the location of the modern citadel, and even harder to believe that there would have been so many people living around it, when the modern city with its suburbs has just 100,000 people today. That would assume that the Belgae could support population densities as high as modern Belgium (one of the highest in Europe today) with modern agricultural technologies and medicine. What's more, the Condrusi tribe occupied the land immediately south of modern Namur, so that Aduatuci would only be the people in the northern section. I would tend to think that there couldn't have been more than 10,000 Aduatuci, 10x less than what Caesar claimed. Let's not forget that De Bello Gallico is first and foremost a work of propaganda designed to aggrandise Caesar's reputation as a great military leader, and numbers could easily be cooked up for that purpose.

    EDIT : Note that the Romans surrounded the oppidum of the Aduatuci and built a huge siege tower. Seeing that, the Aduatuci surrendered, dropping their weapons over the oppidum's walls. Caesar was about to spare all of them in the name of the pax romana. When the Romans entered the oppidum, hidden archers and spearmen tried to kill them by surprise. Confronted with that treachery, Caesar ordered a counter-attack with no quarter. The Aduatuci were ultimately responsible for their own demise.

    It's true that many people died during the conquest of Gaul. But then the ancient world was also far more violent than the modern world. At the battle of Arausio (Orange) in Provence in 105 BCE, a Roman army of 120,000 people were exterminated almost to the last one by the Cimbri, Teutones and some Gallic allies. Huge percentages of casualties in war were relatively normal back then. Defeated tribes could be wiped out or enslaved by the victor (if they considered them a too important threat) anywhere in Europe or the Mediterranean world. Caesar was not particularly more bloodthirsty than average for his time. What people reproached him back home was that he did it for his own glory and for the political control of Rome.
    what i always wondered is that if de bello gallico was first and foremost propaganda and we assume the numbers aren't correct, isn't it also reasonable to assume that at least some of the reasons/justifications for certain slaughter events were invented by caesar?
    after all, looting a village or city is sometimes much more profitable and also needed to sustain the troops with food and payment.

    i think i read somewhere that the price of gold sank drastically in rome because of all the gold that was brought from gaul.

  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    206


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    what i always wondered is that if de bello gallico was first and foremost propaganda how can we be certain that the treasons comitted by the gauls that then led to caesar butchering them were not also invented by caesar?
    after all looting a village or city is sometimes more profitable and also needed to sustain the troops, than just let it be.
    there is not much or no archeological evidence
    the locations of the battle fields are subject to speculaton
    de bello gallico is a story the common people back in Italia want to hear, but these people are unable to check the facts
    Julius Caesar himself has to appear as a hero in the story
    I guess there are a lot of fabrications
    and i'ts very likely he exaggerated the numbers of the ennemy troops and the numbers butchered and he downplayed his own losses


    as for the story about the siege of the Citadel of Namur, I don't know if there is any source other than de bello gallico

    Maciamo?

  5. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    687


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    there is not much or no archeological evidence
    the locations of the battle fields are subject to speculaton
    de bello gallico is a story the common people back in Italia want to hear, but these people are unable to check the facts
    Julius Caesar himself has to appear as a hero in the story
    I guess there are a lot of fabrications
    and i'ts very likely he exaggerated the numbers of the ennemy troops and the numbers butchered and he downplayed his own losses


    as for the story about the siege of the Citadel of Namur, I don't know if there is any source other than de bello gallico

    Maciamo?

    some of the actions of his enemies which Caesar describes just don't make much sense to me. for example that germanic tribe he butchered in the very beginning, can't remember the name. i think he made some kind of truce with them, and then suddendly some germanic horsemen began attacking the romans according to caesar who then took his army and killed everyone with all the germanics just sitting in their tents. so, why should a small group of horsemen attack the romans while all the others were just sitting around unequipped for battle together with their families?

    did the germanics underestimate how fast the romans could mobilize?

    or did caesar just want to remove the germanics from that side of the rhine asap and just needed an excuse to remove them?

    i looked it up again. the tribes were named Usipetes and Tencteri and it wasn't really at the beginning of caesars campaign.

  6. #31
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    376


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Surely for you I'm a 'woke' (and leftish) man. I never admired "great" figures and "great" states too much. I prefer people like Gandhi, personally.
    I don't like more what you call victimology, because too often, the victims are only the loosers of a cruel game which they would have liked to be the winners. I think the famous "memory duty" is valuable for the whole humanity (or inhumanity?). But too much "memory duty" becomes quickly lost of time, I prefer new ways to built future in a more "fairplay" manner; it's my point.
    It isn't without link with what I call the "Hypra-sionism" question of today in Palestine. Past is past, everyone his responsability, but this principle ought not to obliterate future in the region. Someones reproach to others the fact they are trying to come back to recent past but they forget they refer themselves (sionists) to a very far past without value for a lot of others; whoever they are. And thinking all this is in part the result of foreign selfproclamed" great democratic" states action...


    Mosean you‘re too classy, too polite, too honest, too respectful, and too much interested in facts for being “woke“ or an SJW. To these woke leftists anyone who is mildly left-wing is an 'Alt-right Neo-Nazi. That‘s why people who are left-leaning but who are not woke enough are being cancelled and silenced, too. Besides, I‘m a young person but I can‘t identify with millennials and wokeism at all.




  7. #32
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    376


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The Uighurs were even privileged in the past, were allowed to get more children and a good representation in the political organisation of the province and state. However, it was expected of them to assimilate and, on the long run, just embrace, generally speaking, the national Chinese identity.
    The problems came about when, exactly at the time of beginning ethnic Uighur resistance to full scale assimilation, began an infiltration of the Islamic part of this resistance by foreign Salafists. Like local Uighurs said, it is not in their local, ethnic tradition that women being fully covered in black scarves, or that the interpretation of Islam being that radical. But right in the ethnic conflict, the Islamist indoctrination through foreign agents started. The result were, again, most brutal attacks against Chinese civilians, which are just completely unacceptable for any nation caring for its own people. What followed was an escalation on both sides, and contrary to some weaker states, the Chinese state didn't give in, in the face of radical Islamism, but escalated itself. That's a different strategy from Russia, in which Putin allied up with local Islamists of the somewhat more moderate kind to just execute indirect rule in what I may call a fragile peace with an expiration date. China is strong enough and thinks on the long term, so they don't accept something like that but work for a lasting solution to the Islamist problem. Whether they succeed or not, will be interesting to watch.
    But you have to consider that, just like in other areas of the world, there is no good way to negotiate or make peace with hardcore Islamists, nowhere. What others tried, it didn't work out, nowhere. Religious extremism is a problem for any kind of modern state and society and the Islamic state in Syria & Iraq just showed the world what kind of "humanism" they practise. Tibetans were a special case, they could have been left alone, because of their peaceful and isolated way of doing things, even if it was a theocratic-autocratic, most conservative, in a negative way, state. But Islamism is different, as it is more aggressive and expansive. Like Russia even gave Chechens their Islamic state, but they just kept attacking the neighbouring provinces, using that state as a base. That says a lot about how things would turn out, if China gets weak and would break apart, because it would suffer a worse fate than Russia with the break up of the Soviet Union, I'd guess. And constant terrorism and attacks from Islamists in the Uighur provinces are simply no option for the current leadership.

    China is an ethno- fascist country and a totalitarian regime that massively violates human rights on regular basis. Therefore, under the pretense of fighting radical Islam, they preform forced abortions on the Uighurs and sterilize entire Uighur villages. This is ethnic cleansing, racism, thus an unacceptable crime. The Chinese state also ruthlessly persecutes Christians, dissidents and anyone that isn't in line with their inhumane regime. In addition to that Uighurs are a tiny minority among 1.4 Billion of Chinese. Anyway, there is no justification for forced sterilization/abortion in order to get rid of unwanted or even problematic minorities. It's barbaric and an atrocity. Furthermore, calling out the Chinese for their ethnic cleansing if not genocide, is considered racist by white liberal hypocrites and the left-wing mainstream media: To the woke leftists, racism, slavery, and genocide are solely condemnable and heinous if Europeans aka white people are involved.




  8. #33
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,967

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Moesan, being "woke" and being left wing can be exclusive from one another. I do not think you are woke, it is not one in the same as being leftist.
    OK, sure, but I know people who thinks both are tied by evidence (some supporters and some opponents). Others think 'leftishness' supports laziness and blind assistantship without nuance...

  9. #34
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    513


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    China is an ethno- fascist country and a totalitarian regime that massively violates human rights on regular basis.


    Completely different topic, but China is close to being totalitarian, but surely not "ethno-fascist" (whatever that means) at all. Even on the contrary, they priviliged minorities way too much in comparison to their own ethnicity, especially in the context of the one child policy and gave the minorities a lot of rights and participation many other nations never did. Only when there was real separatism or resistance, they changed the pace pretty quickly and sometimes radically.

    Therefore, under the pretense of fighting radical Islam, ...
    Better inform yourself, because radical Islam is a serious issue and began to dominate the radical Uighur resistance, especially the terroristic and violent one. During the already escalating conflict it began to spread like wildfire in the common people there. Even neutral observers and Uighurs noted it, that suddenly the tone in mosques got radical, the frequency of black scarved women increased many times and paroles from Salafists made the round. You can just argue that the Chinese could have tried to come to better terms early on, but later on, they had to deal with a radical enemy with which no reasonable peace can be made. Its just like it is with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This reminds of the ignorance for the Syrian situation, in which some propagandists kept telling people that there is just Assad and "democratic rebels", pointing to every collateral damage caused by the Syrian forces, but ignoring the atrocities of the Islamists as long as they could, until their own journalists became public victims nobody could ignore any longer. The Uighur situation is pretty similar. It probably started differently, but it became similar, because in the radical resistance in most Sunni Muslim vs. other situations, the radical Islamists take over.

  10. #35
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,721

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Guys,

    This thread had gone way off topic. Please reframe from discussing anything unrelated to the Roman Caesars.

  11. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    513


    Country: Austria



    Concerning the documentary about Rome, I can't stand bad fighting scenes. Some of the few which did it right in some episodes was the series Rome, even pointing the failure of so many others out by creating a story, in the first episode, in which the legionary which jumped out of the rank in frenzy and drunken got punished afterwards. Even the Germanics fought, usually, in closed ranks and those chaotic scenes were rare occasions, probably at night or in an unusual trap, but not at any other time.

  12. #37
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    206


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    weren't the Celts fighting in disarray, rather for personnal glory than for communal victory?

    in the Battle of the Sabis, de Bello Gallico describes the Nervii as charging at full speed towards the Roman legions

  13. #38
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,550


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    weren't the Celts fighting in disarray, rather for personnal glory than for communal victory?

    in the Battle of the Sabis, de Bello Gallico describes the Nervii as charging at full speed towards the Roman legions
    Yes. The Celts were brave warriors but too individualistic and lacking a proper group strategy. The Gauls didn't like using archers, slingers or artillery (onagers, ballistae) as they considered it a cowardly way of fighting that didn't earn glory to the warriors. This exaggerated sense of individual glory is also why they didn't use group formations like shield walls or testudos. That was their biggest weakness against the organised and pragmatic Romans.

    But Roman legions benefited from the inclusion of Gallic auxiliaries (and later full Gallo-Roman legionaries) joined their ranks and adopted Roman discipline and tactics melded with Celtic courage and vigour. Even in Caesar's time many legionaries were recruited among Romanised Celts, such as the 14th legion, which was made up almost entirely of Cisalpine Gauls.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  14. #39
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    513


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    weren't the Celts fighting in disarray, rather for personnal glory than for communal victory?

    in the Battle of the Sabis, de Bello Gallico describes the Nervii as charging at full speed towards the Roman legions
    The Celts had better weapons, originally, but their tactics were too chaotic indeed. But even if in one case they charged in full speed, this doesn't have to mean they did attack in complete disarray and if he described the Nervii in such a way it means it was exceptional, probably trying to surprise the enemy. It was not the norm, especially not in open field, for practically nobody. And even if, latest when meeting the Roman lines, there would have formed bulks of people in a line. The main problem of the Celts was that their groups attacked with pressure, expecting the enemy to break early on. If that didn't work out, they got tired, and were crowded, almost unable to move, both forward or backward. This led to panicking. The Romans on the other hand kept lines in good order, which could move in all directions, as a group, protected by each others. And the first line was regularly exchanged by fresh troops, which again made them vastly superiour against the Celtic mob attacks.
    So why while they had no good order, proper lines and units to move, they surely didn't attack in complete disarray, because in fact, this is against the human nature. Rather they formed lose lines and mobs, which pressed against the enemy like waves of water and if getting tired and broken, even if just the front ranks, oftentimes the complete battle was lost.

  15. #40
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    206


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Yes. The Celts were brave warriors but too individualistic and lacking a proper group strategy. The Gauls didn't like using archers, slingers or artillery (onagers, ballistae) as they considered it a cowardly way of fighting that didn't earn glory to the warriors. This exaggerated sense of individual glory is also why they didn't use group formations like shield walls or testudos. That was their biggest weakness against the organised and pragmatic Romans.

    But Roman legions benefited from the inclusion of Gallic auxiliaries (and later full Gallo-Roman legionaries) joined their ranks and adopted Roman discipline and tactics melded with Celtic courage and vigour. Even in Caesar's time many legionaries were recruited among Romanised Celts, such as the 14th legion, which was made up almost entirely of Cisalpine Gauls.
    I guess it was this attitude that allowed Germanic tribes, who were much more pragmatic in warfare, to move further south.
    In the end the Celts were crushed between the Germanic tribes moving south and the expanding Roman Empire.

    IMO the Germanic tribes were climate refugees.
    There are no signs of excessive violence in the Nordic Bronze age, but during that time grapes grew in Scandinavia, which means it was a lot warmer than today.
    At the end of the Nordic Bronze age, the neolithic settlements in middle Scandinavia were abandonned and replaced by Uralic HG.


    P.S. note that climate warming never caused major problems on a global scale, it was always climate cooling that caused major problems

  16. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    513


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    I guess it was this attitude that allowed Germanic tribes, who were much more pragmatic in warfare, to move further south.
    In the end the Celts were crushed between the Germanic tribes moving south and the expanding Roman Empire.

    IMO the Germanic tribes were climate refugees.
    There are no signs of excessive violence in the Nordic Bronze age, but during that time grapes grew in Scandinavia, which means it was a lot warmer than today.
    At the end of the Nordic Bronze age, the neolithic settlements in middle Scandinavia were abandonned and replaced by Uralic HG.


    P.S. note that climate warming never caused major problems on a global scale, it was always climate cooling that caused major problems
    The problem of the Celts were that they, the more they developed culturally, united the weaknesses of both sides, the lack of discipline and cohesion of the Barbarians, the socially too stratified and corrupted society of the civilised world. The Romans were the better civilisation, the Germanics the better Barbarians. The moment for the Celts was before they became part-urbanised in large oppida, used coins and monetarism, where still rather tribal and clan based. When they began to move, culturally, they got caught. The Germanics on the other hand were for quite a long time separated from the Celts by the Central German fortress Hallstatt people, which, from my point of view, were no Germanics and no Celts, but another, unknown Centum group or something in between. Germanics and Celts first teamed up to crush those, the Germanics conquered their Northern territory, the Celts the Southern one. The direct contact with the La Tene culture caused the first Latenisation and new contacts to the "outer world", after the isolation, this was a big push. The second was when East Germanics began to conquer and assimilate Eastern Celts, especially in the territory of what is now Poland. This caused the second Latenisation, which revolutionised the Germanic society. Originally the Jastorf Germanics deliberately distinguished themselves from the elitist, princely Hallstatt culture with their more simple, modest, egalitarian and clan based society. With the East Germanics, the warlord and his retinue, a much more stratified society, sometimes even approaching statehood, emerged, and spread from the East to the West and to North, up to Scandinavia.

    So when the Celts were in decline, the Germanics took the best they had and used it for their own development, before introducing urban settlements and money economy. If you read up on Celts and their conflicts, bribes and corruption played already a much bigger role, so did the aristocracy and their retinue. This was more a feudal than a tribal society, which, I have to repeat it, is not more effective in the Barbarian nor the state and civilised ways. So it was just consequential that they were replaced by those which were better in the more specialised roles, namely Romans and Germanics.
    Their originally biggest advantage was, by the way, probably in iron working. They got great innovations in military technology and tactics, from the start, but the Romans were the first to copy it and use it for mass production and their standing, well-trained armies, combined with the other advantages they gathered from other people around the Mediterranean. The Celts, militarily, didn't evolve as much from early La Tene on, contrary to Romans and Germanics. So they simply lost their initial advantage and fell behind. Since their economies and trade routes were all interconnected, when the tribes in Gallia were breaking away, even those in Central Europe got severely weakened and the whole Celtic civilisation fell apart.
    Last edited by Riverman; 22-06-21 at 00:11.

  17. #42
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    687


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The problem of the Celts were that they, the more they developed culturally, united the weaknesses of both sides, the lack of discipline and cohesion of the Barbarians, the socially too stratified and corrupted society of the civilised world. The Romans were the better civilisation, the Germanics the better Barbarians. The moment for the Celts was before they became part-urbanised in large oppida, used coins and monetarism, where still rather tribal and clan based. When they began to move, culturally, they got caught. The Germanics on the other hand were for quite a long time separated from the Celts by the Central German fortress Hallstatt people, which, from my point of view, were no Germanics and no Celts, but another, unknown Centum group or something in between. Germanics and Celts first teamed up to crush those, the Germanics conquered their Northern territory, the Celts the Southern one. The direct contact with the La Tene culture caused the first Latenisation and new contacts to the "outer world", after the isolation, this was a big push. The second was when East Germanics began to conquer and assimilate Eastern Celts, especially in the territory of what is now Poland. This caused the second Latenisation, which revolutionised the Germanic society. Originally the Jastorf Germanics deliberately distinguished themselves from the elitist, princely Hallstatt culture with their more simple, modest, egalitarian and clan based society. With the East Germanics, the warlord and his retinue, a much more stratified society, sometimes even approaching statehood, emerged, and spread from the East to the West and to North, up to Scandinavia.

    So when the Celts were in decline, the Germanics took the best they had and used it for their own development, before introducing urban settlements and money economy. If you read up on Celts and their conflicts, bribes and corruption played already a much bigger role, so did the aristocracy and their retinue. This was more a feudal than a tribal society, which, I have to repeat it, is not more effective in the Barbarian nor the state and civilised ways. So it was just consequential that they were replaced by those which were better in the more specialised roles, namely Romans and Germanics.
    Their originally biggest advantage was, by the way, probably in iron working. They got great innovations in military technology and tactics, from the start, but the Romans were the first to copy it and use it for mass production and their standing, well-trained armies, combined with the other advantages they gathered from other people around the Mediterranean. The Celts, militarily, didn't evolve as much from early La Tene on, contrary to Romans and Germanics. So they simply lost their initial advantage and fell behind. Since their economies and trade routes were all interconnected, when the tribes in Gallia were breaking away, even those in Central Europe got severely weakened and the whole Celtic civilisation fell apart.

    wouldn't be so sure if the celts were that inferior to the germanics. the celts had not only to deal with the germanics but with the romans too.
    Caesar often times wrote about the germanics beeing too strong for the celts but this could easely just be an excuse for Caesar to invade gaul becaue "protecting gaul, and in the end also rome, from germanics" was the main pretext Caesar used to occupy that region. the fear of germanics in rome was the ace up his sleeve. so of course if he was smart he would try to make germanics look as terrifying as possible.

    he also often writes how germanics boasted about their fighting strength à la "noone can defeat us, we are the strongest of all" but again this could just be invented. also when usipetes or tencteri boasted that they are stronger than anyone only the suebi can defeat them. imo this is all just propaganda. because guess who defeated the Suebi before?

  18. #43
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    513


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    wouldn't be so sure if the celts were that inferior to the germanics. the celts had not only to deal with the germanics but with the romans too.
    Caesar often times wrote about the germanics beeing too strong for the celts but this could easely just be an excuse for Caesar to invade gaul becaue "protecting gaul, and in the end also rome, from germanics" was the main pretext Caesar used to occupy that region. the fear of germanics in rome was the ace up his sleeve. so of course if he was smart he would try to make germanics look as terrifying as possible.

    he also often writes how germanics boasted about their fighting strength la "noone can defeat us, we are the strongest of all" but again this could just be invented. also when usipetes or tencteri boasted that they are stronger than anyone only the suebi can defeat them. imo this is all just propaganda. because guess who defeated the Suebi before?
    One of the main reasons the Suebi were feared so much is that, at that time, they were way ahead in their organisation and more an alliance, a fused tribe, like the later Franks, Bavarians, Thuringians and others, and no longer small, strictly ethnic units. So what they had, before the others, were especially the numbers and good, trained warriors. So they were on the way to what I described before for the East Germanics. We also know that many Celts sought protection or refuge among strong Germanic tribes, becoming part of them.
    The shift is pretty clear though, from early La Tene to the Roman Age, that the Germanics got the upper hand the better their equipment got, which was the main Celtic advantage.
    The Celtic equipment was, initially, quite innovative, but it remained more restricted to the elite, whereas the Romans equipped their whole legions with the same gear, probably even of lower quality, but every single soldier, what the Celts never achieved. Like the swords, shields, helmets, armour - especially chain mail. When the Romans were attacked and plundered by the Celts, which was their big trauma until Caesar defeated the Gallians, the Romans were still equipped in what I would describe a "cheap Greek version" of weapons and armour. The later legionary looks more like Celtic elite warriors of that time than their Roman predecessors. Which is actually the main point about both the Celtic expansion and success, as well as their downfall and defeat.

  19. #44
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,721

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Yes. The Celts were brave warriors but too individualistic and lacking a proper group strategy. The Gauls didn't like using archers, slingers or artillery (onagers, ballistae) as they considered it a cowardly way of fighting that didn't earn glory to the warriors. This exaggerated sense of individual glory is also why they didn't use group formations like shield walls or testudos. That was their biggest weakness against the organised and pragmatic Romans.

    But Roman legions benefited from the inclusion of Gallic auxiliaries (and later full Gallo-Roman legionaries) joined their ranks and adopted Roman discipline and tactics melded with Celtic courage and vigour. Even in Caesar's time many legionaries were recruited among Romanised Celts, such as the 14th legion, which was made up almost entirely of Cisalpine Gauls.
    The brilliance of Roman military strategy can even be credited in helping to forge the independence of the United States. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington used the Fabian Strategy to defeat the British Army:

    https://www.thoughtco.com/fabian-str...erview-2361096

  20. #45
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,721

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.


    Modern Day South Korean Police use Roman tactics to quell riots.

  21. #46
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,721

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    This is another manifestation of woke-ness,

    Here we have a classics professor that wants to stop universities from teaching about Ancient Greece, and Rome. Because he thinks it is a part of white supremacy, etc:

    https://theweek.com/articles/965573/cancel-classics

    Again, this is what woke-ness is, it is essentially neo-maoism, they want to erase the past, and rebuild it into something else.


    The Classics are my blood; Greco-Roman Civilization is my blood. I find it RACIST that it is being vilified and slated for cancellation by woke-Maoists.

  22. #47
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    206


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    The brilliance of Roman military strategy can even be credited in helping to forge the independence of the United States. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington used the Fabian Strategy to defeat the British Army:

    https://www.thoughtco.com/fabian-str...erview-2361096
    or how Russia defeated and anihilated the army of Napoleon on it's retreat

  23. #48
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,721

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    or how Russia defeated and anihilated the army of Napoleon on it's retreat
    Similarly, how the USSR defeated Nazi Germany during Operation Barbarossa.

  24. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    687


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post


    The Classics are my blood; Greco-Roman Civilization is my blood. I find it RACIST that it is being vilified and slated for cancellation by woke-Maoists.
    you are taking cultural critique and critique on the glorification of ancient civilizations as racist critique on your blood?

  25. #50
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,721

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    ^^lmao I knew you would have something to say about my post. After all, you're as woke as they come.


    Yeah, I think it should be glorified, it has been for centuries.

    Without the glorification of Ancient Greece, and Rome, you would not have had the Renaissance, for example.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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