View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
From: Louis Capdeboscq <email@example.com> Subject: Re : REPLY: Gallic manpower 2nd - 1st Century BC Date: March 6, 2010 10:05:23 AM EST To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> John McGrath wrote: "I think it is an erroneous assertion to contend the Romans were technologically superior to their enemies." I guess my use of such an anachronism as "technologically" pretty much made that criticism inevitable. I'm not going to argue what constitutes technology or what doesn't, but to take just one example from my original post, the Romans had the technology (or the werewithal, or the capability) to build forts from which they were essentially immune from anything the Gauls might attempt. Similarly, they had the technology successfully to capture enemy fortifications. Caesar captured a large number (I'm not trusting my memory here, but it seems to me that it was a 3-digit figure) of enemy forts. The Gauls captured zero. To me, that's technology though if you want to call it organization I won't argue the point. My own point was that, regardless of each side's leadership, the Romans had capabilities that the Gauls had not, and the inbalance was such as to make the outcome of the campaign all but a foregone conclusion. That the Romans managed to lose one army to the Germans just goes to illustrate that sometimes, the barbarians will win. The Romans had defeated plenty of German armies - and would go on doing so for a while - it just wasn't enough to rid them of the threat. Louis Capdeboscq ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----