World Families Forums - Deadliest Warrior - Celt vs. Persian Immortal

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 29, 2014, 10:33:04 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Deadliest Warrior - Celt vs. Persian Immortal
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Deadliest Warrior - Celt vs. Persian Immortal  (Read 1181 times)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« on: July 16, 2010, 03:29:42 PM »

Did anyone see this episode on the History Channel?

If you did, did you see the guy who was the stand-in for the Celts? He was MASSIVE! It must be all the milk he's drinking.

I don't know how the Celt lost. That guy who was the Highland Games champion would have decimated an oak tree with a longsword.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2010, 05:55:53 PM »

Tacitus wrote that Germans were big, but tired out pretty quick in a battle where endurance is more important.  I imagine the Celts were similiar and probably explains why the smaller, more disciplined and probably more fit Romans got the better of them most of the time. 

As to the show, I don't think that's the best match-up.  Maybe they considered this but, the Immortals were the armored elite of their army, whereas the average Celt  was first and foremost a farmer.  Although, I think there was an elite class of Celtic warriors called the Gesetae which is depicted in the Dying Gaul sculpture.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2010, 06:31:20 PM »

Tacitus wrote that Germans were big, but tired out pretty quick in a battle where endurance is more important.  I imagine the Celts were similiar and probably explains why the smaller, more disciplined and probably more fit Romans got the better of them most of the time.  

As to the show, I don't think that's the best match-up.  Maybe they considered this but, the Immortals were the armored elite of their army, whereas the average Celt  was first and foremost a farmer.  Although, I think there was an elite class of Celtic warriors called the Gesetae which is depicted in the Dying Gaul sculpture.
From what I've read and some of the stuff on the history and military history channel on Caesar's victories, I gather that the primary difference makers were strategy, organization and discipline and technology/engineering.

The Romans altered (engineered) the battlefield and used better communications to leverage their disciplined forces, better weapons (appropriate to their methods), and strategies.

Physically, I don't think the Romans had a mano y mano advantage, just a well planned, trained, organized (team) approach.  They were a nation and had national army.  They had allies, but their legions were much more than a collection of bands of warriors.   It's like the calvary and infantry versus a bunch of gunslingers.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 06:34:56 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2010, 07:01:10 PM »


As to the show, I don't think that's the best match-up.  Maybe they considered this but, the Immortals were the armored elite of their army, whereas the average Celt  was first and foremost a farmer.  Although, I think there was an elite class of Celtic warriors called the Gesetae which is depicted in the Dying Gaul sculpture.

Very good point.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2010, 08:53:07 PM »

From what I've read and some of the stuff on the history and military history channel on Caesar's victories, I gather that the primary difference makers were strategy, organization and discipline and technology/engineering.

The Romans altered (engineered) the battlefield and used better communications to leverage their disciplined forces, better weapons (appropriate to their methods), and strategies.

Physically, I don't think the Romans had a mano y mano advantage, just a well planned, trained, organized (team) approach.  They were a nation and had national army.  They had allies, but their legions were much more than a collection of bands of warriors.   It's like the calvary and infantry versus a bunch of gunslingers.

I agree with that.  When the early Germans and Celts were successful against the Romans, it was usually because of an ambush (Teutoburg Forest) or raids where more one on one situations would occur. 
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2010, 09:18:54 PM »

I suspect the bow and arrow evened out the sizes of a lot of combatants.

Killing a large man wielding an axe from a distance, would be very attractive to a little guy opposing him.
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2010, 05:42:36 AM »

There was a Warrior aristocracy in the Celtic world, Caesar says that the Gallic society was divided into 3 classes, priests, aristocracy and the plebs, little better than slaves.
According to archaeologists K. Kristiansen the bodies found in rich graves with weapons are taller than the rest. So a celtic warrior would be a tall guy with fine weapons and excellent training, it would be a match in hand to hand combat to most enemies. However the Roman army, as has been already said here, was a much superior organized force. The key advantage was a supply system that allowed the Romans to campaign longer and concentrate larger forces in the spot.
As for the Inmortals, that is laughable, because they didn´t exist! They were mentioned by Herodotus, but it was clearly a mistaken translation for "Companions" and they were not particularly "elite" as combatants, they were rather a cortesan post of honour reserved to the youngsters of noble families.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2010, 12:15:26 PM »

As for the Inmortals, that is laughable, because they didn´t exist! They were mentioned by Herodotus, but it was clearly a mistaken translation for "Companions" and they were not particularly "elite" as combatants, they were rather a cortesan post of honour reserved to the youngsters of noble families.

The Persian word for "Companions" is very similiar to "Immortals".  Despite the label,  according to Herodotus there was a unit of 10,000 well equipped heavy infrantry soldiers during the Achaemenid Empire.   Being "Elite" is a relative term.  To the Greeks probably not, but to the other various people's who the Persians conquered this unit was probably very real.  Herodotus also does mention they were present in various campaigns, so I have to think they took part in combat at least some of the time.  Now as to what role they played in actual battles, I don't think the history is very clear as to the quality of combatant they were.  Given the fact they were from the upper classes, they may have been a tactital reserve or bodyguard unit.  However, they also probably had access to the best training and weapons, which should have made them better fighters on average.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 12:16:39 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2010, 03:47:45 PM »

The roman army was ehe most advanced army in structure and training and just about everything until napolian'army corps!
They were reportdly trained by gladiators at the time of Marius hece the nickname Marius's mule (the carried their own gear) according to record they had to be 5'10'' it was lowered to 5'6''(or 5'4'') at the end of the empire.
very tall for romans (the average hight was 5'4'') because most weren't. It seems only the 1st Italia were 'roman' in fact most romans weren't roman. the (in)famos julius Ceaser was of Alban decent
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 18 queries.