I wouldn't be surprised if....

...The Galatians were a new faction. I know people have suggested the Galatians before as a possibility but right now it would come as no shock to me if they were announced. This post does not pretend to be a proposal for the Galatians but merely it hopes to point out some of the factors which would make the Galatians suitable as a possible faction:

1. Expansionism. From my understanding one of the key attributes of any possible faction is that they must at some point (post 272BC) have expanded from their original territory or at least entered into a prolonged war with another major power during which they were reasonably succesful at defending their homeland (ie Viriathus and the Lusotana). The Galatians do fit this requirement having raided various sites in Asia Minor for over a century, thus coming into conflict with Pergamon, the Seleucids, the Romans, Cappadocia, and Pontus. Cities attacked post 272BC include Laodicea (268BC), Heraclea (?190BC), Tlos (?250sBC). In some respects the Galatians were more expansive (from what we know from the surviving historical texts) than already confirmed factions such as the Pritanoi, Saba and Bosporan Greeks.

2. Government. For the EBII team to be able to create a faction a sufficient degree of information is required as to how that factions government functioned, hence it is very unlikely despite excellent archaeological material that the Balts will be included. The faction's government must also show a degree of unity. Surviving evidence is sufficient for us to be able to understand the Galatian leadership system with its tri-monarchical system of the united tribes of the Trocmi, Tectosages and Tolistobogii.

3. Archaeology (in my view the most important aspect). Sufficient archaeology exists from Asia Minor to allow Galatian settlement, economic systems and units to be recreated. Also, as a people who produced and utilised La Tene material like other Celts already existing models for Arverni, Aedui, Boii (and hopefully Belgae) units would not require much re-modelling to make them suitable for inclusion in a Galatian unit roster.

4. Reform. One aspect which is desired in a potential faction is that it's military reformed over time. The Galatians like other non-Hellenic powers in this region also became increasingly Hellenised and later Romanised and these influences are reflected in the Galatian military, such as the manipular formation and "imitation legionaries" employed by the Galatians at the time of the Roman Civil War.

These are just a few thoughts of mine. In my view there is sufficient evidence for the Galatians to be included as a faction. Possible victory conditions may include conquest of Asia Minor and Thrace, sacking Delphi and the Destruction of Pergamon as a faction.

Right everyone, it's now that time when you rip large chunks out of these thoughts and demolish this thread completley.

I'd love to see them, just as maybe 10 other factions XD
But they aren't on the top of that list...
On the imitation legionaries, I don't know exactly how these galatians fought, they had been vassals for more than a century at that time, maybe was their usual way of fighiting etiquetted as their own by the romans...

The Galatians indeed started fighting in the roman fashion, as they were trained by roman officers and fought under roman commanders like Pompeius Magnus and Caesar. Eventually the galatian military was formally formed into a legion. However, at that point they historically were not much more than a roman Type IV government, in EB terms.

I remember reading some good arguments against their inclusion as an own faction, though I would have to search for the respective thread, and I myself woudn't mind seeing - and playing - them. It has something to it leading a celtic army in an environment like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysimachos

The Galatians indeed started fighting in the roman fashion, as they were trained by roman officers and fought under roman commanders like Pompeius Magnus and Caesar. Eventually the galatian military was formally formed into a legion.

---

Thank you for the info, so Dejotaros wasn't such a reformer afterall XD

I thought a Galatian-Bythnian faction was considered but ruled out. No idea where I read that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy1984

I thought a Galatian-Bythnian faction was considered but ruled out. No idea where I read that.

---

From what I understand Bythnia was a nation in its own right, neither Hellenic nor Celtic.

I didn't realize there was such extensive archeaological evidence on any baltic peoples. I thought the main reason that they have never been a faction is that there is just insufficient information on them at that time in history. If there really is that much data then I doubt a lack of governmental knowledge would be the reason for not including them.

Quote:

---

hence it is very unlikely despite excellent archaeological material that the Balts will be included

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

I didn't realize there was such extensive archeaological evidence on any baltic peoples. I thought the main reason that they have never been a faction is that there is just insufficient information on them at that time in history. If there really is that much data then I doubt a lack of governmental knowledge would be the reason for not including them.

---

Galatia is in Turkey...

But he's talking about Baltic peoples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy1984

I thought a Galatian-Bythnian faction was considered but ruled out. No idea where I read that.

---

IIRC the Galatians were one of the candidates for the final faction slot of EB1, which eventually went to the Saba. They are a candidate for EB2. That said, Asia Minor is already very crowded, so I am not sure if they are going to put another faction there. The Bythnians were allied to the Galatians at EB's start date or near enough; and together they make a far more viable faction than the Galatians alone.

This was the post of Krusader:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Bithynia was a strong kingdom and if they would be included in 272 BC they would be included as the Koinon Bithynia-Galatikoi. Yes, a joint Bithynian-Galatian faction.
However, Anatolia is just too crowded and it would force wars immediately, so it is most likely they will not be included.

---

So I wouldn't count on them being included.

I don't know, I think it might be cool if Anatolia became an even more intense war zone than it already is in EB1. I don't think that it would necessarily the best way to allocate the remaining faction slots, but given all the factions that have already been ruled out, I'm struggling to think of 6 solid contenders even if you count the Galatians. If Galatia was included, they'd have to have a pretty flexible AoR for the surrounding regions in order to build any kind of empire, since there's not a lot of other Celts nearby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

I didn't realize there was such extensive archeaological evidence on any baltic peoples. I thought the main reason that they have never been a faction is that there is just insufficient information on them at that time in history. If there really is that much data then I doubt a lack of governmental knowledge would be the reason for not including them.

---

Archaeology alone cannot recreate a faction as much as I wish it could. With regards to the Balts in 272BC we (as far as I know) do not know any tribal names of people inhabitting that region, what they referred to themselves as, the diplomatic stance between the Baltic tribes and their Indo-Aryan, Germanic and Celtic neighbours, the socio-economic models they employed and the personal names of their leaders. Without this info it is impossible to recreate a faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I don't know, I think it might be cool if Anatolia became an even more intense war zone than it already is in EB1. I don't think that it would necessarily the best way to allocate the remaining faction slots, but given all the factions that have already been ruled out, I'm struggling to think of 6 solid contenders even if you count the Galatians. If Galatia was included, they'd have to have a pretty flexible AoR for the surrounding regions in order to build any kind of empire, since there's not a lot of other Celts nearby.

---

I agree, even if Anatolia already has a substantial number of factions a suitable faction shouldn't be ruled out based on the worry that a region is too crowded. Greece is already crowded and from what I have read in various posts one of the most enjoyable areas to play as a faction. Furthermore the Galatians would add an interesting flavour to a region in which phalanx battles are the norm. With regards to new factions I can't forsee there being any further Hellenic factions considering EBII is already set to include 8 truely Hellenic factions (AS, KH, Makedon, Epeiros, Pergamon, Ptolemies, Bosporans, Baktria). At present there is a fair discrepency in terms of the number of "barbarian" factions 4 Celtic Speakers (Aedui, Arverni, Boii and Pritanoi) 1 Iberian (Lusotana), 1 Dacian (Getai) and one German (Sweboz). The Galatians are probably one of the few "barbarian" factions you could add to the game considering the 272BC start date. The only other "barbarianas" I think you could seriously add would be the Insubres, Belgae, Arevaci and possibly the Marcomanni but none of these tribes enjoy the same historical information as the Galatians (with the exception of the Insubres, however the Insubres were on the retreat from 272BC until their final conquest by the Romans).

BY 42BC the Galatians had conquered both Phrygia, Cilicia and Lycia and had played a major part in the regions politics throughout this period, fighting Pergamon, Pontos, Rome and the Seleucids and adopting varying diplomatic stances towards each power. As I stated before the Galatians had a far greater impact upon the present EB faction list than factions like the Casse/Pritanoi (conflict with the Belgae c.120-100BC and a brief role in the Gallic Wars) and the Saba. I agree that the EB team was right in choosing the Saka as a faction over the the Galatians, after all the Saka conquered Baktria and established a kingdom in India, but to disqualify them as an EBII faction based purely on a fear that the region they inhabitted would become overcrowed is wrong.

RE Ludens, I don't expect an answer but, have the Belgae been ruled out as a potential EBII faction?

I still think galatia will be a luxury if applied.....

as of right now they are not in the EBII build. they may or may not end up in later releases but not the first one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Thank you for the info, so Dejotaros wasn't such a reformer afterall XD

---

when he died (and Galatia absorbed as a province), his soldiers were formed into Legio XXII Deiotoriana-to elaborte on Lysimachos.

EDIT: wrong number. corrected it.

link to information on the legion: http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/xxii_deiotariana.html

I definitely wouldn't be surprised if the Galatians made it as a faction, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did not. They are in what I believe is a unique position of fulfilling the requirements for factionhood as well as the sufficient information requirements, but from a gameplay perspective (and for the sake of accurate representation of the world at this time), other areas of the map would benefit far more greatly from the addition of a new faction. From that perspective, I think that if the EB team can dig up sufficient information on some of the other candidates for factionhood, they will include them over Galatia, but if they are left with a spot they cannot fill, the Galatians will most likely take that spot.

Just my thoughts (which may be completely misguided) on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

I definitely wouldn't be surprised if the Galatians made it as a faction, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did not. They are in what I believe is a unique position of fulfilling the requirements for factionhood as well as the sufficient information requirements, but from a gameplay perspective (and for the sake of accurate representation of the world at this time), other areas of the map would benefit far more greatly from the addition of a new faction. From that perspective, I think that if the EB team can dig up sufficient information on some of the other candidates for factionhood, they will include them over Galatia, but if they are left with a spot they cannot fill, the Galatians will most likely take that spot.

Just my thoughts (which may be completely misguided) on the subject.

---

Extremely wise thoughts in my opinion, very balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Extremely wise thoughts in my opinion, very balanced.

---

Thank you, I believe your reasons for inclusion are quite valid as well, and they would certainly be a fun faction to play.

Edit: Upon further reading I should add that the government of the Galatians was reformed from an elective assembly to a monarchical system following the massacre of the Galatian arisotocracy by Mithradates VI of Pontos. Also although there is archaeological evidence to support the presence of the Galatians in Anatolia it is not particulalry extensive however this is to be expected considering the initial Galatian population was only 20,000 (Avaricum of the Bituriges in Gaul, a single oppida, had twice that population) and that the main Galatain settlement, Ancyra, has since been extensively urbanised by the Romans and Turks. Also Turkish archaeology has tended to focus much more on other periods of Anatolian history (fully understandable when you consider the people who have inhabitted the region: Neolithic peoples, the possible ancestors of the Indo-European language family, the Catal Hayuk builders, Hittites, Lydians, Kurds, Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Cappadocians, Bithnyians, Pontus, Romans, Arabs and Turks... less than two hundred years of La Tene using Galatians is not likely to receive priority study.)

And like a magical druid I bring this thread back from the grave.....

Has there been any further news on the Galatians or hints from the team? As it stands, from my understanding, the occultus faction doesn't lend itself well to a possible Galatian faction. Also I must eat my hat with regards to my earlier comments that a Baltic/Slavic faction would be impossible, boy were the Lugii a surprise.

A very pleasant suprise. I do like the idea of a Galatian faction. And Syracuse. I suspect they may never be though; its a pity. But the more I think about it the more I like your idea of the Belgae as a faction. Really hoping they let us know sooner rather than later. The updates are spaced just a little too far apart to maintain interest.

Well, look at Anatolia, there is the Pergamites, the Pontics, the Seleucids AND a Galatian faction? Crowded much?

Im merely thinking of the game mechanichs, the Pergamites and the Galatians will be at war early and i think the Pergamites will win (which they did)

soo, its gonna be messy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Blacksmith

Well, look at Anatolia, there is the Pergamites, the Pontics, the Seleucids AND a Galatian faction? Crowded much?

Im merely thinking of the game mechanichs, the Pergamites and the Galatians will be at war early and i think the Pergamites will win (which they did)

soo, its gonna be messy...

---

But like I said earlier you already have a similar situation in Greece with the Macedonians, KH and Epirus and people seem to love playing as those factions. You could also argue you start in a crowded situation in the far east of the map with the Saka, AS, Baktria and Parthians. You do present a good argument with regards to Pergamon, but we already have similar situations in EB (I'm sure plenty of people have seen the Ptolemies, Epirus and Parthia divide up the vast majority of the east fairly rapidly).

I don't think the situation is that similar in Greece. Epeiros and Makedonia have different sensible routes of expansion. Epeiros can expand northwards towards Illyria, make a stand in Italy, Makedonia can involve itself up north, and in Asia Minor, and the latter can also be said of the Koinon Hellenon. This often happens in AI controlled games as well.

I don't see the Pontic / Pergamon / Galatia / Seleukid tangle, with likely contributions of Makedonia and the Koinon (and the Bosporans?) result in anything but all out war, between the six factions present in the area. Not saying that that is a bad thing, if it is historically sound; but then issues of recruitment and the diplomatic engine can really spoil things (lack of dynamic alliances, spontaneous rebellions etc.).

This will probably necessitate additional settlements in the region, which will have to be found from somewhere. At the same time, removal of certain provinces could seriously threaten the viability of the factions such as the Sauromatae, Lugii, Pritanoi etc.

Italy for instance has 14 settlements (not counting Sardinia), but the entire Seleukid Empire has about 23 at the start of the game in EB1, and the 23 or so already seem to be a very small number considering the extent of the area covered. And if there are no Belgic / second Iberian faction / third Gallic faction, some settlements in that region may be taken off the map, but other than those, I can't really see where settlements could be removed.

I certainly see the potential for a Belgic faction, and some mod coming out to replace the Belgics with the Galatians, for those of us who are interested in duking it out in that region.

I think that we'll see very different diplomatic/warring developments thanks to M2TW, by tweaking the starting relations in many mods I saw bordering factions never fight eachother...