Fécamp

[Brennus]

With regards to the Belgic regions will the Fécamp style of fortification be used for settlements instead of the Murus Gallicus or would this require too much work considering the limited distribution of the Fécamp style?

[Ibrahim]

With regards to the Belgic regions will the Fécamp style of fortification be used for settlements instead of the Murus Gallicus or would this require too much work considering the limited distribution of the Fécamp style?

what's the diff?
seriously, I don't know a thing about these matters, but if the two turn out similar, then why bother?

[Foot]

With regards to the Belgic regions will the Fécamp style of fortification be used for settlements instead of the Murus Gallicus or would this require too much work considering the limited distribution of the Fécamp style?

It wouldn't be possible. Both on the campaign map and on the battle map, buildings are defined by culture. All factions of the same culture share the same "look".

Foot

[Brennus]

Thanks Foot.

Ibrahim, the two are very different forms of fortification. The Fécamp style employs an sloped glacis earth bank with a large ditch at the bottom, thus making it very easy to construct, resistant to siege engines and effectively immune to fire. The Murus Gallicus is constructed of dry stone and wooden reinforcements, it is more time consuming and susceptible to sapping and fire however because it isn't a simple earth bank you can build it alot higher. The Fécamp style was limited to the territory of the southern Belgic tribes, whilst Murus Gallicus was employed by the central Gallic tribes such as the Arverni and Aedui.

[Ibrahim]

Thanks Foot.

Ibrahim, the two are very different forms of fortification. The Fécamp style employs an sloped glacis earth bank with a large ditch at the bottom, thus making it very easy to construct, resistant to siege engines and effectively immune to fire. The Murus Gallicus is constructed of dry stone and wooden reinforcements, it is more time consuming and susceptible to sapping and fire however because it isn't a simple earth bank you can build it alot higher. The Fécamp style was limited to the territory of the southern Belgic tribes, whilst Murus Gallicus was employed by the central Gallic tribes such as the Arverni and Aedui.

oh, ok. thanks!

[cmacq]

hasn't there been a few recent problems idebtified with the Fécamp type fortifications?

[Brennus]

Such as?

There has been debate about their existence in Britain as evidence for Belgic settlers. There are two possible examples in Britain (Calleva in Hampshire and Loose in Kent) but both of these examples appear to be post-Caesar.

[cmacq]

By Fécamp you mean simple ditch with earthen dump-ramparts and dry-lay stone walls; the type site being at Fécamp?

[jirisys]

It wouldn't be possible. Both on the campaign map and on the battle map, buildings are defined by culture. All factions of the same culture share the same "look".

Foot

What if you make a "Fecamp" culture, or at least... idk, what it could be done, except making it a castle type

~Jirisys (What if the post is serious, i can't put funny **** here, it'll look bad)

[cmacq]

What if you make a "Fecamp" culture, or at least... idk, what it could be done, except making it a castle type

~Jirisys (What if the post is serious, i can't put funny **** here, it'll look bad)

There are a set number of regional cultures. That can not be changed.

[Cute Wolf]

how about "alternate" custom cities then? just looks like Minas Tirith and Helm's deep?

[Brennus]

By Fécamp you mean simple ditch with earthen dump-ramparts and dry-lay stone walls; the type site being at Fécamp?

By Fécamp I mean as defined by Sir Mortimer Wheeler (1957) and found at the hillfort of Camp-du-Canada. I am not aware of any dry stone walls being used except at the entrances.

[Foot]

how about "alternate" custom cities then? just looks like Minas Tirith and Helm's deep?

If we had all the time in the world, then perhaps. As we don't, its not feasible.

Foot

[cmacq]

By Fécamp I mean as defined by Sir Mortimer Wheeler (1957) and found at the hillfort of Camp-du-Canada. I am not aware of any dry stone walls being used except at the entrances.

Bren...

indeed architecture is my forte. Yet, as greater Germania is my area of interest, and not greater Celtae, it must be known I'm not totally up to speed on this particular subject. Nonetheless, with that said, I'm very interested. Frankly, my time is more than limited, as of late. If you could, please provide an online link for papers and books; complete with maps and dating; as well as methods thereof? I was aware of this specific architectural design, however I didn't know that it was considered a structural site type, and that its use was confined to those areas occupied by the Belgae. Also, I’d like to know the distribution of this defensive site type. Just want you to know that no one is summarily dismissing this subject. I promise to give it a thorough look see.

At the outset, you should know there are a number of reasons why this site type can’t be applied. But, this doesn’t mean that some element may be used in some fashion. Plus, its clearly not beyond the pale, that at least description of the Fécamp site type, could be included, in order to provide EBII with greater context. In fact, if you could please write one or two paragraphs in the EB style, that describes the design and distribution of these sites, and outlines there significance, we could use that as a baseline, on which a presentation in the context of the Belgae and/or Pritanoi, might be developed. Again, no promise, other than with your help, this subject shall have a proper review, and accordingly a proper airing.

Please, one more wee thing, if you don’t mind? Can you look at the site map and model and tell us if this particular site would fall within the purview of the Fécamp site type.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The models and map provided above are of the Late La Tène settlement of Niederzier-Hambach (HA 382) located near Aachen. This site was thoroughly excavated between 1977 and 1982. It was occupied from the La Tène C2 to La Tène D2a, which covers the period between 110 to 50 BC. This settlement was established after the Cimbri Migration. In design and construction it was similar to others fortified settlement found throughout the Rhine valley, both east and west of the river, to include the area occupied by the Ubii before their removal. The occupation and location of HA 382 indicate it was a town (not an oppidum) of the Eburones, who were a Belgae tribe. The reason this type of settlement is being addressed is because its structure and architecture is rather typical of examples found throughout the Rhineland, Hesse, Bavaria, and Bohemia. Remember, the Eburones were Belgic and actually said to have been Germans.

Here, we have a ditch with a fense mound followed by a second ditch and an elevated berm or wall-mound. Now, atop the high wall-mound there was no direct evidence of a wall (stone or postholes) other than tamped earth. Thus, the exterior of the wall may have been faced with horizontal timbers, only to retain the tamped earth fill. In other words there was not box and fill setup.

[Brennus]

Bren...

indeed architecture is my forte. Yet, as greater Germania is my area of interest, and not greater Celtae, it must be known I'm not totally up to speed on this particular subject. Nonetheless, with that said, I'm very interested. Frankly, my time is more than limited, as of late. If you could, please provide an online link for papers and books; complete with maps and dating; as well as methods thereof? I was aware of this specific architectural design, however I didn't know that it was considered a structural site type, and that its use was confined to those areas occupied by the Belgae. Also, I’d like to know the distribution of this defensive site type. Just want you to know that no one is summarily dismissing this subject. I promise to give it a thorough look see.

At the outset, you should know there are a number of reasons why this site type can’t be applied. But, this doesn’t mean that some element may be used in some fashion. Plus, its clearly not beyond the pale, that at least description of the Fécamp site type, could be included, in order to provide EBII with greater context. In fact, if you could please write one or two paragraphs in the EB style, that describes the design and distribution of these sites, and outlines there significance, we could use that as a baseline, on which a presentation in the context of the Belgae and/or Pritanoi, might be developed. Again, no promise, other than with your help, this subject shall have a proper review, and accordingly a proper airing.

Please, one more wee thing, if you don’t mind? Can you look at the site map and model and tell us if this particular site would fall within the purview of the Fécamp site type.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The models and map provided above are of the Late La Tène settlement of Niederzier-Hambach (HA 382) located near Aachen. This site was thoroughly excavated between 1977 and 1982. It was occupied from the La Tène C2 to La Tène D2a, which covers the period between 110 to 50 BC. This settlement was established after the Cimbri Migration. In design and construction it was similar to others fortified settlement found throughout the Rhine valley, both east and west of the river, to include the area occupied by the Ubii before their removal. The occupation and location of HA 382 indicate it was a town (not an oppidum) of the Eburones, who were a Belgae tribe. The reason this type of settlement is being addressed is because its structure and architecture is rather typical of examples found throughout the Rhineland, Hesse, Bavaria, and Bohemia. Remember, the Eburones were Belgic and actually said to have been Germans.

Here, we have a ditch with a fense mound followed by a second ditch and an elevated berm or wall-mound. Now, atop the high wall-mound there was no direct evidence of a wall (stone or postholes) other than tamped earth. Thus, the exterior of the wall may have been faced with horizontal timbers, only to retain the tamped earth fill. In other words there was not box and fill setup.

I will do my best. I am currently finishing my dissertation examining the Belgic "invasion" of Britain but I will try and provide some material for you as well as 2 paragraphs for your parousal.

With regards to Niederzier-Hambach I doubt it would be classed as Fécamp fortified. The territory of the Eburones does appear to have a Fécamp fortified site (Fichtl 1994, 20) although I doubt it is based on the fact it is bi-vallate although the date of construction would fit with Fécamp fortifications (an example near Metz, if I remember correctly, was shown to have been constructed to resist the Cimbri-Tuetone invasion). I will double check my research and get back to you.

[Moros]

I will do my best. I am currently finishing my dissertation examining the Belgic "invasion" of Britain but I will try and provide some material for you as well as 2 paragraphs for your parousal.

Sounds like an interesting dissertation!

[Brennus]

lol I just noticed your location (might explain the interest).

It's fascinating when it works. I am arguing for a peaceful settlement around the Solent and in Hampshire in concurrence with the location of Venta Belgarum and the British Atrebates, c.100BC based on the numismatic evidence. I don't think the Aylesford-Swarling culture has anything to do with Belgic settlement, no Belgic names appear in the area of its distribution and the chronological gap between the introduction of Gallo-Belgic coinage and Aylesford-Swarling (40 years minimum) is too great. Instead there is a similar cremation rite found at a site called Westhampnett with 90 individuals interred c.90BC which would fit with a Belgic arrival.

cmacq I forgot to add that the Eburones, although listed as Belgae, might not be actual Belgae. In the Commentarii de bello Gallico Caesar describes how he wintered his troops in "Belgium" during the winter of 55BC, however he expressely states the names of "Belgae" tribes he was forced to put down but does not list them as being in "Belgium". Since the 60s (Hachmann et al 1962; Hawkes 1968; Roymans 1990; Fichtl 1993) it has been argued that only those tribes which Caesar describes as living in "Blegium" were true Belgae, despite naming several other tribes as Being Belgae. Instead the terms Belgae appears to have been a stereotypical ethnic term based on geographical divisions, like Gaul or German. Cremation rites appear to support this theory.

[Moros]

What would be considered Belgium? I suppose Gallia Belgica? Which was the northern part of whole Gallia (cfr. Omni Gallia divisa est in partes tres...), of which we can find the borders most probably by comparison of archeological finds. If we can believe that it corresponded with an ethnicity. Is that what you're saying? If so than you believe the Eburones lived outside this area and were not off the Belgae stock, but rather Germanic (?) influenced by Gauls and especially Belgae? I'm confused by your wordings, especially the word 'Belgium'. As that seems to incline the modern (at the moment still existing and who knows if it still does by the time you read this) state. Could you elaborate your last post a bit (the second paragaph) as for some reason it's confuses me somewhat.

[cmacq]

cmacq I forgot to add that the Eburones, although listed as Belgae, might not be actual Belgae. In the Commentarii de bello Gallico Caesar describes how he wintered his troops in "Belgium" during the winter of 55BC, however he expressely states the names of "Belgae" tribes he was forced to put down but does not list them as being in "Belgium". Since the 60s (Hachmann et al 1962; Hawkes 1968; Roymans 1990; Fichtl 1993) it has been argued that only those tribes which Caesar describes as living in "Blegium" were true Belgae, despite naming several other tribes as Being Belgae. Instead the terms Belgae appears to have been a stereotypical ethnic term based on geographical divisions, like Gaul or German. Cremation rites appear to support this theory.

I've come to the same conclusion concerning the Eburones being Belgae in name only. I have a feeling they were Noric Celts who crossed the Rhine some time before the Cimbric migration (maybe around 130 or 120 BC). However, I think their shift from right to left could not have happened more than 20 years prior. I would also suggest that they had once occupied the area east of the Rhine that was immediately north of the Ubii, who would be centered in Hesse around Frankfurt on Main. Their AO may have been centered on the right bank to include that part of Rhein-Sieg-Kreis. Therefore, if the Sicambri had formed by then, they would have been found immediately to the east of the Eburones, before they crossed over. But, as we all know, I could well be wrong about everything.

[Moros]

I'm getting it your point now. Must have been tired yesterday or something.

I haven't read stuff about this for a long long time. But what I do remember is that there is indeed a lot of speculation, that the Eburones were not of the Belgae stock and were later migrators from across the rhine. Thus they are often to quickly considered and named Germanic by some Belgian historians, but personally I've found not to thrust most of these writers all too much. And while there's often merit in some of their agruments. They generally struck me as not to competent and knowledged, and appear to me as capable Roman cultural historians who for the fun of it write a rare occasion article on them without doing deep research but rather a quick job, using generally accepted but misinformed or what seems outdated ideas to base their ideas of, outside of their comfort zone and hence almost exclusively use Caesar almost actively ignoring archeology and other sources of information. Now I don't doubt there are a few decent scholars at work who actually are putting time into it, but it strucks me ass odd how it usually just is a quick extra publication on a topic that is found interesting by the general populace but recieves almost no serious academic research or research criticism. The only thing that gets done decently are some minor archeological surveys, who publish some obscure updates. But then everything over here stands in the shadow of the oh so magnificent and great (and expensive) digging at Sagalassos anyway. Sigh.

Hmmm I guess i've been venting frustrations more than adding to the discussions sorry for that.

Either way. I've never seriously looked into it myself. But what I can say is that there are indeed many doubts about how belgic the Eburones were. But then again these articles tend to take their conclusions pretty quickly, without considering the true complexities of the topic they are researching. A typical example is 'the Nervii were germanic as according to Caesar they came from over the Rhine and were proud of their germanic origin.' While it may be possible or may be completely or partly true , if I get to read such sentences in academic articles, I feel dissapointed and sad. Now if it had a referral to another article or something okay, but making that call yourself just like that is of pretty low academic standard.

[paullus]

Hey, don't hate on Sagalassos!


Edit: Cmacq, are you locating the Eburones based on abandonment of oppida in that region? Or is there some other reason for locating your Eburones adjacent to the Ubii?

[cmacq]

Hey, don't hate on Sagalassos!


Edit: Cmacq, are you locating the Eburones based on abandonment of oppida in that region? Or is there some other reason for locating your Eburones adjacent to the Ubii?

You're talking before 120 BC, right? If so, there are several reasons. One reason is where the Ubii ended up after the Romans relocated them from the Main area; in the southeast tip of the former Eburones territory, west of the Rhine. I believe when both were east of the Rhine they would have had the same relative standing, but much farther upstream. Nonetheless, given the area the Eburones controlled west of the Rhine, if they had formed east of the Rhine, this tribe would have been a significant presence.

[Moros]

Hey, don't hate on Sagalassos!

If it wasn't stealling all the spotlights, money,... from the many other interesting archeological projects, I wouldn't. The finds there and the site are amazing, but that doesn't justify it being omnipresent and limiting the other projects of the ancient history and archeology departement, well especially the latter.

[Arjos]

I came across this:

The existence of Zangentore (a specific pincer-shaped form of gate found in La Tène oppida) in Závist, Bohemia, as well as in Belgic oppida (for example, Fécamp) further implies that the central European Celts and Belgae formed a single cultural region.
Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia
John T. Koch

So it is plausible to think that the Middle La Téne cores of Moselle and Bohemia were in contact. Maybe the original Boian homeland was located in a region between the Moselle and Rhine.
Following the eastern migrations of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, could be that some Celts went back on their way and settled in what was Belgica, but by now they started to get in contact with the Germani, who were migrating at this time (early 3rd century BC).
This may be linked with the Late La Tène artifacts found in Denmark, particular for having eastern celtic elements.
Then by the time of the 2nd century this Germanized Celts, mixed with Celtized Germani, felt the pressure from the Rhineland and so they started to look beyond the English Channel (Ambiani's coins found in Britain dated around 150 BC).
Than the Cimbri and Teutones followed: further germanization of the Belgae.

[cmacq]

I came across this:

So it is plausible to think that the Middle La Téne cores of Moselle and Bohemia were in contact. Maybe the original Boian homeland was located in a region between the Moselle and Rhine.
Following the eastern migrations of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, could be that some Celts went back on their way and settled in what was Belgica, but by now they started to get in contact with the Germani, who were migrating at this time (early 3rd century BC).
This may be linked with the Late La Tène artifacts found in Denmark, particular for having eastern celtic elements.
Then by the time of the 2nd century this Germanized Celts, mixed with Celtized Germani, felt the pressure from the Rhineland and so they started to look beyond the English Channel (Ambiani's coins found in Britain dated around 150 BC).
Than the Cimbri and Teutones followed: further germanization of the Belgae.

OK, I believe all this is tied to a single word Caesar wrote; please see below.

Caesar's Gallic War
Book 6, Chapter 24
Ac fuit antea tempus, cum Germanos Galli virtute superarent, ultro bella inferrent, propter hominum multitudinem agrique inopiam trans Rhenum colonias mitterent. [2] Itaque ea quae fertilissima Germaniae sunt loca circum Hercyniam silvam, quam Eratostheni et quibusdam Graecis fama notam esse video, quam illi Orcyniam appellant, Volcae Tectosages occupaverunt atque ibi consederunt; [3] quae gens ad hoc tempus his sedibus sese continet summamque habet iustitiae et bellicae laudis opinionem. [4] Nunc quod in eadem inopia, egestate, patientia qua Germani permanent, eodem victu et cultu corporis utuntur; Gallis autem provinciarum propinquitas et transmarinarum rerum notitia multa ad copiam atque usus largitur, [6] paulatim adsuefacti superari multisque victi proeliis ne se quidem ipsi cum illis virtute comparant.

My rendering
Alltogether in the past, with vigor the Celts rose above the Germans, to whom they brought war, this because their people grew-great in number and for the want of fertile land; they sent settlers across the Rhine [Danube]. They went to the most fuitful lands in Germany, which are located around the Hercynian Forest, whom Eratosthenes and other certain Greeks bore witness to and recorded, although they called this place Orcynia. Thus the Volcae Textosages sized and settled there, which in those days was a race that held higher the law and was pronounced preeminent in war. Now as Germans they continue to suffer want and necessity, the same life enjoyed by the greater culture. However, these Celts proximity to our Province and much celebrated shipping enterprises, as well as preoccupation with ample and lavish trade, they by degree grew accustomed and many have transented the life of combat and with others never compare strength.

That word was Rhenum, but most likely should have been Danubius, Danuvius, or Ister. Why or if he wrote Rhenum, is well beyond me.

The reason we know this is because, we now understand that the Hallstatte Culture represents the emergence of not of the Celtic ethnos, but rather two of the three socio-economic units that were also dominated by elements that used discrete dialects of P-Celtic. In archaeological terms these are appropriately called the East and West Hallstatte Zones. Based on the pattern of growth. as the material culture in these zones expanded out from their core areas, we recognize, the West Zone consolidated, and in effect its core shifted further west to much later become the Latene expression. These can only be the historic Gauls, who were indeed P-Celts. Therefore one may surmise, that in it initial stages, the West Hallstatte Zone was also Gaulish in nature. In turn, as the East Hallstatte Zone expanded over time it, more-less merged with the Western expression. Nonetheless, due to this developmental history we understand these are what we now call the Noric Celts; which the ancients knew as the Volcae, as opposed to the Gauls. Its very clear the Boi were Volcae and not Gauls.

Now events make more sense. P-Celtic expansion into France was done by the Gauls, while P-Celtic expansion into Anatolia, the Balkans and much of southwest greater Germania was due to Volcae confederations. P-Celtic expansion into northern Italy was due to both Gauls and the Volcae, and furthermore, at some point the Volcae even expanded into southern France.

Sorry, don't have time to cover the formation of the third P-Celtic expression, in the Urnfield Culture; of which the much later Belgae were a major component. But enough to say the Cimbric migration could not have made them any more of less Germanic. Please look over the 'Who were the Cimbri' thread. I believe the Cimbri as well as other ancient Germanic issues, are reviewed in some depth.

As for a common factor between the Belgae and Boii, we have greater Germania, and at one time the former seem to have dwelt much closer to Bohemia. One might place them, right around the upper Wesser, just before 300 BC.

[Brennus]

I have been researching the Fécamp style since you last requested me to do so. It appears, very firmly, that the Fécamp style is NOT exclusive to the Belgae Prof. Ian Ralston of Edinburgh (1975) excavated Fécamp style fortifications in Western Gaul, well outside the Belgic regions. Since then numerous Fécamp (or Tallus Massif) style fortifications have been found elsewhere in Gaul. The style appears not to have been a Belgic only defence but rather a rapid ad hoc style of defence, most examples of this fortification date to post La Tene D and appear to have emerged in response to the Cimbri-Teuton and later Roman invasion of Caesar. Sorry to get everyone's hopes up. I could still write two paragraphs if you like?

[Arjos]

I was talking about different cores (Moselle and Hallstatt princedoms)...
But I always knew that the Boii migrated in the east hallstatt zone, bringing with them new burials and customs.
That more than a century later they were in the volcae confederacy is a different matter...
My point was that the Belgae and Boii may had a common origin, during the Middle La Téne period, before entering in contact with germanic migrators (during the 3rd century)...

[cmacq]

I was talking about different cores (Moselle and Hallstatt princedoms)...
But I always knew that the Boii migrated in the east hallstatt zone, bringing with them new burials and customs.
That more than a century later they were in the volcae confederacy is a different matter...
My point was that the Belgae and Boii may had a common origin, during the Middle La Téne period, before entering in contact with germanic migrators (during the 3rd century)...

Well overall the Belgae confederation was a mixed bag, as mentioned above the Eburones, being Germanic while at the same time, Belgae in name only. As a guess, I'd say they didn't make the crossing around 300 BC with the main Belgic migration. Its names like Cati-volcus (Volcae-warrior) that suggest the Eburones were either Volcae or had a very strong connection with them. But, I'd say no; as the Boii were clearly Volcae or developed out of the East Hallstatte Zone, while the Belgic main body in northeastern Gaul was part of a very conservative cultural expression that ran northeast across the Rhine into Holland, modern northeastern Germany, and included all of mainland Denmark. This appears to represent the core area of the third expression, mentioned above.

[cmacq]

I have been researching the Fécamp style since you last requested me to do so. It appears, very firmly, that the Fécamp style is NOT exclusive to the Belgae Prof. Ian Ralston of Edinburgh (1975) excavated Fécamp style fortifications in Western Gaul, well outside the Belgic regions. Since then numerous Fécamp (or Tallus Massif) style fortifications have been found elsewhere in Gaul. The style appears not to have been a Belgic only defence but rather a rapid ad hoc style of defence, most examples of this fortification date to post La Tene D and appear to have emerged in response to the Cimbri-Teuton and later Roman invasion of Caesar. Sorry to get everyone's hopes up. I could still write two paragraphs if you like?

I still wonder if we, are talking about the same thing?

[Megas Methuselah]

Why not make the Fecamp style of fortifications a pre-cursor to the Murus Gallicus in the fortifications building tree? As Brennus pointed out, the Fecampe style might just be extensive enough to warrant such an inclusion in the game. The only problem I can see with this is getting it to appear correctly in the battle-map, which may very well be too time-consuming (if at all possible).

But then again, other "barbarian" culture slots, such as the various German, Iberian, & Dacian factions, would end up having their stockades appear as such, so I can understand if this isn't exactly a reasonable suggestion.