Printable View
If it's not hard coded, would a 'papal' or 'senate' style Druid faction - situated say in Mona - be a welcome addition for giving missions to the Celtic factions and rewarding successes with 'special' units such as Chanting Druids or Screeching Furies?
Personally I would like to see the occasional rare appearance of more 'colourful' units as it breaks up the monotony of fighting one homogenous warband after another.
That would not be historically accurate. The British druids had no real sway over the Gauls or Celtiberians or Gaels, they all had their own religious leaders. A single group of druids from Britain would not be ordering the Gauls to sack Rome. If there was a religious movement to attack Rome, it would come from the Carnute Cingetos in Gaul, not the British Druidae. More over, it would prevent Celts from fighting one another, and Celts were simply too warlike for them to be forbidden from fighting one another.
More over, the Celtic factions, like all factions, are being redone with historically accurate units. This is a historical accuracy mod, and they did fight in different manners and styles based on their lifestyles. Druids have been discussed and rejected for the Britons (they did not use Druidae in combat, when the Druidae fought, they were pushed to it), and screeching furies? Doesn't sound remotely proper or realistic. However, the new unit list will reflect the differences in the British warrior classes in different parts of Britain, as well as provide them with some strong, unique units, as opposed to rehashed units.
More over, the Roman Senate, I think, has been voted to remain, as there will still likely be multiple Roman factions, and I believe there can only be one Senate faction.
I thought the Druids wielded significant power over the Tribes? Didn't the Romans make a point of exterminating them because of their unifying influence?
Unifying power? Sort of. The Druids could tell warring tribes to stop, in Britain, and they'd USUALLY listen. However, the Britons, Gauls, Celtiberians, Lugians, Gallatians, and Gaels were not TRIBES. They were entire cultures, that happen to stem from a Celtic root, with many of their own tribes within them.
Druidae wielded no power at all over them, they were only revered greatly by the Britons. There were no druids in Ireland or Gaul. In Ireland, the priesthood was called 'Breahain', and Gaul's equivalent of druids were called 'Carnute Cingetos', and in both cases they were warriors as often as scholars. The British Druidae were diplomats and priests, and that gave them clout, politically, as they were learned men, but that doesn't mean the Gauls were about to take orders from them. It's like today, the Pope has sometimes been asked to mediate peace proceedings in the Middle East, between non-Catholic nations. It's not the religious factor, it's the fact that he is a well respected man with great political influence. Likewise, British Druidae hold no actual power over Gauls, but they would be seen as good diplomats. However, saying that would stop Gauls from killing Britons is foolish. Britons killed Britons. And Gauls certainly weren't going to take orders from priests who worshipped gods that the Gauls didn't necessarily believed to exist.
The Britons real 'political' center may have been the Druidae, as they were the only real unifiers among them, but Gaul had nothing to do with them, except outside of possible political dealings in Britain. The Britons were culturally very different than Gauls, with their own gods, religious practices, weapons, etc. Gauls and Britons are only similar in that they are of Celtic heritage, have some similar art, and a similar base language. But the Druidae at Mona, pushing around a Gallic king? That would not concievably occur. The Carnutes held the true religious power in Gaul, not foreign druids, and the Carnutes could concievably sway the course of Gaul.
Even within Britain, their actual influence depended on the area. While they were well respected and honored, not everyone gave them the same reverence. There are several sub-cultures in the British tribes, but because of the map size, faction constraints, and unit constraints, a pan-Briton faction will be used, with units that try and represent the major differences in those cultures. The Druidae were diplomats and holy men, they didn't offer rewards, nor did they push people around. To the contrary, they were generally on the same level of respect as lesser kings, which doesn't offer them the ability to demanded others to do anything.
Rome found it more necessary to kill British druids because they encouraged the Britons to revolt against Romans, and encouraged pride in their Celtic heritage, thus making Roman ways seem reprehensible. However, there is only a single 'Briton' faction, and those are the only people the Druidae had real power over. There is no reality or sense to a Celtic 'senate', when the Celts did war with eachother.
Take the invasion of Hibernia. It happened in multiple waves. However, when Belgian Celts, called Firbolgs by the new Celtic invaders, were encountered, they were warred with, slaughtered, and displaced into the north, with Gallic Celts (and their Iberian allies) setting up many colonies in the south. Where were the druids in this? Nowhere. Their influence meant nothing to the Gauls invading, despite British Celts, settled in Hibernia, being slaughtered wantonly. The Druidae had real power in Britain, and Britain alone. The Gauls and Britons were on semi-congenial with one another quite often, but that was based on family ties and heritage, that had nothing to do with some imaginary Druid Senate that controlled them.
Ranika,
I'm absolutely positive that I've read somewhere that the Gauls etc. sent their religious leaders over to Britain to be 'trained' by the Druids at Mona, who were considered the best in the Celtic world. If this is true it would indicate that British Druids had at least some sway over the other Celtic nations. Is this true though, or just conjecture? I merely ask because I'm curious and you seem to have a veritble fountain of knowledge about the Celts, not because I'm in favour or against the proposed Celtic Senate.
That'd be conjecture. The Gallic 'druids' were trained differently. While they had similar practices (mnemonics, constant memorization of lengthy names/places/family trees), this stems from an earlier tradition that branched into the Gallic and British religious practices.
However, when 'deals' were made that would affect the religious lives of the Gauls and Britons, they would no doubt meet to discuss such matters, and they both used 'druids' (Gauls didn't really have druids, in the technical sense, though they had a near identical class) as diplomats. Gallic holymen going to Mona wouldn't be going there for training, they'd be going their to discuss matters affecting the British tribes, and the Gallic kingdoms, and what their organizations roles would be in these events. However, their were too many of these men to say they were all sent to Britain, they were trained by the elder Carnutes, thus, trained at home, in Gaul.
British Druidae had different practices than Gallic Carnutes. They used different sacred objects, they held different positions in society, etc. If Gallic 'druids' were trained in Britain, British gods and practices would be more prominent in Iron Age Gaul. Aside from some 'border gods', Gauls and Britons worshipped very different gods. These gods required special practices, such as specialized ritual executions, animal sacrifices, vegetable sacrifices, elaborate chants, songs, and poems, etc. It would make no sense to send a holyman to learn how to worship gods that are not worshipped in your kingdom, and then bring him back, expecting his practices to sync up with those practices done in your own lands.
Aside from worship differences, and mnemonics being taught by elders, there is the combat role of religious leaders in Gaul, versus that in Britain. In Gaul, Carnute Cingetos engaged in war, organized into units, and assisted Gallic armies in fighting invaders. They were VERY skilled, implying years and years of training. But British druids did not fight, except in very rare cases. Those years of training had to be done in Gaul. Aside from practical fighting skills, they would need to learn how to fight using Gallic tactics, not British tactics, because combat in Britain is different than combat in Gaul. It makes no sense to send these men to learn how to fight like tribesmen, when you need them to fight like professional soldiers.
The point is, Druidae were very different than their 'equivalents' in Gaul and Hibernia, which would be most likely to deal with them. Both Gaul and Hibernia had their own religious leaders, they didn't NEED Druidae. Their own practices and gods and the state of warfare they engaged in required them to be trained differently. Maybe a few were 'cross-trained', sent to eachothers religious and scholarship centers to learn how they do things, but that's not giving dominance to Mona. That's like modern Catholic and Buddhist monks engaging in 'religious exchange' programs, where they visit eachother's monastaries, and observe techniques of meditation, prayer, and devotion. They don't adopt those practices, necessarily, but they may integrate what is conducive to their own practices, and gain knowledge of additional possible techniques. This would allow these clerical members to gain increased knowledge of the world around them, and refine their religious and philosophical techniques. That doesn't equate to training though, since, as mentioned, training in that manner wouldn't really help them be more effective religious leaders in their own lands.
Modern revisionist, despite any proof to it, often put more stock in the British druids than there really was. The Celtic world did not revolve around them, but for whatever reason, some people like to think it did. They were no doubt powerful in Britain, but they didn't control the religious life of the Gauls and the like. The Gauls, actually, seem to have had a bit more effect on the Britons, religiously. Religious figurines, not to mention gods, were taken from Gaul, to Britain, first by traders (the figurines), and then the Romans (Gallic gods). British gods were worshipped, sometimes, in the north of Gaul. But if the British druids had really had any profound hold on Celtic religious life outside of Britain, British gods and practices would've been a bit more prominent.
For me would be a waste of a faction to give a new one to a single group of individuals......
I agree, that it is a definite, huge waste, but also am explaining the ill logic behind it. The only faction that would be affected by it would be Britons, and that doesn't make sense at all.
Please, Parmenio, post acceptable Historical suggestions, not Hollywood style ones...Quote:
Originally Posted by Parmenio
I'm curious to know your sources Ranika. Everything I've read (though there is precious little on the Druids) points to Druids being pan-celtic.
aymar maybe a nice idea to give a concil (senate type) to carthage
Druid tends to be a 'catch-all' for the terms used to describe Gallic, Gaelic, and British clergy in the Iron Age. Sources include the Roman's descriptions of the Gauls, their descriptions of the Britons, archaeology, the precious few writings of the Gauls, numerous Greek texts, as well as writings by saints who converted pagan Celts, and described their culture. Patrick's writings on 'Breahain' in Ireland include some definite parallels with British druids, but even the Breahain's were clearly quite different. There is no proof to one group of druids controlling all of the Celts. I'm interested in knowing YOUR sources. There is absolutely no real proof at all that one group of druids was ordering around ALL Celts. The suggestion is totally ahistorical, it is a modern simplification of a very complicated society. It's easier to say "They were all druids", rather than "They all had individual complicated religious practices with specialized holymen". Druid is now just a generic term for Celtic religious leaders. It doesn't mean they were the same men, with the same practices.
You have to view it from a logical point of view. Gaul. Organized into kingdoms, has currency, elaborate trade, military organization, etc. It's the Iron Age. Religion is based around your livliehood, so the Gauls will have their own special practices reflecting their government, their art, and their ways of making war. The Britons are still tribes. They are not NEARLY as organized, their outlook on life tends to be the survival of their tribe. So they organize religious practices and gods that imitate their own struggle.
Celt does not mean they were the same thing. Celtic was a race, and a blanket term for numerous, very different cultures. Stop pushing this suggestion, until you have proof to offer. You're only offering the watered down version of Celtic history, where all the druids are the same guys, and they all do the same thing. Which is totally false. This is an idea pushed by people who try and simplify a very complicated class in Celtic society, because the Celts tended to be a disturbingly religious people. So, their clerical class was very developed. The 'druids' only shared a few common practices. They practiced mnemonics, kept track of tribal histories and bloodline, and would act as diplomats. But all archaeological evidence points to them being VERY different.
Gallic art and objects at their holy sites includes weapons. Not ritual weapons, ACTUAL weapons, with edges that were sharpened, some even show signs of use. British holy sites tend to have cups and bowls and little statues. That alone is a huge difference in worship. We don't know much about their clergy, other than what we can infer from Romans and Greeks, and the few things the Gauls had to say about themselves, but we can imply a great deal, with a huge amount of accuracy. Gauls worshipped differently than Britons. This alone shows their clergy had to have acted differently.
The British druids did not fight. And I'll say it again, the Gallic one's did. Plenty of proof of that, especially archaeologically, like excellently made weapons and armor, at the sites where the druids were interred, or their bodies otherwise laid to rest. That's a huge shift, too. If they're the same, why does one spend years of his life training to fight, and the other doesn't?
The similarities between Gallic druids and British druids were thin, they came from a common tradition, undoubtedly, but by 270 BC, they were NOT the same. They may have gone as far as to view eachother as peers, but they did not act the same.
Aside from being horrendously ahistorical in that the druids were not the same people everywhere, this idea also presents a technical problem that is also ahistorical. Factions tied to the 'senate' faction cannot fight one another. As stated, the Gauls and Britons DID fight, especially over Hibernia. Also, there can only be one 'Senate' faction, I'm fairly sure, and that one is in Rome. More over, it'd take up a province the Britons need. And even more so, your unit suggestions show a complete lack of knowledge of British Celt HISTORY. This is a historical accuracy mod, not some fluff bunny dumbed down version of the Celts, as portrayed by over zealous new agers, and lazy pan-world history professors who don't want to take a few hours to learn about the Celts.
The Celtic cultures were violent, they fought eachother, they had different religions, and you're proposing a unifying senate, that has no historical basis at all.
Amyar:
Apologies, just paraphrasing Tactius:Quote:
Please, Parmenio, post acceptable Historical suggestions, not Hollywood style ones...
"On the opposite shore stood the Britons, close embodied, and prepared for action. Women were seen running through the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel funeral; their hair loose to the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearance resembling the frantic rage of the Furies. The Druids were ranged in order, with hands uplifted, invoking the gods, and pouring forth horrible imprecations."
---
Ranika:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DruidryQuote:
There is no proof to one group of druids controlling all of the Celts. I'm interested in knowing YOUR sources.
This is a typical example of the stuff I trawled through, all very basic material I assume?
Yet were there not tall fair celts as well as short dark celts? I thought it was the culture that defined them rather than race? Admittedly 'Celt' is a Greek and Roman description of a widespread people or peoples.Quote:
Celtic was a race, and a blanket term for numerous, very different cultures.
Ah... I am totally unfamilar with any of this, though it answers my question as to your sources. You sound quite authorative on the matter though, so I'll bow to your wisdom.Quote:
But all archaeological evidence points to them being VERY different.
I was thinking more along the lines of MTW's Papal system, where the Pope objects to christian factions fighting each other, rather than the Roman Senate as such. I'm sorry if I failed to communicate that. From what you have posted I now agree that a single such 'council' faction would be inappropriate to the Celts as a whole, and - as you have kindly pointed out - entirely impossible to implement, answering my other intial question.Quote:
Aside from being horrendously ahistorical in that the druids were not the same people everywhere, this idea also presents a technical problem that is also ahistorical. Factions tied to the 'senate' faction cannot fight one another. As stated, the Gauls and Britons DID fight, especially over Hibernia. Also, there can only be one 'Senate' faction, I'm fairly sure, and that one is in Rome. More over, it'd take up a province the Britons need. And even more so, your unit suggestions show a complete lack of knowledge of British Celt HISTORY. This is a historical accuracy mod, not some fluff bunny dumbed down version of the Celts, as portrayed by over zealous new agers, and lazy pan-world history professors who don't want to take a few hours to learn about the Celts.
I do however believe mission systems - representing councils or otherwise - for all the factions in RTW would benefit the game if it was possible to implement them. It's something that seems missing after playing MTW.
AFAIK, it's impossible to make another senate for other factions. It's hard-coded.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadRunner
Yes, we know that particular event and quotation by Tacitus. It was that one that CA used to justify the inclusion of Druids in RTW. Unfortunatelly, a single isolated event in all those centuries, in a very akward situation, using civilians in a state of desperation, isn't ANY justification for mistaking them as Military Units. They never were so and, as such, will never be so in EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parmenio
That stuff is very...base. It's generally what is used to 'introduce' one to druids, though much of the information is rather bad, or shoddy.
And correct that Celts varied in size and gait, but Celts were also very widespread, so they intermarried a great deal with indigenous peoples and so on. One story about the origins of the Celts even gives them Scythian roots.
As for authority, I am a professional, if that's what you mean. I'm not the most authorative, by far, and I have plenty of stumbling blocks, particularly with the more eastern Celtic peoples, and bits of the Celtiberians. However, I have worked on actual digs, written and assisted in writing papers on the various Celts, etc.
It would be nice if each faction could have a 'mission' system, if it could be internal to the faction, but that's not a technical possibility. If it were, Druidae for the Britons may be interesting, though they actually 'recommended', more than 'assigned', since, in all truth, they were actually servants of tribal kings and such, not really the head of things. It'd be more like the Druidae coming to a king and requesting that he take his tribe and invade X other tribe's lands. But, I digress, it's an impossibility to implement.
It'd be interesting if there was a type of 'relationship' system, where you could set how factions view one another, how quick they are to war, or peace, and so on, as that would amply suffice in simulating Celtic relations. They WERE less willing to war with one another than they were with non-Celts (though, they clearly went to war with eachother for a multitude of reasons), but I don't think that can be simulated.
Warrior druids will not be in for the Britons, as Aymar said. My only suggestion for them, that I could accept, would be as rebels in Mona, but it's such a tiny footnote that it's not worth taking up a unit space, since we only have so much room. However, the Gauls will have Carnute Cingetos, I believe, which were real warrior druids, as mentioned above. There is a bit of friendly discussion about special 'wonder' structures, to be added to some towns. I, and a few others in older threads, have proposed a pseudo-structure at Ynys Mon, Mona, representing their presence, and providing an appropriate bonus.
As for worrying about homogenous warbands, wait to see the final Briton unit list, it will be different than the Gallic one. There will probably be several types of warbands, actually, as the Britons really did mostly fight using 'warband' type of organizations, and they'll be representing the different tribal types, the southern Britons, the midlanders, and the Caledonians, who had different appearances, weapons, armor, etc. However, there will be some chariots, and hopefully some interesting other units to break up any monotony. The list will be historical, interesting, and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
I don't mean to be harsh, but I just felt it necessary to exemplify the inaccuracy of a druid senate or even a papacy-like (though that'd be closer, but still incorrect) type faction. I do agree that missions would be nice for all factions, but I believe it's beyond us.
I think that someone at the Russian total war site has changed the mongol invasion date in the .exe using a hex editor its probably possible for rome too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
I support the "senate" idea for the "barbarian" factions as this would enable someone to split them into their real tribes without weaking them and add some flavour to that factions...
A small off topic request: can you make DIFFERENT buildings look for the various factions so the scythians dont get the WESTERN tribes buildings look?
Hellenes
One problem though. IIRC, hexing a prog infringes copyright.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
I really don't think it to be accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Yes. That will be eventually adressed. Just not immediatelly.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Well modding does in a way too infriges copyright...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
Why the CA hardcodes stuff?
So they rip us another £30 for the expansion?
Many companies let their fans mod as much as they like (the fans) why the CA just uncodes the basic things in the expansion? *remembers VI*
While not 100% accurate it can MAKE the tribes implementation possible with them unified its even more inaccurate...
It will be a MUST for the greek cities faction making the REAL leagues...
Hellenes
Frankly, most factions could use a 'Rome' treatment - get split into several parts and have some sort of overall governing body giving missions or deciding that your 'dynasty' does no longer serve the whole tribal alliance/league/court well.. but I guess it was the right of developers when they decided to make ROME Total War, to only give such goods to Roman factions.
IF there was to be some sort of 'Senate' for the Celts, it would have to be more like the Pope in MTW than Roman Senate, and be faction specific.
The Druids call for a raid / 'crusade' against foreign (non-celt) powers, if you do it, you get favour, warbands that join..maybe some special / expensive units,
Get a heap of favour and other Celtic factions offer to become a protectorate.
Continue to fail, and your a target for other Celtic factions / rebellions ..maybe army desertions etc.
Alot of work, but would be great for gameplay.
If there was a possibility for 'faction specific' type senate missions, that'd be nice. Gauls taking missions from the Carnutes and such, but it'd have to be depicted properly too. The druid-types of the Celtic peoples were not political leaders, they were advisors and religious leaders. The second position does provide them power in the aforementioned 'crusade' aspect. If you didn't perform the holy tasks required of you, the religious leaders could, essentially, perform a smear campaign of your rule, and encourage civil rebellion, desertion, etc., and their envoys to their peers in other Celtic nations could easily encourage their peers to engage in a similar campaign, and encourage invasion and open war against what would be seen as a heretical leader. But, that's all hypothetical, imagining that it COULD be done.
I only expand on the Celt suggestion here because I know essentially nothing about what could be done with other factions, but I imagine it'd be essentially identical. Most of it, for Celts, really lies in the wording of it, and the finer details exactly of what their 'missions' mean, and what their nature would be (religious conquests, not unlike crusades).
I know Pyscho V said all that, essentially, but I wished to expand upon it a bit, with the 'rationalizing' of it, because propaganda against you for defiance of a holy objective is probably the most realistic course of a 'senate' in a Celtic society, as they put a huge amount of stock in religious leaders, which, as stated, were not political in nature, but a religious leader, properly angling his influence to get what he desires, could become even more powerful, especially in a society that nearly deifies them.
My complaints with a 'druid' senate, that would govern ALL Celtic factions has already been noted, but I'd take no mind to individual 'senates', and special relationships between Celts, as Celts did take to mind who was Celtic and who was not, even if they did not consider themselves a single people, necessarily. And while their gods and practices may have varied some, they would all have a vested interest in ensuring one another follows their religion, because, seemingly, their religions likely encouraged a type of xenophobia, and encouraged some level of Celtic solidarity. This is most readily present in early dark age records of champion fights, where Celtic peoples (mainly Welsh and Gaelic by this time) would send only a single champion to fight another champion to the death, rather than engage in full scale wars, if they could be avoided. This type of mentality was still present after Christian conversion, where Irish kings tended to prefer this method of combat amongst eachother, and the one to use massed force first in a war was readily shunned and often allied against, not so much in support of the offended's argument, but to punish the offender for breaking a code of etiquette. As such, if ever possibly implemented (a one in a million chance, I'm sure), starting war with another Celtic nation should likely cause a large amount of revolt in their own country (a king may be feeling particularly irreligious or self important, but his people aren't necessarily so inclined to agree with them).