Again, letting you know I'm grouping them together for simplicity's sake...but they were Barbarians all the same.
The Gauls originated from the Celts (in fact it was the Celts that first settled Gaul). The Gauls spoke Celtic. While, the Germanic tribesman spoke German. The word Gaul comes from the German word "Walha" referring to peoples who did not speak German (and at the time was also used by the Germanic tribesman to describe both the Celts the Romans as well). Similarly, the Vikings, Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians were also described as barbarians. The term Barbarian was commonly used by the Romans for any sovereign "perceived" though not "absolute" to be less civilized than that of Rome. So to pool all these very different regional & ethnic groups into one pool based on a Roman perception is to be somewhat if not a little arrogant.
typically now one needs skill in order to make it as a professional
My point made.
No, it says nothing of military prowess. If they weren't formidable, Caesar, Polybius, Tacitus and others would not write about it. Being conquered means the other military was better than yours, but has nothing to do with your actual skill. If the Gauls were not as skilled as Caesar claimed them to be, he would not have hired them as mercenaries to utilize their cavalry.
This is being humble. Just like I would compliment my opposition on a 'good game' even when I'm victorious and should I choose to write about it I can. Also, its about quantity as much as quality; assimilation was a common policy of all successful sovereigns of the ancient times.
What I'm trying to tell you, and you cannot seem to grasp for whatever reason, is that a soldier acts as part of a unit. Individual failure at this level means a failure at the group level. (i.e. destruction of a formation.) A warrior in contrast fights individually. Sure he may see himself as a part of whatever warband he's in, but he fights for himself. (example: "I killed many foes, and I captured the base, and I brought back plunder for myself.")
As backed up by the dictionary, a soldier is simply anyone enlisted or serving in the military forces. A warrior is someone who has engaged in or experienced battle. Therefore it has nothing to do with acting in a collective unit or fighting for "one self". For example an American Soldier that has engaged in or experienced battle during the Vietnam war would be a Warrior. Though your opinions clearly differ to mine so lets agree to disagree.
I have served as a soldier in Kosovo, I know what it means to be a soldier. Never would I have categorized myself as a warrior, at least not in the sense that those who use it mean by it.
I did my 1-year in the Slovakian Military & would also not classify myself as Warrior. Though its not humble to classify one self as being this or that; perhaps others see you as a Warrior.
Thank you for giving part of a wikipedia article which not only did not offer any sources...
There's a short reference list at the bottom of the article. Should you wish you may follow it up. Nevertheless in gives some ideas about the technological advantage the Roman legionnaire enjoyed over his Germanic counterpart during the period of Teutoburg.
There were no problems because after Carrhae, they utilized their Auxilia. I should not have to repeat myself so many times. However, I realize now, that you're not interested in having a discussion. You're simply repeating your same rhetoric, not providing sources, and now even plagiarised a wikipedia article. I'm going to opt out of this for the simple fact that you're not even listening to what I'm saying.
You'll find that Rome had a very hard time fighting against armies that were very mobile and used skirmishing tactics.
I was simply referring to your original post. In which you stated "Rome had a very hard time fighting against armies that were mobile and used skirmishing tactics". I don't really see what "Auxilia" has to do with your original comment to which I was replying to.