Ilergetes - A case for a new faction

[Bucefalo]

ILERGETES – A CASE FOR A NEW FACTION


This is the faction proposal for one of the most warlike of all the coastal iberian tribes, they played an important role participating actively during the second punic war, siding first with the Carthaginians and later with the Romans. The coastal Iberian tribes (such as the turdetani, bastetani, edetani, etc.) were quite different from the tribes of the interior of the peninsula, and I think they should be represented separately. That´s why I propose the Ilergetes, who were one of the tribes who opposed most resistance against the invaders of all the iberian coastal tribes.


Ilergetes, Indiketes and Iacetanos: Iberian camps next to the walls of Emporion

Of Iberian origin with Celtic influences, the Ilergetes were one of the most powerful peoples of the East of the Peninsula.
His ethnic root begins in the a.c Xth century, key date since he supposes the end of the Age of the Bronze and the beginning of that of Iron.
The Ilergetes settled in the current provinces of Lleida, Huesca, and long ago also in the North of Saragossa and even of Castellón.
His capital was still not open Atanagrum, but nevertheless his most well-known cities were Iltirta (Lleida) and Esoi.
His society was divided in classes much hierarchised, with a strong component military and directed by a king or régulo.
This Iberian people developed an economic potency in his area of influence and minted proper currency, taking advantage of the commerce that they were supporting with the Greek city of Emporion (Ampurias). Also they developed the gold work and the metallurgy.
His most important historical figure was king Indibil allied of Carthage during the Second Punic War.
They were definitively defeated by Rome in the year 194 a.c by the intervention of the consular legions of Catón.

The indiketes occupied the coast gerundese, and taking advantage of the closeness of the Greek cities of Rhode (Roses) and Emporion developed a trade policy that allowed them to mint proper currency, your capital was Indika (Iberian part of Emporion) and they were much influenced by the Hellene ones in many fields of his society.

The Iacetanos were of Gallic origin and they were related with the French aquitanos. They occupied the provinces of Saragossa and Huesca.
During the IIIrd and IInd centuries a.c carried frequent operations of pillage out against the peoples of aldrededor, especially against the suessetanos, what I create to them reputation of barbarian and backward people. Nevertheless also, like the previous ones, minted proper currency and thanks to the rubrics that appear in them we know that his language was Iberian with influences vasconas. His society was matrilineal, or probably led by women in the domestic matters and for men in the warlike matters.
They were defeated by Catón in 195 B.C.

Location of the Ilergetes
http://www.enciclopedia-aragonesa.com/img/grandes/TomoXI198.jpg



Linguistic differences between the iberian tribes (in Spanish)

http://www.geocities.com/linguaeimperii/Hispanic/hispanic_es.html

Iberian and Celtic names (in Spanish)
http://hispanismo.org/geografia-y-etnografia/7987-nombres-iberos-y-celtas.html

Possible faction symbol

This is a coin found in Iaca (Jaca), actual Aragón. The faction symbol could be the rider depicted on the coin.
http://www.pasapues.es/aragonesasi/historia/monibe02.jpg
http://www.pasapues.es/aragonesasi/historia/salduba1.jpg
http://www.enciclopedia-aragonesa.com/monograficos/pueblos_prerromanos/img/bolskan.jpg

The Ilergetes in the Second Punic War (in Spanish)

http://descargas.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/01305064244915951190024/014030.pdf?incr=1

Victory conditions

https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/306/mapailergetes.jpg

Military

They would have a roster composed of mostly Iberian troops (iberi caetrati, velites, scutari etc.) with some exterior influences, like the use of celtic long swords or some greek style armour.
Here is a depiction of a Ilergete warrior.

https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/gieImages/ilergete14xh.jpg?t=1243883639

And some reconstructions

https://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z220/joselitog/adiestramientodeguerreros.jpg
https://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z220/joselitog/adiestramientoguerreros4.jpg
https://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z220/joselitog/Adiestramientodeguerreros6.jpg
https://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z220/joselitog/rutaibers2008logada3.jpg


Sources

http://www.satrapa1.com/paginas/anibalWEB/zonas/hispania/hispania206.htm
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilergetas
http://piedraantigua.blogcindario.com/2007/12/00013-ilergetes-indiketes-y-iacetanos-campamentos-iberos-al-lado-de-las-murallas-de-emporion.html
http://www.enciclopedia-aragonesa.com/voz.asp?voz_id=7047
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=21543&start=40
http://www.pasapues.es/aragonesasi/historia/prerromanos.php

[Kara Mustafa]

An interesting idea! I would love to see a new faction in Hispania:2thumbsup:

[Leão magno]

Nice option!!! I loved then when I played IBTW!!!! And they already have the proper art work (for RTW anyway)!

[caetrati]

Actually I think that it would be ok to represent both cultures in Iberia (celtic and iberic). And it is really interesting this case for a new faction. Because of the interesting greek and celt influences it have.

I think that the Turdetani are most relevant between the Iberian tribes, but I think they werent so war-friend as the Ilergetes.

Anyway the best case for a new faction in Iberia are the Arevaci, because of a lot of reasons. :sweatdrop:

Grettings. :2thumbsup:

[Andy1984]

Nice pictures but euhm... I wonder how many more factions EB is going to place right in the way of Roman expansion. By putting Massalia where it is, and making Syracuse a faction, Rome is even more likely to be stuck on it's peninsula. While I definitly don't want Rome to blitz the world, confining her to Italy isn't perfect either. Maybe that's why I would prefer to have extra factions not interfering with the early-Roman influence (like Asian nomads, a Baltic tribe, a second Arabian faction, Pergamom, ...).

[Moros]

Now that's atleast an original choice for a faction, and the faction has a good case as well if you ask me! ~:)

[madbriton]

It has to be pointed out that the EBII team have already decided on the new factions, they just haven't all been announced yet.

That said, it might be interesting to have another faction in that area, although it might corner the Lusitanns a bit.

[Ghaust the Moor]

Neat idea. It would be cool to have a new faction in Iberia

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hmmm, too many factions. Lusitannians, Karthadastim, Iberians, and possibly a Celtiberian faction is more than Spain could fit. If Ilergetes were the only Celtiberian faction, then it could possibly be made I suppose. And I do not believe Iberians are making it to EBII, are they?


Nice pictures but euhm... I wonder how many more factions EB is going to place right in the way of Roman expansion. By putting Massalia where it is, and making Syracuse a faction, Rome is even more likely to be stuck on it's peninsula. While I definitly don't want Rome to blitz the world, confining her to Italy isn't perfect either. Maybe that's why I would prefer to have extra factions not interfering with the early-Roman influence (like Asian nomads, a Baltic tribe, a second Arabian faction, Pergamom, ...).
Is that sarcasm, trolling, or baiting? Or are you actually serious? You know EB is not about paving way for the Romans to expand. EB is neutral; it does not favour one faction over another. Those factions existed. If the EB team can make them unique enough, then they will be and EBII faction. Whether they interfere with Romans or not is irrelevant.

That said, I do think some factions should have their AI modded so that they will not expand much. For one, conquering unique Eleutheroi is often more fun than grinding stack after stack of same AS spam, for instance. Secondly, some faction will probably destroy others, and become superpowers, which is not desirable either.

[Andy1984]

Is that sarcasm, trolling, or baiting? Or are you actually serious? You know EB is not about paving way for the Romans to expand. EB is neutral; it does not favour one faction over another. Those factions existed. If the EB team can make them unique enough, then they will be and EBII faction. Whether they interfere with Romans or not is irrelevant.

That said, I do think some factions should have their AI modded so that they will not expand much. For one, conquering unique Eleutheroi is often more fun than grinding stack after stack of same AS spam, for instance. Secondly, some faction will probably destroy others, and become superpowers, which is not desirable either.
I wasn't spamming, trolling or baiting... I was rather thinking about one aspect of the TW-engine. The biggest difficulty in defeating minor factions is their high number of general bodyguards (and maybe part of the EB-script as well), which makes sure minor factions are pretty capable to defend themselves. You mentionned AS spamming stacks. But I believe the factions that are actually spamming stacks are factions like Bactria. These minor factions are capable to have 2 full stack armies based on a two-province economy. The AS nor the Ptolemeans come close to that.

I'm not arguing this system is bad and needs to be revised. Rather I wish to say this system allows to prevent factions from overexpanding. If you put several of these minor factions on a relative tiny space, they're unlikely to kill each other, because taking that very last settlement will be that much harder. On the other hand, if you want an area to be conquered by one of the bordering AI-factions, make sure most of it's neighbours are Eleutheroi and they will conquer it. That's why I see the Sweboz (who start by far in one of the most dire positions) conquering all of Germany: they simply don't have any resistance. They'll need some time to do this, but eventually they are likely to succeed.

What I was suggesting (or wished to suggest) was: if you want to have any Roman expansion in almost 300 years of game-play, you might want to leave some room for them. With Sicily and Northern-Italy heavily defended, you might make it impossible. All that said: no, I wasn't aware of the fact EB wanted to give everyone a fair chance. I merely thought some Roman expansion in the long run would be considered historically accurate.

By the way: you say all these factions existed and have a right to be represented in the game. Of course they existed, but given few of these factions had real 'governments' or borders, the EB-team actually has quite a lot of freedom in deciding how big a faction is and where it's home-territory should thus be. E.g.: one could argue for one single Gallic faction, two factions, or even more. Since there seems to be hardly any objective basis to say two gallic factions are much less accurate than three, I believe you could place them so that it favours the kind of expansion you wish. I feel that, up to a certain point, EB already did this. By having only one German faction, the EB-map mostly evolves to a situation where the Sweboz occupy most of Germania, which in itself influences both the gameplay of Gauls, Romans,... On the contrary, creating e.g. a strong Belgae-tribe, would probably be historically accurate as well, but it would severly affect the expansion of Aedui, Sweboz and perhaps even Casse.

just my two cents,

apologies for the length of my post,

Andy

[A Very Super Market]

Lusos stay in Iberia until Rome has already finished Italy off. Carthage does nothing at all. If anything, this faction would only contest them for the title of second most inactive faction. First place is obviously the Casse.

[Moros]

Well if there's be more factions in spain wouldn't the fighting under eachother make them weaker instead of stronger? Look at the Aedui and Averni? They usually don't hold out that long in campaign because of the sweboz who barely have competition. While the gauls have better economy and units. The more competition those smaller factions get the weaker they become, as they can't expand that much anymore and can't pick their fights that easily anymore. This would help rome as they have a very good basis to start from, they would already get the divide like that the AI only has to get them the impera. As Rome can pick their fights, grows stronger, pick a new fight,...

[Andy1984]

I guess you're right, because I didn't take into account the fact Romanoi only have two borders (Sicily and Northern-Italy). Therefore, the Romani do have the chance to fight them off one by one, at least up to the point where Sicily and Northern-Italy are firmly Roman. I may have been comparing their situation too much with the AS, which starts to spread out and too undermanned to defend her borders against her (mostly) minor neighbours. Romans would quite soon start to concentrate her units at her two borders, which counts for something.

Andy

[Elmetiacos]

Someone can have fun reconstructing unit and building names for them...

[Bucefalo]

Yes i agree on that the Turdetani were another important iberian tribe, probably the most civilized (by greek/roman standards) of them all. Thing is that there are several quotations that tell us how they used frequently celtiberian mercenaries to protect their lands, and how they were not much united agaisnt the carthaginians. The Turdetani became quite mixed with the phoenicians, and probably saw the carthaginians as their heirs. That explains how the Turdetani did not unite agaisnt the carthaginians as other tribes did, and only some of them tried to resist the invasors, like Istolacio e Indortes.

I suggested the Ilergetes not only because they were one of the few iberian tribes (not counting the warlike celtiberian/lusitani/cantabri tribes of the interior regions) that were united and fought fiercely agaisnt the invaders. Also imho they would be a quite interesting faction, having a military structure greatly influenced by their greek and celtic neighbours, they would add some flavour to the normal iberian roster.

Also i think the presence of more factions in the peninsula would make them fight between them, as happened in history, and ultimately make them weaker and the romans/carthaginians could use the opportunity. Siding with one tribe or the other to ultimately conquer all of them:yes:

[Scud]

Nice pictures but euhm... I wonder how many more factions EB is going to place right in the way of Roman expansion. By putting Massalia where it is, and making Syracuse a faction, Rome is even more likely to be stuck on it's peninsula. While I definitly don't want Rome to blitz the world, confining her to Italy isn't perfect either. Maybe that's why I would prefer to have extra factions not interfering with the early-Roman influence (like Asian nomads, a Baltic tribe, a second Arabian faction, Pergamom, ...).

I must of missed that, but when did Syracuse get comfirmed as being a faction we'll see in EBII? :dizzy2:

[Saldunz]

I have to say that I really like the idea of having both a new in-land Celtiberian faction and a coastal Iberian faction to complement the Lusitanian and Carthaginian presence in Iberia. In fact, I often feel that the Lusitani do a little too well in my games, practically uniting most of Iberia by the time the Romans get there.

The only thing that I'm not entirely sure of, however, is how the province of Lacetania is represented in the game. It would be held by an Iberian faction but have a (independent) Greek capital? How would that work?

EDIT: And Syracuse wasn't confirmed to being a faction (yet).

[athanaric]

By putting Massalia where it is, and making Syracuse a faction, Rome is even more likely to be stuck on it's peninsula.

AFAIK Massalia is an unlikely candidate for inclusion in EB II. Perhaps you meant (Numidian) Massylia? One is in Europe and the other is actually a potential ally for the Romaioi, being a thorn in the side of Qart-Hadast's African core provinces.

[Cartaphilus]

Great idea.
I support (at least) a new faction in our beloved Peninsula. This could be one good possibility, and the "celtiberians" another nice choice.

[Sarcasm]

Someone can have fun reconstructing unit and building names for them...

I get a feeling you're trying to make a point, somehow. Maybe.

[eddy_purpus]

This sounds like a good idea ... but honestly i do not know much of Iberia's history....
Maybe one with the knowledge will approve the idea?:thumbsup:

[Bucefalo]

The only thing that I'm not entirely sure of, however, is how the province of Lacetania is represented in the game. It would be held by an Iberian faction but have a (independent) Greek capital? How would that work?


Yes, you make a good point mate.

The Ilergetes were not exactly in the area the Lacetania province is, but slightly more west. Here are a few maps
https://ie7cra.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mvffCVhzmp_fYkSGRq6pCRZFf8Vu2YvNBVG5v2lIHAURQBJ1TDcZSiWCr0_-jAweSC-lUgyfxNxy1LoMmcl7zCbxfsak9FkPPY77vvVcq__zEOuq47f324ET5py38GQPABEQDLQ3s1BQaOeL1ORNT2A/Iberia.JPG
http://www.enciclopedia-aragonesa.com/monograficos/pueblos_prerromanos/img/iberos.jpg

I think the solution would be to make Emporion a coastal province, and increase lacetania a bit to the west. Alternatively a new province could be placed between celtiberia and lacetania.

Regards

[Andy1984]

AFAIK Massalia is an unlikely candidate for inclusion in EB II. Perhaps you meant (Numidian) Massylia? One is in Europe and the other is actually a potential ally for the Romaioi, being a thorn in the side of Qart-Hadast's African core provinces.
You're right. Until now Syracuse hasn't been confirmed by EB. Though I think it is most likely to be implemented, given the positive reactions from EB-members in that thread.

[Elmetiacos]

I get a feeling you're trying to make a point, somehow. Maybe.
The only point is that only about 3 or 4 words of Iberian are known, and these are educated guesses. At least the other tough nuts, such as Lusitanian and Getic, can be pinned down to particular branches of Indo-European and a partial phonology teased out. Iberian might be related to Basque, but probably not closely related and we can't even read all the letters of its alphabet with certainty.

[Bucefalo]

Yes, undoubtley it would be very difficult to try to make accurate names in iberian for the units, as we know very little about their language. In EB I latinized names are used, and i think they´re ok when the original language can´t be reconstructed. Alternatively an aproximate version could be done using vasque.

Here are a list of iberian and celtic names that were used on the peninsula, registered on different accounts. I´ve also added it to the first post.

Iberian and Celtic names (in Spanish)
http://hispanismo.org/geografia-y-etnografia/7987-nombres-iberos-y-celtas.html

Regards

[Saldunz]

That's a fair enough point. Though as far as Iberian language reconstruction is concerned, I thought this was an interesting article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitanian_language

Given the similarity between Modern Basque and Aquitanian, and between Aquitanian and Iberian, it may not be so impossible to create approximations of Iberian military terms.