Where is the Celtiberian faction?

[Berg-i-dum]

Well I suppose you have been talking about this. They were probably the most advanced native people in Hispania in the EB time frame. They were divided but their warfare (celtic swords, helmets... for example search info about La Osera archeological site and his weapons) and settlements (actual Oppida like Numantia, Pintia, Pallantia, Contrebia Leucade, Tiermes... ) were the most developed (they had even an alphabet) and they were in a stadium previous to a great principate like the celtic middle european ones, it is really possible that if the roman invasion werent come they would become in a big confederation or prince-state.

I reallly dont understand the current situation in the game, I suppose the only fact to made the Lussitani as the only hispanian nation is the Viriato thing, this is true but appart from this great Leader, they werent a enough developed and united tribes (I think at the moment the archeology didnt find such a big Oppida cities culture like in the Duero river region, the majority were little fortified settlements with not a big warfare artifacts, living in little communities-clans), at least not like the celtiberian -or asimilated- ones: Arevaci, Vaccei, Vettoni, etc. And of course it is remarkable that the harder and longer roman campaign in Hispania was the Celtiberian Wars and the famous siege of Numantia.

I dont pretend to blame about Lussotanna but I really think the current situation isnt absolutely accurate with the Archeology and History. It is not a personal view since yes, I am spaniard, but from the "Galllaecia" :beam: region which was near to the Lussitani culture (it is common accepted the same lusitanian language in both Lusitania and Gallaecia). :sweatdrop: and I dont feel bad playing as lussotanna, I only miss the celtiberians aswell; and if it would be only possible a single hispanian faction: for the above reasons, it would be Celtiberia.

More info (plenty more) about Celtiberians in this study:
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_2/gorbea_lorrio_6_2.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Cogotas-II_(dagas)-Segunda_Edad_del_Hierro.jpg

[Hax]

You're from Galicia? That's a great historical area, also medieval.

[Rilder]

Having another Iberian faction might help control the Brown Death (heh) that seems to happen in EB1.

[lenin96]

Yeah, the Lussotanna conquer Iberia too early on. There needs to be something to stop them from expanding so quickly.

[seienchin]

Yea Iberia is always going a strange way. The Carthagenians do nothing and the Lusothanians are doing nothing the first 20-60 turns and then blitz all the Eleutheroi Cities right into gaul.

[Bucefalo]

Great post Berg-i-dum, i would love to see to some Celtiberian faction, they were really one of the most tough opponents of the roman in their wars in hispania. Also IIRC the nucleus of the troops of Sertorio were composed by celtiberians, on which he added some extra discipline:smash:

Here i leave you a web wich contain interesting information about the diverse iberian tribes and also pictures of some coins: http://moneda-hispanica.com/iberhome.htm It is in spanish, but the images are quite useful.

By the way, I as a bastetani with heavy carthaginian influence, would not mind to join our northern brethren agaisnt the invasors!:charge:

[Moros]

Here i leave you a web wich contain interesting information about the diverse iberian tribes and also pictures of some coins: http://moneda-hispanica.com/iberhome.htm It is in spanish, but the images are quite useful.

That is indeed a nice site!

[Belisarius II]

Having a Celtiberian faction would indeed force the Lussotanians to fight for Iberia. If the EB team does not include a Celtiberian faction, however, hopefully they will fix the Carthaginian AI, so that it focuses on actually trying to take other settlements in Iberia.

Having a Celtiberian faction would also put more pressure on the Aedui and Avernai in Gaul. This would also halt Roman expansion into Gaul seeing that Rome waits until the Aedui and Avernai beat each other to a pulp and then the legions march in and take Gaul without a fight.

[Moros]

I think it would create less pressure, as currently the lusotannan often conquer the whole of gaul after dominating Iberia.

[Berg-i-dum]

You're from Galicia? That's a great historical area, also medieval.
Yep I am galician. :yes:


Great post Berg-i-dum, i would love to see to some Celtiberian faction, they were really one of the most tough opponents of the roman in their wars in hispania. Also IIRC the nucleus of the troops of Sertorio were composed by celtiberians, on which he added some extra discipline:smash:

Here i leave you a web wich contain interesting information about the diverse iberian tribes and also pictures of some coins: http://moneda-hispanica.com/iberhome.htm It is in spanish, but the images are quite useful.

By the way, I as a bastetani with heavy carthaginian influence, would not mind to join our northern brethren agaisnt the invasors!:charge:

You are welcome to our brotherhood Iberian friend hehe.

The romans needed 3 Celtiberian Wars to subjugate them, they suffered infamous defeats like the Nobilior´s one. Other peoples of Iberia like the Cantabri provided support to celtiberians in their fight against Rome. His archeological expansion even affected Asturian or Cantabri areas (for example we can found celtiberian products in Lancia or Asturica), since his culture was higher developed and it was producing an asimilation -celtiberization- in Northern Iberia, expanding in all the Meseta-Duero region and high part of the Ebro river.

[HunGeneral]

Celto-Iberians would help keep the Lusos (or even the Carthies in Iberia) in check - But what if becomes something similer to The Adeui vs Arverni conflict - one defeats the other, gets overstreched and will be overrun by a third (in this case maybe fourth) faction taking the hole of the aera (Iberia in this case)...

[vonhaupold]

There HAS to be a new faction in Iberia. I agree a Celtiberian faction would be a prime candidate, but I think a good case could be made for the Turdetani as well. Descended from the Tartessos, they had their own language and alphabet unique from the rest of the Iberians. They are also considered to be one of the most "civilized" peoples of Iberia. They were early trading partners of the Greeks and Phoenicians and were later heavily influenced by Carthage. I believe they fit in nicely with the EB timeframe, but I'm not really sure about how much information there really is about them.

I of course am biased since I am from that area, specifically Cádiz and Sevilla. :beam:

¡Saludos!

[Bucefalo]

vonhaupold, I would love too to see some southern iberian faction, as i am from that area too. But as far as i know, these southern iberian tribes were not really a warlike people, but more related to the carthaginians by trade.

I think there are some quotations of these tribes using mercenaries of northern tribes to fight for them, that would mean that they did not have a strong army by themselves.

Anyway i don´t really know much about their military, but as you say their culture was more "civilized" from the eyes of greeks and phoenicians, and possibly more advanced than others tribes of the interior of the peninsula.

Also they usually offered a lot less of resistance against the invasions, it could be because they knew what benefits would bring them being under carthaginian/roman rule or were simply more tolerant to foreigners as long as their customs were preserved.

[Berg-i-dum]

Well I am agree with Bucéfalo. Early the Turdetani where under high dependency of Carthago at least since III b. C. and his military at that time were in a big portion celtiberian mercenaries.

But to be honest his culture was higher developed with urban settlements, because of his longer contact with mediterranean colonies. And well to speak about Tartessos -anyway it is way out of the EB timeframe- I am one of the sceptics who thinks more in a mythological kingdom than in a actual one.

@HunGeneral. I am agree that this could be a bad point in the gameplay but well if we had 3 factions in Iberia -Carthago, Lusitani, Celtiberii- it would be even I guess.

[Sarcasm]

Well I suppose you have been talking about this. They were probably the most advanced native people in Hispania in the EB time frame. They were divided but their warfare (celtic swords, helmets... for example search info about La Osera archeological site and his weapons) and settlements (actual Oppida like Numantia, Pintia, Pallantia, Contrebia Leucade, Tiermes... ) were the most developed (they had even an alphabet) and they were in a stadium previous to a great principate like the celtic middle european ones, it is really possible that if the roman invasion werent come they would become in a big confederation or prince-state.

I reallly dont understand the current situation in the game, I suppose the only fact to made the Lussitani as the only hispanian nation is the Viriato thing, this is true but appart from this great Leader, they werent a enough developed and united tribes (I think at the moment the archeology didnt find such a big Oppida cities culture like in the Duero river region, the majority were little fortified settlements with not a big warfare artifacts, living in little communities-clans), at least not like the celtiberian -or asimilated- ones: Arevaci, Vaccei, Vettoni, etc. And of course it is remarkable that the harder and longer roman campaign in Hispania was the Celtiberian Wars and the famous siege of Numantia.

I dont pretend to blame about Lussotanna but I really think the current situation isnt absolutely accurate with the Archeology and History. It is not a personal view since yes, I am spaniard, but from the "Galllaecia" :beam: region which was near to the Lussitani culture (it is common accepted the same lusitanian language in both Lusitania and Gallaecia). :sweatdrop: and I dont feel bad playing as lussotanna, I only miss the celtiberians aswell; and if it would be only possible a single hispanian faction: for the above reasons, it would be Celtiberia.

More info (plenty more) about Celtiberians in this study:
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_2/gorbea_lorrio_6_2.pdf

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Cogotas-II_(dagas)-Segunda_Edad_del_Hierro.jpg

Well, I'd like to start by saying that this post here, supporting that somehow EB's view is skewed towards the Lusitani, is entirely a subjective opinion. In fact to the contrary, ancient chroniclers had to say in that respect "And yet the country north of the Tagus, Lusitania, is the greatest of the Iberian nations, and is the nation against which the Romans waged war for the longest times". Do not think EB historians to take lightly their work...personal preference takes little or no role in the decision for which factions should feature in the mod. Having said that, it was in fact a hard decision to choose which way to go after the pan-Iberian faction that existed in earlier versions.

Indeed, the Celtiberians were more advanced than the Lusitani, but so was Syracuse compared to the Sweboz for instance, and that did not warrant them an EB faction slot over them. Their settlements were bigger and their population more urbanized, but just how many major settlements did steppe nomads have? Societies based on pastoralism are usually not based in large groupings of population, and yet they can still be numerous and powerful in their own right. Much more merit in that respect, have the Turdetani.

You talk of division among the Lusitani, and then talk of 3 wars needed to submit the Celtiberians, as if they were a single entity. Get your facts straight...for instance, in the first war, the city of Caravis was allied to the Romans even as they were trying to submit Complega (not even the entire Lusones tribe). Defeating a city, or a tribal confederation did not necessarily mean defeating the larger tribal groupings nor the establishment of somekind of authority over the land. In the second War, the Titti were bullied into the fight by the Belli from Segeda...the Arevaci thought they were being smart enough to take the chance to become the dominant political entity in the area (which they were already close to being, especially Numantia in the face of Segeda). Ocilis was allied to Romans at some point, and the Numantines were pretty much alone in the final War....a Roman allied Belli contingent was wiped out by the Lusitani, when they were nominally allied to the Arevaci...the examples of Celtiberian disunion abound...I challenge you to find the same on the Lusitani.

On the contrary, you never see Lusitani fighting among themselves, and their infamous plundering was never primarily against their kinsmen, that we know of. Unlike what you're saying, their story does not begin with Viriato, rather from Hannibal's time, and continue as a distinct people all the way to the time of Sertorius and Caesar, albeit largely romanized by then. Their expeditions ranged far and wide, from the land of the Conni to Bastetania, from Turdetania to Carpetania and Celtiberia....oh let's not forget, once into North Africa. And often leading confederations of Vettones, Vaccei, Carpetani and Callaeci. Were the Celtiberians close to entering a phase in which they could have become city-states, much like the Turdetani? Yes, they were...But so were the Lusitani from carving a regnum from the rich lands of modern Andalucia.

Nationalism and regionalism play no part here, Viriato was not Portuguese, nor was Caro Castillan. The simple fact is, we chose the Lusitani, simply because they were more dynamic, and expressed a real desire to expand while maintaining sufficient historical record that we can represent them decently. Not that the Celtiberians don't, so I wouldn't worry about not having its valorous warriors which I admire greatly, be misrepresented.

[Berg-i-dum]

Well, I'd like to start by saying that this post here, supporting that somehow EB's view is skewed towards the Lusitani, is entirely a subjective opinion. In fact to the contrary, ancient chroniclers had to say in that respect "And yet the country north of the Tagus, Lusitania, is the greatest of the Iberian nations, and is the nation against which the Romans waged war for the longest times".

Lusitanian have this roman words and Celtiberii have in fact 3 long wars (and other texts as long as high recognized mercenaries, and in fact the Celtiberians were the peoples who fought longer the romans in actual campaigns, not only guerrilla warfare that Lusitani, Callaeci and other peoples practiced) which probably caused critical reforms in roman world, like some authors explain, with the result in the marian reforms and the grachus revolts. They had to develop for first time long wars year after year in a far region where they had to send not profesional recruits. They should reform his own military to afford this. Those Wars concentred the roman war machine and this fact permited the Lusitanian revolt itself leaded by Viriato during the Numantia siege (in fact he was allied with Arevaci). The first resistence against romans by lusitani was more a "guerrilla" war than an actual one like we can contrast in Celtiberia: long sieges, alliances, importance of supplies, big roman resources involved, actual campaigns. At least until the great Leader Viriato came.
Romans suffered in this scenario some of the most well know defeats by natives barbarians in his early history, as the infamous Consul Nobilior retreat and plenty more. The siege of Numantia was one of the bigger in the roman history, (and epic :yes:), reminded in all future roman chronicles as a final point to the long and desesperate celtiberian war. Even the Cantabri wars were easy compared to this.


Do not think EB historians to take lightly their work...personal preference takes little or no role in the decision for which factions should feature in the mod. Having said that, it was in fact a hard decision to choose which way to go after the pan-Iberian faction that existed in earlier versions.


I dont try to blame agaisnt EB historians and his personal preference or proffesionality. But If you dont count with celtiberian historians or enthusiasts, the decisions can be uneven sometimes and may be not finally accurate like I think it is the real situation here.


Indeed, the Celtiberians were more advanced than the Lusitani, but so was Syracuse compared to the Sweboz for instance, and that did not warrant them an EB faction slot over them. Their settlements were bigger and their population more urbanized, but just how many major settlements did steppe nomads have? Societies based on pastoralism are usually not based in large groupings of population, and yet they can still be numerous and powerful in their own right. Much more merit in that respect, have the Turdetani.


I think this is an important point, such an advanced protourban complex in celtiberian world shouldnt be understimated as it is now and you are suggesting. More if we add a long warfare tradition represented in ancient necropolis even from first Iron Age. Two good points the Lusitani really dont count themselves. If we have a developed Iberian faction and we select other one not so developed it is not fair. And well the turdetani/iberian question as I noted above cant be discussed since they were almost under carthaginian dominium in EB time, and they didnt count with the warfare society the celtiberians had at that moment and wich themselves were using as excellent mercenaries.


You talk of division among the Lusitani, and then talk of 3 wars needed to submit the Celtiberians, as if they were a single entity. Get your facts straight...for instance, in the first war, the city of Caravis was allied to the Romans even as they were trying to submit Complega (not even the entire Lusones tribe). Defeating a city, or a tribal confederation did not necessarily mean defeating the larger tribal groupings nor the establishment of somekind of authority over the land. In the second War, the Titti were bullied into the fight by the Belli from Segeda...the Arevaci thought they were being smart enough to take the chance to become the dominant political entity in the area (which they were already close to being, especially Numantia in the face of Segeda). Ocilis was allied to Romans at some point, and the Numantines were pretty much alone in the final War....a Roman allied Belli contingent was wiped out by the Lusitani, when they were nominally allied to the Arevaci...the examples of Celtiberian disunion abound...I challenge you to find the same on the Lusitani.




On the contrary, you never see Lusitani fighting among themselves, and their infamous plundering was never primarily against their kinsmen, that we know of. Unlike what you're saying, their story does not begin with Viriato, rather from Hannibal's time, and continue as a distinct people all the way to the time of Sertorius and Caesar, albeit largely romanized by then. Their expeditions ranged far and wide, from the land of the Conni to Bastetania, from Turdetania to Carpetania and Celtiberia....oh let's not forget, once into North Africa. And often leading confederations of Vettones, Vaccei, Carpetani and Callaeci. Were the Celtiberians close to entering a phase in which they could have become city-states, much like the Turdetani? Yes, they were...But so were the Lusitani from carving a regnum from the rich lands of modern Andalucia.


You misinterpreted what I mean about the unity of the prerroman peoples, I really mean the Lusitani were united and not the Celtiberii, as a point in favour of them added to the Lider one. Sorry my english isnt good.

Well the celtiberians werent united at all, but they made some alliances as I noted above with Vaccei (they can be considered celtiberians in some way as I will explain later), Cantabri, Asturi and the Lusitani. They had even some leaders like Caro.

Another good point in favour of Lusitani as you noted is the expansionism. But well may be the celtiberian were more defensive tribes in roman chronicles but if we study the archeology of the nortern Iberia we see a long celtiberian culture expansion: we found some products like ceramics, weapons, this could be only trades result, but we find also social influencies like Gentilitates and warfare society with oppida complexs organization gradually adopted by other peoples firstly not considered celtiberians but affected for a aculturization process - celtiberization; so much that we can even consider some peoples like Vaccei in the final phases like actual celtiberians... So there was somehow an expansion of this high develped society among the North of Spain reflected in archeology but not in roman notes.



Nationalism and regionalism play no part here, Viriato was not Portuguese, nor was Caro Castillan. The simple fact is, we chose the Lusitani, simply because they were more dynamic, and expressed a real desire to expand while maintaining sufficient historical record that we can represent them decently. Not that the Celtiberians don't, so I wouldn't worry about not having its valorous warriors which I admire greatly, be misrepresented.
At least to balance the historic situation there should be celtiberians and lusitani, but for the above reasons if I had to select only one I would select celtiberians. And yes in fact some spanish authors consider Virato as spaniard since it could be be born in spanish Zamora province - Mons Herminius, so it is not point about nationalism, it is history accuracy.

[Berg-i-dum]

There is other question I wanted to clear about the desunion in Celtiberia. You presented some celtiberian peoples or populi fighting each other and challenged me to find the same among Lusitani. We are confusing two different things. Celtiberian-Celtiberia topic is a word that represent a first order community which is based in actual tribes -second order communities-: for example Arevaci, Pelendoni, Bellii, Titi etc. So it is right to see them fighting each other. Lusitani were only a single tribe not a mix of different tribes like we can understand the Celtiberians meaning and how was understood by romans who called those hard wars Celtiberian Wars.

For example in a roman reduced view and early definition here we have a map of Celtiberia region where inhabited several "celtiberian" factions:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Mapa-celtiberos.svg/265px-Mapa-celtiberos.svg.png
Red- Arevaci
Brown- Pelendoni
Green- Beroni
Yellow-Belli and Titti
Blue-Lobetani and Lusoni

http://www.pelendonia.net/mapas/celtiberia600.jpg

[Sarcasm]

Lusitanian have this roman words and Celtiberii have in fact 3 long wars (and other texts as long as high recognized mercenaries, and in fact the Celtiberians were the peoples who fought longer the romans in actual campaigns, not only guerrilla warfare that Lusitani, Callaeci and other peoples practiced) which probably caused critical reforms in roman world, like some authors explain, with the result in the marian reforms and the grachus revolts. They had to develop for first time long wars year after year in a far region where they had to send not profesional recruits. They should reform his own military to afford this. Those Wars concentred the roman war machine and this fact permited the Lusitanian revolt itself leaded by Viriato during the Numantia siege (in fact he was allied with Arevaci). The first resistence against romans by lusitani was more a "guerrilla" war than an actual one like we can contrast in Celtiberia: long sieges, alliances, importance of supplies, big roman resources involved, actual campaigns. At least until the great Leader Viriato came.
Romans suffered in this scenario some of the most well know defeats by natives barbarians in his early history, as the infamous Consul Nobilior retreat and plenty more. The siege of Numantia was one of the bigger in the roman history, (and epic :yes:), reminded in all future roman chronicles as a final point to the long and desesperate celtiberian war. Even the Cantabri wars were easy compared to this.

Alright, so now you're ticking me off, with the whole patronizing attitude. Listen, for some things, you're considering the Celtiberii as a single entity while for others you prefer to refer to single events or tribes. There were 3 Celtiberian Wars, yes, but the first one for instance was merely against the Lusones, while the second involved the Belli, the Titti and the Arevaci. In the third one, there are no longer others other than the Arevaci from Numantia (not even the whole tribe) and some of the Vaccei. 3 distinct campaigns against several different tribes.

Then you're distorting facts. It was the Lusitanians that brought the Arevaci into the war, not the other way around. By the end of the war, we actually hear of Viriato telling his allies to fend for themselves, 'cause he's way over his head at that point.

We first hear of the Lusitani as part of Hannibal's army, serving as mercenaries in Italy, having departed with him from Iberia in 218 B.C. Then we hear of them around 194 B.C when Nasica supposedly conquered 50 cities that had sided with them and killed 12.000 Lusitanians in battle in Turdetania (an exaggeration for sure, but we get an idea of the scale of warfare involved here. In 190 B.C they're in Bastetania, defeating a Roman Praetorian army, killing 6000 Romans in the process - they're later defeated by a joint Turdetanian and Roman army in Northern Turdetania. In 188 BC, they're attacking the area again, having even taken Hasta to their side, leading to a famous siege. The next 7 years we hear of minor battles over Lusitanians, Vettones and Celtiberians. In 163 B.C we again hear of Consular armies repelling the Lusitani from the province. In 156, war erupts again and a Lusitani incursion defeats another Praetorian army, with another 6000 Roman casualties. In 153, 30.000 Romans are defeated with the loss of over 9000 men (this is the victory, were the Lusitani flaunt captured standards from the Romans and incite the Celtiberians to war ending in the defeat of Nobilior, once more...you'll notice that Viriato is still nowhere to be found). At the same time, other Lusitani armies are operating in the land of the Conni, taking their capital, and crossing over into Africa, laying siege to Ocilis but are heavily defeated in the process. It is in this time when a Roman incursion takes control of Oxtrakae.

Nobilior lost 10.000 in his campaign, the most famous Celtiberian victory, and I'm up to 21.000 confirmed casualties (not counting the times where numbers aren't included) against the Lusitani, and I'm still not into the time of Viriato. But who's counting? You are apparently, and as for me, I view these numbers as somewhat irrelevant.

Next comes the infamous Galba, in 151. You know the story, the Lusitani are able to inflict a major defeat on them (some 7000 casualties) and he instead resorts to treason to defeat them - 9000 Lusitani die and 20.000 become slaves. It is only at this point, 67 years after we first hear of them, fighting against the Romans, that Viriato comes into play. The rest as they say is history...more Roman casualties, long wars, massacres and eventually, Lusitanian defeat under Viriato's successor. Or is it? They're back at it when 'ol Julius is Praetor of the province, and are part of Sertorius armies.

As you see there were actual battles, and sieges (are we stuck on how long they took?) in the Lusitanian wars, there were significant Roman casualties, that equalled or topped those in the Celtiberian wars (but is this relevant?), there were alliances (the Celtiberian one, being the major one) there was intensive political infighting in Turdetania as cities and princes shifted alliances, as is noted again by ancient chroniclers. Viriato's assassins were aristocrats from the city of Urso, and Astoplas, the father of his wife was a rich Betic landowner with ties with Roman administration.

The Lusitanian way of war? Offensive guerrilla, forced marches, ambushes, ploys, disruption of supply lines and actual battles. The Romans responded with genocide and brutal repression, much like they did in "classical" Celtiberia. Is it really important how they fought, as opposed to their results and intentions? The Lusitani at one point wipe out an army of Celtiberian Roman allies that was sent against them, should we have based our decision on this point? Were the Lusitani superior in battle to the Celtiberians? I can't make that statement, nor can you to the contrary.


I dont try to blame agaisnt EB historians and his personal preference or proffesionality. But If you dont count with celtiberian historians or enthusiasts, the decisions can be uneven sometimes and may be not finally accurate like I think it is the real situation here.

Excuse me? What makes you a bigger Celtiberian enthusiast or historian than me? Or than any of the team's Iberian members?


I think this is an important point, such an advanced protourban complex in celtiberian world shouldnt be understimated as it is now and you are suggesting. More if we add a long warfare tradition represented in ancient necropolis even from first Iron Age. Two good points the Lusitani really dont count themselves. If we have a developed Iberian faction and we select other one not so developed it is not fair. And well the turdetani/iberian question as I noted above cant be discussed since they were almost under carthaginian dominium in EB time, and they didnt count with the warfare society the celtiberians had at that moment and wich themselves were using as excellent mercenaries.

Who says I'm underestimating anything? Not everything is a matter of political or urbanistic development, nor did the Celtiberians have a longer military tradition than any culture on Earth.

To say the Turdetani were wholely under Carthaginian control is to hugely oversimplify the situation, it's just that the game engine doesn't allow us to elaborate on the subject any further. And you're right, they did use Celtiberians as mercenaries and they were excellent, perhaps even the best in the western world if you ask my opinion, and yet they were defeated by Lusitani armies (or did they simply vanish?). Does that make them less of choice in that perspective? See how you can look at it from a different direction and still not count that as a reason to exclude them?


You misinterpreted what I mean about the unity of the prerroman peoples, I really mean the Lusitani were united and not the Celtiberii, as a point in favour of them added to the Lider one. Sorry my english isnt good.

Well the celtiberians werent united at all, but they made some alliances as I noted above with Vaccei (they can be considered celtiberians in some way as I will explain later), Cantabri, Asturi and the Lusitani. They had even some leaders like Caro.

Actually, no they weren't. Just that they apparently had a sense of identity...the Lusitani were not a single tribe per-se, actually more like a large tribal group whose composition varied from time to time. We hear of certain Lusitanian tribes switching their allegiance to the Callaeci, after their demonstration of valour. Epigraphy clearly shows that there were several smaller tribes, that were part of Lusitani. Still not sure what you mean by this though....


Another good point in favour of Lusitani as you noted is the expansionism. But well may be the celtiberian were more defensive tribes in roman chronicles but if we study the archeology of the nortern Iberia we see a long celtiberian culture expansion: we found some products like ceramics, weapons, this could be only trades result, but we find also social influencies like Gentilitates and warfare society with oppida complexs organization gradually adopted by other peoples firstly not considered celtiberians but affected for a aculturization process - celtiberization; so much that we can even consider some peoples like Vaccei in the final phases like actual celtiberians... So there was somehow an expansion of this high develped society among the North of Spain reflected in archeology but not in roman notes.

At least to balance the historic situation there should be celtiberians and lusitani, but for the above reasons if I had to select only one I would select celtiberians. And yes in fact some spanish authors consider Virato as spaniard since it could be be born in spanish Zamora province - Mons Herminius, so it is not point about nationalism, it is history accuracy.

So the reason for including the Celtiberians, as a whole, is acculturation of *other* people? Should we have a La Tene faction then? Or perhaps a Orientalizante one? Or perhaps a Hellenised one? Or even Romanized? And you are wrong, Romans did notice this "spread", just that they had too much of a "they-all-look-alike" mentality to anything that wasn't of their cultural group, to dedicate too many lines on the subject. One sees this in Gaul, Britain, Africa, Germania, etc...

Indeed, there should be space for both, but alas there isn't (in EB1 at least; maybe they're in EB2, who knows), and I'll have to respectively disagree with you. And those Spanish authors are idiots, much like those that consider him to be Portuguese. He was Lusitani, a people much like the Celtiberi, that's no longer around as a cultural group and that no current nationality can claim for its own. And that's that.











...But let me or you be lucky enough to be descended from one of these brave tribes. I care not which, pick a place in Iberia, and there you'll find plains or mountains where brave men once lived, fought and died for their right to exist as a people. :book:

[Berg-i-dum]

Alright, so now you're ticking me off, with the whole patronizing attitude.
I dont pretend that, I want to learn and may be teach some new points of view in this subject. If I sounded unpolite I am sorry. I really respect the EB team work and I am playing and following this great mod since the early first movements.



Listen, for some things, you're considering the Celtiberii as a single entity while for others you prefer to refer to single events or tribes.

This is not me, the romans and nowadays studies consider it in this way.

There were 3 Celtiberian Wars, yes, but the first one for instance was merely against the Lusones, while the second involved the Belli, the Titti and the Arevaci. In the third one, there are no longer others other than the Arevaci from Numantia (not even the whole tribe) and some of the Vaccei. 3 distinct campaigns against several different tribes.

Then you're distorting facts. It was the Lusitanians that brought the Arevaci into the war, not the other way around.

It depends on the point of view, I know there are slighty differences between tuga historians and spaniard ones about this theme but there are some facts: One of the stats of the roman ceasefire after the second celtiberian war was not to fortified the city of Segesta (principal capital of celtiberii, in Bellii territorium), Caro began to fortified it with the consequent roman protest and this is the trivial fact that ruined the status quo dicted by Rome, later the Arevaci began a revolt and united with Belli declaring Caro as Leader in the warriors Asambleia creating a military confederation against Rome, when the Lusitani were just defeated and in they were somehow in ceasefire, also yeah, Viriato encouraged in some way the Arevaci to revolt and he got an alliance with them -of course I have to admit this is good point in favour of this great leader- and because of that he could rebuild his forces with the roman war machine far away again from Lusitania, concentrated in Celtiberia, but until he died assesinated (139) when he was actully in peace with romans (since 140) while the Numantine War was in action (until the fall of Numantia, 133).


By the end of the war, we actually hear of Viriato telling his allies to fend for themselves, 'cause he's way over his head at that point.

We first hear of the Lusitani as part of Hannibal's army, serving as mercenaries in Italy, having departed with him from Iberia in 218 B.C. Then we hear of them around 194 B.C when Nasica supposedly conquered 50 cities that had sided with them and killed 12.000 Lusitanians in battle in Turdetania (an exaggeration for sure, but we get an idea of the scale of warfare involved here. In 190 B.C they're in Bastetania, defeating a Roman Praetorian army, killing 6000 Romans in the process - they're later defeated by a joint Turdetanian and Roman army in Northern Turdetania. In 188 BC, they're attacking the area again, having even taken Hasta to their side, leading to a famous siege. The next 7 years we hear of minor battles over Lusitanians, Vettones and Celtiberians. In 163 B.C we again hear of Consular armies repelling the Lusitani from the province. In 156, war erupts again and a Lusitani incursion defeats another Praetorian army, with another 6000 Roman casualties. In 153, 30.000 Romans are defeated with the loss of over 9000 men (this is the victory, were the Lusitani flaunt captured standards from the Romans and incite the Celtiberians to war ending in the defeat of Nobilior, once more...you'll notice that Viriato is still nowhere to be found). At the same time, other Lusitani armies are operating in the land of the Conni, taking their capital, and crossing over into Africa, laying siege to Ocilis but are heavily defeated in the process. It is in this time when a Roman incursion takes control of Oxtrakae.

Nobilior lost 10.000 in his campaign, the most famous Celtiberian victory, and I'm up to 21.000 confirmed casualties (not counting the times where numbers aren't included) against the Lusitani, and I'm still not into the time of Viriato. But who's counting? You are apparently, and as for me, I view these numbers as somewhat irrelevant.

Next comes the infamous Galba, in 151. You know the story, the Lusitani are able to inflict a major defeat on them (some 7000 casualties) and he instead resorts to treason to defeat them - 9000 Lusitani die and 20.000 become slaves. It is only at this point, 67 years after we first hear of them, fighting against the Romans, that Viriato comes into play. The rest as they say is history...more Roman casualties, long wars, massacres and eventually, Lusitanian defeat under Viriato's successor. Or is it? They're back at it when 'ol Julius is Praetor of the province, and are part of Sertorius armies.

Yeah, we can expect a very similar narration about Celtiberians from the first mention of the celtiberians by Polibius in 219 until the Sertorian Wars, and even with more Wars (3) and numbers involved (for example the numbers in the siege of Numantia -20.000 plus 40.000 auxiliam with the neccesary presence of Scipio as brillant commander- and the defeat of Consul Quintus Fulvius Nobilior -he lost almost the 30.000 men he had-).










Excuse me? What makes you a bigger Celtiberian enthusiast or historian than me? Or than any of the team's Iberian members?

I figure you are a Lusitani enthusiast as far I am understanding. Probably you dont have in your team a celtiberian counterpart. But I am sorry, I cant definite myself as a celtiberian enthusiast or historian, since my theme is the NW. Castro´s Culture and then in the Callaeci and Asturian peoples :2thumbsup:. But in the other hand I am graduated in a university based in the Celtiberian archeology (specially Pintia oppidum) who biased me a bit in this way.



Who says I'm underestimating anything? Not everything is a matter of political or urbanistic development, nor did the Celtiberians have a longer military tradition than any culture on Earth.
But they have a higher urban and military development than Lusitani as you admited, so actually this is some understimation not to count with this, In the Iberia game situation it is.


To say the Turdetani were wholely under Carthaginian control is to hugely oversimplify the situation, it's just that the game engine doesn't allow us to elaborate on the subject any further. And you're right, they did use Celtiberians as mercenaries and they were excellent, perhaps even the best in the western world if you ask my opinion, and yet they were defeated by Lusitani armies (or did they simply vanish?). Does that make them less of choice in that perspective? See how you can look at it from a different direction and still not count that as a reason to exclude them?



Actually, no they weren't. Just that they apparently had a sense of identity...the Lusitani were not a single tribe per-se, actually more like a large tribal group whose composition varied from time to time. We hear of certain Lusitanian tribes switching their allegiance to the Callaeci, after their demonstration of valour. Epigraphy clearly shows that there were several smaller tribes, that were part of Lusitani. Still not sure what you mean by this though....
This is not the same as with celtiberians. Lusitani appeared in History as a compact populus, that probably had other second order communities inside it. As for example the Vaccei were divided in big principates with his own capital and little cities as dependencies, as the Pallantini, Caucenses, Intercatienses. Or the Asturians as Zoelae and so.... It is not the same as in the Celtiberian question: they had also 3rd order communites as Caucenses, then they had 2nd order Vaccei and then we have a bigger concept as 1st order comunity: Celtiberii peoples. This reflects a higher social development situation, previous to a Regnum or bigger Principatus stadium, this reminds to the Gallii confederations. The Lusitani, or the Asturi, or the Callaeci didnt count with all this...




So the reason for including the Celtiberians, as a whole, is acculturation of *other* people? Should we have a La Tene faction then? Or perhaps a Orientalizante one? Or perhaps a Hellenised one? Or even Romanized? And you are wrong, Romans did notice this "spread", just that they had too much of a "they-all-look-alike" mentality to anything that wasn't of their cultural group, to dedicate too many lines on the subject. One sees this in Gaul, Britain, Africa, Germania, etc...
It is a provided reason to speak about the Lusitani expansionism to include them in game so this is an important question since in the other hand we can not speak about a Lusitani acculturation of other areas, in fact his warfare debt a lot to celtiberians also. Yeah the romans noticed this when they called to Vaccei celtiberians (only in the last stages), or even called to the inhabitants of Castulo celtiberians (way to the south of the original celtiberia), so this acculturation was really important and can be assimilated to an expansionist culture.

But hey we can even speak about actual Celtiberian migrations or invasions, affecting Baeturia, Aquitania and Carpetania, for more info about this and other questions please have a look on this study: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_8/burillo_6_8.html

https://i42.tinypic.com/zkfmrr.jpg

Pliny (N.H., III, 3, 13): "The Celtici arriving from Lusitania originate from the Celtiberians, and this is manifested through the religious rites, the language, and the names of the oppida, which are identified in Baetica by their cognomen: Seria, which is called Fama Iulia, Nertobriga, which is called Concordia Iulia, Segida, called Restituta Iulia...".

And other related good study: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html


Indeed, there should be space for both, but alas there isn't (in EB1 at least; maybe they're in EB2, who knows):

I really hope so!

[Sarcasm]

It depends on the point of view, I know there are slighty differences between tuga historians and spaniard ones about this theme

Again, you underestimate and patronize me, as if I hadn't read any of those studies before you ever posted them, haven't a critical mind or read anything more than a children's book on the subject. And this will cause me to remove myself from this conversation. It's not any "tuga" (seriously? tuga?) historian that says this...try Greek, and Roman. Not that guys like Pastor Muñoz don't refer this but...try the Greek and Roman ones first.





Auf wiedersehen, 'cause I got better things to do. :book:

[Berg-i-dum]

Again, you underestimate and patronize me, as if I hadn't read any of those studies before you ever posted them, haven't a critical mind or read anything more than a children's book on the subject. And this will cause me to remove myself from this conversation. It's not any "tuga" (seriously? tuga?) historian that says this...try Greek, and Roman. Not that guys like Pastor Muñoz don't refer this but...try the Greek and Roman ones first.





Auf wiedersehen, 'cause I got better things to do. :book:
Ok. For second time I should apologize, I dont know which are your reads or formation in the subject as you dont know mine. I only see the current situation in this excellent game and I dont understand at all it, and as far as I am seeing you are a Lusitani enthusiast so I am trying to provide a reasonable Celtiberian enthusiast point of view (altought I am not).

My english is crappy and unfluent and because of that I think it can sound rude or unpolite, I dont pretend that. I paste links to support my words (more when my english words are so few and poor) and for the general knowledge of the people reading this post, not to patronize you.

About the tuga word, let me explain this: I have a good friend from Oporto and he always name himself as tuga, as a abreviation of Portugal. May be it was not accurate to say that but I really didnt pretend to offend.

About the romans authors I prefer to compare what they said with the archeology. Even some portuguese authors like Morais deffend Arevaci aculturation in Alentejo and even a possible migration of arevaci clans.




Going Back to the topic I would like to resume the main keys we are defending to include a celtiberian faction in the game:

-Excellent Warfare focused society. They were remarkable mercenaries also. This can provide a lot of units in the game, in fact plenty of the weapons and some of the current units in Lusotanna faction are celtiberians.

https://i44.tinypic.com/30ngc5v.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D-WSLS39jr0/RrO4a0wmsrI/AAAAAAAAAJc/D8P-FM5qu7w/s320/im298939301-fig43_300.jpg

http://www.hobbiesguinea.com/images/CG83.jpg

http://www.dearqueologia.com/hispania_pueblos/arevacos/guerreros_arevacos.gif

-High developed society with actual Oppida-fortified cities. Stadium previous to principates.

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/images/fig27_300.jpg

-Probably the harder native opponent for romans in Iberia. Three Celtiberian Wars involved to subjugate them. With episodies like the famous siege of Numantia. Leaders as Caro. This is added also to the battles and sieges concept in the game.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/2241810440_7aa1a734d5_o.jpg

http://cayograco.wanadooadsl.net/spqr_moneta/republica/mapa_numancia_muro.jpg

http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet



-Some expansionist skills. The celtiberian acculturation of a lot of native populi (not only trade products, also warfare stile, society organization system - oppida and gentilitates), some of them in the last phase are considered celtiberians like the Vaccei. This can reflect in game the government type buliding avaiable to build in each province, quite well.

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/images/fig15_330.jpg

https://i43.tinypic.com/kb90me.jpg

[Berg-i-dum]

Well after doing a little research in the question, now I think I can understand the current situation and the reject to continue the discussion. Sarcasm defended there arent personal points/nationalism of view involved in this subject when I even didnt pointed to that before. Now I am not sure about this, if I am allowed to opine and now, this time, to critize. There isnt current spaniard members in the whole Team -hey, may be I am wrong-, and in the other hand I think there are 4 portuguese members: one is the mod Leader and other one is the "Iberian" team leader (in fact the "Lusotanna" team), at least in the 1.1 version. Now I understand also the lack of spanish players in this excellent mod -it is not only the bad english level of my countrymen :embarassed:-, more when I share opinions with spanish total war clans. Anyway I can stand the current situation and of course love the rest of your work, there isnt problems to play a somehow ahistorical single Lusitani faction in Iberia, more when most of the units have celtiberian/asturian/callaeci weapons, so it is a bit balanced in this way. I have played as Lussotana several times.

If some other member want to revert this or is interested in reflect this new faction, I wont have problems in share opinions or even help in historical resarching about different points of view in the subject. And of course I can be wrong in all I said above since I am a simple player not involved in the mod, it is just a suspect that may be somebody want to clear.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well after doing a little research in the question, now I think I can understand the current situation and the reject to continue the discussion.


Sarcasm defended there arent personal points/nationalism of view involved in this subject when I even didnt pointed to that before. Now I am not sure about this, if I am allowed to opine and now, this time, to critize. There isnt current spaniard members in the whole Team -hey, may be I am wrong-, and in the other hand I think there are 4 portuguese members: one is the mod Leader and other one is the "Iberian" team leader (in fact the "Lusotanna" team), at least in the 1.1 version.

I'd have sworn Dux Corvanus was Spanish and a key historian of the Lusotanna faction and for the entire Iberian peninsula? As far as I know Foot definitely isn't from Portugal either? (If you are talking about Aymar de Bois Mauri, he's been inactive for a looong time - and while he did use to be mod leader (for EB I), mod leaders don't decide on how a faction should look like. Their job is to keep things going.)


Now I understand also the lack of spanish players in this excellent mod -it is not only the bad english level of my countrymen :embarassed:-,



Anyway I can stand the current situation and of course love the rest of your work, there isnt problems to play a somehow ahistorical single Lusitani faction in Iberia, more when most of the units have celtiberian/asturian/callaeci weapons, so it is a bit balanced in this way. I have played as Lussotana several times.

Let's attribute that statement to a poor grasp of English, shall we? If you don't see what I'm getting at: if a faction x is not as powerful as faction y, how does it follow that faction x is ahistorical? Unless of course you meant to imply that faction x had been rather poorly researched merely because we did not settle for faction y.

[Berg-i-dum]

I'd have sworn Dux Corvanus was Spanish and a key historian of the Lusotanna faction and for the entire Iberian peninsula? As far as I know Foot definitely isn't from Portugal either? (If you are talking about Aymar de Bois Mauri, he's been inactive for a looong time - and while he did use to be mod leader (for EB I), mod leaders don't decide on how a faction should look like. Their job is to keep things going.)

Ok cleared then. Excuse me about that. I really respect your uninterested work in a excellent and free mod.






Let's attribute that statement to a poor grasp of English, shall we? If you don't see what I'm getting at: if a faction x is not as powerful as faction y, how does it follow that faction x is ahistorical? Unless of course you meant to imply that faction x had been rather poorly researched merely because we did not settle for faction y.
Well I was referring to the general current Historical situation in Iberia and I wanted to say that when we can only select a single native iberian faction we must decide between several ones wich one can be the elected. We can balance historic relevance, but of course also gameplay possibilities: as far I am seeing the potential units avaiable, expansionism, degree of civilization and cohesion of them. In this total I guess a celtiberian faction is the most suitable, as I was trying to defend.

And I think the most powerful of Iberia in around the EB timeframe was celtiberian tribes, in the History point of view and probably in the gameplay one. And in fact in the current situation, going in a simple way, we are playing celtiberians with other name since weapons and units can be considerer celtiberians. Lusitanian warfare was involved more in guerrilla and light equipment than the heavy infantry units we are playing right now. Of course the Viriathus Leader is a high point in favour of Lusitani but I think not enough.

[Krusader]

We've had two members from Spain in EB, both left due to RL issues.

Angadil or Pedro, from Madrid. He did work on our steppe factions though.

But then there is Dux Corvanus, or Victor from Cadiz. He knew his stuff and he supported turning old Iberia faction into Lusotannan. And if you did not play EB 0.7 before, the old Iberia faction was basically two "tribal groups", the Lusitanians & Celtiberians rolled into one faction.
Dux Corvanus even dressed up in warrior gear from the Second Punic War-era and ran with it on. He only managed 20 metres before he was out of breath. :grin:

And that's all from me in this thread.

[satalexton]

what was he wearing? I'm compelled to try >_>

[Berg-i-dum]

We've had two members from Spain in EB, both left due to RL issues.

Angadil or Pedro, from Madrid. He did work on our steppe factions though.

But then there is Dux Corvanus, or Victor from Cadiz. He knew his stuff and he supported turning old Iberia faction into Lusotannan. And if you did not play EB 0.7 before, the old Iberia faction was basically two "tribal groups", the Lusitanians & Celtiberians rolled into one faction.
Dux Corvanus even dressed up in warrior gear from the Second Punic War-era and ran with it on. He only managed 20 metres before he was out of breath. :grin:

And that's all from me in this thread.
I see. Well I could known Angadil a bit in spanish forums and I know he is out since a long time. About Dux Corvanus I dont know him but as far as I know he is currently out also.

Yeah I remember that 0.7 beta, and I think that schema was more accurate.

About dressing up, that is cool :laugh4:. Well at this point I have to admit that once I dressed up in astur warrior when I was 16 lol.

[Sarcasm]

Well after doing a little research in the question, now I think I can understand the current situation and the reject to continue the discussion. Sarcasm defended there arent personal points/nationalism of view involved in this subject when I even didnt pointed to that before. Now I am not sure about this, if I am allowed to opine and now, this time, to critize. There isnt current spaniard members in the whole Team -hey, may be I am wrong-, and in the other hand I think there are 4 portuguese members: one is the mod Leader and other one is the "Iberian" team leader (in fact the "Lusotanna" team), at least in the 1.1 version. Now I understand also the lack of spanish players in this excellent mod -it is not only the bad english level of my countrymen :embarassed:-, more when I share opinions with spanish total war clans. Anyway I can stand the current situation and of course love the rest of your work, there isnt problems to play a somehow ahistorical single Lusitani faction in Iberia, more when most of the units have celtiberian/asturian/callaeci weapons, so it is a bit balanced in this way. I have played as Lussotana several times.

If some other member want to revert this or is interested in reflect this new faction, I wont have problems in share opinions or even help in historical resarching about different points of view in the subject. And of course I can be wrong in all I said above since I am a simple player not involved in the mod, it is just a suspect that may be somebody want to clear.

Ok, so now it gets fucking personal. So you *are* in fact accusing me of nationalistic bias? If you are, say so plainly and stop dicking around. Because it's either that or you just can't contradict my arguments. To not agree with me, and say it's your personal opinion is one thing. To accuse me of being irresponsible, incompetent, a nationalistic moron, and the culprit of Spanish players not playing the mod is quite another. Seriously? What ARE you smoking? You do know there are American players as Romans, Norwegians as Seleukids, Persians playing Saba and so on, right? Even if, as you say, the Celtiberians are botched, how would that be an impediment in way for Spanish people to play? And I couldn't care less about what those clans say.

You haven't a clue as to what my (or any other Portuguese member) involvement was in the unit or faction creation process. You just chose to pick the thought which pleases you the most, again I might add. When I joined there were exactly 3 (that's three btw) members working on the Iberian faction, one Portuguese, one American and the other Spanish (that's Aymar, Urnamma and Dux Corvanus respectively) and the vast majority of the Iberian roster was defined then. I joined relatively late, and was responsible only for a handful of units, some of which you are probably happier about, but which you choose not to mention...funny that I introduced no Lusitani unit whatsoever, and fought (and it was a hard fight believe me), to include units such as the Callaeci swordsmen, the Northern Axemen, the Northern infantryman, the Celtiberian light spearmen or the Northeastern Longswordsman, none of which are exclusively belonging to the territory of modern day Portugal.

And what do you mean exactly, by the Lusitani using Celtiberian weapons? They are said to have carried to have carried weapons like the Celtiberians, much like the Celtiberians are said to have carried weapons like the Lusitani. The Iberian panoply wasn't exactly varied, though there is perhaps an excess in the amount of falcatas and armour in the roster, something that will be corrected in EB2, much like what is happening with all the factions in the mod.



Well I was referring to the general current Historical situation in Iberia and I wanted to say that when we can only select a single native iberian faction we must decide between several ones wich one can be the elected. We can balance historic relevance, but of course also gameplay possibilities: as far I am seeing the potential units avaiable, expansionism, degree of civilization and cohesion of them. In this total I guess a celtiberian faction is the most suitable, as I was trying to defend.

And I think the most powerful of Iberia in around the EB timeframe was celtiberian tribes, in the History point of view and probably in the gameplay one. And in fact in the current situation, going in a simple way, we are playing celtiberians with other name since weapons and units can be considerer celtiberians. Lusitanian warfare was involved more in guerrilla and light equipment than the heavy infantry units we are playing right now. Of course the Viriathus Leader is a high point in favour of Lusitani but I think not enough.


There will be NO "Celtiberian" faction. Christ you're annoying with this, stop referring to them as the same thing, as if there was somekind of unity between Callaeci, Vaccei, Vettones, Carpetani, Arevaci, Belli, etc... and any reason to include any of them over the present faction. Acculturation is not military expansionism and cohesion they sorely lacked. That's why they LOST. The people of Iberia were never united, the "classic" Celtiberians were not the miraculous exception, not even among the same tribe, and everyone was pretty much following their own agenda...forget the infantile notion that they were all after the common good of some proposed Celtiberian nation.

Like I said, read the classical authors, and get some god damn Archaeological logs before opening your mouth, as if you had all the reason in the world and everyone else is just missing the obvious - that you're right. Like I said before, Lusitanians did use Celtiberian-like weapons, and Celtiberians used Lusitanian-like weapons. There's exactly one unit of heavy infantry in the Lusitani roster, the rest are all caetrati and a simple spearmen. Even their elite unit is only armed with a sword, a caetra and wearing a helmet, while only their officers wear chainmail, even though simple infantrymen are mentioned as using it. Considering how they were done, they're not bad at all.

The Lusitani *were* notorious for their light infantry-based army, and placed a heavy emphasis on supply line disruption, forced marches and ambushes you're right. But, like I said before (let me underline that for you), they did siege cities, they did fight in battlelines and they did do the massive Trebia-like ambushes the Celtiberians also did. How was Nobilior's defeat any different from Vetilius'? Celtiberians and Lusitanians could be used in the exact same role you know, as infantry specialized in rough terrain, just like Hannibal did.

Was I talking to a wall, were you not reading when I mentioned that the Lusitani were in the scene for 67 years before you ever hear of Viriathos? Of course it was their time of glory, but so was the Belli's when Caro was on scene...what does this particular fact mean, at all? You have no solid ground on which to stand, do you suppose to win the argument by attrition?

And look at me leaving as a good thing...You are now free to talk as much as you want and feel all superior. Always remember that I chose to retire from the conversation not because I have something against Spanish people, but for the simple, simple, simple fact that you have no constructive criticism to offer, and that trying to convince you of anything would do about as much good as me trying to keep horseshit from stinking.

[Berg-i-dum]

The only one who is getting in personal critizism and unpolite, referring to nationalismus, trying to involve me in a duel thing, and with a general superiority attitude since the early first moment of your intervention here is YOU. I am only referring to nationalismus since yourself brought it in discussion. I provide links and you say i am patronizing you, I am not agree and provide my reasons and you say I am understimating you?. I even try to apologize and you disruptly abandoned the discussion...¿!?

I only wanted to hear which are the reasons provided to select as single native faction in Iberia the Lusitani, because of, for me and plenty players -specially the majority of the spanish players-, it sounds pretty strange and not accurate.

And now I will try again to go back in the topic althought actually I am the only who can say in my case I am speaking with a wall :wall:, since you are telling things like this (being you the Iberian team Leader!):


There will be NO "Celtiberian" faction. Christ you're annoying with this



So then, can you provide me a example of privative Lusitanian panoply?. I am not doubing about this I only want to know more about that. I am in archeology focused since it has been demostrated how careful we must consider the Classical sources. The most of the scholars always defend the higher importance of celtiberian warfare and his influence across prerroman Hispania.

If you are the author of the Callaeci warriors I must congratulate sincerely you, since I love them and how near from the Gallaecian Warriors statues are. And of course the excellent Asturian Axemen, excellent textures here also. They are my favourite units in the mod, for personal reasons. I am not blaming about your whole work as you want to demostrate or put in my mounth, even I love most of it. But as you, I have my personal point of view in other aspects.

Ok Iberian peoples never got united, but then why we see a former Lussotanna faction?. It would be even more accurate to call them Iberian as it was in the first release, more when most of the units arent Lusitani. Here is the point when we return to the single reason of the Leader figure.

About the history facts, I know the Lusitanian facts but also know the celtiberian tribes ones, and as I said above also are even higher in numbers and importance. It is not only Nobilior or Numantia, we can for instead speak about the long campaign of Mancinus who after surrender and sign a infamous peace with celtiberians the Roman senate refused his treats and sent him naked as present to celtiberias who rejected them :laugh4:. This was a hard roman campaign with long sieges, winter campamentes, -and a buch of prostitutes :laugh4:- that lately the great Scipio Emilianus remove and disciplinate his legions to face this long and depressive war in the roman side.

For you the higher developed stadium of the celtiberian tribes is irrelevant. Me, as archeologist, can not be agree with this. And I can not also understimate the aculturation processes involved from the Celtiberian nodus along the whole Indoeropean Iberia.

About this I want to go beyond, let me explain my whole point of view, and no, I am not trying to patronize you since I am sure you know this, it is for general knowledge. I think there would be neccessary 2 native Iberian factions to reflect the actual situation of the prerroman world. We know there are 2 big areas dividing the peninsula:

a) Indo-european ( Ist Iron Age ethnics, as good example the ancient lusitani language and the little settlements situation in W-NW Iberia) - celtic (IInd Iron Age tribes: celtiberian phenomenus with his spread from central Iberia -Douros and Ebro valleys)

b) Iberic - mediterranean area (ancient preindoerupean tribes in all the levantine shore connected with phoenician, carthago and greek inlfuence and the tartessian conglomerate).

In this map we see both areas divided by a mark and the situation and territory of several ancient languages in the Peninsula.
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/images/fig06.jpg

Here it is only represented one of both, we can assimilate the Lusotanna as the a) group but focused to the more ancient tribe of the Ist Iron Age, in a strange mix with units of the b) group. This isnt in anyway accurate, more when we call them Lusitani.

So my statement would be to had first a Celtiberian faction (this name is more general and it is not focused in a single tribe, althought in a cofederation of several indoeuropean ones as it existed with this name and the roman sources used to describe; not as a name as Lusitani who is focused in a single tribe as leading actor). And then a Iberic faction, here I can not participate since my knowledge about iberic Spain isnt enough to go in depth in the subject, but I think Turdetani or Edetani can be a suitable tribe or even call them Iberian as again a more general and probably accurate denomination.

[Bucefalo]

I actually think that the latest post of Berg-i-dum does offer some valuable information regarding the different tribes ethnic composition. He is mostly criticising this: that being so many distint cultural groups in the peninsula, there is still only one faction (the lusitani) to represent them. I understand that on the original EB possibly some factions did not get to the release, but he is merely saying that to reflect better the different groups it would be needed at least one more faction. He is suggesting the celtiberians as they were one of the people who, along with the lusitani, were more warlike and a torn for the romans in their conquest of hispania.

I understand the point of Sarcasm saying that the lusitani were united while the celtiberian tribes weren´t, but i have some dudes. I mean, how can we know if a tribe were enough united and had ambitions to carve a "kingdom"? Were is the line that makes the difference between some warrior tribes or a single confederation of tribes? I don´t want to be mean with anyone, i am merely asking what i think is the clave of this discussion: how can we know what tribes were expansionistic and who were not? I know that the lusitani launched organized attacks outside of their territory, even more under the command of their leader Viriato. But then does we know of other tribes that launched similar attacks?

I would like to call for respect too, it is never of more and less on the internet when everybody can easily misunderstood your words. I am sure that here we all don´t give a crap about nationalism and we are only concerned on discussing others possible tribes, that, along with the lusitani, were strong enough to pose a thread to the romans/carthaginians.

[Berg-i-dum]

But then does we know of other tribes that launched similar attacks?



About this subject I pointed above to some archeologycal and classical sources that point to celtiberian migrations or invasions, specially across Carpetania and Bastetania, there are some references about his presence in Castulo area (famous mining settlement).

Most of the iberian prerroman tribes, clans or gens were involved in constat wars with each other, what explain the aboundance of hillforts, Oppida and other fortified settlements among the Peninsula since the Bronze Age.

But going more in depth, we could speak about the Arevaci expansionism. Some scholars think that the came of Rome cut off the in crescendo expansionism of this celtiberian tribe. For instance they conquered Numantia itself from the Pelendoni. This classical celts cainism ended in some way when the romans came and most of the tribes wanted to fear the common enemy united. But of course the romans tried explode his natural agressivity to divided them again, for example a celtiberian clan allied with romans to fight against the Lusitani, but later Titus Didius invite this "traitors" to his campement promising the looting and then closed the gates and kill all of them, as Appian said "for this Didius was actually hounred with a triuph". A good example of divide and conqueror tactic which later employed Julius Caesar to subjugate Gaul (Some authors suggest that the siege of Numantia by Scipio Emilianus -gradson of Scipio Africanus- may well have inspired the tactics of Caesar in Alesia siege).

By the way, speaking more about the repercusions in roman world of the celtiberian wars, for instance until these wars they elected the Consuli with the year entrance (in march), but as they needed fast new consuls to lead the troops in the campaign they change the election of them to January month, thing what some authors even think can be in relation to the later change of the year coming to the current one. The celtiberian wars were a kind of Vietnam war for Republican Rome during most of the II century BC, with a vicious spiral of attrocities, indecisive campaigns, militar incompetence (Pallantia 136 BC, Mancinus, Nobilior) and cruelity (Titus Didius, Scipio, Lutia hillfort) who provoqued controversy among roman senators. But this Vietnam was finally subjugated :laugh4:, (althought there were more sublevations after that, and later for example when the cimbri and teutones migration asolated the whole Empire, were the celtiberians the first who defeated them when they invaded their own lands -already under roman rule-).

As Polybius said: "This war between the Romans and Celtiberians is called the fiery War, for while wars in Greece or Asia are settled with one or two pitched battles, the battles there dragged on, only brought to a temporary end by the darkness of the night. Both sides refused to let their courage flag or their bodies tire" (my signature :D)

[geala]

When I subtract the personal and unnecessary remarks there remain considerable arguments for both parties, although I tend to the pro-Luso side. It is a little bit a matter of taste what to prefer. You just have to understand and accept that the EB team made a decision with good reasons and no arguments exist that would force them necessarily to change it.

I don't like the Lusotannans so much, because of their ugly beards and so :beam: and I always use more or less only Iberian units when I play as Lusotanna (Koinon Hellenon and Lusotanna are my preferred factions). As long as regional units, also from Celtiberia, are recruitable I don't see such a big problem not to have a Celtiberian faction.

[Sarcasm]

As Polybius said: "This war between the Romans and Celtiberians is called the fiery War, for while wars in Greece or Asia are settled with one or two pitched battles, the battles there dragged on, only brought to a temporary end by the darkness of the night. Both sides refused to let their courage flag or their bodies tire" (my signature :D)

Funny you should mention this. Except when he talks of Celtiberians, he most probably is talking about all the Indo-European people Rome was fighting at the time, and not just the "classic" Celtiberians...within the same book (the next paragraph in fact) he mentions a expedition to Lusitania by Marcus Claudius Marcellus. And speaking of Celtiberian unity, against foreign aggression, within that same book he also mentions that the Belli and Titti (clans? tribes, my friend) go so far as sending an Embassy to Rome, specifically requesting that Roman legions stay in Iberian soil, a Consul come every year with an army to protect them, or that the Arevaci (Arevacae) should be punished in such a way that they would never again be capable of threatening them. This speaks tons about Celtiberian solidarity, and just how much they were all after their own agenda. Though it does speak about the only real expansion (not cultural one) that was ever attempted among the Celtiberians, namely Arevaci hegemony among the "classic" Celtiberians (which they never did succeed, as you so correctly pointed out). All known facts, don't worry.

Nice PR try though.

[Berg-i-dum]

First of all, I am happy you are now calmy enough to continue the discussion, I hope you can continue in this way. Now I will respond your last commentary. (btw I am still awaiting other commentaries in other questions you just avoided with personal attacks).


Funny you should mention this. Except when he talks of Celtiberians, he most probably is talking about all the Indo-European people Rome was fighting at the time, and not just the "classic" Celtiberians

Probably you are right. But this, far to be an argument against a Celtiberian named faction, it is a good point. As we pointed above the celtiberian term doesnt mean a tribe, altought a general name who represents in some cases a confederation of tribes or a group of related ethnics. I have to say also that you referred too much to Classical sources, we must share this sources with the archeologycal ones. But well at least when you did the Callaeci units or the Northern Skirmishers I think you did it. (Not so with the ambakaro, that I think you didnt made).


And speaking of Celtiberian unity, against foreign aggression, within that same book he also mentions that the Belli and Titti (clans? tribes, my friend) go so far as sending an Embassy to Rome, specifically requesting that Roman legions stay in Iberian soil, a Consul come every year with an army to protect them, or that the Arevaci (Arevacae) should be punished in such a way that they would never again be capable of threatening them. This speaks tons about Celtiberian solidarity, and just how much they were all after their own agenda.

As we saw above celtiberias werent a tribe, they were several tribes with his own agenda (and I have to note that this was what roman sources noted, it can be some kind of propaganda). Celtic tribes always fought each other even being related ethnic tribes, but when a foraigner enemy invade his lands and become dangerous the used to fight united in some way, here in Hispania or in Gaul (In Gaul we have a lot of examples of the roman tactic of "divide and conquer" exploiting the natural cainism in the Celts). It is more difficult to see wars inside a tribe between clans or second order communities, so it is more dificult to see Lusitani fighting between themselves, but we see them fighting other tribes. Those belli first tried to ally with romans to fight Arevaci, later when things went worst were a loyal allies of them. Other tribes tried to find a peace with Rome since they were intellegent enough to see a war already lost, specially with the coming of Scipio the conqueror of Carthago and his massive army, only some of them like the Arevaci -or the Lusitani of course- faced a desesperate war.


So resuming all this about Celtiberian controversy, it is a suitable name which definite a confederation or ethnic with several tribes. More than a single Lusitani tribe leading under his name even iberian units. An Arevaci name is so suitable as the current Lusitani name.

[abou]

I think the main point that Sarcasm is making is that there won't be a Celtiberian faction in the sense that all the tribes were united. Essentially, there isn't "the" Celtiberians. Those tribes were no more united than the Greek cities could be, and more often fought against each other. Their only common factor was their culture, not their politics. On the other hand, a faction representing a tribe is possible, but not a united whole.

And that is the problem with Berg-i-dum's argument: you can't have the Celtiberians tribes together under one banner like that. That is why they were not a faction in EB1 and why the Lusitani are. With that in mind, the whole argument of the Lusitani being chosen over the Celtiberians as being wrong falls apart.

Does that cover it or did I miss something in the conversation?

[Berg-i-dum]

I think the main point that Sarcasm is making is that there won't be a Celtiberian faction in the sense that all the tribes were united. Essentially, there isn't "the" Celtiberians. Those tribes were no more united than the Greek cities could be, and more often fought against each other. Their only common factor was their culture, not their politics. On the other hand, a faction representing a tribe is possible, but not a united whole.

And that is the problem with Berg-i-dum's argument: you can't have the Celtiberians tribes together under one banner like that. That is why they were not a faction in EB1 and why the Lusitani are. With that in mind, the whole argument of the Lusitani being chosen over the Celtiberians as being wrong falls apart.

Does that cover it or did I miss something in the conversation?
In case this argument was reasonable why does then it exist in the game a Koinon Hellenon faction?, but somehow why we have Eduii and Arverni tribes as ancient enemies represented in the game,? when in Iberia we have a single faction as it were united?. what makes the Lusitani more repressentive than Arverni, Cantabri, Edetani...? And why is it better to let the whole leadership of Iberia to a single faction?. What makes the Lusitani more special than the Arevaci?. The Viriato´s stuff is a point on favour, but as the Lusitani made alliances the Arevaci made also them between other nations. The romans itself made a lot of references to the topic of a Celtiberian nation or culture as his harder enemy. The Lusitani obiously made treaties with the Celtiberian tribes to face the same enemy.

So now already we have: celtiberians, astures, callaeci, edetani and several different tribes from both the general areas (indoeuropean and iberic) of the prerroman Peninsula under the banner of the Lusitani?. Is this more suitable than under celtiberian banner which is a more general concept?.

[Ludens]

Yes, the KH existed as a unified faction, although not for long. Were the Celtiberians ever unified against an outsider? Not individual tribes banding together, but a real union? I don't think so. Sarcasm is arguing that the Lusotanians were far more cohesive, and that's why they have been preferred.

That said, I do think we will be seeing a Celtiberian faction, probably the Arevacci. Just not the Celtiberians as a faction.

[Krusader]

Adding all Celtiberian tribes as one faction? Sure lets add all Gauls as one, or all Greek cities that weren't part of Chremenidean League (I can never spell that word correctly, even if my life depended on it).
If a Celtiberian tribe will be added to EB2 it will be as one tribe, not every single of them in a union to appease Spanish total war clans.

[Megas Methuselah]

That said, I do think we will be seeing a Celtiberian faction, probably the Arevacci. Just not the Celtiberians as a faction.

That sounds real nice. :yes:

[lobf]

I think the main point that Sarcasm is making is that there won't be a Celtiberian faction in the sense that all the tribes were united. Essentially, there isn't "the" Celtiberians. Those tribes were no more united than the Greek cities could be, and more often fought against each other. Their only common factor was their culture, not their politics. On the other hand, a faction representing a tribe is possible, but not a united whole.

And that is the problem with Berg-i-dum's argument: you can't have the Celtiberians tribes together under one banner like that. That is why they were not a faction in EB1 and why the Lusitani are. With that in mind, the whole argument of the Lusitani being chosen over the Celtiberians as being wrong falls apart.

Does that cover it or did I miss something in the conversation?

This is what I was going to say. I realize that a Celtiberian faction could mean what abou describes here, but it could also mean a faction of Celtiberians. Seems like Berg is arguing for the former, though.

[Berg-i-dum]

Adding all Celtiberian tribes as one faction? Sure lets add all Gauls as one, or all Greek cities that weren't part of Chremenidean League (I can never spell that word correctly, even if my life depended on it).
If a Celtiberian tribe will be added to EB2 it will be as one tribe, not every single of them in a union to appease Spanish total war clans.
It would be more accurate from my point of view than a single faction as we have now. It is a very similar issue like we have with KH, or like with the Suevii. We have several really different tribes united under a single one, isnt better to have a more general name than one so privative?. But hey, if we add more factions in Iberia may be we can balance it more.

So I can not say nothing against a new Arevaci faction, for me that would be a good election, and a really good news :2thumbsup:

[Jolt]

I only wanted to hear which are the reasons provided to select as single native faction in Iberia the Lusitani, because of, for me and plenty players -specially the majority of the spanish players-, it sounds pretty strange and not accurate.

I usually stay out of Iberian discussions, as Sarcasm has the usual habit of dropping by and going berserk against anyone who disputes something or asks for information (As you have quite noticed), and I prefer to lay back and laugh at the threads in which Sarcasm participates with a more in-depth attitude. (Though Sarcasm often makes good points, if not full of fallacies, but still good points) I'm a Portuguese student archaeologist (Currently on the second year), but my specialization is for the Discoveries than to Bronze-Iron Ages in which this period deals with (Though I have a very good grasp of the period in Iberia).
On topic, while I agree with Sarcasm's argument that the Lusitanians were overall more important (In terms of expansion, unity, etc.) than any single Celtiberian tribe (Unity is applied only for the Celtiberian as an aglomerate of tribes with often diverging interests, while the Lusitanian aglomerate of tribes always had the same interests, which would explain their inclusion as a single faction, contrarily to any possible Celtiberi single faction), I was quite ticked-off by the quoted phrase, especially from someone who criticized the EB Team of incorporating the Lusitanians because of nationalistic bias, so I would ask you: "Why do you think the EB team would give a **** that spanish players think its not accurate (The mention of Spanish clans was laughable)?"

In any case, other users have already defended the inclusion of the "Lusitani tribe aglomerate" over any single Celtiberian tribe.

*Goes back into lurker mode*

[antisocialmunky]

Speaking of confederation-type governments. Has the EB team found much luck with the new mechanics to implement governments that actually feel different?

[Berg-i-dum]

I usually stay out of Iberian discussions, as Sarcasm has the usual habit of dropping by and going berserk against anyone who disputes something or asks for information (As you have quite noticed), and I prefer to lay back and laugh at the threads in which Sarcasm participates with a more in-depth attitude. (Though Sarcasm often makes good points, if not full of fallacies, but still good points) I'm a Portuguese student archaeologist (Currently on the second year), but my specialization is for the Discoveries than to Bronze-Iron Ages in which this period deals with (Though I have a very good grasp of the period in Iberia)

I am agree with most of this. Thank you for the tip. Glad to see a colegue here also.

I was quite ticked-off by the quoted phrase, especially from someone who criticized the EB Team of incorporating the Lusitanians because of nationalistic bias, so I would ask you: "Why do you think the EB team would give a **** that spanish players think its not accurate (The mention of Spanish clans was laughable)?"


I am not in any clan, I just have exchanged points of view with other spanish players that are in clans and they think it isnt accurate. At the same time I see there are really few spanish players in this excellent mod. And also, there are some portuguese team members and currently no spaniards. These are the facts, then you can interpret them as you want...

But I want to think there arent any nationalistic bias involved as I respect this mod too much and what is more, having a look at the general work I cant say this. It was only a suspicion.

Also I consider the EB members may want to know the disagree about the current situation with the Iberia subject among some spaniard players. More if the disagree is based in historical facts.

I wont enter again in the discussion about what is most suitable iberian faction or not, as I dont want to be "attritionist", if you want to critice any of the previous reasons I pointed above in the thread, let me know wich one and we can right comment it.


On topic, while I agree with Sarcasm's argument that the Lusitanians were overall more important (In terms of expansion, unity, etc.) than any single Celtiberian tribe (Unity is applied only for the Celtiberian as an aglomerate of tribes with often diverging interests, while the Lusitanian aglomerate of tribes always had the same interests, which would explain their inclusion as a single faction, contrarily to any possible Celtiberi single faction),

My argument was that the Lusitani is a single tribe, the Celtiberians is general concept that can represent several tribes or a ethnic culture (indeouropean area and also in expansionism and acculturation procces as we can see in Archeology). The latter for me is more suitable with historic accuracy -being more general- than the Lussotanna Empire with Lusitani, Astures, Cantabri, Celtiberi and Iberi under the same banner of a single tribe, as it is the current situation. The celtiberian concept itself would reflect the Indoeuropean nature of one of the 2 sides of the prerroman Iberia, as I noted above (we would need a Iberic faction also).

But as far as I see, the developers dont see adecuate the general concepts / tribes-cities confederations, at least in Hispania. In this case I am absolutely agree with the add of a Arevaci faction in this scenary, so I can not say more than to support this new faction.

[Jolt]

I am not in any clan, I just have exchanged points of view with other spanish players that are in clans and they think it isnt accurate. At the same time I see there are really few spanish players in this excellent mod. And also, there are some portuguese team members and currently no spaniards. These are the facts, then you can interpret them as you want...

I doubt clan players can forward any arguments why they think its not valid other than "?Como puede haber una faccion iberica qué no sea completamente baseada en nuestro territorio? !Es absurdo! !Solamente Portugueses podrian hacer semejante cosa!" - They have no historical arguments to forward. They are the only ones driven by nationalism. Probably the same clan players don't complain when they see "Spain" representing the entire peninsula. EDIT: Thus the fact that them being clan players adds no relevant information as to why they should be listened.

The Portuguese vs Spanish facts, I interpret them as completely and absolutely irrelevant. It isn't about portuguese and spanish in any case.


Also I consider the EB members may want to know the disagree about the current situation with the Iberia subject among some spaniard players. More if the disagree is based in historical facts.

Your facts were rebutted multiple times by several users (EB Members and non-members) and the fact is that by spaniard players specifically disagreeing doesn't help your cause in any way. If anything it makes it seems like its a national driven questioning of the EB's team work (Since it's just Spanish) The fact that each Celtiberian tribe separately doesn't outdo the deeds of the Lusitanians as a whole has been pointed out a few times.


My argument was that the Lusitani is a single tribe, the Celtiberians is general concept that can represent several tribes or a ethnic culture (indeouropean area and also in expansionism and acculturation procces as we can see in Archeology). The latter for me is more suitable with historic accuracy -being more general- than the Lussotanna Empire with Lusitani, Astures, Cantabri, Celtiberi and Iberi under the same banner of a single tribe, as it is the current situation. The celtiberian concept itself would reflect the Indoeuropean nature of one of the 2 sides of the prerroman Iberia, as I noted above (we would need a Iberic faction also).

But as far as I see, the developers dont see adecuate the general concepts / tribes-cities confederations, at least in Hispania. In this case I am absolutely agree with the add of a Arevaci faction in this scenary, so I can not say more than to support this new faction.

The basic flaw of your reasoning mattering to EB is that EB's Factions aren't general concepts.

As pointed out, from there we could also have the "Illyrians" faction or the "Gauls" faction. Since the EB team has decided that there would be no tribe confederations that weren't distinctly united under common leadership, the Celtiberians simply couldn't enter into EB. Instead, the EB Team has decided to depict situations where a particular tribe or confederation of tribes (Which were historically under the same leadership, and persuing the same interests) achieves domination over other tribes and these due to their culturally similarity with the dominant faction/tribe provide units for it, simulating a kind of ahistorical union/federation/confederation/whatever. As far as I see you're arguing semantics. Also arguing that the Lusitani are a single tribe is wrong since it is quite known that they aren't. Your dispute with the EB Team rationale is that "you see using confederations which weren't historical continuous nor the interests of its members shared." as a viable option for the inclusion of a faction, while the EB team didn't. Since that is so, there is nothing you or any person who agrees with your attribution to factions can do other than start your own historical mod according to your own ideas for plausible historical factions. Other than that, that's it.

[Berg-i-dum]

It isn't about portuguese and spanish in any case.

I hope so.




Your facts were rebutted multiple times by several users (EB Members and non-members) and the fact is that by spaniard players specifically disagreeing doesn't help your cause in any way. If anything it makes it seems like its a national driven questioning of the EB's team work (Since it's just Spanish) The fact that each Celtiberian tribe separately doesn't outdo the deeds of the Lusitanians as a whole has been pointed out a few times.



Wich facts?. You are speaking all the time general, so lets go in depth ok?. I understand the confederation idea isnt suitable for this game and I respect it, althought I see it is represented in Koinon Hellenon and Suevii for instance, as I already noted above, and Iberia was a general faction in the first open beta also (when still there was spaniard team members, may be just a coincidence). So lets see the most important facts:


The facts in favour of the Lusitani are: independency ideas, leadership in the historic figure of Viriathus and his associated expansionism. These are the only reasons in the desk and the only you probably will find. About this we can note that the historic fact of a Leader is of course important but it counts only as a decision of destiny and luck, and a so primitive culture as Lusitani (or yeah the Callaeci, Astures, Cantabri...) was really lucky to get a leader like that, but it is only a lucky fact.


Then we have the celtiberian facts: war society based with a high amount of warfare (in necropolis the 25% of bodies are from Warriors) wich acculturiced the whole indoeuropean Iberia. High developed society with Oppida and cities, gens and gentilitates, settlements dependency on others. So we have a really high potential to have here a Regnum, in fact most of the scholars as we noted above in the thread are agree about the High stadium previous to a Celtiberian Confederacy or big state, similar to the ones in middle europa or among the Gauls. In the Lusitani we didnt count with this potential. Going in a simple way, we can see a Celtiberian necropolis and a Lusitani one (if we find it, to be fair I would say it is heavy needed some archeological investigation in Lusitania) and we can see the really high differences in development of both communities, we see a pastoral community with few weapons and warriors classes and then a proto-urban and warfare focused one. Still I havent see the Lusitanian privative panoply and what is different in it than the Callaeci one to be compared with the celtiberan one (in fact they imported celtiberian weapons).

We can in this side speak about high ranked historical facts too, as the Numantine Wars that we also pointed and described a bit above in the thread. And even some expansionism activity.

So, ok we wont have Celtiberians confederations (btw also we could discuss how was this confederation and find some good points about his unity here), but at least the Arevaci would deserve a faction seat.


Also arguing that the Lusitani are a single tribe is wrong since it is quite known that they aren't.
What?. This is a basic concept and error in this case.

Of course the Lusitani as other tribes had inside them other communities or clans based in settlements and so regions. As the Vaccei have: for instance Intercatienses etc. This dont make them special or a confederation of tribes... they were a single and regular tribe, probably to be fair bigger in space an population than others, but no scholars or Classical sources see the lusitani as a confederation or a concept like the Celtiberians one. They always see them as a tribe, populus or gens.





P.S: And no, I wont create my own mod since I dont have the knowledge and I love so much this one. In fact my favourite factions are Rome and Hayasdan. I have played as Lussotana with 1.0 and liked it also.

[Jolt]

Which facts? You are speaking all the time general, so lets go in depth ok?. I understand the confederation idea isnt suitable for this game and I respect it, althought I see it is represented in Koinon Hellenon and Suevii for instance, as I already noted above, and Iberia was a general faction in the first open beta also (when still there was spaniard team members, may be just a coincidence). So lets see the most important facts:

You continuously point out the fact that there are no spanish team members in the EB team as either they are suffering some kind of discrimination or it is necessary to have spanish team members to accurately represent any tribe in the modern spanish territory. It is not and Iberia was the first and only general faction that ever was in EB, and it never existed. As I said, you are arguing Semantics. If you want so much the Lusitanian faction to be the Iberians just edit the faction name.

You see represented a confederation which existed historically on the beginning of EBs timeline and was the ONLY (As far as I'm aware) way the independent Greek City-States could be represented as there was little option to do something else. As for the Suevii, I have no knowledge on that matter to talk about it. My only great knowledge of Proto-historical Germany is only for the Megalithic culture in that zone. The Iberians weren't incorporated because we could have a single political entity which was far more historical then any generalization of the Iberians or the Celtiberians because of their history of internal conflict. And since that was so, the Lusitanians are the best pick.


The facts in favour of the Lusitani are: independency ideas, leadership in the historic figure of Viriathus and his associated expansionism. These are the only reasons in the desk and the only you probably will find. About this we can note that the historic fact of a Leader is of course important but it counts only as a decision of destiny and luck, and a so primitive culture as Lusitani (or yeah the Callaeci, Astures, Cantabri...) was really lucky to get a leader like that, but it is only a lucky fact.

That is downplaying the Lusitanians overwhelmingly. You don't mention that they were already involved in plenty of warfare before Viriathus, with equally high degrees of boldness and success (Which only went so far), Sarcasm mentions a great great deal of examples. No mention of how the ancient historians spoke of Lusitanians, among several other things.


Then we have the celtiberian facts: war society based with a high amount of warfare (in necropolis the 25% of bodies are from Warriors) wich acculturiced the whole indoeuropean Iberia. High developed society with Oppida and cities, gens and gentilitates, settlements dependency on others. So we have a really high potential to have here a Regnum, in fact most of the scholars as we noted above in the thread are agree about the High stadium previous to a Celtiberian Confederacy or big state, similar to the ones in middle europa or among the Gauls. In the Lusitani we didnt count with this potential. Going in a simple way, we can see a Celtiberian necropolis and a Lusitani one (if we find it, to be fair I would say it is heavy needed some archeological investigation in Lusitania) and we can see the really high differences in development of both communities, we see a pastoral community with few weapons and warriors classes and then a proto-urban and warfare focused one. Still I havent see the Lusitanian privative panoply and what is different in it than the Callaeci one to be compared with the celtiberan one (in fact they imported celtiberian weapons).

You're arguing in circles. You are giving us joint Celtiberian facts as if they were always a single people with a single leadership and single interests. They weren't. We discussed this. Now if you give out the facts of each Celtiberian tribe (Belli facts against Lusitani facts) and pit them against the Lusitanians, then you may be getting somewhere.


What? This is a basic concept and error in this case.

Of course the Lusitani as other tribes had inside them other communities or clans based in settlements and so regions. As the Vaccei have: for instance Intercatienses etc. This dont make them special or a confederation of tribes... they were a single and regular tribe, probably to be fair bigger in space an population than others, but no scholars or Classical sources see the lusitani as a confederation or a concept like the Celtiberians one. They always see them as a tribe, populus or gens.

Yet the truth still is that tribes banded into aglomerates and if the tribes were culturally united and politically close, for a foreign person from which we inherit most of the written history about they were talked as the same entity, when they weren't, and one particular good example of that is when several Galician tribes declared themselves Lusitanians and were mentioned being Lusitanians when they weren't. That's the difference. The Celtiberians happened to be a confederation a handful of times, while the Lusitanians were an aglomerate of different small tribes which were culturally similar for all we know. A confederation implies that its members are bound by common interest but do not always have so. At least that is the idea I sport.


P.S: And no, I wont create my own mod since I dont have the knowledge and I love so much this one. In fact my favourite factions are Rome and Hayasdan. I have played as Lussotana with 1.0 and liked it also.

Then I'm afraid there is little room for your ideas to be incorporated in any way. In any case, its practically confirmed that they'll be in EB 2.

[Berg-i-dum]

You're arguing in circles. You are giving us joint Celtiberian facts as if they were always a single people with a single leadership and single interests. They weren't. We discussed this. Now if you give out the facts of each Celtiberian tribe (Belli facts against Lusitani facts) and pit them against the Lusitanians, then you may be getting somewhere.



I think I am not the only going in circles, and in each post I try to be constructive with new facts. You are the only one who is going in circles and speaking in general most of the time.




Yet the truth still is that tribes banded into aglomerates and if the tribes were culturally united and politically close, for a foreign person from which we inherit most of the written history about they were talked as the same entity, when they weren't, and one particular good example of that is when several Galician tribes declared themselves Lusitanians and were mentioned being Lusitanians when they weren't. That's the difference. The Celtiberians happened to be a confederation a handful of times, while the Lusitanians were an aglomerate of different small tribes which were culturally similar for all we know. A confederation implies that its members are bound by common interest but do not always have so. At least that is the idea I sport.

Again, this happens in all the tribes across Iberia, all the tribes in the map are aglomeration of other groups, I could bring you infinite examples, for example the Zoelae -a really big group- being part of the Astures. So the most important in the Celtiberian issue is that they were several tribes with their own aglomerate each one that in some moments they were united under a kind of confederation, were considered a pack by Classical sources, or the arqueology identify them as a arqueologycal differencied group. ...So be sure it is not my creation :laugh4:




Then I'm afraid there is little room for your ideas to be incorporated in any way. In any case, its practically confirmed that they'll be in EB 2.
I am only discussing and trying to give other sources and points of view in a matter that I think it is biased in some way or it isnt accurate enough. If the developers want to fix this in some way, it is their decission, what is the problem with you and your fellow country-man with this?.

If a Arevaci faction is added in EB2 I really would love it, and as me plenty other players, spanish or not.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Thanks to you, Berg-i-dum, for those interesting information.
So I think there are many factions are not represented in the EB.
This because of limited number of factions and balancing in geography.

I also liked very Germanic 2 factions, but that's another topic ... I personally like the idea of a celtiberian faction but for the reasons given above I am sure that will not EB2.
I'd like to remove some eastern side and focus to the west.:devilish::devilish::devilish:

However, the choice of the modder was to distribute the best sides on the whole map.
Choice, for me, it was just because I think that the factions should be designed to survive the longest possible.
Is unnecessary to create a faction that is destroyed in a few turns.:wall:

I do not want to enter the subject of historical factions, but the game would say, look that one celtiberian faction between another barb factions would be unfavorable to the neighboring factions and pro-Roman.

However, I appreciate your argument and your voice to our expectations on this fantastic mod.

[Berg-i-dum]

Thak you for your support Severus.

I understand there is such a hard decission to select wich factions will be or not in the game, more when we have so few slots to distribute, I am absolutely sure the developers try to make it the best they can. Perhaps in EB2 with more slots there are more posibilities to have other forgotten factions. Also I am agree about one german faction more, or the Belgae for instance.

In the Iberia case, I think a new faction will even the situation gameplay there since the Lusotanna become very hard as other players noted.

[Jolt]

I think I am not the only going in circles, and in each post I try to be constructive with new facts. You are the only one who is going in circles and speaking in general most of the time.

You have given the very same examples over and over again (The siege of Numantia has been mentioned how many times? The Celtiberian Wars have been mentioned how many times?), examples which are invalid considering you are speaking about the Celtiberians in general. I'm speaking in general because: - This argument from my point of view is pointless to the point where I'd have to hit the books to prove some superiority in this is too much hassle. Frankly I couldn't give a damn - Sarcasm has given enough pointers to save me the job of informing the uninformed masses about the deeds of Lusitanians.


Again, this happens in all the tribes across Iberia, all the tribes in the map are aglomeration of other groups, I could bring you infinite examples, for example the Zoelae -a really big group- being part of the Astures. So the most important in the Celtiberian issue is that they were several tribes with their own aglomerate each one that in some moments they were united under a kind of confederation, were considered a pack by Classical sources, or the arqueology identify them as a arqueologycal differencied group. ...So be sure it is not my creation :laugh4:

"In some moments" is the critical sentence. One which I have also argued repeatedly for and since I suppose you get what I mean, then I'll need not to explain it to you in a different set of words.


I am only discussing and trying to give other sources and points of view in a matter that I think it is biased in some way or it isnt accurate enough. If the developers want to fix this in some way, it is their decission, what is the problem with you and your fellow country-man with this?

If a Arevaci faction is added in EB2 I really would love it, and as me plenty other players, spanish or not.

You have never contested the accuracy of EBs work in any post, leaving only the other option. All you did was try to argue that the Celtiberians were better than the Lusitanians. Then you just concluded that EB was a Portuguese conspiracy to discriminate the Spanish. The developpers won't "fix" that, when taking into consideration the work they put into the texts and buildings to turn the Lusotanna into a viable faction with their own descriptions. Further, the work in EB 1 has practically halted, so even if they suddenly saw your arguments as quite superior to the set of historians of different nationalities, they wouldn't "fix" it. Yes it is their decision, and frankly even if they decided to go back to EB 1 just to "fix" this, I wouldn't give a damn. And where you did get the impression that me and my "countrymen" have a problem or would have had a problem with the "fix"? The only ones with the problem about this, as you repeatedly point out this as a problem of Portuguese vs Spanish, is you. Noone else. Not me, not Sarcasm, not Foot, not Moros, not Tellos, not anyone.

EDIT: In any case, many different users have suggested often pertinent things to be added to EB, other than dispute why some factions are in over other factions. Often, although those ideas are brilliant, the EB just doesn't adopt them for a myriad reasons. That's why I'm saying I'm completely sure your words aren't going to make anything different.

[Berg-i-dum]

Ok so thank you for your constructive critizism. Really who is going in circles here?. You cant give more facts than the ones Sarcasm gave to explain the current situation, we already discussed them and argued others in the other side.

P.S: for instance, can you give me examples of Lusitanian Necropolis and his social classes distribution, warfare and so?. This would be helpful and constructive. I already have some info about that but since you and your fellow-countryman are the supporters of Lusitani I am still waiting to see your conclusions.

You only are arguing in the way "shut up", you dont have nothing to do with this subject etc. Give real arguments!

[Jolt]

Ok so thank you for your constructive critizism. Really who is going in circles here?. You cant give more facts than the ones Sarcasm gave to explain the current situation, we already discussed them and argued others in the other side.

Glad to see you finally agree.


P.S: for instance, can you give me examples of Lusitanian Necropolis and his social classes distribution, warfare and so?. This would be helpful and constructive. I already have some info about that but since you and your fellow-countryman are the supporters of Lusitani I am still waiting to see your conclusions.

It's mid-night. I'm at home. As I said, I couldn't care less. It won't be helpful (Other than prolonging this argument which isn't leading anywhere). As I said, I don't specialize in this area and although I could probably give you the information you so much seek, I'm not gonna run to my university to give you information that not only it takes a while to get, but also that you apparently have. I could give you an essay on the impact of Portuguese-guided contact and evangelization of Japan on its modern culture. Do you want that? Once again the "Portuguese vs Spanish card". Have you read what I bolded in the past post? And you still haven't answered which countrymen, and why are we specific supporters of the Lusitanians.


You only are arguing in the way "shut up", you dont have nothing to do with this subject etc. Give real arguments!

No, I'm prolonging an argument which will have nothing to show for. (Other than keeping it for my amusement and adding it to my conspiracies list) I already gave you the argument you can't argue with and which ends this discussion. Which I will do you the favour of retrieving it.


The basic flaw of your reasoning mattering to EB is that EB's Factions aren't general concepts.

As pointed out, from there we could also have the "Illyrians" faction or the "Gauls" faction. Since the EB team has decided that there would be no tribe confederations that weren't distinctly united under common leadership, the Celtiberians simply couldn't enter into EB. Instead, the EB Team has decided to depict situations where a particular tribe or confederation of tribes (Which were historically under the same leadership, and persuing the same interests) achieves domination over other tribes and these due to their culturally similarity with the dominant faction/tribe provide units for it, simulating a kind of ahistorical union/federation/confederation/whatever. As far as I see you're arguing semantics. Your dispute with the EB Team rationale is that "you see using confederations which weren't historical continuous nor the interests of its members shared." as a viable option for the inclusion of a faction, while the EB team didn't. Since that is so, there is nothing you or any person who agrees with your attribution to factions can do other than start your own historical mod according to your own ideas for plausible historical factions. Other than that, that's it.

I feel I have explained to you why the EB team has picked the Lusitanians over the Celtiberians (Celtiberians weren't a continuous single entity), and I feel you have explained your primary reason to dispute the choice of the faction (EB is a Portuguese conspiracy aimed at discriminating Spanish people). And since you most probably won't respond to my question about why do you think I and Sarcasm and other Portuguese favour the Lusitanians over other Iberian entities, I must say I'm satisfied with this argument and therefore will most probably remove myself from it.

[Berg-i-dum]

So that is all your argument, you have almost any knowledge about this subject -only what your fellow countryman told you- but hey you only want to invalidate my position with no historic arguments at all. Excellent, and more "impactant" coming from a future colegue. This is pointless.

I already discussed that quote of your intervetion, and showed a different idea about it. So thats all. You have a different idea about that, it is you right as it is mine as player to defend my own.

I actually dont pretend nothing with this post, I am historian and like my proffesion so I love to discuss about History. (and play this mod as I consider it mostly accurate).

[The Persian Cataphract]

See, this is a problem. And it extends to some other factions as well. Including the Pahlava (Which shouldn't even be called that, considering the start given at 272 BCE). However one must keep in mind that much of the nomenclature established for the mod were conceived at the beginning of the mod's efforts. And ever since, the project has matured, and with it the depth of historiography, scholastics, linguistics and archaeology.

That Pahlava should rather on such basis, even if ad hoc, be referred to either as the Dahae confederacy, or simply as the Parni/Aparni/Sparni; Âpârnîg in Middle Persian form, or as Aparnioi/Parnioi in Greek form, or as Sparnii in Classical Latin form. They would eventually rear the Arsacid/Arsakid dynasty (Arshkânîg/Arsacidae) at around 250 BCE, and establish themselves in the old satrapy of Parthava (Old Persian), which would in Parthian (Parthian Pahlavîg language) and Middle Persian (Pâzhênd/Medieval Pahlavîg) become "Pahlava", with its natives being called the "Pahlavân". It were to be these Pahlavân which would form the bourgeoisie of this new Iranian empire (Or if one wills it, a projected "Persian empire"), being represented by various noble houses, until the fall of the Arsacids at Hôrmuzjân at 224 CE.

So what the team ultimately went with, in order to spare themselves a lot of headache figuring out the proper nomenclature, was to go with something more popular, simplified... And trivialized. But this causes a confusion by itself, because on one hand we are used to thinking in "Parthian" and "Persian" empires, and on the other hand, we have made it more complicated by whimsically applying a native name which is both out of place and incongruent with our polished requirements.

This is very reminiscent of the situation of the "united" Iberians we used to have, until the historians decided to go one level of abstraction better and make the Lusitanian faction. A job which has been remarkable, full of controversy, and in the ending a gigantic undertaking accomplished well. This is an accolade practically owed to Sarcasm. You guys would have no fucking idea, mildly speaking, on what kind of work and effort the man has pulled through to get one of the most neglected factions in the modification the treatment it truthfully deserved. I have never seen someone in the entire community so thorough and so passionate in the matter of ancient Iberian history.

I am not going to say that the team is infallible. Far from it. We welcome criticism that can help us. We embrace it. And sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. But be reminded that we all do this in our spare time. We don't get paid, or get any extra time. Some of us have yet to even find the time to play the fruits of our toils. Please do bear this in mind.

[Berg-i-dum]

Nice post Persian Cataphract. Good info about Pahlava here also, I love the Persian and Assyrian themes, but I must admit I am lost in the EB timeframe. I like Hayasdan since I understand them as in someway the "heirs" of the Achemenid Empire, may be I am in a mistake, I think in fact in game you can get a reform building to go and recover the ancient King of Kings concept. Are the Pahlava more near in some way from this interpretation?.

About the rest, well may be I have been rude in some points with the team. As I said I really love this mod and your work, and I understand also how annoying can be sometimes the discussions when such a hard -and free- work is involved. For me it is really enjojable and accurate in the current situation and even I enjoyed playing as Lussotana, but I only want to provide other points of view and things that can be fixed or be more accurate than they are now. I try to apply my criticism in historical and constructive questions and provide different points of view, as I think I showed in the thread -or tried to-. Also I have seen that this mod team usually heard reasonable points and sometimes they even note them, that this is much to say in mod like this. I even dont pretend to change nothing, just to discuss facts and accuracies.

[Mediolanicus]

I'd love to see a Celtiberian faction. In the sense as we have the Sweboz as a Germanic faction.

Seeing "the Celtiberians" appear would be only a bit less shocking than seeing "Gaul" or "the Belgians" or "the Germans" in EB II, IMHO. I would rather see one tribe with the potential to unite the Celtiberian tribes. And after a few game years you, Berg-i-dum, will have exactly what you crave for.

BTW, TPC, I must say I'm fan of your posts. They are always interesting and make me remember important things, like the terrible sacking of the Baghdad museum or the unbelievebly great job the EB team has done. Maybe not a "perfect" job, but near perfect in all your limitations (RL, Total War engine limitations, lacking sources, controversialities,...).

[Glaurung]

Question: Where is the Celtiberian faction?
Answer: There isn't, and we don't care about this because the mod is fantastic as well.
The same question/answer could be repeated hundred of times for each tribe/group of tribes/city state of europe and asia.
Just play one of the other 19 factions and enjoy!

[satalexton]

Where can you train Dunaminica? Thats the place.

[athanaric]

Where can you train Dunaminica? Thats the place.
The city of Numantia. The Eleutheroi there are called Arevaci. Nasty buggers they are.

[caetrati]

First I want to congratulate all the people who have been working in this mod. I have enjoyed and currently enjoy this excellent mod. I am expecting to play EB2.

About the subject in the thread, I have read it with interest. I am disagree with some unpolite commentaries, but I have read interesting things.

As far as I see the main arguments in discussion are this:
-People supporting Lusitani argumented:
1-They are a tribe that fought united in several wars.
2-It was a faction that resisted hardly the romans.
3-They used to expand his realm.
4-They had a high militar power under Viriathus.

In defense of the celtiberians-arevaci:
1- Higher development rank.
2- They were close to reach a quite similar confederation system like the one among Edui or Arverni tribes. It seems that if romans werent come or being defeated by them they would reach that situation.
3- It exists a solid base about his expansionism: militar one for instead they conquered Numantia, and his culture expanded along a good portion of Iberia.
4- Because of the higher number of primary sources researched and found (for example archeology ones), they can be showed in the game better than other tribes of Iberia.
5- As the Lusitani they were a hard oponent for romans in several and bloody wars.

In both cases there are good reasons but I would prefer the celtiberians-arevaci, why?:
Well, If you see the reasons in favour of Lusitani, I dont consider it so different than other ancient tribes of Iberia.

For example: Cantabri were a tribe that is well know they fought united. It was a scary and powerful tribe in the North. They fought hard against Rome. Even Augustus had to lead in person the army. And even with that to subjugate them took more than 10 years of war and much more years of rebellions. His development culture rank probably werent different from Lusitani or whatever indoeuropean Iberia tribe. If we forget Viriato we dont count with much more points in favour of Lusitani. Does this mean that Cantabri should be a faction in the game?. I dont think so.

To be honest I think that only the Iberian tribes of the south as the Turdetani can be compared with the celtiberians in a general rank of cultural development. But they werent so focused in war and so military powerful as celtiberians, and at that time they were under a high influence and dependency of Carthago.

I think It would be right a second faction Iberia. And the celtiberians or arevaci tribe are an excellent option.

P.S: Actually I think also in a new faction in northern Europe to balance the Suevi, for example the Teutonii?. A Belgae tribe would be cool also. Also I find really interesting a celt faction in northern Italy as the Boii may be?. :2thumbsup:

[Parkev]

I've been following this discussion and maybe its not my place to respond.

I think the consensus can be summarised as:

Celtiberians > Lusitani > Arevaci

In terms of a general sense of, let's call it, "importance".

Problem: The Celtiberians as a single entity were not unified enough to qualify as a faction in a game.

Solution: Use the Lusitani as a faction.

You can rave on about culture and importance and development all day and appear as if you are attempting to pick a fight on nationalistic grounds, but its all going to annoy people (such as myself to some extent.)

[Berg-i-dum]

Problem: The Celtiberians as a single entity were not unified enough to qualify as a faction in a game.

Solution: Use the Lusitani as a faction.

And why not, for example, solution: use Arevaci as faction?.

This is one of the subjects we have been discussing here. It seems you havent understood too much about my position anyway. The really annoying thing is try to explain it again from the scratch, so I wont try it again, you can read previous posts.

Now it is not the moment of critice it, the decisions are already done, but I think it can be fixed adding an Arevaci faction. I already understood that the mod developers always prefer single tribes over confederations (my mistake was that I didnt think so when I saw the Koinon Hellenon, or the Iberians in the first realese...).





Anyway about celtiberians unity or confederation and how it worked, well perhaps we can add some interesting sources. For example Vaccei were allied of Arevaci and provided grain and supplies to them, since Vaccei werent so much focused in warfare as the Arevaci. The Belli were allied with Arevaci and began the III Celtiberian War when they decided to fortified Segeda Oppidum, then they crawl Arevaci in the war when they decided to support them. If we saw a map of the Celtiberian Wars we can see this more in depth:

https://i43.tinypic.com/abnjt2.jpg


We can see the roman maneuvres to isolate the arevaci-numantia nod, subjugating and supressing their allies campaign after campaign and trying to grow up the division between tribes. Specially the Scipio tactic was sorround Numantia, destroy the vaccei and other allies supplies and fields, avoiding to face battles, and then siege the city until they fell by famine -with circumvallatio system as later in Alesia-. It is interesting since this was the very similar tactic later Julius Caesar developed in Gaul campaigns. Some scholars suggested the possibe Scipio´s tactics influence in Caesar when he designed the siege of Alesia, I would even go forward and think in a more general influece of celtiberian wars in Caesar´s strategy. Anyway Caius Marius was also in the Scipios army as young soldier in the siege of Numantia, there perhaps he already understood that Rome needed a actual professional army. ...Just a rough sketch :sweatdrop:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I think It would be right a second faction Iberia. And the celtiberians or arevaci tribe are an excellent option.

P.S: Actually I think also in a new faction in northern Europe to balance the Suevi, for example the Teutonii?. A Belgae tribe would be cool also. Also I find really interesting a celt faction in northern Italy as the Boii may be?. :2thumbsup:

This guy has all my support.
Eliminate some of the factions in the east, and most factions in the west.:2thumbsup:
It would be a dream for me to see 2 Germanic factions, 3 Gaul factions and even in Spain the matter would be most interesting.
Make the map bigger is not necessarily positive (see mod "penisula italica radice imperii"). In my personal opinion it would be nice to return to the map of the original game (most close to the west) and add the city in Italy, Spain, Gaul, Greece instead Arabia, Russia, far east(there is also a inaccessible town in Africa).
Because this is Europa Barbarorum, not Asia Barbarorum.
The great distances, as well as being difficult to control, slow down the game.
After 30 turns of Saka campaign, I decided to stop it and change faction.
That's because we put too much time with the movement of the armies and it s very boring.

An appeal, without too many pretensions (but heard from me), to the great modders of EB2.:iloveyou:

[bobbin]

I don't see the need to eliminate any factions, remember in the move to M2TW:K they have 10 new faction slots to play with so there's plenty to go round. I do agree that the Arevaci would be a good choice for one of them.

The name Europa Barbarorum is from the early days of the project when they were just concerned with CA's misrepresentation of the barbarian tribes of europe in RTW, it really isn't a description of the mod anymore.

As for slicing the map, thats just wrong. You'd be halfing the territory of the AS (the dominant power in 272bc) and completely removing factions like the pahlava who became a major power in EB's timeframe. If they had enough regions (which they don't) i would be pushing for a even bigger map that included all of india (a map that had its eastern edges at the Taklamakan, Himalayas and Burmese jungle would be the "natural theatre" for this game IMHO). *

EB treats all factions the same, focusing on the European ones would fly in the face of what the mod is all about.

*something like this
https://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g177/0404625/Image2-3.jpg

[athanaric]

This guy has all my support.
Eliminate some of the factions in the east, and most factions in the west.:2thumbsup:
It would be a dream for me to see 2 Germanic factions, 3 Gaul factions and even in Spain the matter would be most interesting.
Make the map bigger is not necessarily positive (see mod "penisula italica radice imperii"). In my personal opinion it would be nice to return to the map of the original game (most close to the west) and add the city in Italy, Spain, Gaul, Greece instead Arabia, Russia, far east(there is also a inaccessible town in Africa).
Because this is Europa Barbarorum, not Asia Barbarorum.
The great distances, as well as being difficult to control, slow down the game.
After 30 turns of Saka campaign, I decided to stop it and change faction.
That's because we put too much time with the movement of the armies and it s very boring.


I support what bobbin said. Removing factions that are in EB1 would be a nightmare for me (and I hope the team doesn't even consider that option). The east is just as interesting as Europe if you look closely. Of course, I too would love seeing the Arevaci (or some other iberian tribe/people/whatever) in EB2, along with the Boii and some Numidian faction. It is a real pity though that there cannot be more provinces.

[Krusader]

I support what bobbin said. Removing factions that are in EB1 would be a nightmare for me (and I hope the team doesn't even consider that option). The east is just as interesting as Europe if you look closely. Of course, I too would love seeing the Arevaci (or some other iberian tribe/people/whatever) in EB2, along with the Boii and some Numidian faction. It is a real pity though that there cannot be more provinces.

Unfortunately we will remove 12 factions to make room for 12 Roman shadow factions.

[bobbin]

:laugh4:

[caetrati]

You can rave on about culture and importance and development all day and appear as if you are attempting to pick a fight on nationalistic grounds, but its all going to annoy people (such as myself to some extent.)

I would like to clear this question. Spain and Portugal did not exist in that time frame. Neither the Lusitani were the direct ancestors of the portuguese, nor the Celtiberi were the direct ancestors
of the spaniards. I feel a bit embarrasing about this view provided by some fans or members of EB.

I have spoken about this theme because it is one subject I know a little. It is not the question if I am from one country or another.

The Arevaci were probably the most powerful celtiberian tribe. And the celtiberian were the indoeuropean people more developed and with a bigger influence area. His warrior skills it is already proved and of course can be compared with Lusitani if not even better. In fact we know they had probably a bigger proportion of heavy weapon equipement and a higher militar stratus.

There wasnt in that time other indoeuropean tribes that can be compared with them. Only Iberic trbes from the south. But they hadnt that warrior society in that time.

For these reasons I think it would be a good candidate as second faction in Iberia, and it would balance more the game play in that region. The Lusitani are a big faction but I think they need a "uncomfortable" neighbour. :yes: :whip:

[caetrati]

[QUOTE=Aulus Caecina Severus;2218860]This guy has all my support.
Eliminate some of the factions in the east, and most factions in the west.:2thumbsup:
[QUOTE]
Thank you for the support. I see we both agreed un a new faction on northern Italy and Germania.

But I dont think it should be eliminate any faction. The M2TW engine support more factions. Personally I would suffer a hearth attack -just kidding- if the bactrian/pahlava nations :sweatdrop:, the map extension show good the known limits of the Ancient World. And this provide more variety and historical accuracy in the Game. I am sure the EB team have already enough work, to start now to change the whole situatiion in the game map.

[Parkev]

It is not the question if I am from one country or another.
My apologies caetrati, my criticisms in this were regard were not directed at you and were out of line in the first place.

I think it can be fixed adding an Arevaci faction.
I'm sure everyone wishes all groups could be represent as factions but I hope you do not imply that there is something to fix, because you have demonstrated how superior the Celtiberians, as a whole were to the Lusitani, but not how a single tribe that could be represented as a faction was. May I quote Krusader

If a Celtiberian tribe will be added to EB2 it will be as one tribe, not every single of them in a union...
And in answer to your query:

And why not, for example, solution: use Arevaci as faction?
Because the EB Team has judged that they were filled the requirements for "faction-hood" to a less satisfactory degree than 20 others.

[Berg-i-dum]

I'm sure everyone wishes all groups could be represent as factions but I hope you do not imply that there is something to fix, because you have demonstrated how superior the Celtiberians, as a whole were to the Lusitani, but not how a single tribe that could be represented as a faction was.

The Arevaci are considered the leading tribe of the celtiberians, and the most powerfull by far and the most important historical episodies took place in Arevaci lands or involving them. So almost all the reasons in favour of the celtiberians also can be applied to his leading tribe. (btw thank you Caetrati for the support and the summing up :2thumbsup:). Of course I always prefer the confederacies and groups of tribes as more accurate concept, but I already understood this idea is out of the Game.

In the other hand I think it is in any way accurate to select no celtiberian faction at all, more when you study the ancient history of Iberia and you know how important and representative culture they were :no:, this is what I mean as a thing to "fix", (and I say fix since I understand Lusitani of course wont be removed, so just adding a Arevaci faction you could even the historical situation -but forgetting the Iberic world-).

Lusitani arent so representative in the actual Archeology or History of Iberia as the celtiberian tribes, whatever the tribe you choose. Even the Vettoni have probably a more developed settlements and archeological artifacts than the Lusitani. I dont like this kind of "confrontations", and as historian I know this is not a metod of study, but since I understand you need to compare tribes and choose the most suitable for the game purposes I do it. So this is not about nationalism in my case, and as I noted above, probably Viriato was born in nowadays Spain soil, so if I were a natilonalistic bonehead I would be agree with the situation in game. So dont keep throwing that nationalism thing on me, ok?. In my personal forum account it doesnt say "I'm spaniard male, proud of my nationality", but if you check for example the Jolt one you can read "I'm Portuguese male, proud of my nationality", so may be you are searching the nationalism in the wrong place, if you are asking me. :inquisitive:



In a quite similar case, following the developers logic, you cant select Gauls - celtica as faction, but then you choose two leading tribes as good example of them, as they pretty accurate did. But you cant go and select the Aquitanians or the Belgae instead, and dont select a Gaul faction at all since hey they were divided and in war against each other.

[oudysseos]

Mate, you've made your point. We're not going to remove the Lusitani faction. An Arevaci or some other faction in Spain is always possible. We aren't going to confirm that yet. Obviously the Arevaci have a strong prima facie case, but so do plenty of other, non-Celtic factions, and we already have quite a few Celtic factions on the go. Should we represent every possible Celtic faction at the expense of the East? Whether you think so or not, we don't. We are aiming for the best possible balanced view of all the regions encompassed by our map.

If you are really intent on more Iberian factions, why not try out Iberia Total War, a mod for RTW? Do a forum search or check out this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=111532) thread for a link.

I really don't think that there's anything left to say on this subject.

[Berg-i-dum]

Oudysseos, I understand the team developers position, I was just trying to answer the questions of other players in the thread.

As player I just pretended to add more points in favour of a celtiberian faction. Of course the developers can do what stimate more suitable for the game or the general situation as also I pointed above. I am agree in not to remove any faction at all, neither of course the eastern factions. But since now I know we have room for new factions, I am trying to show how good one faction like this can be suitable in the new EB2. And how balanced -historical and gameplay- would be the game if they were represented in it.

I know the ITW mod, I didnt play it yet. But to be honest I love so much this EB mod from the early times and am a big fan of your work -although I can have my own points of view in aspects like I noted in this thread, also as TPC noted the developers arent infalible-, and I prefer the bigger scenary in the mod. I usually play with other factions, my favourite are SPQR and Hayasdan. I am currently trying to finish a long campaign with Rome and dont have time for more games :laugh4:

I did not know that link you posted, I find very interestiong your research. I will have a look on it. Thank you.

[oudysseos]

Well OK. Just realize that one of our members being Portugese has nada to do with the existence of a Lusitanian faction in EB1. We all vote, and attempt to reach a consensus rather than a 51/49 split. Frankly, the nationality of our team members is none of your business, so the whole business of 'no Spaniards on the team' ought to have never been posted.


I think that you would enjoy ITW: they did a great job, and have some very unique elements in their game: I think that they have the only non-combatant battlefield unit of any mod: supply wagons that boost moral. They also put a lot into their music and sound effects. Well worth a spin.


So yes, the Arevaci really should be a faction: but whether we feel that we need a 3rd faction in Iberia is something for us to know and you to speculate about... :batman:

[caetrati]

So yes, the Arevaci really should be a faction: but whether we feel that we need a 3rd faction in Iberia is something for us to know and you to speculate about... :batman:

Of course this is your decision, my apologies if I've been a bit insistent.
I hope at least you consider an Arevaci faction in the future, I think it is a good option.
Nevertheless, EB2 wil be a great game and I'll be there to play it :2thumbsup:

[Berg-i-dum]

so the whole business of 'no Spaniards on the team' ought to have never been posted.



There are too many things ought to have never been posted in this thread, and not only posted by me, to be fair.

When I saw some strange attitudes I just tried to understand why, and just thought to get some conclusions. Probably I was in a mistake, and the strange disruptions were only a matter of nervous excitement.

About the ITW: I was thinking to try it, and following your advice I just tried it, it is really a good mod but of course not modded in the depth of EB. Unit textures are cool and campaign map and factions, I can even play as Cantabri :2thumbsup:. Now I am leaving for a little time my roman Empire in EB or try to share my time with both games :laugh4:, you should know that it is your fault :beam:

[oudysseos]

There's no competition: ITW and EB both drink from the same well.

I should clarify something, just so the rumour-mill doesn't get too far out of hand:

There's more to deciding on a faction than meets the eye: not only do you need an empty faction slot, you need;

Units (there is a limit);
Buildings (ditto)
A Culture Group that fits (there's only 7)
And most of all,
Provinces (which are in very very very short supply).

A faction may be totally sensible historically, but if there aren't enough of the other resources to make it work (and there never are), then it becomes increasingly hard to justify the work needed in translating historical knowledge into meaningful gameplay elements. It's very easy to say, "The Arevaci did this and the Cantabri did that-", but how do you express that in a building tree or a script?

I mean, all you guys out there aren't morons: of course there are some factions that are obvious choices, from a real world point of view. The Arevaci or a similar Celtiberian group are clearly one. But will it be possible to turn historical texts, archaeology, numismatics and so on into a playable faction? Given the severe limits that we face? And should we devote so many of those resources to Iberia, if it means fewer of them for Britain, or Persia? There are a good 25 to 30 viable, popular factions that were on the 'short list'. That means choices, all of them disappointing to someone.

That's the reason that we don't reveal the factions until we're goddamned good and ready: until we are absolutely sure that we can do a historical people enough justice to confirm them as a faction they remain Occultus.




There are too many things ought to have never been posted in this thread, and not only posted by me, to be fair.
This is true.


By the way, Berg-i-dum, if you have anything you'd like to see added to the Iberian periplous thread, feel free to post it there. I have the next chapter almost ready.

[Jolt]

So dont keep throwing that nationalism thing on me, ok?. In my personal forum account it doesnt say "I'm spaniard male, proud of my nationality", but if you check for example the Jolt one you can read "I'm Portuguese male, proud of my nationality", so may be you are searching the nationalism in the wrong place, if you are asking me. :inquisitive:

Here I was laughing while I read the thread until I bumped into this.

Yes I am damn proud of my country, and I can't say the same thing about the Lusitanians. I am very proud of the collective past of the native tribes of the peninsula, and that includes the Celtiberians as well, but that carries little to my point here. The point is that I am arguing that the Lusitanians are NOT Portuguese. You are arguing that the only viable reason in your mind that the Lusitanians were favoured over the Celtiberians is because THERE WEREN'T Spanish Members in the team. And you Hint at it in every fricking post. Heck, it doesn't take a genius to see the basis of your reasoning. Thus why we have our Australian friend (Maybe he's part of the conspiracy, since maybe he is an Australian of British descent, who just so happened to have a Briton ancestor who was married to a Gaelic noblemen who was himself descended from Lusitanians who migrated to Ireland! That's it! Australians are part of the conspiracy!) who is making every point I have already made. So yeah, obviously it doesn't take a "proud" Portuguese to argue the points I did.

[Berg-i-dum]

Ok Jolt, the proud of being Portuguese guy. You have not understand any of my points, so yeah probably you are not a genius. I dont understand why you defend so much the lusitanians if you have not almost historical knowledge about the subeject as we saw above nor consider them -as now you argue- the ancestors of the Portuguese nation.Is it just to flaming, or which is your point in this thread?.

One thing interesting in your "constructive" post I want to remark, can I ask you when the "Lusitanians" colonized Ireland? since it is the first news I have about that. :laugh4:.

[Berg-i-dum]

But will it be possible to turn historical texts, archaeology, numismatics and so on into a playable faction?.
I think with the really high number of historical evidences, classical sources, archeological finds, numismatics, warfare dispositions and so they can easily be represented and even more accurate than many factions already are. (yeah as the Lusitanians, just compare archeological finds or numismatic etc between them, sincerily if you could represent Lusitanians you can represent whatever celtiberian faction you want). I could provide a fast and rough sketch about this:

For example we can use the archeological finds to distribute the reform buildings quite well, representing the celtiberian areas and the cultirized ones, or connecting them with similar peoples as the gauls to share technologies, buldings and so.

For instead we can select Celtiberia as the single province in 272, with type I reformes we can set the whole indoeuropean area of Iberia (where in fact they were the cultural influence): Lusitania, Gallaecia, Cantabria, Carpetania. Type II the Iberic area: Edetania, Lacetania, Bastetania, Turdulia, Turdetania (celtiberians at the same time that they acculturiced indoeuropean Iberia, they received of course high influence of Iberic world, alphabet and urbanism, so they were linked also). Perhaps Type III I would select Gauls areas...

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/images/fig13_350.jpg(Pic of the "mosaic model" for the Celticization of Iberia from the Celtiberian nuclear area

About the reforms, in archeology of celtiberians we have 4 archeologycal stratus, the last one is in the game time frame: end of III B.C century until 133 a.C. (Late Celtiberian facies). At this phase we find a increment in size of Oppida and general number of settlements (an actual urban culture), heavier weaponry, the first Write finds in celtiberian language (around middle of II B.C), coins, laws in the new alphabet, senatus and asambleias, Kings and princeps-states, city states...

https://i40.tinypic.com/2llgav6.jpg

We can set a scrip for a reform at this time in accurate concordance with the archeologycal finds. As we see in this pic with the different and studied panoply for each phase:

https://i44.tinypic.com/f1efq8.gif

To reach the reform around 200 BC, we should need for example a high number of cities or populated settlements, developed mines to make coins and so,... there are plenty posibilities.

[Jolt]

Ok Jolt, the proud of being Portuguese guy.

Ugh. Must. Resist.


You have not understand any of my points, so yeah probably you are not a genius.

...:laugh4: (Look below)


I dont understand why you defend so much the lusitanians if you have not almost historical knowledge about the subeject as we saw above nor consider them -as now you argue- the ancestors of the Portuguese nation.Is it just to flaming, or which is your point in this thread?.

Blah, to hell with resisting. This is obviously testing my mind as to what is really happening with you. I think that apparently you are REALLY, REALLY failing to read my posts. Not only have I said this


The point is that I am arguing that the Lusitanians are NOT Portuguese.

In the previous post directly to yours, but you say that I defend the exact opposite of what I said I do defend. :dizzy2: Furthermore all the points I have given defending that the Lusitanians do take precedence over any single Celtiberian tribe have also been given by other people, which clearly eliminates any flaming in me. I'm not the one reading other people's public profile and using them in this thread to gain some kind of advantage in gluing nationalism to defending the Lusitanian choice. That obviously fell apart as we had an Australian giving exactly the same points of view as I did. So yeah, you are completely failing to understand anything I'm saying. And I didn't flame in any part of the thread (I'm having too much of a laughter to do so), I'm just stating what is obvious to everyone.


One thing interesting in your "constructive" post I want to remark, can I ask you when the "Lusitanians" colonized Ireland? since it is the first news I have about that. :laugh4:.

They didn't (As far as I'm aware). It was a joke (Another thing you didn't get). Just a way to put all the Australians in the conspiracy so they (We evil Portuguese and Australians) would all have an interest in defending the Lusitanians on nationalistic backgrounds.

Since apparently everything I have said is awfully misinterpreted to be the exact opposite of what I just said, I shall try to refrain from posting again.

[Parkev]

Now that I have been bandied about somewhat in this discussion (although I don't mind), I feel I should say something. I attempt to always (but more often always attempt? :juggle2:) to expect the best of people over the internet. That said, can I be so bold as to suggest that the best course of action at this point, Berg-i-dum, is to;

a) Begin a new thread along the lines of "A Case For A New Faction: Arevaci", if that is your intention, or
b) Cease posting new information or debate.

I think that any more information posted by you in this thread can be interpreted as a continuation of a line of argument that has been labelled (probably mistakenly) as nationalism fuelled trolling (more or less). I fail to see how this could be very constructive.

[Berg-i-dum]

I think that any more information posted by you in this thread can be interpreted as a continuation of a line of argument that has been labelled (probably mistakenly) as nationalism fuelled trolling (more or less). I fail to see how this could be very constructive.
One of the volunteers to flaming and trolling the post with any remarkable information or sources provided is our friend Jolt. I try not to enter in his game but, sorry I am weak. I know I probably have been rude but I have had good counterparts, at least I didnt enter in personal insults/criticism.

I am agree with most of your points but I think I wont begin a new thread since most of the suitable info is already in this one, yeah it is mixed with trolling, flaming and stupid discussions without ending but if you look in depth and you are really interested in the subject you can find valuable sources, I guess (not only in my posts of course, even Sarcasm gave good points). I am not allowed to be heard here in any way so I wont spend more time in a closed bussiness, opening a new tread that probably will be trolled again and wont have any result at all.

So, you win Jolt, please continue laughing and with your constructive criticism. Well at least you were polite and with "sense of humour".

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

is not much time that I attend this forum.
But I have seen that here there are many people who know the history and share interesting ideas.:book:

I think that anyone is against a certain issue may manifest freely.
I think that people should avoid malicious attacks to people who do not think like them.
If I am opposed to a topic I say what I think without forgetting the respect for all people (who are here to relax and not to fight).
It is the fact people like Berg-i-dum, Aper, Watchman, (and many other) that make this forum enjoyable and interesting. :2thumbsup:

who is not interested in this topic do not write more, there are many other topic on which to write.

Always remembering that we are everyone lovers of the same mod.
Then anyone descend from the pedestal and speak with kindness and peace, would do as good friends who have a passion in common.~:cheers:

[Maximo]

Hi all!!

I want to congratulate those who have been working on this mod. It's a great mod.

First of all I'd like to support those who have been defended the Celtiberian point of view because not including a Celtiberian faction in this mod it's a big mistake and a wrong way to give a broad picture of the ancient history.It could be reasonable to believe that EB engine can not run more factions ... it's ok
but I'm not going to explain and give more arguments than Berg I dum has explained before because I think they're enough clear to understand the situation and the historical events.

The portuguese fans defend the wrong way to understand ancient history and history itself at all, tending to show their nationalist feelings over the history events. That's not history. You should give facts more and less be impolite with those who can argue better than you.

The celtiberians were more important than the Lusitani, for instace,we can distinguish the place where they lived in different types of the celtiberians were well know mercenaries, than the lusitani, and in the III century BC they were mentioned, frequently, in texts related to the Punic Wars (I think nobody has noticed it) because it is very important to understand it, the ancient world in the Iberian Peninsula, the mercenary way of life of the celtiberians and at the same time they were famous by their weaponry so...it's wrong to underestimate the Celtiberian culture and give an important rule and more importance to the Lusitani that they don't deserve it:thumbsdown:. The Lusicani are very strong and it should be another faction in the Iberian Peninsula to stop them.
Why? For several reason:
1st: Before the arrival of the Romans to the Iberian Peninsula, the situation was completely different and was so diverse and we can not point the strongest tribe among the tribes in that period of time.
2nd: The celtiberians, as I said before, were so skillful to make and design blades so flexible and tough.

apart more examples given by Berg I dum before ...

[Maximo]

Hi all!!


The celtiberians were more important than the Lusitani, for instace,we can distinguish the place where they lived in different types of
we can distinguish the place where they lived in different types of the celtiberians ... :sweatdrop: Sorry What I mean ... we can not connect and relate the places where they lived in the ancient times with the present or current situation.
thanks

[Maximo]

is not much time that I attend this forum.
But I have seen that here there are many people who know the history and share interesting ideas.:book:

I think that anyone is against a certain issue may manifest freely.
I think that people should avoid malicious attacks to people who do not think like them.
If I am opposed to a topic I say what I think without forgetting the respect for all people (who are here to relax and not to fight).
It is the fact people like Berg-i-dum, Aper, Watchman, (and many other) that make this forum enjoyable and interesting. :2thumbsup:

who is not interested in this topic do not write more, there are many other topic on which to write.

Always remembering that we are everyone lovers of the same mod.
Then anyone descend from the pedestal and speak with kindness and peace, would do as good friends who have a passion in common.~:cheers:
:yes: I'm with you, you're right ~:cheers:

[Parkev]

I am agree with most of your points but I think I wont begin a new thread since most of the suitable info is already in this one, yeah it is mixed with trolling, flaming and stupid discussions without ending but if you look in depth and you are really interested in the subject you can find valuable sources, I guess (not only in my posts of course, even Sarcasm gave good points). I am not allowed to be heard here in any way so I wont spend more time in a closed bussiness, opening a new tread that probably will be trolled again and wont have any result at all.

Again I feel the compulsion to post (it's becoming a bad habit). After re-reading most of this thread (apparently that's what I do for fun), I think I might have gained some understanding of the problem. From my experience, EB factions are political and military organisations, groups etc. that had the potential to expand politically and militarily to form "an empire".

Berg-i-dum, your grief seems to be "I feel the Celtiberians are under-represented, the significance of their culture means they deserve a faction to represent them". No EB member has disputed the significance of the Celtiberians, only their suitability as faction, because factions do not represent culture groups (e.g. I imagine if there'd been no Koinon Hellonon historically, or something similar, there would be no "Greek" faction).

However there are many other ways of representing culture in EBI (units, buildings, traits) and I hope many, many more (buildings, scripts, guilds?) in EB2. So in hindsight, a better question may have been "How can the Celtiberian culture be better represented?", which I'm sure nearly all your information applies to.

[Sarcasm]

Hi all!!

I want to congratulate those who have been working on this mod. It's a great mod.

First of all I'd like to support those who have been defended the Celtiberian point of view because not including a Celtiberian faction in this mod it's a big mistake and a wrong way to give a broad picture of the ancient history.It could be reasonable to believe that EB engine can not run more factions ... it's ok
but I'm not going to explain and give more arguments than Berg I dum has explained before because I think they're enough clear to understand the situation and the historical events.

The portuguese fans defend the wrong way to understand ancient history and history itself at all, tending to show their nationalist feelings over the history events. That's not history. You should give facts more and less be impolite with those who can argue better than you.

The celtiberians were more important than the Lusitani, for instace,we can distinguish the place where they lived in different types of the celtiberians were well know mercenaries, than the lusitani, and in the III century BC they were mentioned, frequently, in texts related to the Punic Wars (I think nobody has noticed it) because it is very important to understand it, the ancient world in the Iberian Peninsula, the mercenary way of life of the celtiberians and at the same time they were famous by their weaponry so...it's wrong to underestimate the Celtiberian culture and give an important rule and more importance to the Lusitani that they don't deserve it:thumbsdown:. The Lusicani are very strong and it should be another faction in the Iberian Peninsula to stop them.
Why? For several reason:
1st: Before the arrival of the Romans to the Iberian Peninsula, the situation was completely different and was so diverse and we can not point the strongest tribe among the tribes in that period of time.
2nd: The celtiberians, as I said before, were so skillful to make and design blades so flexible and tough.

apart more examples given by Berg I dum before ...

*sigh*

Way to "start" your membership here...and well argued, I must say. We'll immediately scrap the faction on EB1 solely over your well-construed post.

[Mediolanicus]

Hi all!!

I want to congratulate those who have been working on this mod. It's a great mod.

First of all I'd like to support those who have been defended the Celtiberian point of view because not including a Celtiberian faction in this mod it's a big mistake and a wrong way to give a broad picture of the ancient history.It could be reasonable to believe that EB engine can not run more factions ... it's ok
but I'm not going to explain and give more arguments than Berg I dum has explained before because I think they're enough clear to understand the situation and the historical events.

The portuguese fans defend the wrong way to understand ancient history and history itself at all, tending to show their nationalist feelings over the history events. That's not history. You should give facts more and less be impolite with those who can argue better than you.

The celtiberians were more important than the Lusitani, for instace,we can distinguish the place where they lived in different types of the celtiberians were well know mercenaries, than the lusitani, and in the III century BC they were mentioned, frequently, in texts related to the Punic Wars (I think nobody has noticed it) because it is very important to understand it, the ancient world in the Iberian Peninsula, the mercenary way of life of the celtiberians and at the same time they were famous by their weaponry so...it's wrong to underestimate the Celtiberian culture and give an important rule and more importance to the Lusitani that they don't deserve it:thumbsdown:. The Lusicani are very strong and it should be another faction in the Iberian Peninsula to stop them.
Why? For several reason:
1st: Before the arrival of the Romans to the Iberian Peninsula, the situation was completely different and was so diverse and we can not point the strongest tribe among the tribes in that period of time.
2nd: The celtiberians, as I said before, were so skillful to make and design blades so flexible and tough.

apart more examples given by Berg I dum before ...

Good god, You haven't read anything posted here before did you?

No nationalistic feelings were ever involved in choosing the factions. And the nationalistic feelings of Celtiberian fanboy (that's you, not Berg-i-dum, who at least made some very good points) are not going to change that.

AFAIK I've never seen a Portuguese fanboy here saying the Lustani should stay, I've only seen good historical argumets for a Lusitani tribe.

Plus it seems you're only reason to say that the Lusitani don't deserve to be a faction is that you're not Portuguese.

Berg-i-dum, I think you should make a different thread "a case for a new faction: 'any Celtiberian tribe you think is worthy'". 'The Celtiberians' as a faction isn't going to happen. A strong Celtiberian tribe which the potenciality of uniting the Celtiberians and more can be argued, IMO, and you have named some very good arguments.

I'm 99% sure there will be another tribe in Spain. It could be Iberian, it could be Celtiberian. If you write a very good, and very neutral and objective, faction-case, they might just go for the Celtiberian one.

[Maximo]

*sigh*

Way to "start" your membership here...and well argued, I must say. We'll immediately scrap the faction on EB1 solely over your well-construed post.

As I said before ... I'm not going to explain and give more reasons as Berg I dum did. they're clear enough to understand it.

[Maximo]

*sigh*

Way to "start" your membership here...and well argued, I must say. We'll immediately scrap the faction on EB1 solely over your well-construed post.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Maximo]

Good god, You haven't read anything posted here before did you?

No nationalistic feelings were ever involved in choosing the factions. And the nationalistic feelings of Celtiberian fanboy (that's you, not Berg-i-dum, who at least made some very good points) are not going to change that.

AFAIK I've never seen a Portuguese fanboy here saying the Lustani should stay, I've only seen good historical argumets for a Lusitani tribe.

Plus it seems you're only reason to say that the Lusitani don't deserve to be a faction is that you're not Portuguese.

Berg-i-dum, I think you should make a different thread "a case for a new faction: 'any Celtiberian tribe you think is worthy'". 'The Celtiberians' as a faction isn't going to happen. A strong Celtiberian tribe which the potenciality of uniting the Celtiberians and more can be argued, IMO, and you have named some very good arguments.

I'm 99% sure there will be another tribe in Spain. It could be Iberian, it could be Celtiberian. If you write a very good, and very neutral and objective, faction-case, they might just go for the Celtiberian one.

I'm not a Celtiberian fanboy :laugh4: :laugh4: and I'm not going to give more points than Berg I dum because they are clear enough.
I said the Lusitani don't deserve the importance and NOT be scrap from the game.

[Maximo]

No nationalistic feelings were ever involved in choosing the factions. And the nationalistic feelings of Celtiberian fanboy (that's you, not Berg-i-dum, who at least made some very good points) are not going to change that.


I don't expect to change anything. It's only an opinion and I think,I repeat again, the importance of the Lusitani in this mod is highly estimated and that's not true according to the historical events. that's all. Berg I dum has made some good points on it and with his arguments are enough to understand the historical events.

[Maximo]

Plus it seems you're only reason to say that the Lusitani don't deserve to be a faction is that you're not Portuguese.



I haven't said that.You're wrong and I'm not a Celtiberian nationalist or stuff like that ...
The importance of the Lusitani is HIGHLY estimated and NOT according to the historical events and it should be better another faction in the Iberian Peninsula.

[Ludens]

Hello Maximo,

Please don't double-post. You cannot edit your posts yet, but that is no reason to submit multiple replies to a single post.

Everyone in this thread, including Berg-i-dum, is regretting the accusations of nationalism, so starting your argument with "The portuguese fans defend the wrong way to understand ancient history and history itself at all, tending to show their nationalist feelings over the history events" was a bad idea. The EB team is international and not just Portuguese worked on the Lusitanian faction. Two important ex-team members are Spanish, although I am not sure whether they worked on the Lusitanian faction.

That said, you are right in saying that the Celtiberians and their culture were very important in the peninsula. However, that is not how factions are selected in EB. EB factions represent unified, expansionist powers, and the Celtiberians were not unified. Including a Celtiberian faction would be as inaccurate as including a Gaul faction. The individual tribes of the Celtiberians were not as powerful as the Lusitanians: they generally had to ally amongst themselves to withstand other powers. Hence the Lusitanians were preferred in EB1. In EB2, there is more space for factions and I think it very likely there will be a Celtiberian tribe amongst the selected factions.

[Maximo]

Hello Maximo,

Please don't double-post. You cannot edit your posts yet, but that is no reason to submit multiple replies to a single post.

Everyone in this thread, including Berg-i-dum, is regretting the accusations of nationalism, so starting your argument with "The portuguese fans defend the wrong way to understand ancient history and history itself at all, tending to show their nationalist feelings over the history events" was a bad idea. The EB team is international and not just Portuguese worked on the Lusitanian faction. Two important ex-team members are Spanish, although I am not sure whether they worked on the Lusitanian faction.

That said, you are right in saying that the Celtiberians and their culture were very important in the peninsula. However, that is not how factions are selected in EB. EB factions represent unified, expansionist powers, and the Celtiberians were not unified. Including a Celtiberian faction would be as inaccurate as including a Gaul faction. The individual tribes of the Celtiberians were not as powerful as the Lusitanians: they generally had to ally amongst themselves to withstand other powers. Hence the Lusitanians were preferred in EB1. In EB2, there is more space for factions and I think it very likely there will be a Celtiberian tribe amongst the selected factions.

So I apologize for the multiple replies. I'm new in this forum.
Yes, I'm wrong about the idea of accusing the portuguese fans of nationalist and I regret of it. Apologizes to them.

I said it because the importance of the Lusitani is highly estimated and the mod shows a situation completely wrong according to the historical events and I didn't pointed the Celtiberians were in the Iberian Peninsula the "stronger"one among them (They were divided in several tribes and wasn't a united tribe itself). Although it should be better to add a new faction to the Iberian Peninsula and I've read that the Arevacii probably will be add to EBII.
I've added that the mod doesn't show the variety according to the historical events and I know and understand the restrictions to not add the celtiberians.That's all.

Others have pointed and argued better than me before in this thread although my intention is to give an opinion and I don't expect to change anything , because that's another job, as Mediolanicus said.

Finally, I'd like to point to Mediolanicus (and others) that the arguments given by others members are quite good and my intention to post here,(and I'm not going to express the same arguments as Berg I dum has done before) has been support an historical argument and not to show any "preferences" of being a "fan" of something. I'm not a celtiberian fanboy,I'm a historian and not mention the celtiberians (or any celtiberian tribe) in this mod is a big mistake as at the same time to give a highly importance to the Lusitani and not to include another faction in the Iberian Peninsula.

[Parkev]

[to] not mention the celtiberians (or any celtiberian tribe) in this mod is a big mistake

You may have missed this

Gaesamica (Javelineers)
The Gaesamica (Guy-sah-mek-ah; "Javelineers") constitute the majority of Celtiberian warriors who fought as light spearmen. They�re fast, being proficient at flanking manoeuvres and harassing the enemy line before joining the melee. Lightly equipped however with just a buckler and a leather cap, they shouldn�t be used as line infantry, being better suited for the flanks, supporting heavier troops.

Made up of the lower classes of warriors and freemen who own weapons, these men are generally only used to raiding the enemy�s outlying villages and herds, preferring to stay out of the more serious border disputes. These times however may bring with them a need for greater numbers of warriors to fight increasingly larger enemy armies.

Theirs is a simple battle-kit, made up of a leather cap, the Iberian caetra, a bundle of javelins and a decent spear that they use in a light infantry or medium skirmisher role.

Historically, the Celtiberians were a numerous people that organized themselves roughly in seven tribes which occupied the central plateau of modern day Spain. It is generally accepted that they were formed by a migratory wave of Celts during the fifth century BC, who came to rule over a pre-existing Iberian stratum and eventually intermarried with it. This is the origin of their name, already used in antiquity. Their society was based around the oppidum (hill fortress-city) of which craftsmen, farmers and herders were dependent, and who were in turn protected by a dedicated warrior class. The basis of their economy was cattle-raising that was supplemented by farming, trading, raiding and mercenary service.

Of the seven main tribes, the Arevaci became the dominant force. The other tribes were the Belli, Titti, Lusones, Lobetani, Berones and the Palendones. True to their martial traditions, the Celtiberians first enter history as mercenaries in Sicily and continue to appear in other conflicts along the Mediterranean. However, war would come closer to home during the Second Punic War as Romans and Carthaginians battled for control of the Eastern coast of Iberia, having served on both sides with equal valour. Following the eventual defeat of Carthage, the greatest hour of the Celtiberian people would be in resisting the might of Rome as she extended her domains westward.

In the last Celtiberian war, leading the confederated forces of the Celtiberians were the Arevaci of Numantia, a powerful oppidum near the source of the Durios River. Twice they inflicted disastrous defeats on superior forces, sealing what they hoped would be peace treaties that would allow them to remain independent while allowing the Romans to keep their honour � unfortunately for them the Senate would not accept anything but a total victory. Ultimately it took the conqueror of Carthage, the grandson of Scipio Africanus himself, to break the brave Celtiberians. The war ended in the siege of Numantia where very few people survived, preferring to end their own lives rather than submit to foreign rule.

Dunaminica (Celtiberian Heavy Infantry)
Hailing from the Celtiberi, ferocious and battle-hardened, the Dunaminica (Dun-a-min-eek-ah; "Fort Soldier") are the best regular footmen in Iberia, and widely regarded as some of the best mercenaries on this part of the world. They are the cream of the warrior class of their culture, and are equipped as such with a short-sword, armour-piercing javelins, a large shield, a metal helmet and metal greaves.

These are men of station who have a stake in the fate of their oppida, and will fight to the death to protect their social status, and the honour and independence of their people � the Celtiberian fanatical defence of their lands is legendary. As warriors, they are used to the relatively low-intensity warfare that goes into raiding enemy tribes, but also quite familiar to marching abroad in large numbers to serve as mercenaries in the wars that regularly consume the Mediterranean.

Their weapons and armour are those common to the Celtiberian elite. For weapons they have the famous Gladius Hispaniensis, which would become the Roman standard sword, complemented by javelins similar to the Roman light pilum. To protect themselves, they carry a scutum, a Celtic �Montefortino� helmet, Iberian bronze greaves and an elaborate set of breastplates. They should be used as assault infantry, leading the attack of the rest of the line infantry.

Historically, the Celtiberians were a numerous people that organized themselves roughly in seven tribes which occupied the central plateau of modern day Spain. It is generally accepted that they were formed by a migratory wave of Celts during the fifth century BC, who came to rule over a pre-existing Iberian stratum and eventually intermarried with it. This is the origin of their name, already used in antiquity. Their society was based around the oppidum (hill fortress-city) of which craftsmen, farmers and herders were dependent, and who were in turn protected by a dedicated warrior class. The basis of their economy was cattle-raising that was supplemented by farming, trading, raiding and mercenary service.

Of the seven main tribes, the Arevaci became the dominant force. The other tribes were the Belli, Titti, Lusones, Lobetani, Berones and the Palendones. True to their martial traditions, the Celtiberians first enter history as mercenaries in Sicily and continue to appear in other conflicts along the Mediterranean. However war would come closer to home during the Second Punic War as Romans and Carthaginians battled for control of the Eastern coast of Iberia, having served on both sides with equal valour. Following the eventual defeat of Carthage, the greatest hour of the Celtiberian people would be in resisting the might of Rome as she extended her domains westward.

In the last Celtiberian war, leading the confederated forces of the Celtiberians were the Arevaci of Numantia, a powerful oppidum near the source of the Durios River. Twice they inflicted disastrous defeats on superior forces, sealing what they hoped would be peace treaties that would allow them to remain independent while allowing the Romans to keep their honour � unfortunately for them the Senate would not accept anything but a total victory. Ultimately it took the conqueror of Carthage, the grandson of Scipio Africanus himself, to break the brave Celtiberians. The war ended in the siege of Numantia where very few people survived, preferring to end their own lives rather than submit to foreign rule.
...from the EB Website https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_lusotannan_units.html , I don't imagine they've been scrapped recently. Celtiberians again mentioned in...
Milites Ilergetum (Ilergetan Soldiers)
The Milites Ilergetum ("Ilergetan Soldiers") constitute the main infantry force of the Ilergetes, a powerful people that hails from North-eastern Iberia, bordering to the west the mighty Celtiberians, of whom they are natural enemies. They represent a good quality but not quite elite contingent in the Ilergetan army. They are brave, and relatively well equipped with a helmet, padded armour, a scutum and a longsword making them well able to stand in a line as dependable infantry.

Unlike the Celtiberians who centred their society on their local oppida, the Ilergetes are in this respect more like the Iberians on the coast, who have actual kings and oligarchies to rule them. And while the territory that each of these kings and their dependents control is not large, each of them can raise a small host from which a bigger army can be assembled under a high-king to fight in set-piece battles.
...this time as the mighty Celtiberians (not that you're a fanboy but). Maybe the bolding was unnecessary considering your skills as a historian for attention to detail, but I just wanted to make sure.

Berg-i-dum most likely had his heart in the right place, but unfortunately you seem to be a lost cause. These kinds of posts are probably a deterrent for EB members (and other knowledgeable historians) to participate in public forums, which means I'm not able to observe as much academic discussion as I otherwise could. Good one you.

[Maximo]

What I meant not from the forum,I mean the game

[Maximo]

...this time as the mighty Celtiberians (not that you're a fanboy but). Maybe the bolding was unnecessary considering your skills as a historian for attention to detail, but I just wanted to make sure.

Berg-i-dum most likely had his heart in the right place, but unfortunately you seem to be a lost cause. These kinds of posts are probably a deterrent for EB members (and other knowledgeable historians) to participate in public forums, which means I'm not able to observe as much academic discussion as I otherwise could. Good one you.[/QUOTE]

I suppose, obviously, that you have posted and talk about the thread before, but I pointed only the fact of not include any celtiberian tribe in this mod, ( I mean the Pc game, not the in forum).
I not trying to discuss about the including the Celtiberians as whole united in one tribe, I'm not saying that ...

"but unfortunately you seem to be a lost cause." What do you mean?? :laugh4:
I don't want to be tedious about and I won't it!! I understand the reasons why the Celtiberians haven't been added to this mod or Pc game (Technical restrictions and even historical). But I only wanted to give my point of view.

[Parkev]

There seem to be understandably unresolved definitions of "game", "forum" and "mod". Now that I've cooled off, I'll just assume I misinterpreted your earlier sentiments and apologise for any remarks that may have offended. I suppose all I can do now is hope that the edit button and yourself become very close friends.

[Mediolanicus]

What I meant not from the forum,I mean the game

And he meant the game too. Those quotes are in-game descriptions - also found on the EB-website.



I suppose all I can do now is hope that the edit button and yourself become very close friends.

Seconded.
Maximo, please use the multi-quote and edit functions instead of multi-posting all the time.

[Maximo]

There seem to be understandably unresolved definitions of "game", "forum" and "mod". Now that I've cooled off, I'll just assume I misinterpreted your earlier sentiments and apologise for any remarks that may have offended. I suppose all I can do now is hope that the edit button and yourself become very close friends.

LOL:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:, yes I hope so ... I'm new in this mod... I started to play EB very recently and it's good to find good members like you to discuss about it. As I said before, I'm not going to add some extra information about this thread because others have explained it better before me.it's just a point of view and I think I have the right to express it and finally I'm not a Celtiberian "fanboy":laugh4::laugh4: (for me this term is very offensive and he must apologize for it, because I haven't insulted anybody and if I've done it before, I regret of it) like others. I think, I can speak and discuss about it whatever I want with knowledge.

Berg I dum has done a great job with this thread and I support his point of view. +1. That's all I wanted to say... :2thumbsup:

thanks:2thumbsup:

[Maximo]

And he meant the game too. Those quotes are in-game descriptions - also found on the EB-website.




Seconded.
Maximo, please use the multi-quote and edit functions instead of multi-posting all the time.
I'm sorry... how can I use it?

[Ludens]

I'm sorry... how can I use it?

You see those small buttons next to the "quote" button, on the bottom right of every post? If you click these, and then press reply or quote a second post, the reply window will include the quoted text of the first post. Or you can manually copy and paste the text of other posts and use the text editor of the reply form to include them as quotes.

You cannot edit your post until you become a full member. This usually takes about two weeks and two dozen posts.

[Berg-i-dum]

Thank you Mediolanicus, Severus and Parkev for your invitations to open a new thread about this question, but as I said above I think I wont do it. Indeed I dont want to be attritionist with this subject, someone could think and in fact probably think that I am a crazy celtiberian fanboy, well if I am fan of any in the ancient Iberia world is my academic speciallity: Castro´s NW archeological culture and the Gallaecian world, in real life this celtiberian passion doesnt exist for me I just tried to be fair with the History. Of course I dont pretend to see a Callaeci/Astures/Cantabri faction (I am really happy with the northern units already we have), even in Iberia Total War I cant play as Gallaeci :furious3: but well I undestand there are tribes more suitable than this.


So there is enough info about the "celtiberians dispute" already here, as I also said the reasons provided for a general "celtiberian" nation can be also applied for an Arevaci one: as we saw the really most important and leader tribe of the celtiberian world. And there is still a lot of info, wich has not been posted but our official mod "historians" can find in high number and use it. Probably the fault in knowledge of spanish language can be a problem for them -since the big part of the reputable and academic studies about this subject are in this language- but hey portuguese and spanish are quite similar so it will be easy to understand if they really want to learn more and build a new faction. Also there are a bit portion in english out there as I have seen, the translated ones are more interesting than the academic from other Universities but well you can get a rough sketch, I am sure it is enough for a videogame. (I should clear -since all my posts are interpreted in this way- that this is not a nationalist criticism, since whatever had done an academic/scholar Investigation/research should know how important base is the knowledge of the language of the country in wich the subject is involved).

Finally, to be honest there are some team members that have shown a poor image with an unpolite way, as far as I see this is a normal conduct of him in other discussions so I think I was not the culprit. I hoped to discuss with other kind of people, but it is OK. Most of the people here is really polite and adult gents and your work is really good and I love it, so I wont blame the whole team for the faulty conduct of one individual.

Also Maximo, thank you very much for your support but probably the question and also your point is cleared enough. Welcome to the EB world anyway.

[Sarcasm]

Instead of actually helping out, and revealing new information, instead of linking stuff from the web everyone knows about, you prefer playing the martyr better. Helping would actually take more effort than just paraphrasing websites.

Just because I curse and you don't, does not make you polite in any way. But that's ok, most of the Spanish archaeologists I know, are really polite and adult gentlemen, and their work is really good, and I love it, so I won't blame the whole community for the faulty, faulty, faulty conduct of one individual.


Saludo! and hooray for passive-agressors.



Berg-i-dum most likely had his heart in the right place, but unfortunately you seem to be a lost cause. These kinds of posts are probably a deterrent for EB members (and other knowledgeable historians) to participate in public forums, which means I'm not able to observe as much academic discussion as I otherwise could. Good one you.

You have no idea.

[Parkev]

You have no idea.

Nice to know my agitation was justified, yet dissapointing to find it so quickly replaced with dismay and concession. Hopefully I'll live to fight another day, if only for the opportunity at witticism it presents.

[Berg-i-dum]

you prefer playing the martyr better. Helping would actually take more effort than just paraphrasing websites.


You have no idea (I am paraphrasing yourself -Sarcasm, a way of life-). What a polite expression this one, yeah I am agree it is not only necessary not to cursing to be polite. Disruptly to abandon discussions ("Auf Wiedersehen") and not answer the other´s questions or commentaries isnt polite either ("What are you smoking", btw I dont smoke, thanks).

All this is the main reason because of I wont effort myself in a new thread, being you the iberian team member. So be happy I think I wont disturb your Lusitanian Arcadia any more.

Saúdos e Adeus.

[Krusader]

If you ever have wondered why EB members don't frequent the public fora, you really shouldn't be after this.

Every single EB member works on EB on their own free time. That is AFTER job hours or lectures and other hobbies. And then there is the fact we do have families or girlfriends as well, who often are in the "you love that damn EB game more than me!" category.
While we appreciate constructive criticism and input to our mod, being called nationalists because one's "own ancestors" is not in the mod is just the kind of input that makes us pissed off and even considering if spending hours researching if that unit wore belt buckles is really worth it.
Saying the Lusitanians are in because we have Portuguese team members is borderline insulting, (especially when anyone who bothers to check will see that the non-Lusitanian Iberian units have as much detail and description done to them), but it just gets enfuriating when the persons saying so have a rosey-tinted view on Celtiberians and actively upplaying their strengths and outright ignoring their weaknesses/drawbacks and even clearly shows a (in my own personal words) nationalistic taint when saying that the Celtiberians would have been in if there were Spanish team members in EB, automatically assuming that all Spaniards have the same views as themselves.
Dux Corvanus a former EB member (who left because of demanding work schedules and due to personal issues) had nothing against making the Lusitanians a playable faction, but then again he was from Cadiz so maybe him being Andalusian doesnt qualify him as being Spaniard? And I've heard nothing mentioned of our Celtiberian defense script, where if you invade the Iberian interior several stacks of Celtiberian troops will spawn to represent the Celtiberians banding together.

If I sound harsh, I'm just irritated. I don't like seeing the work friends of mine have done being criticized unjustly. There are times working on EB is not fun and it dampens any will to do any work on it.

We are not infallible and we don't ignore constructive criticism. The Germanic unit roster has received significant revisions up through EB history. The Dosidataskeli & their Irish counterparts were both removed from EB because their accuracy could not be satisfactorily verified. The Celtic factions and units are being reexamined and even some Roman units are up for review, all to make sure we are as historically accurate as we can be. That is perhaps one problem. What is history is entirely subjective. Its not mathematics, where there is only one answer/solution. 2+2 is 4, not 7 or 5. Its not that easy with say "Were the Getai of Thracian origin or a different people alltogether?" or "Were the Macedonians really Greek?".

I will be closing this thread now, as I've been asked to do so by several people. This thread has degenerated into mudslinging instead of proper discussions, where both sides have made their cases.
If people wish to present a case for a Celtiberian faction, then it should be done in an orderly fashion (look at the Kyrene & Syrakousai threads as examples).