A case for an Eastern Celtic faction to be in EBII.

I would like to make a case for at least 1 Celtic factions in the East or Eastern Europe/Balkans to be included in EB2. Everything here is common knowledge I suppose to us history buffs, but, I am posting to reinforce why its a good idea to consider adding them for anyone that takes notice. Having a Celtic faction thats not based in Gaul or Britain would fill in the area nicely with a historically present group of warriors that can be fleshed out completely, unlike being simply mercs or eleutheroi (sp?).


ALPINE/CENTRAL EUROPE CELTIC FACTION (the Norici, Cotini, Taurisci, and Boii tribes)
My initial ideas on this originated from the Celtic tribes living in the areas of Noricum, Raetia, and or Pannonia (roughly in the vicinity of modern day Austria/Hungary/Switzerland). I recall reading in a book (That I did not have the money to buy! Arrgh!), that in all of "Celtdom," the Noricene tribes were the closest to forming what could be called an empire from their superb smithing and quality of swords, trade with all their neighbors, and close kit confederacy. The area was unified as a Celtic state a couple generations after the EB beginning time line of 272 B.C.E. (Besides, the Noricene Gaecori have the coolest looking shields in the game IMHO)

Noricum
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...re-Noricum.png

Noricum and Raetia (look just above the Italian peninsula)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nzentrajan.png



CELTIC BALKAN FACTION (the Scordisci, Eravisci and Boii)
GALATIAN FACTION (the Tectosages, Trocmii, and Tolistobogii.
http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/II30/index.html (a war gaming minatures site description).

An excerpt from the above link:
"The Galatian army list begins properly in 280 BC, when the arrival of the Galatian host in northern Macedonia. After stopping to rest and refit, the Galatian chiefs debated whether to continue west or move further south into Greece. A faction under the chieftain Brennus split off to invade Greece, sacking the temple at Delphi before being driven back with heavy losses. The remnants rejoined the other division of Galatians under Leonorius and Luterius who had moved into Thrace. In 278 B.C., two groups of 20,000 Galatians crossed over into Asia Minor where they were engaged in service to King Nicomedes I of Bithynia, helping to suppress a rebellion by his younger brother. As a reward for their services, the Galatians receved a large tract of land in central Asia minor (in modern Turkey) known henceforth as Galatia."

click to enlarge
In German, but you get the idea
https://img528.imageshack.us/img528/...map7qg2.th.gif




http://www.caorc.org/fellowships/mel...heodossiev.pdf. (Viewers need acrobat reader for this file. Much info on the time period relevant to the Celtic presence in the Balkans. Might be a long read for some)

An excerpt form the above link:
Gauls led by Cerethrius prepared themselves to fight against the Triballi and the
remaining Thracians, Brennus and Acichorius against Paeonia, and Bolgios/Bulgius
against Macedonia and Illyria (Pausanias X 19, 7). At the end of the same year or in
the next one, Bolgius defeated the Macedonian army and killed Ptolemy Ceraunos.
In 279 BC, Brennus— possibly not a historical character — began a campaign
against Delphi; the Celtic detachments on their way south devastated the Dardani,
neighbours to the south-west of the Triballi. At the same time, those Gauls who
were left by Brennus to guard their tribal borders, enlisted 3000 horsemen and 15
000 foot-soldiers to form an army which defeated the Triballi and the Getae, who
seem unsuccessfully to have tried to push out the invaders (Iustinus XXV 1, 2-3).
In the same year, 279 BC, after the complete defeat of the Celts during the
campaign against Delphi and Brennus’s suicide, some of the surviving Gauls took
the way back led by Bathanattus (later the route was named the ‘Way of
Bathanattus’) and in 278 BC part of them, the so-called Scordisci, settled the lands
between Sava, Danube and Morava rivers (Polybius I 6, 4; Iustinus XXIV 4, 8,
XXXII 3, 6-8; Posidonius frg. 48J; Athenaeus VI 25, p. 234 a-b). The new
Scordiscan settlers completely overran the local Autariatae and formed a powerful
tribal alliance that played an important rôle, both politically and military, in the
north Balkans until the end of the first century BC (Garašanin 1966, 1996;
Todorović 1974; Papazoglu 1978; Jovanović, Popović 1991).


click to enlarge
https://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2384/3bcgg9.th.gif




-If the Galatians are not included as a free faction, consider this:
Perhaps its good for them to stay as they are in .81 (recruitable by Asia Minor powers like Pontus) but, should any other Celtic faction expand into Asia Minor then they could have full access to the entire Galatian roster to recruit once the right military buildings (type III or IV) is built. Afterall, why wouldn't Galatians want to team up with their Western Celtic brothers if they come calling for warriors to loot and plunder the Greek kingdoms?

This idea would:
1) Give someone thats playing the Western Celts (Aedui/Arverni, etc...) a very nice incentive or reason to expand historically towards Galatia. ~:idea:
2) The Human player can have some high end Galatian troops (Galatikoi Lavotuxrito, Galatikoi Kleruchoi, etc...) recruit in Asia Minor to help against the phalanx hordes that will no doubt come calling (I'm usually playing the Arverni or Aedui, and I found it next to impossible to hold Galatia vs the Seleucid hordes in .81 with the choices of lower end troops that we had to scrape together in Asia Minor).

My two cents :yes:

Well written.

With an extra 10 factions, I don't think they'll leave that area as empty as they were forced too in EB1.

Hey Power, for the sake of conversation, do you think (or did you find) that the Eastern Galatian tribes and the western Celts kept up a strong connection? Perhaps not "historic ties", like say a Polis and her colony, but something stronger that would warrant some expansion in a particular direction? That point seems, imo, to be the only unsubstantiated premise in your post. But really, an excellent post.

This discussion has already been raised inside the dev forums. I think I can say without censure from other members that another celtic faction is a strong possibility ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Hey Power, for the sake of conversation, do you think (or did you find) that the Eastern Galatian tribes and the western Celts kept up a strong connection? Perhaps not "historic ties", like say a Polis and her colony, but something stronger that would warrant some expansion in a particular direction? That point seems, imo, to be the only unsubstantiated premise in your post. But really, an excellent post.

---

I have not came across anything 100% solid about the Galatians having strong ties to the European based Celts. There are reasons to assume that there was at one time though as listed below

One reason is that at the time of the Celtic invasion, there was one branch that went on to Delphi and fight a battle there but loose the battle versus the Greeks. The survivors split into two groups. One group went north, and in this group, the Scordicsi, became the alpha male in the area they reigned over which was the area around and including the Danube, Morava, and Sava rivers.

Sava/Danube Rivers
https://img165.imageshack.us/img165/...rmapbo6.th.png
click to enlarge

Modern day Serbia to give a better idea perhaps.
https://img131.imageshack.us/img131/...fmaptc1.th.png
click to enlarge

The group that went South, established a state based at Tylis (west of Byzantium), and this group spread their influence all over the entire region of Thrace, reaching the Northern Balkans until their state was destroyed in 213 B.C.E by the Thracians.

Overall, look at the maps that are posted and imagine how the Celtic tribes progressed from the West, into the Northern Balkans, into the Southern Balkans, into Greece, and across into modern day Anatolia. Notice how geographically close the Celtic tribes and settled areas, and the states they created were to each other. I want to believe that the East and West had strong ties, but, seeing how the Celts never formed an Empire like Alexander or Rome, I don't know for sure.

HUGE archaeological map of the Celtic East and the general Balkan area. Originally a .pdf file.
https://img118.imageshack.us/img118/...eastpn7.th.jpg
click to enlarge

Hey, I found what you might be wondering about. It very well may count as proof of strong ties between the West and the Eastern Celtic clans!

Ok, I went to Borders Book store for lunch break today, and in usual fashion was looking at the history section. There was a book about Celts, so I browsed it. It turns out that right about the time when Hannibal was heading through South Gaul (making for Rome), the Greeks in Marsallies had asked one of the Celtic tribes to get in touch with the Galatians, and ask them not to be hostile to someone/something whose name began with the letter "L."

I know thats not a whole lot to go by, but it gives one instance of some ties and connection between the Gauls and Galatians. I read the entire 2 pages before that reference, trying to gain the context of what the Greeks were wanting the Galatians not to be hostile towards, but could not tell if it was a person or place.

I will buy the book next time I am there. :book:

I would check out our new release of EB 1.0 for some possible answers on Eastern Celts. We won't come out as being certain either way yet, but there are a few indicators.

A transalpine celtic faction, for those stretched their territory just into nowadays southern germany, would be really neat, as they would put some more pressure on the Sweboz (+ maybe another germanic faction) and on the other hand it would provide some kind of buffer between the germanic faction(s) and Rome, which at least in my games not infrequently clashed very early in game.
So, in my opinion, an excellent idea! ~:cool:

Ok, my wife was able to buy that book for me while I was at work. Its called The Celts A History, written by Peter Berresford Ellis. Makes a nice addition to my modest collection. Heres what that section said (page 136 in this particular edition), word for word...


The ability of ancient Celts to travel great distances has been underestimated, in spite of the knowledge of their movements through Europe. Henri Hubert has demonstrated that the various Celtic societies in the ancient world not only shared a sense of common origin but were in communication. he cites two instances form the second Punic War. When the Romans found that Hannibal prosed to march from the souther Iberian peninsula, though southern Gaul, across the Alps and into Cisalpine Gaul, they sent ambassadors to prevent the Celtic tribes supporting Carthage, but found that all these tribes shared a sence of untiy against Rome. Shortly afterwards, the Greek senate Massilia (Marseilles) asked their Celtic neighbor to contact the Celts dwelling in Galatia (the central plain of Turkey) and asked them not to act with hostility towards *Lampsocos. Hubert argued:

The solidarity of the Celtic peoples, even when distant from one another, is sufficiently explained by the sense of kinship, of common origin acting in a fairly restricted world, all the part of which were in communication.

For that ancient world to be in communication to the extent which these references imply, it would have been essential that had a efficient transport system, via roads and shipping.



*Or spelled Lampsacus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampsacus

Ah, you mean Lampsacus on the Hellespontine coast of the Troad?

All in all I have to say that I agree with the idea of some more factions in this part of Europe, though I think I would probably opt for the Noricene Celts and the Bastarnae to the North East of Getia. Another Germanic tribe would be quite nice as well.

i wonder if anyone has researched the 'Celts' as far as Britain is concerned? According to Historians the 'Celts' term has only been used to apply to the British people has only existed since, 1792? Where a group decieved everyone and made a 'Druid' ceremony and called it Celtic!!

The Romans used to call the Celts 'Galli' and never refered to the Britons as 'Galli', Celts but just Britanni peoples. Yes the languages were similar, but not the same, even art found in Ireland which has this 'Celtic' label has no evidence it was produced by a concentrated tribe like the Celts.

Most historians now believe that certain parts of Britain adopted the 'Celtic' language and some of their traits but were NOT invaded by them. I suppose the most obvious is through trade, for instance there is a copper mine in North Wales that dates back to 3500BC!!

They also seem to say that no massacre took place when the Saxons came but they just integrated, they couldn't have massacred the Celts anyway as technically they didn't wxist in Britain, lol.

I find this a fascinating subject and am still researching it. There was a recent DNA study down in certain parts of the UK but it is ultimately flawed, no I'm not ignoring science. But there was a much indepth Female DNA study done which showed more realistic results.

There was a skeleton found at Cheddar gorge which dates 9000 years ago which is just a few hundred years after Britain came out of the Ice age and became an Island, they took DNA from this skeleton (female DNA is present in males and females but it provides an unbroken link which is hard to refute) and they found the same DNA still present in the people present locally. This proves that there was no invasion by the Celts and the Ancient Britons still remained Native.

So if you have a Celt tribe for the British Isles take it out and use it for the East and give Britain the Brittanni people, lol.

Celt in the modern context is used to describe a material and linguistic culture, which most of Britain did belong to by this point. The Britons had a Celtic culture (actually several Celtic cultures, but all falling under the same name), with a similar religion, similar customs, material goods, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boudicea

There was a skeleton found at Cheddar gorge which dates 9000 years ago which is just a few hundred years after Britain came out of the Ice age and became an Island, they took DNA from this skeleton (female DNA is present in males and females but it provides an unbroken link which is hard to refute) and they found the same DNA still present in the people present locally. This proves that there was no invasion by the Celts and the Ancient Britons still remained Native.

---

:inquisitive: No Celtic invasion? Just because there is some old DNA in present people in Britain? That would also mean that there was no Saxon invasion...

Quote:

---

No Celtic invasion? Just because there is some old DNA in present people in Britain? That would also mean that there was no Saxon invasion...

---

and no romans, and no normans...

I agree with the posts about the DNA study. All it shows is that the DNA is still around, it doesn't 'prove' that there was never an invasion, just that after any invasion there were enough survivors to continue living it up...so to speak.

I was wondering if it was helpful to think of the Celts as a single entity, as if all the Celts were part of the same political organisation and structure. While the reference notes that the Western Celts were asked to talk with the Galatian Celts, it should be remembered that it was the Greeks who asked this, and we have no details of the response. Maybe the Greeks were simply assuming a level of conference which didn't exist between Celts. After all, they lumped everyone not Greek together as 'barbarians', just as the Romans did later.

The groups of peoples known as the Celts obviously shared certain aspects of culture and religion, but in many ways were pretty diverse, and I'm not sure you can consider tham as a single group of peoples who debated and engaged in dialogue between themselves and each other.

Thats my opinion, I'm happy for epople to tear it down and educate me! I admit my level of Celtic knowledge is not too extensive...:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonny

and no romans, and no normans...

---

:laugh4:


:curtain:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...91/Galater.GIF
Literatur Galater:
Staehelin, Felix: Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater,1973.
Strobel, Karl: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und historischen Geographie des hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien 1 , 1996.
Vranopoulos, E.A.: War elephants of the hellenistic period, 1975, 130-146.
Wörrle, M. Antiochos I., Achaios der Ältere und die Galater – eine neue Inschrift in Denizli, 1975, 59 – 87.


Here are ethnic maps from me, to show you the real ancient tribes !
Norici
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...91/Noriker.gif
Vindelicii
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...iindelicer.GIF
Panonnia
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-.../Pannonier.GIF
Thracia
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...91/Thraker.GIF
Saxones (Proto)
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...otoSaxones.GIF
Narbonensis
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...arbonensis.GIF
Boiahemum
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...nnenkriege.GIF
Liguria
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-...91/Ligurer.GIF
Dacia
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-6/1261691/Daker.GIF

H.Balck

I think a Baltic tribe would add an interesting dynamic, along with the Basternae.

This is little to no information on Baltic tribe or the Bastarnoz at this time period. And there weren't any powerful, united Baltic tribes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

This is little to no information on Baltic tribe or the Bastarnoz at this time period. And there weren't any powerful, united Baltic tribes.

---

What about the Aestii(Esti)? They spoke a Baltic language closely related to modern Latvian and Lithuanian also known as Old Prussian. They had an ancient culture even at this time becoming a tribal state at about 1800bc. They became particularly wealthy through their amber trade.
Looking at their pagan descendants of 800ad would give you a pretty good idea as to what they mightve looked like at the games date. And you also got good old archaeology.
They would be pretty primitive, but the more cultures you have in the game add to the flavour so to say.

I've made a case for the Aestii for EB2 so no worries- they will not be forgotten by the likes of me (one who studies barbarians of all types, but specializes in the North and Central/Eastern Europe).

the biggest problem is the lack of centralized government and the lack of literary record

Indeed, a Balt and/or a Balto-Slav polity would provide an interesting regional faction and/or factions. The great problem with any Keltic or Swabian factions is that historically they seemed inherently incapable of any degree of stability beyond the regional level for more than a generation. To have more than one faction within each historic region would be, Ce qui est en anglais, redondant, no?

GREAT POST MAN :tongue:

:unitedstates: :us-texas: :leo:



Edvard0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

This is little to no information on Baltic tribe or the Bastarnoz at this time period. And there weren't any powerful, united Baltic tribes.

---

Adding the Bastarnoz would mean we'd see Flax vs Falx fighting. ~D

Bastarnoz? yeah! Falx vs. Falx:2thumbsup: