The Best Mod?

What is the collective opinion on the best mod?

I am interested in more as oppposed to less realistic. I only recently installed this game. I don't know if these have been addressed but: the few things I have noted that seem to need changing are:

-Only Rome should be able to build roads.

-Only civilized powers should be able to build seige equipment.

-Playable Barbarian powers should be reduced to a single province with surrounding similar ethnic areas made rebel and much strenghened. This should make it much more difficult for any unification.

-Elephants should kill and not just distrupt friendly units when stampeding.

-Chariots should be weakened. They were antiquated by the time this game begins.

-Barbarians should not be able to build fleets: save for perhaps the Britons.

-The barbarians can only build primitive roads anyway.
-Knowledge of Siege equiptment was not exclusive to the Romans or the 'civilised' parts of the world. The advantage the Romans and civilised peoples had was their knowledge of mathematics which allowed them to build more accurately and also to fire more accurately.
-The AI already simulates a poor team effort very well. The game would be a complete walkover if it were mostly rebs out there.
-Elephants, cant argue with that.
-I haven't played with chariots much so i wouldn't know
-Bull, they had ship building technology of their own. An AI tweek so that they don't spam them would be good though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herodotus

-The barbarians can only build primitive roads anyway.

---

Barbarians didn't build roads.

Quote:

---

-Knowledge of Siege equiptment was not exclusive to the Romans or the 'civilised' parts of the world.

---

What barbarian people of the period in question are you thinking of that had seige equipment? I think you are mistaken.

Quote:

---

-Bull, they had ship building technology of their own. An AI tweek so that they don't spam them would be good though.

---

What Barbaric people are you thinking of that could build anything other than a basic boat? I know the Britions built ships of a sort, but do you consider these equal to a trireme? If not, that should impact your views: particularly considering Classical ships are standard being used.

Do you have an opinion on any of the mods being offered? I haven't tried any as of yet.

I guess you won't like Europa Barbarorum, then :)

Man, you want to try reading a book or two. You are completly wrong about pretty much all of your assertions.

For instance "Barbarians" DID build roads, in fact the Ptolemeys for instance built roads that easily rivaled the Roman road of the time. It is indisputable that Rome EVENTUALLY became the premier road builder of the ancient world, but this is a far cry from a monopoly. Even in Gaule, road construction was undestood and practiced.

As to sieging the various peoples are represented roughly accuratly, (in reality it was less an issue of engines but of logistics anyway)

Your third point, about naval advances misses the crucial difference between the Atlantic and Med. (to be far so does the game). Each tech developed speratatly (as you'd expect) and to compare one to the other is pretty much a case of apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommh

Man, you want to try reading a book or two. You are completly wrong about pretty much all of your assertions.

---

Perhaps you could suggest a book or two that demonstrates my errors.

Quote:

---

For instance "Barbarians" DID build roads, in fact the Ptolemeys for instance built roads that easily rivaled the Roman road of the time. It is indisputable that Rome EVENTUALLY became the premier road builder of the ancient world, but this is a far cry from a monopoly. Even in Gaule, road construction was undestood and practiced.

---

The Ptolemaic Dynasty was Greek. The Greeks were the intellectual and cultural forerunners of Rome. It would be problematic to label the one civilized while condemning the other. The term barbarian being used here is not a simple language difference, but a distinction based on a particular people's ability to inculcate and expand upon abstract knowledge and applied arts. A simple tool typically considered necessary to achieve such advance would be a writing system.

Regarding roads: a Roman road was not a simple worn path, but an impressive engineering accomplishment that had both military and trade impact upon any area involved. If you wish to argue that the Gauls/German tribes etc. developed a road system similarly used for military and large scale trade: where did this occur, which tribe(s) built them and maintained them?

Quote:

---

As to sieging the various peoples are represented roughly accuratly, (in reality it was less an issue of engines but of logistics anyway)

---

Which barbarian peoples of the Period built and used siege craft? When were they employed? What would be the names in Celt or German for onagers, mangonels, ballistae, catapults, siege towers etc.? Given such were used against large urban centers and established fortifictions: what great Celtic/German locales are you thinking of that had these used against them by their fellow tribes? Given that Rome was still, by and large, lacking in the technical skills for large scale siege operations even as late as the 262 B.C. seige of Agrigentum, I'll be interested in your reply.

Quote:

---

Your third point, about naval advances misses the crucial difference between the Atlantic and Med. (to be far so does the game). Each tech developed speratatly (as you'd expect) and to compare one to the other is pretty much a case of apples and oranges.

---

What would be the Atlantic apple that would compare with a trireme orange?


The above distractions don't get me any closer to people's opinions on the better mods they've used. Opnions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

I guess you won't like Europa Barbarorum, then :)

---

I don't know. I am interested in people's opinions. I don't know much about Europa Barbarorum. Is there a mod out? Is there a read me, of sorts, that explains what changes have been made? I would think playing a Barbarian faction facing the technical challenges of the Age would be very interesting. This, plus the challenge of trying to unite a people could be fun, I would wager. That is one of the reasons I suggested such should start with only a single area surrounded by beefed up rebel neighbors. That difficulty added to facing an expanding Rome would perhaps be worthy of a Vercingetorix?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

-Only Rome should be able to build roads.

---

You know, Romans are famous for their paved roads, but others were building them as well, maybee not paved. But if you look at the map of Italy, it's mainly covered by hills (that's why Italy is famous for olives/oil and wine, not for grain production), so Romans needed good roads to move their armies fast and lately to cross mountains to reach their provinces.
Galia is more flat, so their inhabitants sin't need so good roads and with all likely nations they were not building empires. Eastern armies were far more cavalry based, so it's the likley situation and northen Africa civilizations more used sea and river boat transportation, but built roads when needed, but they usually didn't last to our times, because desert dand is far less merciful to human creations than snow of Alpes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

-Only civilized powers should be able to build seige equipment.

---

These "civilized" biult more siege equipment because they needed so so conquer their neighbours, but othe "barbarian" nations need so, they were quickly to copy them, they were in contact with greco-civilizations via traders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

-Playable Barbarian powers should be reduced to a single province with surrounding similar ethnic areas made rebel and much strenghened. This should make it much more difficult for any unification.

---

That would complicate the game too much, note that Romans and other nations as well were also divided and often wage wars upon their themselves :) When facing outside invasion, bunch of clans were usually able to unite to defend their land, that's the situation in RTW, which is war simulation, not trade or likely :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

-Elephants should kill and not just distrupt friendly units when stampeding.

---

When elephants move through friendly units, they take sare not to injure them, elephants are slow and calm animals, they are forced by their riders to attack furiously enemy soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

-Barbarians should not be able to build fleets: save for perhaps the Britons.

---

"Barbarians" usually din't need fleets :) But they would be able to do so, if they would need. And this is reflected in RTW as it's "alternate history" game. And to the technology level of ships, northen nations simply built ships, shich were more suitable for their waters, trireme would do bad in Northen sea, I guest there were more storms and more winds, so ships there were smaller, faster and more wind and less oars depedable. Don't forget Viking later even visited northen America in likely ships :)
For example, do you know, that the design of majority of roman arms were inspired by gallic weapons? And their helmets too.
So I understand your opinions, maybee I'd even agree with some, would I know less 'bout the era. Anyway, it's good start for you to get to know more :)

Note: Sorry for mispells :)
Note: I'm not expert on the era, so anyone feel free to correct my answers :)

I have to agree with Tommh and thwe others here Pindar, sure they were barbaric but not that uneducated! They could build roads, ships etc just not on the same level Romans and other civilisations could. Seige equitment is a hard one. I could see them using basic things like rams etc but the thing is, seige equitment wasnt used much in that period by anybody. Most lacked the technology for good equitment so for the most part nations just starved out their foes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio

I have to agree with Tommh and thwe others here Pindar, sure they were barbaric but not that uneducated! They could build roads, ships etc just not on the same level Romans and other civilisations could. Seige equitment is a hard one. I could see them using basic things like rams etc but the thing is, seige equitment wasnt used much in that period by anybody. Most lacked the technology for good equitment so for the most part nations just starved out their foes...

---

Hello,

I had quite forgotten about this thread of mine. I hadn't noticed any real replies. In any case, sorry my good man I must disagree. The barbarians were quite barbaric. The Celts and Germans were without any of the social accoutrements one would associate with their betters to the South i.e. no written language, no developed engineering, no large urban centers, no centralized states, no interconnected system of trade etc.

Roads: as I mentioned, for game purposes the roads play a key economic/strategic function. No such equivalent existed in the barbaric North. To argue to the contrary is to suggest some builders, maintainers and centralized interest existed. This is ahistorical.

Ships: building a ship an maintaining a fleet for war purposes are not the same. There are no examples (minus the Britons) for this occurring. Thus the options should be removed.

Siege: I have no problem with barbarian use of ladders or perhaps rams. Towers, sapping etc. were beyond their ken. I agree, that starvation was more of the norm than what the game portrays even amongst the civilized powers. The point however, siege war, if included in the game, should not allow a parity between the barbarian peoples and their civilized adversaries. There are no examples of Celts or Germans using such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

I had quite forgotten about this thread of mine. I hadn't noticed any real replies. In any case, sorry my good man I must disagree. The barbarians were quite barbaric. The Celts and Germans were without any of the social accoutrements one would associate with their betters to the South i.e. no written language, no developed engineering, no large urban centers, no centralized states, no interconnected system of trade etc.

Roads: as I mentioned, for game purposes the roads play a key economic/strategic function. No such equivalent existed in the barbaric North. To argue to the contrary is to suggest some builders, maintainers and centralized interest existed. This is ahistorical.

Ships: building a ship an maintaining a fleet for war purposes are not the same. There are no examples (minus the Britons) for this occurring. Thus the options should be removed.

Siege: I have no problem with barbarian use of ladders or perhaps rams. Towers, sapping etc. were beyond their ken. I agree, that starvation was more of the norm than what the game portrays even amongst the civilized powers. The point however, siege war, if included in the game, should not allow a parity between the barbarian peoples and their civilized adversaries. There are no examples of Celts or Germans using such.

---

You must remeber that there is such thing as balancing. If you didn't gave the barabarians their roads, which really isn't more then a path, they wouldn't be able to trade, and trade is the best income there is in the game. And they must have boats to, imagine Brittania with out boats in the Realism mod. Would not work. And the barbarians are already among the hardest factions to play as, and it would be impossible if thye started with just one province. There must be a balance between realism and maing the fame playable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andreas

You must remeber that there is such thing as balancing. If you didn't gave the barabarians their roads, which really isn't more then a path, they wouldn't be able to trade, and trade is the best income there is in the game. And they must have boats to, imagine Brittania with out boats in the Realism mod. Would not work. And the barbarians are already among the hardest factions to play as, and it would be impossible if thye started with just one province. There must be a balance between realism and maing the fame playable.

---

Yes, balancing is a key factor.

Barbarian roads

http://homepage.eircom.net/~archaeol...dtonowhere.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The barbarians were quite barbaric. The Celts and Germans were without any of the social accoutrements one would associate with their betters to the South i.e. no written language, no developed engineering, no large urban centers, no centralized states, no interconnected system of trade etc.

Roads: as I mentioned, for game purposes the roads play a key economic/strategic function. No such equivalent existed in the barbaric North. To argue to the contrary is to suggest some builders, maintainers and centralized interest existed. This is ahistorical.

---

In the eyes of the Romans, this might be true. Thankfully, we have other sources than Roman writers who depicted the barbarians as much less civilized than they actually were.

First, both the Gauls and the Britons had written language. Gallic Nobles usually spoke Latin and Greek, in addition to Gallic. They (the Gauls) wrote using Greek letters. The Gauls hated the Romans as much as the Romans hated the Gauls - they each wrote about the other being uncivilized.

For instance, the Celts were an extremely clean people. They invented soap; they bathed regularly, they shaved off all body hair as they felt it was dirty, and some even burned the hair off with a substance made of lye so that it would not grow back. The Celts felt the Romans were the "dirty" ones.

The Celts were much more advanced than you believe in the area of engineering. In fact, the Romans did not build their own siege artillery until somewhere around 70 to 50 BCE. Until this point, they relied on captured siege artillery. Where the Celts had several older types of siege artillery, including the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo, both similar to the bricoli in function, and large-bolt firing systems such as the Chwythstwg (and no, don't ask me to pronounce it).

Sharrukin has posted a nice link referring to barbarian roads. The Iron Age Gaels had a stone road between Ivernis and Emain Macha. The Gauls had elaborate road systems, including main highways. The Romans used Gallic roads to invade Gaul!

Both the Iberians and the southern Gauls landed on Ireland in huge numbers, both building entire cities practically overnight. This clearly required large fleets. Just because the Romans never fought naval action against the barbarians, does not mean they did not have the capability to build fleets of ships - they had, and did.

The Celts built large, stone-walled cities, and were divided into two kingdoms under the direct control of a single king, with organized nobility. These were the Arverni and Aedui - they held direct, strong control over numerous tribes. These were not loose confederacies of independent tribes - the Celts were feudalists. A tribe in Gaul was was actually like a medieval fiefdom; it had a chieftain (who operated like a lord) in charge of it, who answered to the king.

The tribes had to provide soldiers for the king's army; they were well organized, fully trained, and used advanced military tactics. Caesar encouraged the Arverni and Aedui to fight each other. By the time he invaded, the two kingdoms had essentially destroyed each other's fighting ability, combined with German encroachments.

The Celts had a highly advanced calendar system, and did indeed build large population centers, such as Alesia, Bibracte, Gergovia, and Numantia. They were advanced medically, possibly importing medical knowledge from the Greeks and the Egyptians. Evidence has been found of advanced surgery, including (successful) brain surgery, and the reattachment of an arm!

So, as you see, relying on the recorded history of the Romans, who openly detested these people, is not very accurate.

sharrukin and khelvan thank you for your posts: very interesting reading. It seems there very well may have been a simple road network of sorts. Before I retract my position regarding the civilizational level of the "barbarians" however, I would like to ask a few questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

First, both the Gauls and the Britons had written language. Gallic Nobles usually spoke Latin and Greek, in addition to Gallic. They (the Gauls) wrote using Greek letters.

---

The transliteration you refer to was most probably due to Gaul contacts with the Greek colony Massila. How common do you assume this to have been? The general thrust of Celtic culture seems to have been based upon an oral tradition. I know there was the ogham system that was a primitive script primarily used for divination and only used by the Druids, but I don't believe a larger literary culture existed. Are you rejecting this view and suggesting there was a literary inculcation?

Quote:

---

For instance, the Celts were an extremely clean people. They invented soap; they bathed regularly, they shaved off all body hair as they felt it was dirty, and some even burned the hair off with a substance made of lye so that it would not grow back. The Celts felt the Romans were the "dirty" ones.

---

I believe it was Pliny the Elder who made this claim.

Quote:

---

The Celts were much more advanced than you believe in the area of engineering. In fact, the Romans did not build their own siege artillery until somewhere around 70 to 50 BCE. Until this point, they relied on captured siege artillery. Where the Celts had several older types of siege artillery, including the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo, both similar to the bricoli in function, and large-bolt firing systems such as the Chwythstwg (and no, don't ask me to pronounce it).

---

This is one of the more surprising of your claims. Romans had been exposed to Greek siege craft at least from the Third Century. While it is well known the Romans were not the Greeks equal in this field, you seem to be suggesting that Rome couldn't reproduce siege artillery. What do you base this on? I recall reference to siege craft during the Punic Wars if my memory is correct, are you suggesting these were simply pilfered?

I don't know what a Chythrsydh or Cyrthcanepo are. I've never heard of them. Are they torsion powered or spring operated? Could you expand on this? I find this very interesting: what would be historic examples of their use during a siege?

Quote:

---

Both the Iberians and the southern Gauls landed on Ireland in huge numbers, both building entire cities practically overnight. This clearly required large fleets. Just because the Romans never fought naval action against the barbarians, does not mean they did not have the capability to build fleets of ships - they had, and did.

---

Actually the Veneti built ships: a rather large number to fight the Romans as I recall, but were badly beaten. My point wasn't that ship building was beyond Celtic knowledge, but I did question their ability to build ships of sophistication capable of and used for distance trade or naval combat (with exceptions noted).

Quote:

---

The Celts built large, stone-walled cities, and were divided into two kingdoms under the direct control of a single king, with organized nobility. These were the Arverni and Aedui - they held direct, strong control over numerous tribes. These were not loose confederacies of independent tribes - the Celts were feudalists. A tribe in Gaul was actually like a medieval fiefdom; it had a chieftain (who operated like a lord) in charge of it, who answered to the king.

---

Are you thinking of oppida? If so, these were not large walled cities as much as hill fortresses. The immergence of these is usually cited as a marked change in Celt practice. Previously Celt cities did not have such defensive measures.

The reference to the Arveni and Aedui respectively from the modern Lyon and Burgundy regions I also find interesting. I recall mention of at least twenty different major tribes within Gaul. Are you suggesting these other tribes were subservient to and recognized the lordship of the Arveni or Aedui?

Quote:

---

The Celts had a highly advanced calendar system

---

I thought there was no consensus on exactly what was the Celt calendar system.

My general opinion has been that the Celts were a people who existed on the periphery of a more advance cultural apparatus generally centered around the Mediterranean. Contacts with this more advanced civilization naturally had an impact on a number of levels. Nonetheless, this was an asymmetric relationship, by and large, and the Celts were the dependant group. You have brought up a number of intriguing points. I look forward to your reply.

Well, for your information ~:)

The Celt, also spelled KELT, Latin CELTA, plural Celtae, a member of an early Indo-European people who from the 2nd millennium BC to the 1st century BC spread over much of Europe. The people who made up the various tribes of concern were called Galli by the Romans and 'Galatai' or 'Keltoi' by the Greeks, terms meaning 'barbarian'. It is from the Greek 'Keltoi' that 'Celt' is derived.


1000-750BC - Proto-Celtic people of the Urnfield culture dominate much of Continental Europe. Also start to spread out over northern Asia as far as the frontiers of China. Development of the deliberate smelting of iron in the Middle East and China around the same time. Prompting the title 'The Iron Age' for this period.

700-500 - Hallstatt culture developes in Austria.

700BC - Early Celts in Austria bury iron swords with their dead.

600BC - Greeks found the colony of Massilia, opening up trade between the Celts of inland Europe and the Mediterranean. First evidence of Britain having a name - Albion - (albino, white - called after the chalk-cliffs of Dover). A major rebuild of old Bronze Age defences, and construction of new hillforts takes place in Britain.

550-500 -A princess in Vix (Burgundy) is buried with a 280 gallon bronze Greek vase, the largest ever made. 60 miles away a prince is buried layed out on bronze chais-lounge in a hugh chamber tomb.

500 - Trade between the Etruscans and the Celts begins. La Tene phase of Celtic culture speads through Europe and into mainland Britain. The Greeks record the name of a major tribe - The KELTOI - and this becomes the common name for all of the tribes.

500 - Celts (the Gaels - from Galicia) arrive in Ireland from Spain.

400-100BC - La Tene culture spreads over Europe and into the British Isles.

400 - Celts invade Italy and Cisalpine Gaul.

400 - Celts atack the Etruscan city of Clusium.

390 - Raiding Celtic tribes under the leadership of Brennus ravage Rome and occupy the city for three months. Offended by the dirty conditions of the city (they were country boys at heart) they demand a ransome to leave the Romans alone. Brennus demands his weight in gold and when the Romans complain he throws his sword on the scales to be weighed as well with the cry "VAE VICTUS" - (Woe to the Vanquished).

335 - Alexander recieves envoys from the Celts, and exchange pledges of alliance. Large numbers of Celtic Warriors join the Greeks in a war against the Etruscans.

323 - Alexander dies and the Celts push into Macedonia.

279 - Celtic tribes invade Greece.

Their tribes and groups eventually ranged from the British Isles and northern Spain to as far east as Transylvania, the Black Sea coasts, and Galatia in Anatolia and were in part absorbed into the Roman Empire as Britons, Gauls, Boii, Galatians, and Celtiberians.

Linguistically they survive in the modern Celtic speakers of Ireland, Highland Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and Brittany.

The oldest archaeological evidence of the Celts comes from Hallstatt, Austria, near Salzburg. Excavated graves of chieftains there, dating from about 700 BC, exhibit an Iron Age culture (one of the first in Europe) which received in Greek trade such luxury items as bronze and pottery vessels.

It would appear that these wealthy Celts, based from Bavaria to Bohemia, controlled trade routes along the river systems of the Rhone, Seine, Rhine, and Danube and were the predominant and unifying element among the Celts. In their westward movement the Hallstatt warriors overran Celtic peoples of their own kind, incidentally introducing the use of iron, one of the reasons for their own overlordship.

For the centuries after the establishment of trade with the Greeks, the archaeology of the Celts can be followed with greater precision. By the mid-5th century BC the La Tene culture, with its distinctive art style of abstract geometric designs and stylized bird and animal forms, had begun to emerge among the Celts centred on the middle Rhine, where trade with the Etruscans of central Italy, rather than with the Greeks, was now becoming predominant.

Between the 5th and 1st centuries BC the La Tene culture accompanied the migrations of Celtic tribes into eastern Europe and westward into the British Isles.

Although Celtic bands probably had penetrated into northern Italy from earlier times, the year 400 BC is generally accepted as the approximate date for the beginning of the great invasion of migrating Celtic tribes whose names Insubres, Boii, Senones, and Lingones were recorded by later Latin historians. Rome was sacked by Celts about 390, and raiding bands wandered about the whole peninsula and reached Sicily. The Celtic territory south of the Alps where they settled came to be known as Cisalpine Gaul (Gallia Cisalpina), and its warlike inhabitants remained an ever-constant menace to Rome until their defeat at Telamon in 225.

Dates associated with the Celts in their movement into the Balkans are 335 BC, when Alexander the Great received delegations of Celts living near the Adriatic, and 279, when Celts sacked Delphi in Greece but suffered defeat at the hands of the Aetolians. In the following year, three Celtic tribes crossed the Bosporus into Anatolia and created widespread havoc.

By 276 they had settled in parts of Phrygia but continued raiding and pillage until finally quelled by Attalus I of Pergamum about 230. In Italy, meanwhile, Rome had established supremacy over the whole of Cisalpine Gaul by 192 and, in 124, had conquered territory beyond the western Alps--in the provincia (Provence).

The final episodes of Celtic independence were enacted in Transalpine Gaul (Gallia Transalpina), which comprised the whole territory from the Rhine River and the Alps westward to the Atlantic. The threat was twofold: Germanic tribes pressing westward toward and across the Rhine, and the Roman arms in the south poised for further annexations.

The Germanic onslaught was first felt in Bohemia, the land of the Boii, and in Noricum, a Celtic kingdom in the eastern Alps. The German assailants were known as the Cimbri, a people generally thought to have originated in Jutland (Denmark). A Roman army sent to the relief of Noricum in 113 BC was defeated, and thereafter the Cimbri, now joined by the Teutoni, ravaged widely in Transalpine Gaul, overcoming all Gaulish and Roman resistance. On attempting to enter Italy, these German marauders were finally routed by Roman armies in 102 and 101

There is no doubt that, during this period, many Celtic tribes, formerly living east of the Rhine, were forced to seek refuge west of the Rhine; and these migrations, as well as further German threats, gave Julius Caesar the opportunity (58 BC) to begin the campaigns that led to the Roman annexation of the whole of Gaul. The Celtic settlement of Britain and Ireland is deduced mainly from archaeological and linguistic considerations. The only direct historical source for the identification of an insular people with the Celts is Caesar's report of the migration of Belgic tribes to Britain, but the inhabitants of both islands were regarded by the Romans as closely related to the Gauls.

Information on Celtic institutions is available from various classical authors and from the body of ancient Irish literature. The social system of the tribe, or "people," was threefold: king, warrior aristocracy, and freemen farmers.

There was a unifying language spoken by the Celts, called not suprisingly, old Celtic. Philogists have shown the descendence of Celtic from the original Ur-language and from the Indo-European language tradition. In fact, the form of old Celtic was the closest cousin to Italic, the precursor of Latin.

The original wave of Celtic immigrants to the British Isles are called the q-Celts and spoke Goidelic. It is not known exactly when this immigration occurred but it may be placed somtime in the window of 2000 to 1200 BC. The label q-Celtic stems from the differences between this early Celtic tounge and Italic. Some of the differences between Italic and Celtic included that lack of a p in Celtic and an a in place of an the Italic o.

At a later date, a second wave of immigrants took to the British Isles, a wave of Celts referred to as the p-Celts speaking Brythonic. Goidelic led to the formation of the three Gaelic languages spoken in Ireland, Man and later Scotland. Brythonic gave rise to two British Isles languages, Welsh and Cornish, as well as surviving on the Continent in the form of Breton, spoken in Brittany.

The label q-Celtic stems from the differences between this early Celtic tounge and the latter formed p-Celtic. The differences between the two Celtic branches are simple in theoretical form. Take for example the word ekvos in Indo-European, meaning horse. In q-Celtic this was rendered as equos while in p-Celtic it became epos, the q sound being replaced with a p sound. Another example is the Latin qui who. In q-Celtic this rendered as cia while in p-Celtic it rendered as pwy. It should also be noted that there are still words common to the two Celtic subgroups.

Today there are no remaining independent Celtic countries; however, the Celtic language (Gaelic) has survived in the form of Scots, Irish, Welsh, Breton, and Manx Gaelic. Irish and Manx Gaelic are the closest to the original language, retaining the Q sound in such words as cen (head), whereas the Breton and Welsh pen (also head) uses a P sound.

Enjoy!

Oh and I think all mods are good, and worth trying and played, combined or not, then it becomes a question of personal taste with your style of play, and of cource, avoids sticking up labels to people that have worked hard to express themselves :bow:

Note on pronunciation ..... pwy would actually be pronounced 'p-oo-ee

The 'w' being roughly equivalent to 'oo' as in 'moon' or 'book'
The 'y' can have 3 possible pronunciations, depending on it's usage and the sounds around it. It can be short, pronounced like 'i' or 'u', or in a longer form, 'ee'

Course, the problem with Celtic history at this period is that lack of genuine native sources. There was no real written history, and the reliance on a story based oral history made such tales vulnerable to war and invasion. Most 'Celtic Tales' available to historians today were written down in the Middle Ages, and contain many later elements. Anyone reading the Mabinogion will easily spot the intrusion of Medievel 'chivalry' into even these tales as a result of Norman influence.

Archeaological evidence does track the Celtic migrations through pottery, burial ritual etc. but the rest is based on 'classical' reports from scholars with no first hand experience, or from Ceasars rather 'biased' account of his conquest of Gaul.

It's a fascinating period of history, especially for someone who grew up in 'King Arthur' country :D

Thanks for the Clarification Bwian! (B'oo'ian ~;) )

Also, I think our Greek Speaking friends in these parts may have found interesting the Indo European Ekvos (Horse) rendered as "epos" ~:)

Interesting to know that, wither it be Celts, Latins, Hellenes, Slavs, Germanics...etc - They were all Indo-Europeans ~:grouphug:

Yes Barbarians had seige equipement, how else do you think they could've taken Rome and other cities with huge walls? No, they didn't take a sword and swing at the wall until it broke.

Ok, the brieme, quintreme, and trieme, all they did was if they could ram opponents ship, otherwise the main purpose was to board the enemy's ship. So those ships weren't used to max power .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

sharrukin and khelvan thank you for your posts: very interesting reading. It seems there very well may have been a simple road network of sorts. Before I retract my position regarding the civilizational level of the "barbarians" however, I would like to ask a few questions.

---

Thank you for discussing this civilly. You would be surprised at how many people are not willing to listen to ideas that challenge common assumptions about "barbarians!"

The Celts, at least, had more than a "simple" road network. They had major interconnected trade routes, some even being paved. Caesar himself made favorable comments about the roads, and used them to invade Gaul. Given how much the Romans hated the Gauls, these roads must truly have impressed Caesar for him to speak favorably of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The transliteration you refer to was most probably due to Gaul contacts with the Greek colony Massila. How common do you assume this to have been? The general thrust of Celtic culture seems to have been based upon an oral tradition. I know there was the ogham system that was a primitive script primarily used for divination and only used by the Druids, but I don't believe a larger literary culture existed. Are you rejecting this view and suggesting there was a literary inculcation?

---

The Celts knew about writing, and were a literate people. They saw writing as uncivilized because it weakened the memory. Many Celts learned Latin and other letters due to their contact with different foreigners. This of course must impact how little knowledge of the Celts has spread; much history was passed down through the oral tradition, and much of what survives in written form has not even been translated yet. I am familiar with much of the information I relate here because I have had the great pleasure and honor to collaborate with an Irish scholar who knows several different ancient Celtic languages, has studied the history of the people extensively, and has had access to these documents.

An example of both Gallic literacy, and a sophisticated Celtic calendar:
http://www.roman-britain.org/coligny.htm

The letters of the Coligny calendar are Latin, but the language is Gallic. This calendar may possibly be of post-Roman influence, but it does match some words with the few rare inscriptions found on the figurines of Gallic gods. Certainly, this calendar is impressive - it is better than the Roman calendar in some ways. It is more accurate than a modern calendar, accounting for the fact that a day is 23 hours and 50-something minutes long. The calendar also confirms that the Gallic druids maintained a thirty-year cycle of timekeeping, comprising five cycles of 62 lunations and one cycle of 61 lunations, during which period, eleven intercalary months would be added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I believe it was Pliny the Elder who made this claim.

---

Yes, we get some information here. However, there are other examples, and the one I refer to (this is third-hand, forgive me) was Brennus writing in Greek to a Greek friend, expressing his distaste for the Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is one of the more surprising of your claims. Romans had been exposed to Greek siege craft at least from the Third Century. While it is well known the Romans were not the Greeks equal in this field, you seem to be suggesting that Rome couldn't reproduce siege artillery. What do you base this on? I recall reference to siege craft during the Punic Wars if my memory is correct, are you suggesting these were simply pilfered?

---

The Osprey books on this subject state that the Romans first built siege artillery between 75 and 50 BCE, and built their first siege engine in the early 2nd century BCE. I don't have access to them, our team member Shigawire does; he did copy some relevant bits, and they're quite clear on the subject. They do make reference to Vitruvius' De Architectura, where he apparently laments the lack of Roman sources, and how they must rely on the Greeks.

The Osprey books strongly state that the Romans acquired their siege artillery primarily through capturing them, especially from the Carthaginians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't know what a Chythrsydh or Cyrthcanepo are. I've never heard of them. Are they torsion powered or spring operated? Could you expand on this? I find this very interesting: what would be historic examples of their use during a siege?

---

Please forgive me, I misstated; the Chythrsydh ('Breath Bolts') and Cyrthcanepo ('Eater of Horses') are more field artillery than siege artillery. The Chythrsydh was like a long, multi-shot crossbow, not very big, though wide; it fired 4-10 bolts rapidly, used for anti-personnel. The Cyrthcanepo was a larger version firing much larger bolts, meant to kill cavalry. Both the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo are like the bricoli in the way they fire; a spring mechanism slams up a plank into the back of the missles, which are set through bore holes, and launches them. The Celts used rams for sieges, and quite commonly sapped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually the Veneti built ships: a rather large number to fight the Romans as I recall, but were badly beaten. My point wasn't that ship building was beyond Celtic knowledge, but I did question their ability to build ships of sophistication capable of and used for distance trade or naval combat (with exceptions noted).

---

Yes, I apologze, you are quite correct on the Veneti. The Veneti engaged in long-distance sea trade; they had a lengthy trade run, for their own ports in Armorica, a land route to Masilla, and trade from there in the Mediterranean.

The other Gauls traded too. The Helvetii traded with the Greeks a great deal, which is where they learned to imitate the phalanx. Celtic armor was absorbed and modified by the Greeks (the theuros and chain in particular). The Briton tribes, particularly where the Catuvellanii kingdom would be, were major trade partners of Phoenicia and the Greeks.

In addition, we know the Celtic tribes of Gaul and Iberia must have built massive fleets in order to arrive in Hibernia in such numbers, in so little time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Are you thinking of oppida? If so, these were not large walled cities as much as hill fortresses. The immergence of these is usually cited as a marked change in Celt practice. Previously Celt cities did not have such defensive measures.

---

Oppida were the fortresses, but they were cities, like Bibracte, the capital of the Aedui. Bibracte was over 480 acres, densely populated, with two thick outer walls. These walls were between 3 and 6 meters tall, and thick enough for a group of people to stand on them. Outside the Oppida itself was a temple district with a necropolis, temples, and paths; large enough that it was like a small city for the dead.

These walls were not simple to make, nor were they copied from the Romans or Greeks. The Celts used a combination of wood frames, cut stones, and a type of quasi-cement to hold the walls together. Manching, near Ingolstadt in Upper Bavaria, is the site of the oldest and one of the tallest Celtic cities in Europe. The oldest finds are dated in the Hallstatt period. However, the stone walls weren't until the second century BCE.

This wall was about 6 meters high. Composed of about 2 tons of nails, 11800 cubic meters of wood, another 6900 cubic meters of limestone, and about 191,000 cubic meters of earth were used to make the wall. There is no proof the Celts there had been trading with Greeks, and certainly no Roman influence.

About 10000 people actually lived inside the wall; they would have been aristocracy and wealthy merchants. The interior houses are multi-room mansions. The exterior structures are regular houses. We don't know how many people lived outside the wall, but there was an amount of sprawl and a good number of exterior citizens.

Oppidum are usually defined as 'A large, permanent settlement of Iron Age Europe, which served as a center of administration, trade, crafts, and religion." They were much more than "hill fortresses;" in many cases they were indeed walled cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The reference to the Arveni and Aedui respectively from the modern Lyon and Burgundy regions I also find interesting. I recall mention of at least twenty different major tribes within Gaul. Are you suggesting these other tribes were subservient to and recognized the lordship of the Arveni or Aedui?

---

Yes, there were twenty or so 'major' tribes, but the Arverni and Aedui controlled many of them. The Aedui and Arverni each had a 'high king.' The major tribes beneath them had kings, who answered to the high king. Below those major tribes were lesser tribes, with chieftains and such that answered to the king they were under.

Celtic kings couldn't take thrones without often first citing lengthy poems or histories of their people. Rulers had to be well read, brave, capable fighters, skilled in hand-to-hand combat, able to speak publically, have a great deal of wealth (so they could deal properly with lawsuits), always pay their debts, and be known to be patriots. They were elected from a pool of close relatives of the former king. All kings, chieftains, and other Celtic leaders were elected. They had to exhibit the characteristics above to be eligible.

The kings were elected by chieftains, who were themselves elected by lower chiefs, who were elected by the families they were chief of. The high king was likewise elected by kings, from a pool of close relatives (and 'selected' relatives; heroes and such that a high king, or other high level leader, had personally selected as a potential heir). The kings could name an heir, but chieftains and lower could not. This heir was not usually a child; if named, it was like the Irish kingdoms, where it was often actually a respected political rival.

Kings could be ejected, too, if they broke the law. Celtic law actually punished kings more severely than regular citizens. There were special elected judges who oversaw trials, and judged in all cases. No one was above the law. The position of a king was not as an adjuticator, ever. He was the leader of the military, and a governor.

The Celts broke their government up amongst several classes, as they feared the tyranny of a single leader. The judges developed laws over time, but the majority of judges of a whole kingdom had to agree with the creation or abolition of a law. Even then they did not make the final choice themselves; each represented the opinion of the tribe that elected them.

The Celts confederated by conquering or buying other tribes' loyalty. Their king would then swear fealty to the high king, and was essentially a puppet; they would do anything they were told. The Gallic civil war came about because the confederacy collapsed.

The Britons did try to build kingdoms like the Gauls, but none managed to gain the influence necessary to be as great as the Arverni or Aedui. The closest would probably be the Casii, and they only managed to control an area about the size of a kingdom in the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

My general opinion has been that the Celts were a people who existed on the periphery of a more advance cultural apparatus generally centered around the Mediterranean. Contacts with this more advanced civilization naturally had an impact on a number of levels. Nonetheless, this was an asymmetric relationship, by and large, and the Celts were the dependant group. You have brought up a number of intriguing points. I look forward to your reply.

---

Contemporary historians regard the ancient world as a number of closed local systems, mostly isolated from one another, so that it was only in certain areas that they influenced each other. South-eastern Europe and Asia Minor are examples. It is inadmissible to regard the history of various "barbarian" groups as the product of the influence of a cultural center such as Athens or Rome. Cultures interconnected, but in a recognizable way.

The Celts were a cultured and inventive people. The misconception about this comes from the lack of written records, and where those records existed, they were mainly written by their enemies. As I discussed above, the lack of written records was another part of Celtic culture; their memory training. The Celts were highly advanced metallurgists, introducing chain armor and the method of making longswords to many cultures they came into contact with. Much in the way of weapons and armor innovation during the period stems from the Celts.

The Celts were a clean people; They invented soap, they shaved their body hair, they ritually bathed before battle. They had an advanced culture with respect to the arts; poetry, and music. During Roman rule, Gaul's production of music, poetry, and stories (along with wine) was considered the finest in the empire. The highest warriors and nobles were expected to know poetry and stories, and memorize them all by heart. They had a very formalized upper warrior class, similar to the Japanese samurai; it is apparent even in Dark-Middle age Gaelic cultures.

Certainly, Rome and Greece were the dominant cultures of this age. However, to place the Celts on the periphery is not accurate; they were a highly advanced people in ways that differed from the Romans and Greeks, and passed quite a bit of this culture to the people they came into contact with. I hope I have answered the questions you have raised to your satisfaction!

Cheers,

-khel

Just to clear something up for people that don't know latin. Barbarian does not mean stupid naked men who are dirty, it means men with beards if you try to translate it. Barbarian comes from the word barbar which is latin for chin I believe. The romans called them barbarians because they usually had beards. So that is where the name barbarians comes from. :bow:

I understand that it is an automatic response to label someone with a moustache and long hair as "uncivilized", but it simply isn't true. The Celts were the developers of chain mail, were fabulously advanced in metalworking, and had an immensely rich culture, they had dyes, chariots, and cities, as well as a dominion that stretched from the tip of Britain to central Turkey. We label the Celts and other northern European peoples as "uncivilized" because that is the view of the people from which we get our records, the Romans. Quite frankly, the Romans hated the Celts, understandable as the Celts were the people that sacked Rome, fought alongside Hannibal, and generally were a thorn in the side of the Roman civilization since its fledgling years. It should be remembered that much of the technology that allowed Rome to flourish came from their neighbours to the north.

- Panda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gangstaman590

Just to clear something up for people that don't know latin. Barbarian does not mean stupid naked men who are dirty, it means men with beards if you try to translate it. Barbarian comes from the word barbar which is latin for chin I believe. The romans called them barbarians because they usually had beards. So that is where the name barbarians comes from. :bow:

---

Indeed very accurate description. Romans shaved their beards, and as thus called everyone that had a Beard "Barbarians".

And now what about the Greeks, they did have Beards themselves? They called "Barbaros"(singular) or "Barbaroi"(plural, 'oi' pronounced as 'e" of the word "me") those who simply did not speak Greek, another word would be "Xenos"/"Xenoi", (root for Xenophobia, Xenobiology etc.) transliterating as "Starnger"/"Strangers" in Modern Greek but meaning not speaking Greek back then.

And since very often speaking Greek nativelly back then meant you were Greek, independently of your "City State" Citizenship or place of Birth.

Firstly, I want to apologize publicly for my behavior a month ago. In a rather quixotical way, I charged against a well-known developer in the believing I was actually defending someone, and I chlidishly enraged and tangled in a discalification war when I was called an ignorant.

Now that things have calmed down, I hope I can restart my presence here with a better spirit. I am sorry.

As for this interesting debate, I'd like to give my point of view about the topic:

1) 'Barbarian' does not mean uncivilized or savage, as some people still believe, it means 'stranger', it was later that the term adquired that pejorative tone, from the contact with cultures that practiced blood-thirsty wars and rituals that Greeks and Romans found disgusting. Anyway, it wasn't a good thing to be considered a 'barbarian' in the ancient grecolatine world, given their traditional despise and distrust of anything from abroad. And it certainly has the ethimologic origin given above 'bearded men'. However, don't forget that beards were a common feature for Greek, and that it became a normal fashion from the times of Emperor Hadrian onwards, to the point it is nearly imposible to find a late Roman portrait that has not facial hair.

BTW, for Ptolemaic, Seleucids, Greeks and Macedonians -this is for Hellenic world- Romans were barbarians.

2) Elephants are not those mild and pacific creatures that 'carefully avoid harming the nearby'. They maybe in a peaceful environment, but once enraged they're dreadful enemies with the size and the power of a big bulldozer. We know for ancient references that war elephants panicked easily, and when that happened, they were out of control and attacked the same friends are foes, often causing havoc in the friend lines. The elephant leaders used to carry a hammer and a chisel to open elephant skull and kill it if necessary.

3) It's not that Celtic and Germanic cultures were uncivilized or ignorant. Simply, they had not the engineering knowledge necessary to build the most complex of Roman realizations. Engineering is not an easily transmisible skill, thru contact with advanced cultures, such as pottery, alphabet or masonry. Like Architecture, Math or Physics, it needs of qualified professionals and theorizers to teach others who dedicate their lives to it. The ruralized and hard-living Celtic-Germanic world lacked a 'burguese' class of citizen to do this. They had enough trying to fight off their dangerous neighbours and sustaining their civilization, but their lifestyle just did not favour the figure of the 'scientific' or the 'phylosopher', a rather useless and despised role in a society where prestige can only be achieved thru war and posessions. That's why they had not semicircular archs, real domes -not the false domes done by aproaching rows of stones- and that's why they had no Coliseum, insulæ, or true viæ -of course they had roads, but not the most advanced types, costly engineering works of the macadam type, made in a very similar way than actual roads. And of course, they only had the most simple siege stuff, such as scales, etc. BTW, trebouchets were too complex even for Romans, only late Romans -not in the game- had them, and the bigger were not made till Middle Ages.

4) This doesn't mean they were uncivilized or stupid, simply Celtic and German worlds, while culturally rich, were technologically much inferior to the Grecolatin-Punic world that dominated the Mediterranean. In RTW they're the way they are, because of game balance. But reality wasn't balanced, had it been, the Roman Empire would have never existed. The moment the barbarian assimilated a more urban lifestyle, and cultivated concepts such as state, administration and science -as with Visigoths, etc.- the late Roman Empire couldn't cope with them so efficiently. One of the causes -apart from the inner ones- for Western Empire to fall.

Just my opinion.

And once again sorry for the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

4) This doesn't mean they were uncivilized or stupid, simply Celtic and German worlds, while culturally rich, were technologically much inferior to the Grecolatin-Punic world that dominated the Mediterranean. In RTW they're the way they are, because of game balance. But reality wasn't balanced, had it been, the Roman Empire would have never existed. The moment the barbarian assimilated a more urban lifestyle, and cultivated concepts such as state, administration and science -as with Visigoths, etc.- the late Roman Empire couldn't cope with them so efficiently. One of the causes -apart from the inner ones- for Western Empire to fall.

---

This assumes that the "barbarians" did not have an urban lifestyle, or concepts such as state, administration, and so on. They did. Please read my post above. The Germanic tribes did not, but the Celts certainly did so, and were highly advanced in the areas of state, administration, and science. As advanced as the Romans? No, but advanced, certainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

This assumes that the "barbarians" did not have an urban lifestyle, or concepts such as state, administration, and so on. They did. Please read my post above. The Germanic tribes did not, but the Celts certainly did so, and were highly advanced in the areas of state, administration, and science. As advanced as the Romans? No, but advanced, certainly.

---

Yeah, I know what you mean. True, La Tène culture had reached a high degree of civilization. But note that you have solved the question yourself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

As advanced as the Romans? No.

---

Besides, I referred to the cultural circumstances that make posible an urban class dedied entirely to research and science. The whole Celtic culture was so inclined to the exaltation of war as a mean to reach safety and prosperity, that 'thinking' was just reserved for an special kind of chaman (druids) whose knowledge was oriented to heal wounded warriors (medicine), stimulate their bravery (rites with drugs) and improve their weaponry (chemical metallurgy). Druids were undoubtly initiated in the secrets of early medicine and metallurgy, but they had so a high implication in religion, rites, war and tribal politics that I doubt they would have never reached other knowledge than that available from the surrounding nature.

But, what about engineering? It's not hard to see that Celtics and Germans had craftsmen instead of engineers, and masons instead of architects. Complex knowledge about construction or engineering requires more than craftmanship skills trasferred from father to son, or master to pupil. It requires long technical academic preparation, the kind of infrastructure that non-Mediterranean cultures lacked, because they used nearly all their material and human resources for their war, food and production needs.

That's why they should lack such complex items: a fact backed by archælogic findings -or their absence. Although, well, you never know what they're going to find tomorrow... ~:eek:

Every last piece of equipment of the Roman soldier from the abandonment of the phalanx to the development of the lorica segmentata (Montefortino helmet, chainmail, gladius, scutum) except the pilum was of original "barbarian" invention. The Montefortino helmet was immensely popular among Roman soldiers in the Republican period and Imperial period, and was standard issue for several centuries; the helmet was Celtic. Chainmail was the favoured armour of the Roman soldier for centuries because of its flexibility and proctective capabilities; it was a Celtic invention. The magnificient "gladius hispannicus" or "spanish sword" which the Romans used until their collapse was Iberian in origin. The scutum, or long, flat shield, which the Romans used universally until the disappearance of both their empires was Celtic in origin. The "Coolus" type helmet used by the Romans after the Montefortino went out of style was Gallic in origin and the Romans never managed to dupicate its superb craftsmanship without the help of Celtic smiths. Additionally, the reason the Romans never adopted the Iberian falcata was because they could never achieve the same level of metalworking skill as the Iberians.

Ignorant and savage my foot; go read a book, Pindar. The Romans would never have achieved what they did without "barbarian" inventions and innovations.


- Panda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Panda Centurion

The Romans would never have achieved what they did without "barbarian" inventions and innovations.

---

Certainly, but still warfare equipment innovations, no engineering solutions...

The question is: in a realistic version of this game should Celtic and Germanic factions have complex engineering solutions as huge ashlar -not mampostery- walls and the most advanced siege machines available at an early stage of the represented era? And the answer is that those things were available only in the Mediterranean and Middle-East world: Celtics and Germans had not them in real life and they shouldn't have them in the game. Plus the nomadic Scythians had not even real cities.

Of course that doesn't mean they were uncivilized or an horde of orc-like grunts like some people use to imagine... :laugh4: Those were complex cultures with a rich idiosyncrasy. But had no onagers. Period.

BTW, those warry Iberian items were mostly innovations by Iberian cultures from the SE coast of Spain, which were by no means Celtic nor pure indigenous ones, but were highly influenced by Greek and Punic colonialism.

Anyway, all this is just an interesting debate without consecuences in the game modding: as far as I know all those things are 'hard-coded' and the modders can't mess too much with them.

:thinking2:

Quote:

---

BTW, those warry Iberian items were mostly innovations by Iberian cultures from the SE coast of Spain, which were by no means Celtic nor pure indigenous ones, but were highly influenced by Greek and Punic colonialism.

---

Actually, the falcata is believed by many to be an evolution of a curved Celtic knife, and the gladius hispaniensis was chiefly an item of the Celtiberian tribes. Either way, neither weapon was by any means Punic; and the Greeks actually adopted the falcata as the macheira or kopis, not the other way around.

- Panda

Khelvan, 10,000 people to a city is your idea of a highly advanced culture? How many people were in Rome at the time?

First, re-read what I said. 10,000 people lived inside the wall. We don't know how many lived outside the wall. Cities are not measured solely by those that live inside the wall; they are often in the minority.

Second, are you seriously suggesting that the way to measure the advancement of a culture is to count the number of people that lived in cities?

khelvan:

couple of points:

Soap is hardly a Celtic invention, soap or perhaps soap-like compounds are fairly common in numerous societies, the ancient societies of the mid-east, Greece, etc...

“The Celts were much more advanced than you believe in the area of engineering. In fact, the Romans did not build their own siege artillery until somewhere around 70 to 50 BCE. Until this point, they relied on captured siege artillery. Where the Celts had several older types of siege artillery, including the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo, both similar to the bricoli in function, and large-bolt firing systems such as the Chwythstwg (and no, don't ask me to pronounce it).”

I really would like you defend this statement in more detail. I don’t want to sound like a jerk, but I feel it’s a rather extreme position. I cannot think of a single bit of archeological evidence or historical narrative that provides support for any Celtic bolt throwing artillery. The devices, as you describe them sound like springnals a medieval device, unattested in the Classical world.

As for the Romans; Appian’s description of the fall of Carthago Nova to the Romans in 210 BC, certainly seems to suggest they were able to build a large amount of catapults, at the site and use them effectively. More specifically in around 80 B.C. Sulla is most certainly described as building catapults for the siege of Athens. I realize 80 B.C. is near the time you suggest but, it is earlier and presented as a completely normal event, not special or noteworthy (contra say the Roman navel effort in the first Punic War).

More generally seeing as The Greeks invented catapults, and as far I know, all the siege engineers and catapult designers that appear in the historical record ( at least until the imperial period) are Greeks, you could argue the same for Carthage as well (the part about capturing or buying everything).


The Panda Centurion:

“Every last piece of equipment of the Roman soldier from the abandonment of the phalanx to the development of the lorica segmentata (Montefortino helmet, chainmail, gladius, scutum) except the pilum was of original "barbarian" invention. The Montefortino helmet was immensely popular among Roman soldiers in the Republican period and Imperial period, and was standard issue for several centuries; the helmet was Celtic. Chainmail was the favoured armour of the Roman soldier for centuries because of its flexibility and proctective capabilities; it was a Celtic invention. The magnificient "gladius hispannicus" or "spanish sword" which the Romans used until their collapse was Iberian in origin. The scutum, or long, flat shield, which the Romans used universally until the disappearance of both their empires was Celtic in origin. The "Coolus" type helmet used by the Romans after the Montefortino went out of style was Gallic in origin and the Romans never managed to dupicate its superb craftsmanship without the help of Celtic smiths. Additionally, the reason the Romans never adopted the Iberian falcata was because they could never achieve the same level of metalworking skill as the Iberians.

Ignorant and savage my foot; go read a book, Pindar. The Romans would never have achieved what they did without "barbarian" inventions and innovations.”

Well actually I wouldn’t be so sure on the scutum. The scutum may be based on the Celtic shield but it’s also possible that the scutum is of italic origin and the Celts adopted it…

On the swords, while the style of sword might well have been adopted from Spanish styles, I disagree on the metal working argument. First the Falcata style weapon is attested all over the Classical Mediterranean and the Near East, it’s source culture is most likely in the middle east. Second in the broadest analysis of Roman and Celtic swords I’ve ever come across, it’s the Republican era Roman weapons with display the best construction and metallurgy, vs. either Celtic or Imperial roman examples.

The Celts may have invented chain mail and the helmet styles you suggest, but I think it’s noteworthy that they were only used by a tiny elite, the vast majority of Celts never befitted from their supposed technological prowess. The average Celt was forced to face his armored, helmet wearing, shield carrying Roman opponent with little more than a shield and spear or third rate sword.

edits: grammer only

Khelvan, how many people live in a city attests a great deal to its height of civilization. It requires enormous technological, administrative, social, and economic resources to enable so many people live in such a small area. The Celts may have been an "urban" culture compared to, say, nomadic Arabs, but compared to Greeks, Carthage or Romans they could not be compared in their urbanization. They had practically none in comparison, except for a few rare "metropolises" which rivaled small Roman towns in size.

Plus, as Conon said, metallurgical analysis of archaeological evidence suggests Celtic swords were of inferior quality to Roman Republican issues. And please provide DIRECT references to:

1) Celtic siege weapons
2) Brennus' "letter" to his Greek friend

Civilization is not measured based on urban density, it is measured by surplus population as a whole. Rome and Carthage had concentrated population centers, where in northern europe this is not the case. Gaul had a series of smaller population centers.

Edit: Personal attack removed. Dsryow, if you back up your statements elsewhere, I will respond to you here. I tore apart your lies about EB, and so you have now taken it to be your mission to follow me around and try to poke holes in any of my arguments you can? I will not give you the satisfaction.

Conon - on Rome not building siege engines until the first century BC; all our secondary (i.e. historian) sources agree on this, that make reference to it, and we have found absolutely no primary evidence to contradict it, though anecdotes such as the one you refer to also exist to support the opposite point. These secondary sources state that Carthage was building its own siege weapons, and that the sack of Carthage was one of the primary ways for Rome to acquire them.

In addition, the Irish historian I describe in posts above provided me the information on Celtic siege engines. He works directly with the as yet untranslated (though he is working on them) ancient histories of the Goidilics and other Celts. His work is not yet published. I trust his work over any historian that does not have access to the same materials. I have encouraged him to publish his work, but he isn't ready to do that, yet.

I do not wish to close this topic, so please keep it on topic. If it keeps on going about wether barbarians were really barbaric I shall move the discussion to the Monastery.

And please remember that R:TW is just a game. Nothing to get personal about.

Khelvan, get a grip.

I made a very strong distinction between my condemnantion of EB's original premise, and my disagreement with it as an organization, which I would criticize regardless of what its aim was. You did not tear any arguments up, I said my bit and you said yours, so I just left it to the rest of the people decide who's right. Arguing with you is completely pointless - you said you like Rome the best, but you go around spreading more lies and propaganda about barbarians than every other barbarian fanboy I know. So as long as people like you are still around, people like me will always be still around. Get used to it.

I assumed you were honestly saying you liked Rome. And I assumed you were a mature non-teenage person. Well, even after editing out the immature insult your post sounds insulting, so it looks like I was wrong in both of my assumptions.

And moreover, you cannot hold up as indisputable fact the works of a historian that have not even been published yet. I can publish some nonsense and call myself a historian too, but that will not make it so. Your friend has to pass the muster of the historical experts before you can treat his words as truth. But the fact that you're not willing to wait that long, and want to attribute siege weapons to Celts at the shortest notice, include them in EB as if they are already common-place facts of history without any verification from other the history scholars, shows just how "unbiased" you are, and whom you are "unbiased" in favor of.

Dsyrow seriously I don't know about you but I think it's more probable that person is giving facts rather than him being some kind of crazy barbarian fanatic that no longer favours the romans :-/

lol
I dont know about you but that's my opinion

Apparently this discussion is not going to work well. Closed.