Cimbrian War- Under Rated.

[P.Clodius]

Here's what I found so far, secondary source wise. Unfortunately, no citations.

The Cimbri and the Teutones were not only more numerous, but had a discipline and order, an equipment, leadership and general sense of organization, which speak of a much higher social level than had been reached by the poor and backward frontier tribes of Germans along the Rhine. And it is fairly certain that the scanty social acheivments of the latter were a very misleading index to the degree of civilization reached by the Baltic peoples to whom the Cimbri and Teutones belonged. G.P. Baker, Sulla

I'll keep digging for more, I know I have it in my apartment someplace...!

[Hamilcar Barca]

did any Celtic or Germanic army ever manage to sack a fortified town?

 

Well we must remember that the definition of fortified town varied over the centuries. The most obvious example is Rome itself been sacked in 390 BC (although this doesnt really count because the gates were apparantly unlocked) Hamilcars Gallic rebellion in 200BC did succeed in breeching and sacking Placentia prior to his defeat at Cremona. Just because the Romans wrote these peoples off as barbarians we shouldn't underestimate their siege making abilities, although it is fair to say that they were not in the same class as the Romans.

[P.Clodius]

Well we must remember that the definition of fortified town varied over the centuries. The most obvious example is Rome itself been sacked in 390 BC (although this doesnt really count because the gates were apparantly unlocked) Hamilcars Gallic rebellion in 200BC did succeed in breeching and sacking Placentia prior to his defeat at Cremona. Just because the Romans wrote these peoples off as barbarians we shouldn't underestimate their siege making abilities, although it is fair to say that they were not in the same class as the Romans.

This was (if you're refering to 390BC) before Rome had walls. The Gauls failed to take the Citadel where the youngbloods were hold up.

Edited January 31, 2006 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

did any Celtic or Germanic army ever manage to sack a fortified town?

Well we must remember that the definition of fortified town varied over the centuries. The most obvious example is Rome itself been sacked in 390 BC (although this doesnt really count because the gates were apparantly unlocked) Hamilcars Gallic rebellion in 200BC did succeed in breeching and sacking Placentia prior to his defeat at Cremona.

Was Placentia a walled city? If not, I'm still leaning pretty heavily toward the view that the Celts did not possess effective siege works. This turns out to be pretty important in evaluating how much of a threat they were by the second century.

 

This was (if you're refering to 390BC) before Rome had walls. The Gauls failed to take the Citadel where the youngbloods were hold up.

Right. And out of obligatory polemics, I have to add that even the oldest members of the senate stood boldly in their vestibules against these muddly, naked barbarians. Not that it did the old guys much good.

[Germanicus]

Was Placentia a walled city? If not, I'm still leaning pretty heavily toward the view that the Celts did not possess effective siege works. This turns out to be pretty important in evaluating how much of a threat they were by the second century.

 

Dio says :-

 

"The following year a great deal of havoc was caused by Hamilcar and the Gauls. They conquered the praetor Gnaeus Baebius, overran the territory which was in alliance with the Romans, besieged Placentia, and after capturing it razed it to the ground."

 

The word besieged indicates to me that it was walled. Livy, speaking of C. Aurelius mentions:-

 

"If the state of public affairs allowed, he was to go in person to suppress the disturbance, otherwise, he was to send instructions to L. Furius requesting him, as soon as the legions reached him, to send his 5000 of the allied contingent to replace them in Etruria, and then raise the siege of Cremona."

 

From this I conclude that they'd sacked the walled city of Placentia, and were laying seige to the walled city of Cremona when countered by Romans.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks Germanicus. That's useful information, though unfortunately not quite definitive: either Hamilcar supplied the siege works to the Gauls who had none, or Hamilcar had no siege works but the Gauls did, or they both had siege works.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Just to be clear: I wasn't seriously suggesting that Hamilcar didn't have siege works, just that the passage quoted leaves the possibility open. Obviously, the Carthaginians had siege works.

[Germanicus]

Here's another instance of what appears to be Gallic sacking/besieging - from Polybius book 3.

 

"Scarce had both these colonies been established when the Boii Gauls, who had been for long as it were lying in wait to throw off their allegiance to Rome, but had hitherto found no opportunity, elated now by the messages they received assuring them of the near arrival of the Carthaginians, revolted from Rome, abandoning the hostages they gave at end of the former war which I described in my last Book. Calling on the Insubres to join them, whose support they easily gained owing to their long-standing rancour against Rome, they overran the lands which the Romans had allotted to their colonies and on the settlers taking to flight, pursued them to Mutina, a Roman colony, and there besieged them. Among those shut up there were three men of high rank who had been sent to carry out the partitionment of the country, Gaius Lutatius, a former Consul, and two former Praetors. On these three requesting a parley with the Boii, the latter consented, but when they came out for the purpose they treacherously made them prisoners, hoping by means of them to get back their own hostages. When the Praetor Lucius Manlius, who with his troops was occupying an advanced position in the neighbourhood, heard of this, he hastened up to give help. The Boii had heard of his approach, and posting ambuscades in a certain forest attacked him from all sides at once as soon as he reached the wooded country, and killed many of the Romans. The remainder at first took to flight, but on getting to higher ground rallied just enough to give their retreat an appearance of order. The Boii following at their heels shut this force too up in the place called Vicus Tannetis."

 

I haven't found anything actually describing gallic seige equipment or tactics though.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Here's another instance of what appears to be Gallic sacking/besieging - from Polybius book 3.

 

As far as we can tell from this passage, the Gauls were unsuccessful in their siege, which I think suggests they did not possess siegeworks.

[eggers]

Most ancient battles report staggering numbers of losses on one side with far fewer for the victors. Was this because the ancients reported the size of the army that lost 'as killed' rather than simply as having run away? Is it ridiculous speculation on their part? Is it embellishment? Is it truth?

 

For the most part we can't know any of it for sure even though there certainly must be some truth within all the reports. I've always had a gut feeling that the ancients reported losses based on the destruction of the army, and not necessarily men killed on the battlefield. For instance, if an army of 50,000 was beaten and it fled, dispersing into the countryside, this may have been reported as 50,000 men killed. Perhaps only a fraction of these were actually killed, but once the rout was on, many armies did not reassemble, so for all practical purposes the 50,000 man army was destroyed. But of course, I have no way to prove this theory and it is pure conjecture.

I have to agree with you there, makes more sense, and makes the victors look better. Just out of curiousity, has they ever been an archeological discovery of 50,000 corpses at a site of a well known battle?

 

But since we're obviously heading back to this Roman physical superiority thing

Also, can i ask, if the romans were superior specimens then, what happened to their superior genes by the time of the empire disappearing? Where they taking a nap or something?

 

As far as we can tell from this passage, the Gauls were unsuccessful in their siege, which I think suggests they did not possess siegeworks.

I thought the romans used terms like Gaulic and Germanic as general terms for a whole group of tribes. Isn't it possible that their siege engines and techniques varied from tribe to tribe, so some groups would be better then others.

[M. Porcius Cato]

As far as we can tell from this passage, the Gauls were unsuccessful in their siege, which I think suggests they did not possess siegeworks.

I thought the romans used terms like Gaulic and Germanic as general terms for a whole group of tribes. Isn't it possible that their siege engines and techniques varied from tribe to tribe, so some groups would be better then others.

 

Yes, it is theoretically possible, but I'm still looking for some unambiguous evidence that ANY of the tribes had siege engines. So far, we still haven't found evidence that any Gallic tribe possessed siege engines, though Germanicus presented evidence that there were siege engines used when the Boii Gauls teamed up with Hamilcar .

[Germanicus]

Yes, it is theoretically possible, but I'm still looking for some unambiguous evidence that ANY of the tribes had siege engines. So far, we still haven't found evidence that any Gallic tribe possessed siege engines, though Germanicus presented evidence that there were siege engines used when the Boii Gauls teamed up with Hamilcar .

 

I can't find any descriptions. You'd think there'd be something if they did have them. I might have a look in the Gallic Wars, I know they built defensive, tower like structures to counter Roman seige engines on occasion. It might mention Gallic "shock and awe" at the Romans engineering.

[Kosmo]

All this numbers are, of course, unreal. We should remember that history was not a science, but an art. Look at the persian army that invaded Greece with 1.200.000 soldiers! that's more then Germany had in 1940 campaign.

How was a 200.000 men army supplied? How it moved with almost no roads? How many people made the nation/tribe/state that could muster this force? How big area had to control to feed so many people with low yeld agriculture.

80.000 is the biggest army that we have some proof about and I think that most large armies were around 30-40.000 men.

[M. Porcius Cato]

80.000 is the biggest army that we have some proof about and I think that most large armies were around 30-40.000 men.

And how exactly do you arrive at this number? And how is your method better than the actual PAY RECORDS that were available to ancient writers?

[Kosmo]

It's based on the biggest roman army that is well documented, that of Cannae. They used more soldiers sometimes, like Traian in Dacia and Mesopotamia, but in separated columns like Napoleon did.

A nice example of the problem of the number of soldiers is here:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/warso/...4.htm#Heading14

Better related to the topic, but lower quality

http://www.gaugamela.com 8 Army