Hi Tora-tora-tora!!!,

The Gauls or Celts or Kelts did have an advanced civilization at that time. They were better metal workers than the Romans, although their swords could range in quality from bad to excellent. Gallic swords were found by archaeologists buried in the mud of Lake Trasimene (Hannibal's 2nd large battle against the Romans in northern Italy) where they had lain for 2,000 years, and some of those Gallic swords were able to be bent to where the point of the blade almost touched the tang (handle) of the blade and when released they sprung back into their correct shape; other Gallic swords would either get bent or even break, it just depended on the quality of the iron ore and who the swordmaker was.

Their cities were very large, and most were defended by very thick walls of stone and wood and earth. They were decent stoneworkers. They were not wandering tribes at this time in history, but were settled with defined territorial boundaries, and had what basically was a feudal system of government at the tribal level. They also had a 'national' council of sorts with an elected leader from amongst all the tribal nations, although this leader's and the council's authority were limited and disunited. The Gauls of the Atlantic coast of France also were decent seafarers and J. Caesar had a hard time defeating their large, rugged sailing ships.

They did train for battle, and could be very disciplined, contrary to the typical stereotype of them always being just a mob of rushing, screaming barbarians. They did practice tactical manuevers. The Gauls could and did form shield walls as did the Germans. Vercingetorex also saw how the Romans effectively used archers, slingers, and javelin skirmishers and he increased their numbers greatly in his armies. Overall, they lacked the higher discipline, better training, and endurance of the Romans, although the gauls were considered by the romans to be very fierce and uncommonly brave. Another fair comparison would be of the Gauls and the Japanese Samurai and other warriors at the time of the attempted Mongol Invasions of Japan. The Mongols and koreans were impressed at the individual fighting prowress and bravery of the Japanese warriors, and were not familiar with the looser and more open and individualistic style of fighting of the Japanese.

The Gauls were similar in mentality to the Vikings and Germans, even the Japanese to some degree, in that they glorified the warrior and tended to treat warfare as a personal game and could get wild and impetuous and fickle, unpredictable. They weren't as well trained and disciplined as the Romans or Greeks, but they were fairly well trained in the art of individual combat and to a lesser extent mass combat in formations. They were not stupid. They were bigger and could also be stronger than the Romans on an individual basis.

That movie "Druids' is rather bad, a 'Class b stinky' IMHO.

Chris

Sending in a first line in loose formation, then backing it with a stronger line in close formation would be a bad idea, especially if you were in the first line. You would want to meet the enemy with as strong a line as possible to limit casualties on your side. The "checkerboard" 3 line pattern depicted for the Roman army is the subject of much debate, and may not have worked that way at all. In particular, the Triarii, often considered to be the hardened veterans and best units, were probably made up of the legion's clerks, artisans, architects, and engineers, etc. They were certainly "veterans", but probably not the best fighters, and were only thrown in as a last resort to save the army from complete disaster. As a last resort, and as "career" soldiers, they were probably charged with holding up the enemy long enough for the rest of the army to escape.

The additional 5 to 15 ranks had several purposes above and beyond repacements, even when their weapons didn't reach the enemy. First, a soldier carrying a heavy sword or spear and wearing 30 to 80 pounds of equipment (more while marching) and fighting for his life is going to get VERY tired in a short amount of time. Part of the purpose of musicians and cadences also may have applied to combat itself, where the front rank would suddenly fall back at some particular point in the cadence, and the second rank would take over, allowing the exhausted front rank to recover. At other times, shieldwall versus shieldwall may have turned into a gigantic shoving match, where each side tried to push the other over backwards, and the additional ranks all added weight to the drive. Finally, if things turned for the worse, the last rank of "file closers", usually older or highly dedicated men, was given the task of preventing the men ahead from deserting.

The light infantry was often equipped with circular shields, which were better for individual combat, while the legionaires carried the rectangular or elongated "scuta", which was optimized for use in a shieldwall. The Gallic shields were initially round, until they had been fighting against the Romans for long enough to adopt many of the same tactics and equipment.

Gallic fortifications were typically built by placing a layer of logs lengthwise, spaced so that no two were touching, and filling the gaps between them with stone. A layer of stone was laid on top of that, and then a second layer of logs were placed, this time at right angles to the first. The process was repeated, creating a wall that was fireproof, yet had the reinforcement of wood to resist rams and siege engines. Gaius Julius (eventually Caesar) noted this on his journals, and appears to have been highly impressed with several aspects of the Gauls' methods of warfare.

Rome's strength was in its ability to field and train an army, send it anywhere in the empire quickly, and keep it supplied for as long as necessary. The Gauls, in comparison, were able to muster an extremely large and powerful army on fairly short notice, but were unable to feed the huge masses, which rapidly degenerated into a feuding mob of seperate tribes and then headed home. The more competent Roman generals learned how to avoid the huge but short-lived collective armies and conquer the individual tribes piecemeal.

The Gauls' strong point was their individual fighting ability and the small but tight-knit village and tribal units, which apparently practiced as a group. The weak link was that there was no strong higher command to weld the little groups of 50-200 men into larger formations, resulting in an almost uncontrollable army. The overall commander might be forced to stop and give directives to every one of the lower tribal leaders, who would otherwise be offended by receiving orders from a mere messenger. Equipment (swords, shields, etc.) varied from group to group, with quality totally dependent on the wealth of the individual tribe or village and the skills of its own craftsmen.

The first line would most likely be skirmishers, and the Gauls could and did use these effectively just as the Romans did and thsi is described in some histories. The Triarii as seperate maniples only existed in the republican manipular System, and beginning with Marius or Caesar or thereabouts as it is not known positively when this occurred, the Legions switched to the Cohortal System, and the Triarii as seperate units vanished, although most probably went to form the 1st Cohort of the newly organized Cohortal Legions. The Republican era Triarii were used as you state, they were the reserves, but many times became involved in the fighting as at Zama and with Scipio in Spain.

Read of the Battle of Telamon in about 224BC, where the Gallic army, about 70,000 strong, fought in 2 directions at once if I am not mistaken, and their ranks held, although they did launch some wild attacks upon the Romans. The Gauls also siezed a dominating hill before the battle and placed their cavalry upon it if I am not mistaken.
In this large battle the Gauls acted and operated as a fairly disciplined mass of troops and held their formation, as about 30,000 survived and I believe escaped the 2 or 3 Roman armies that had them trapped. The Gauls understood tactics and the advantages of terrain. Shortly afte the Battle of Cannae, the gauls in northern Italy ambushed another Roman army in a forest, and killed about 20,000 Roman and Allied troops.

It would seem that they could operate in large formations in a fairly disciplined manner at times. The Gauls that fought at Cannae with hannibal had not been thorughly trined in Carthaginian and Roman tactics, yet they fought a grueling and disciplined defensive battle in the center of Hannibal's line. Later, when Hannibal siezd the port of Taranto, he marched in some of his finest, most well equipped and disciplined troops, and these included units of gauls, who by that time had been thoroughly trained by Hannibal.

Overall, compared to the Romans and greeks, theywere less disciplined and impetuous, fickle and unpredictable, but they could and did at times fight in an organized and disciplined manner, although this was more of an exception to the rule. They did usually rely upon a mass attack, the 'barbarian rush' so to speak, but they usually had a reserve, and did protect their flanks, used their cavalry generally wisely, and knew and utilized the advantages and disadvantages of terrain.

Many of their city walls composed of the lattice-like arrangement of wooden logs and much more stone with stone facing, were very strong and formidable, and those walls caused the Romans many problems.

You have a good point(s) about the Republican triai, since they were not only the most veteran troops, but also the OLDEST with nagging wounds and injuries, but they were proud and stubborn and excellent troops none the less.

Also, it may have been when Marius took the field against the Germanic Cimbri that the legionary maniples were grouped together into cohort-like units, because the Cimbri had crusahed the previous Roman army at Orange I believe, and it seems that this defeated roman army was using the manipular system of tactical unit deployment. The smaller maniples seem not to have been able to stand and resist the larger formations of the Cimbri and their allies.

When Marius fought the Cimbri and defeated them, it was a hard battle, and the Cimbri are said to have basically fought in a shieldwall with white shields and breastplates in a disciplined and stubborn manner.

I just bought Legion Arena at Best Buy for $40, and there were 4 copies there on a bottom shelf with a little dust on them believe it or not, so i moved those copies and put them on the top shelf next to Battle for Middle earth 2, which latter game I may also purchase when the price comes down. i will soon get Cult of Mithra, and am interested in doing a Middle Earth mod. I wonder if the unit graphics files can be used from CoM and LA in the Spartan game engine. I don't know, but in the original Legion there are some fantasy units that can definitelt be used for Middle Earth.

The Gauls were not stupid, and I can't wait to play the Gauls in LA. I have all the older Slitherine games also installed on my computer, and I enjoy playing the Gauls, Germans, Iberians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Illyrians, etc. against the Romans as well as playing the Romans against all those 'barbarian hordes'.

Magobarca, aka Flavius Cornelius Silva (There was another Silva that commanded what I believe was the 3rd or 4th Roman army that invaded britain, Flaviys Cornelius was in command at Massada, although I prefer the republic to the empire era. Silvanus was the Roman diety of forest and field, he drank a lot with Bachus and Minerva and all those bewitching forest sprites and wood nymphs etc.)

Wow, this thread has been busy!

As far as actual man-on-man tactics used by the legions, all I know is that they were very fond of a thrust to the upper thigh of an unarmored or lightly armored oponent. This was apparently one of their standard moves, taught to recruits from day one of their swordwork training.

You will love the Gallic campaign. It's really quite desperate for the last 1/3 or so. You are often faced with both time and casualty constraints.

I found that my usual training and equipment strategy worked very well.

1/3 Warriors
1/3 Veterans
1/3 Heavy Cavalry
and a few bowmen

Infantry go Swordsman, Drill, Feint in strict rotation, with a break for Disciplined Formations at L6. Frenzy comes available at L13, and from there on, they are killing machines. Next work on Armor Penetration. Expert Drill is enough, no need for Master Drill.

Cavalry go Swordsman, Drill, Feint in strict rotation, with a break for Trample at L8. Frenzy comes available at L13, and from there on, they are killing machines. Next work on Armor Penetration and more Trample. Expert Drill is enough, no need for Master Drill.

Armor the crap out of your Cavalry and Veterans, and buy them the best weapons you can possibly afford.

The Warriors the same, but at a lower priority.

If you follow this regimen strictly, you will find in the late campaign, when things get really harsh, that your troops are capable of minor miracles. They will eat Legionaires raw, and not even pause to spit out the bones.

Now, this was pre-patch.

Patch notes say, "The balancing of numerous units has been tweaked to improve multiplayer and make Romans vs Gauls a fair fight."

Let's hope fervently that FC is too smart to fall into the old trap of tweaking stuff to adjust multi-player, and screwing up the single-player game.

If they have nerfed the Gauls' units, the gallic gampaign may be hosed...



Do not waste any money on Fanatics, they'll hurt you badly later on, when the harsh casualty limits come into play, and they level up so very s-l-o-w-l-y...

Hi Possum,

That thrust-to-the-thigh manuever you mentioned has stirred some cobwebs in my belfry and I recall that. Good info there. You know quite a bit. It is also possible that the Romans may have deliberately 'hooked-shield side edges with an enemy" to open up an area for a thrust. They were smart, and though. Just picture a whole bunch of short Romans hunched down behind that large scutum with the galadius held back in readiness for a thrust. They were trained to hack with them too, when an opportunity presented itself or if necsessary. That is a nasty sword. 'Shield-hooking' was a manuever from latter times and and axe was one weapon used to hook an enemy's shield, then pull the top of the shield towards yuo and thrust forward wiht the battle-aze or hand-axe into the enemy's face. You don't sink the blade into the top of the enemy's shield, rather you catch the top of the shield below the axe-head on the haft, and then pull the shield toward you. SCA stuff from original sources etc.

I made it to the Batlle of Cynocephalae in Macedon and it took me about 10 times to win it on normal, but when I won it I slaughtered the Macedonians. I kept a lot of low level early troops in my little legion and just upgraded them so I have an army that is not strong in legionaires, only 1 of each type. makes it hard to win but it is fun. I finally found the right spot in my line for my Eqyuite unit and I tried many variations before I won. I am saving that game.

I am following your upgrade advice just about to the tea with my Romans, and even the upgraded low level milita and spearmen and scouts are pretty good. thanx for the gallic advice, but i don't know if I will make it through the Roman campaign!!

Remeber the Great battles of Alexander, hannibal and caesar games?? they were good and had a decent scenario and map editor and also could be modded. I still like like Legion Gold, Sparta and Got and CoW. i have to dig up my old saved modded files on those. At the old Legion Forum I was the first to get the Legionaires to throw their pilums by doodling with the text files and following Ian's instructions, then about 1 week or so after I got it to work some other fellow came up with a simpler mod string and it worked too, but according to ian and the instructions it shouldn't have worked but it did!! %-) I believe modding is a love-hate type of thing.

I just patched the game but am dtill in the Rome campaign. ***However, maybe you or someone else might know what the deal is on this: when i put the disk in to start the game, a pop-up appears with blank click boxes on it!! if you click the top boc it will start the game, and most of the click-boxes below that are inet connections. how come there is not any words on those click boxes to explain what they are, or do I have a partially whacky install??

Great game, but I wish there was a 2D option. Nice crisp graphics in 2D that looks like 3D IMHO in Legion and Sparttan and GoT.

Take care and thanx for the info, Magobarca or Chris

PS: I have to look for that Carthage mod again, and then try to unlock the Gallic campaign, and I know I read how to do that here and may have copied the posts. Darn Elephants are real tough, but with all the upgrades and melee and missile fire against them, they can be dropped, but I saw that you needed 2 or more units for Pachyderm unit. I may make them a bit less tough, don't know though.

Hi Tora-tora-tora!!!,

The Gauls or Celts or Kelts did have an advanced civilization at that time. They were better metal workers than the Romans, although their swords could range in quality from bad to excellent. Gallic swords were found by archaeologists buried in the mud of Lake Trasimene (Hannibal's 2nd large battle against the Romans in northern Italy) where they had lain for 2,000 years, and some of those Gallic swords were able to be bent to where the point of the blade almost touched the tang (handle) of the blade and when released they sprung back into their correct shape; other Gallic swords would either get bent or even break, it just depended on the quality of the iron ore and who the swordmaker was.

***BTW, the lake where those springy Gallic swords were found was Neufchatel or Neuchatel, domething like that and in france i believe. I think Peter connolly mentions that in his book and he witnessed this incredible events several times at the archeology-dig site I guess.

magobarca, mago-bark-a could be celtic or Entish.

Ave magobarca,

I have read your posts with great interest, and, apart from a few spelling and grammatical errors, they are extremely informative. I applaud your enthusiasm and long may it continue.

However, I feel as though I must correct your information in one aspect, "Flavi(y?)s Cornelius was in command at Mas(s?)ada" this is not right. (spelling?)

Please see my post of Dec. 6 2005 http://www.slitherine.com/eslitherine/forum/viewtopic.php?t=590 you will note that his name was L(ucio) Flavio Silva Nonio Basso or L(ucius) Flavius Silva Nonius Bassus.

Please explain "(There was another Silva that commanded what I believe was the 3rd or 4th Roman army that invaded britain,), I don't understand? When was this event?

Keep up the good work, 5/10 for spelling and grammar, 10/10 for content. Might I respectfully suggest that you reread your posts in the preview screen before you finally submit them. Please feel free to criticise me in return if you think it to be appropriate. I'm neither driven by ego nor any need to prove myself.

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

PS. Please don't be offended by any of the above, it's meant as constructive criticism.

When he says 3rd or 4th roman army that invaded britain, I assumed he was referring to Claudius' invasion, when the romans arrived in several distinct waves...

ROFL

Hey, Ian, see this? Sound familiar?

No, mago, you don't have a wacky install. It's an odd bug with the game that seems to affect about a half dozen of us who post here.

What OS are you running?

I reported it back here -
http://www.slitherine.com/eslitherine/forum/viewtopic.php?t=618

Hello Possum,

I am running Windows 98SE on a 1.8Ghz Pent4, 512MB of RAM, etc., but the OS I bet is not the prblem. The problem may be that the Strategy First patch is no good, and there is a size difference (kbs) between it and other patches at different sites, so I might try a patch from a different site.

Poop. This is rotten and stinks.

Mago-poopus-barca

Hi speedius,

I don't make a big habit of correcting typos when engaged in casual converstion, although sometimes I do, and I am not a typist.

No, I'm not offended. Yes, 'Flavyus' is a typo for 'Flavius', obviously. The name 'Flavius Cornelius Silva' is I believe from the movie Masada, and I have seen this same name used in written literature along with the one you mention, so Flavius Cornelius Silva may be a modern abbreviated version of the full name.

The Silva that commanded one of the Roman Armies that invaded Britain at a certain latter time time I state from memory, but to be more exact I or you or someone else would have to dig around a bit for this, which I don't have time to do. I believe this Silva may have been in overall command of the operation or just an army commander sor awhile, not sure as it has been awhile since I read that info.

Just type in 'ancient Roman's with the name Silva' in Google, that may do it, I don't know. If and when I come across this Silva associated with the Roman Army in Britain I will post the info. here. the Empire is not by cup of tea, and I prefer Republican times.

In the meantime, I have to reinstall LA AGAIN. How wonderful.

Magobarca Silva

BTW, Peter O'Toole I believe played Silva in the movie Masad or Massada, he did a fine job, but I think a more rugged type should have played the part, and not Sylvester Stallone either!!! Pease!!!

Maybe Arnie S. baby, the Guv himself. Just kidding.

Best part of the movie is when Silva shows leniency to a couple of troopies, and the troops start cheering 'Silva! Silva! Silva!', music to my ears. Hee heee hee, I had a similar experience decades ago.
A boost to my ego.

I better reinstall Legion again, maybe I will just reinstall the patch over the stripped down copy of LA that is left after I uninstalled the patch.

Poodle-do, Magobarca

We seem to have a lot of trouble staying on topic around here!

This thread was about reviews & if you want to discuss something else, please start a new thread. Thanks!

Seems this thread was OT for quite some time!!!!!!!!!

Magobarca

Hey magobarca, if you could dig up more books by Tarn I would greatly appreciate it.

Mago

98 OS2.1 here, the final version of 98SE. So I am guessing it is OS related.

In any case, it's no biggie. Just click the top button to run the game, and the rest of the buttons are all trivial stuff anyhow, as you will discover for yourself by clicking on them.

If you'll forgive me for sounding like a brownnoser, I'd like to point out here that all game companies have some bugs in their products. Slitherine is no exception, they're not perfect. But their products are more finished, more polished, and closer to bug-free than the products of any major corporate game company except id software.

AND they offer better customer service than their giant competitors.

So don't be too harsh on them, eh?

P.S. LOL, poor Ian, nobody is listening at all...

98 is losing ALL support from MS in June/July this year IIRC. Already half the new game releases don't support it at all, because it does cause so many issues. And (honestly) XP is a way better OS. Just way better. And I don't own any MS shares

Cheers

Pip

I KNOW. It may be OS related, however many companies such aas Slitherine are smat and make their games compatible with Windows 98SE since MANY people and small businesses still use WIN 98SE.

I am not being harsh. I am being rather nice and trying to determine how to get the patch to run, OR if it is possible that Slitherine could just put the Patch Files in a Zip download so we can just manually install the files. It is not that big of a patch, and I don't play Multi-player games, so I would not even need all the files and changes in the Patch.

My next 'compooter' will have WIN XP or 2000, probably XP. However, I am keeping my present compooter with its 2 hardrives to run each seperately a version of WIN 95 and WIN 98 so I can play older games such as the Great Battles ancient series (Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar) with its in-game scenario and map editor, Steel Panthers, Fantasy General, all the talon Soft battleground and East and West Front and Rising Sun games, etc.

What is TECHNICAL SUPPORT for if not to solve such a simple issue with a Zip download so people can manually install the files if they want to. That would be NICE and also good for business.

Sincerely, Magobarca

Also, from a post by JCG in another thread, it does not appear that the OS had anything to do with the problems WE are having with patching LA.

Here is JCG's post:

Pip,

Here are my system specs per your request:

Alienware Custom PC
Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.0 GHz
2 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
Creative Soundblaster Audigy
XP Professional (Service Pack 2)

Running the boxed retail version of the game, unpatched as noted before.
------------------------

Sinvcerely, Magobarca

Kyle: Hey magobarca, if you could dig up more books by Tarn I would greatly appreciate it.

Magobarca: Kyle, W.W. Tarn was a famous classical ancient period author of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Just type in W.W. Tarn' in a search engine and you will find many books and articles by him. His most famous work is probably concerning Alexander the Graet.

Another good author is T.A. dodge, who wrote excellent books about Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar, particularily Hannibal, that deal in great detail with their military campaigns. Dodge is good, but he 'guesstimates' at a few things, as most people do.

Here is a quick list of books on the Punic Wars etc. that I own, and there are a few others:

The First Punic War, by J.F. Lazenby, the only modern account
covering the entire war, and perhaps the only complete account
available, since none of the surviving works of the ancient authors
covers this war in its entirety.

Hannibal, Vols. 1 and 2, by T.A. Dodge, one of the best.

The Punic Wars, by A. Goldsworthy.

The Punic Wars, by B. Caven.

Hannibal's Campaigns, by Tony Bath.

Greece and Rome at War, by P. Connolly.

Warfare in the Classical World, by J. Wary.

Hannibal's War With Rome, by Osprey.

Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments, by W.W. Tarn.

Carthage, a History, by B.H. Warington.

Rome Against Carthage, by T.A. Dorey and D.R. Dudley.

Roman Legions, by H.M.D. Parker.

The Estruscans, by A.C. Vaughan. (Included becuase an unknown but
substantial number did serve with Hannibal.)

And of course the works of Polybius, Livy, Arrian and some Plutarch.
along with quite a few other modern works and supporting works
covering earlier Greek/Hellenistic times.

Three other interesting books about the Classical Era are:

Reign of the Phallus, Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens, by E.C.
Keuls.

Sexual Life in Ancient Greece, by Hans Licht.

Sexual Life in Ancient Rome, by Otto Kiefer.

More: 2 good books: The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome 150AD to 600AD, by Phil Barker;

and for the Punic Wars List, Armies of the Macedonian
and Punic wars 359BC to 146BC by Duncan Head. Both books were
published by the Wargames Research group (WRG) in cahoots I believe
with The Society of Ancients, some very knowledgeable people.

Use your search engine and the inet and you will find a wealth of info.

Magobarca