New Historical Civilizations!!!

In Every Total War In Europe Portugal Is Not Integrated As A Civilization ,it Is Always A Rebel Country Or A Part Of Spain!!1
In Rtw Portugal Was Called Lusitania And It Was An Ethnical Civilization Independent Wich Had Several Victories Against The Spanish Tribes , Carthage Or Even The Mighty Romans.
Around 100 Bc It Even Conquered The Iberian Peninsula And Threathened Rome Itself!!!
So If In This New Mod Of Rtw (europa Barbarum) You Want A More Historical Gameplay You Should At Least Put The Lusitanian Faction As Independent And Not A Part Of Spain. It's Capital City Is Scallabis Wich By The Way Never Was A Spanhish Town But Always A Lusitanian Town.
Another Fact Wich Proves The Importance Of This Civilization :
When The Peninsula Was Conquered By The Romans It Was Divided In Three Parts , One Of These Parts Was Called Lusitania ~:)

I guess the problem is, as always, the limited slots which could be used for the factions...Lusitania could well be a good faction to add but not if the cost is axing Briton or Sarmatia, for example

Lusitania is part of the Iberian faction because, historically, and mind you I am generalizing to an extent, it was no different from the Celtiberians of the plateau at the center of the peninsular.

Lusitania was so Celtic, so to say, that there was actually a distinctly Celtic tribe living in the northeastern part of the region, called the Celtii.

As I said, I have been generalizing. The forces commanded by the commander you speak of, Viriatus, were largely composed of the Celtiberian Lusitanians. However, in the southern part of Lusitania, there was a tribe (of which I forget the name) which was under influence of the Iberian culture nearby, in the Baetica region. This was a culture which was more urban, less tribal, and above all more influenced by the Carthaginians (since the 3rd century BC) than the Celtiberians to the north.

And Viriatus never threatened Rome. True, he defeated a few legions, but his was only a rebel incursion which was brought to heel after nearly a decade.

Romans were a people which could be horrifyingly cruel to those that had opposed them, but also surprisingly benevolent. In the case of Lusitania, which was part of the province of Hispania Ulterior until the rule of Augustus, or perhaps even later, until the second half of the 1st century AD, it was the latter. For their spirit, which never seemed to die down, they were granted their own province. But the Romans were also pragmatic. Lusitania, as a province separate from Hispania Ulterior, could be more easily monitored and managed by its own governor. In any case, their cultural identity had little to do with it, for modern Portugal at the time was mostly Celtiberian, and for a small part Iberian in character.

The Portuguese culture itself came into being as a separate entity from the other cultures and languages in the peninsular when the Germanic Suebi (Swabians) moved in, in the 5th century AD. Their kingdom was absorbed by the Visigothic kingdom in the 7th century, but by then they had already made their mark on the region they had settled in (roughly modern Portugal, but also a sizeable portion of Galicia).



~Wiz

Ehum......I should really dispute this......it has serious some misconceptions.....maybe later. ~;)

Aymar and Sarcasm -who are Portuguese- can give you better explanations than me. Anyway, I must state that using prerroman cultures as basis for a nationalistic feeling is totally pointless. Actual Portuguese are not Lusitanian, the same that Spanish are not Celtiberian, nor are the British Britons.

Thousands of years have passed, many peoples and cultures have settled here and there making a complex ethnic mosaic, so we can't recognize ourselves in peoples and cultures that were before us just because they were in the same place we are now.

Specially in Western Europe, national feelings are based in events which happened after the fall of Roman Empire, and more precisely, in early and medium Middle Ages.

1) Portugal and Spain are not in the game. They didn't exist yet. There were a number of Celtic and Mediterranean cultures that dwelled in the peninsule, and we call with the generic name of Iberia.

The story of Portugal as the nation we know today starts when the early Kings of Asturia and Leon founded the County of Portugal as a frontier mark with the muslims around the 9th century AD. Alphonse VI of Castile gave the County to Henry of Burgundy, his son-in-law, in 1095. After Alphonse VI's death, Henry of Burgundy soon claimed autonomy in 1109, and in 1139, Alphonse Enriques, his son, took the title of King of Portugal, and anounced an independence that was in fact effective since decades before.

Soon, Portugal adquired the unique characters that distinguishes it from any other nation in Europe, and fought fiercely to keep its independence. From the 14th to 18th centuries it was a colonial power of the first order, and played a crucial role in European History and the age of Discoveries.

But, what was the role of Portugal in 272 BC? The same that Spain or France: none. They didn't exist.

2) Asuming that Viriato's Lusitans 'conquered the whole peninsula and threatened Rome' is plainly exagerated and painfully misinformed. No peninsular native culture got so far, nor even tried.

3) Scallabis was not Spanish nor Portuguese, it was Lusitan.

4) When the Romans conquered the peninsule, they divided it in two provinces: Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior. It was not until 27 AD that Agripa formed Lusitania from Hispania Ulterior in order to put it under a praetor and better kick the rebellious local asses, while the other part (Baetica) was put under consular administration because of its high degree of integration in the Roman world.

5) There is no such thing as "ethnical civilizations", unless you're talking about III Reich.

6) English does not use capitals for every single word.

@ Wizard: The southern tribe you talk about are the turdetani, cultural inheritors of the Tartessos civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Ehum......I should really dispute this......it has serious some misconceptions.....maybe later. ~;)

---

Hum... so the Lusitani really were more different than I assumed? Tell me more -- I demand it. ~;) Or are you talking of the first post? I hope so, for my sake ~;p

And Dux Corvanus, I think was talking of the Conii. They lived in what is now known as the Algarve. Although I am no expert on Lusitania. ~;)



~Wiz

Useless trivia:

Portugal is a continuation of the Latin name for a city called "Portus Cale", which means "the Port of Cale" (Cale being a settlement in the area).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Lusitania is part of the Iberian faction because, historically, and mind you I am generalizing to an extent, it was no different from the Celtiberians of the plateau at the center of the peninsular.

Lusitania was so Celtic, so to say, that there was actually a distinctly Celtic tribe living in the northeastern part of the region, called the Celtii.

---

Sorry, but, although with Celtic cultural influence, many of their gods and traditions were indegenous. They considered the Celticii living in the soutern area of Lusitania and Carpetanii (to the east) as descendants of Celtic invaders and the Vetonii (eastern Lusitania), Conii(southern Portugal) and Turdetanii as indegenous like themselves. We have to recognize, however, that Lusitanians possessed many celtic cultural influences and like many others tribes intermingled somehow with early celtic invaders (circa 800BC - Hallstatt period IIRC).

You can find more info here:

http://img118.echo.cx/img118/7344/ib...i150dpi3yu.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

As I said, I have been generalizing. The forces commanded by the commander you speak of, Viriatus, were largely composed of the Celtiberian Lusitanians. However, in the southern part of Lusitania, there was a tribe (of which I forget the name) which was under influence of the Iberian culture nearby, in the Baetica region. This was a culture which was more urban, less tribal, and above all more influenced by the Carthaginians (since the 3rd century BC) than the Celtiberians to the north.

---

4 tribes in the southern vicinity of Viriatos power area in those days. Celticii, Conii, Turdelanii and Turdetanii.

And the Celtiberians (Oretanii, Carpetanii, Arevacii, Lusonii, etc...) considered themselves different from the Lusitanian tribes.

You can find more info here:

http://img146.echo.cx/img146/8746/fo...siberia6vd.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

And Viriatus never threatened Rome. True, he defeated a few legions, but his was only a rebel incursion which was brought to heel after nearly a decade.

---

Viriatos threatening Rome is just fantasy. He treatened Roman power in the peninsula for a decade, after many humiliating defeats inflicted on the Roman legions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Romans were a people which could be horrifyingly cruel to those that had opposed them, but also surprisingly benevolent. In the case of Lusitania, which was part of the province of Hispania Ulterior until the rule of Augustus, or perhaps even later, until the second half of the 1st century AD, it was the latter.

---

Sorry but you are completelly mistaken. That "benevolent" action was unavoidable and imposed by two main factors:

-The constant rebellions in the area, when under Roman administration.
-The several treaties enforced by Viriatos on Rome in earlier times, enforced them to take in to consideration other administrative approaches after conquest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

For their spirit, which never seemed to die down, they were granted their own province. But the Romans were also pragmatic. Lusitania, as a province separate from Hispania Ulterior, could be more easily monitored and managed by its own governor. In any case, their cultural identity had little to do with it, for modern Portugal at the time was mostly Celtiberian, and for a small part Iberian in character.

---

Please do not incurr in the mistake of confusing Portugal with Lusitania. They are different areas with just a central common part. The Lusitania area wasn't mostly celtiberian. In fact, that is a bit of a stretch. It was a mantle of several cultural, religious and ethnic influnces. But prodominantly indo-european. The area that Portugal presently ocuppies had that and typically Celtic areas as you can see in the first map. So, we can say 50% of each influence in the area that Portugal ocupies today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

The Portuguese culture itself came into being as a separate entity from the other cultures and languages in the peninsular when the Germanic Suebi (Swabians) moved in, in the 5th century AD. Their kingdom was absorbed by the Visigothic kingdom in the 7th century, but by then they had already made their mark on the region they had settled in (roughly modern Portugal, but also a sizeable portion of Galicia).

~Wiz

---

That is true also. But there was already distinction between the different areas of the peninsula back in Viriatos time. They still exist today although many alterations mixed the process even more throughout the times. "Spanish" is an optimistic concept if used in anything more than in a very general way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

Aymar and Sarcasm -who are Portuguese- can give you better explanations than me. Anyway, I must state that using prerroman cultures as basis for a nationalistic feeling is totally pointless. Actual Portuguese are not Lusitanian, the same that Spanish are not Celtiberian, nor are the British Britons.

Thousands of years have passed, many peoples and cultures have settled here and there making a complex ethnic mosaic, so we can't recognize ourselves in peoples and cultures that were before us just because they were in the same place we are now.

Specially in Western Europe, national feelings are based in events which happened after the fall of Roman Empire, and more precisely, in early and medium Middle Ages.

1) Portugal and Spain are not in the game. They didn't exist yet. There were a number of Celtic and Mediterranean cultures that dwelled in the peninsule, and we call with the generic name of Iberia.

The story of Portugal as the nation we know today starts when the early Kings of Asturia and Leon founded the County of Portugal as a frontier mark with the muslims around the 9th century AD. Alphonse VI of Castile gave the County to Henry of Burgundy, his son-in-law, in 1095. After Alphonse VI's death, Henry of Burgundy soon claimed autonomy in 1109, and in 1139, Alphonse Enriques, his son, took the title of King of Portugal, and anounced an independence that was in fact effective since decades before.

Soon, Portugal adquired the unique characters that distinguishes it from any other nation in Europe, and fought fiercely to keep its independence. From the 14th to 18th centuries it was a colonial power of the first order, and played a crucial role in European History and the age of Discoveries.

But, what was the role of Portugal in 272 BC? The same that Spain or France: none. They didn't exist.

2) Asuming that Viriato's Lusitans 'conquered the whole peninsula and threatened Rome' is plainly exagerated and painfully misinformed. No peninsular native culture got so far, nor even tried.

3) Scallabis was not Spanish nor Portuguese, it was Lusitan.

4) When the Romans conquered the peninsule, they divided it in two provinces: Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior. It was not until 27 AD that Agripa formed Lusitania from Hispania Ulterior in order to put it under a praetor and better kick the rebellious local asses, while the other part (Baetica) was put under consular administration because of its high degree of integration in the Roman world.

5) There is no such thing as "ethnical civilizations", unless you're talking about III Reich.

6) English does not use capitals for every single word.

@ Wizard: The southern tribe you talk about are the turdetani, cultural inheritors of the Tartessos civilization.

---

I couldn't have said it better. ~:)

One little trivia though: Scallabis only gained real importance in Roman times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Sorry but you are completelly mistaken. That "benevolent" action was unavoidable and imposed by two main factors:

-The constant rebellions in the area, when under Roman administration.
-The several treaties enforced by Viriatos on Rome in earlier times, enforced them to take in to consideration other administrative approaches after conquest.

---

As I said right after I said it could have been an example of Roman benevolence... personally I realized the former was probably bullocks while the pragmatic approach was so Roman that it had a large chance of being correct. ~;)

Quote:

---

Please do not incurr in the mistake of confusing Portugal with Lusitania. They are different areas with just a central common part. The Lusitania area wasn't mostly celtiberian. In fact, that is a bit of a stretch. It was a mantle of several cultural, religious and ethnic influnces. But prodominantly indo-european. The area that Portugal presently ocuppies had that and typically Celtic areas as you can see in the first map. So, we can say 50% of each influence in the area that Portugal ocupies today.

---

Do not worry, I did not. I merely mentioned 'modern Portugal' as a region to show the approximate area where the Lusitani lived.

And as I deduce from the map you provided, Lusitania was in south under Turtedanic influence (in the modern Algarve), in the approximate center (not completely though) under the influence of the confusing nomer of 'Iberian', and in the north under Celtiberian influence, which was, IIRC, not that very much different from Iberian.

What I did not know, however, was that the region was already culturally distinct, to an extent, in the day.

And I called Lusitania 'so Celtic' because there was a distinctly Celtic tribe (of course not the same as the Celts of the La Tène culture, but apparently more distinctly Celtic than their Celtiberian cousins) living inside it, the 'Celtii' in my post, by which I meant the Celticii. These Celticii were not part of the Halstatt migrations, but came later, when the mainland Atlantic Celts had advanced into their La Tène culture, correct? Which might explain their more distinctly Celtic nature.

In any case, I by no means meant to say that Lusitania was predominately under Celtic influence.



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Hum... so the Lusitani really were more different than I assumed? Tell me more -- I demand it. ~;) Or are you talking of the first post? I hope so, for my sake ~;p

---

Well, in fact, Lusitani were not Celtiberians, at least, they had significant cultural differences, although they were related by means of Celtic influence.

What they did not, is singing fados or making bacalao (cod fish) recipes. Not did the Cassi take tea at five o'clock, nor the Romans ate spaghetti.

To take back our modern concepts of state and national identity to ancient peoples who just lived where we live now, is simply a wrong way, and the most simple instrument of nationalistic governments to radicalize national feelings by the manipulation of History.

It's like saying the Neanderthal Man was a German. ~:rolleyes: Not long ago, when the Otztal man was discovered, some Austrian tabloids rushed to publish the news as "The first Austrian". Not much later, when they discovered the finding was just some meters inside the Italian frontier, the Italian magazines joyfully displayed: "The first Italian". Now, there's a bitter polemic about where must the frozen guy rest, according to his 'nationality'. But, believe me: the poor murdered guy didn't know what the f**k Austria or Italia were, nor did he speak German nor Italian, because... those things didn't exist, and the Alps were just big mountains around the valley where he lived.

Here in south Spain, in Andalusia, the local government excites continuously the pride of the Andalusian citizens with the glories and excellence of muslim Omeyan culture. You know, common places about delightful gardens, sensitive poets, higienic baths, translation of the classics, three religions living peacefully -most of all is a manipulated cr*p. (Believe me, I work for the Andalusian Ministry of Culture) Now I hear guys blaming the 'evil dirty northern Christians' for destroying such a brilliant culture... forgotting that the 'evil northern Christians' are mostly their ancestors, the ones who took the muslims' lands and cities and exiled them to North Africa.~:rolleyes:

I myself I'm a modern Cantabrian. Should I dare claiming myself as the descendent of the brave warriors that fought August's legions?

Nay. My ancestors come from all parts of Spain and Europe. Ancient Cantabrian people was defeated, anihilated, sold as slaves. The survivors mixed with Romans and other peoples, travelled, came and went, their blood dispersed all over the world. How many modern Cantabrians can look at an ancient Cantabrian depiction and say 'daddy'?

None.

Nationalism based in ancient History just sucks.

I fully agree with you.

Here in the Netherlands, the national myth is that we descend straight from the tribe of the Batavii. Which is not true -- the core of our nation, the provinces of South and North Holland, are inhabited by people who descend from the tribe of the Frisii.

Now, the Frisii were a tribal confederation which was very old, and which expanded in the time of the Great Migrations. Its tribes lived all along the Waddenzee, which is that part of the North Sea which runs from the 'corner' between Denmark and Germany to the southernmost of the islands of the Netherlands, Texel. Their main territorial advance, if one could even call it that, was into what is now Noord- and Zuid-Holland. Subsequently this tall, fair-skinned tribe forms the basis of the people from the provinces of Holland. And that is only those two provinces, I haven't even begun about the other fourteen. And that for such a small piece of land :dizzy2:

Personally one could call me a Frank. This is for two reasons: my family on my mother's side are Huguenots, thus they come from France, in this case Southern France, around Toulouse. They stayed pretty French in character, since where they live there is a large amount of people of Huguenot descent. The second reason is because my family on my father's side comes from the southern Netherlands, which was part of the Frankish heartland of Austrasia (its name under the Merovingians and Carolingians, but the region itself, and its Frankish character, existed long before Clodovech came along) from the time the Franks became foederati of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD. And to say that 'part' of me is purely Frankish is bullocks -- the Franks mixed with Celts, Romans, and anything else they found in Austrasia at the time. And the term 'pure' is a wrong word to begin with, but I use it because of the lack of alternatives.

But, mind you, that's the so-called 'ethnic' character of myself. The term itself is biased, but I simply mean of which peoples the blood which runs in my veins descends. And no-one can claim that is pure, for that is an impossibility. Pure itself is a wrong term anyways. In any case, being technically a Frank (with 25% Jewish blood as well; yes, I'm a mixed bag ~D), my nationality is Dutch. And even that isn't fully true -- I was born and grew up on the Dutch Antilles. Now there's a brain-teaser, isn't there? ~D



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

What they did not, is singing fados or making bacalao (cod fish) recipes.

---

Bacalhau. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

To take back our modern concepts of state and national identity to ancient peoples who just lived where we live now, is simply a wrong way, and the most simple instrument of nationalistic governments to radicalize national feelings by the manipulation of History.

It's like saying the Neanderthal Man was a German. ~:rolleyes: Not long ago, when the Otztal man was discovered, some Austrian tabloids rushed to publish the news as "The first Austrian". Not much later, when they discovered the finding was just some meters inside the Italian frontier, the Italian magazines joyfully displayed: "The first Italian". Now, there's a bitter polemic about where must the frozen guy rest, according to his 'nationality'. But, believe me: the poor murdered guy didn't know what the f**k Austria or Italia were, nor did he speak German nor Italian, because... those things didn't exist, and the Alps were just big mountains around the valley where he lived.

Here in south Spain, in Andalusia, the local government excites continuously the pride of the Andalusian citizens with the glories and excellence of muslim Omeyan culture. You know, common places about delightful gardens, sensitive poets, higienic baths, translation of the classics, three religions living peacefully -most of all is a manipulated cr*p. (Believe me, I work for the Andalusian Ministry of Culture) Now I hear guys blaming the 'evil dirty northern Christians' for destroying such a brilliant culture... forgotting that the 'evil northern Christians' are mostly their ancestors, the ones who took the muslims' lands and cities and exiled them to North Africa.~:rolleyes:

---

HE!HE!HE! :grin: Very true. Bias according to political agendas is paramout everywhere you look in these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

I myself I'm a modern Cantabrian. Should I dare claiming myself as the descendent of the brave warriors that fought August's legions?

---

Your ascendecy might even have some Roman blood. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

Nay. My ancestors come from all parts of Spain and Europe. Ancient Cantabrian people was defeated, anihilated, sold as slaves. The survivors mixed with Romans and other peoples, travelled, came and went, their blood dispersed all over the world. How many modern Cantabrians can look at an ancient Cantabrian depiction and say 'daddy'?

None.

Nationalism based in ancient History just sucks.

---

HE!HE!HE! :grin: Good points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

I fully agree with you.

Here in the Netherlands, the national myth is that we descend straight from the tribe of the Batavii. Which is not true -- the core of our nation, the provinces of South and North Holland, are inhabited by people who descend from the tribe of the Frisii.

Now, the Frisii were a tribal confederation which was very old, and which expanded in the time of the Great Migrations. Its tribes lived all along the Waddenzee, which is that part of the North Sea which runs from the 'corner' between Denmark and Germany to the southernmost of the islands of the Netherlands, Texel. Their main territorial advance, if one could even call it that, was into what is now Noord- and Zuid-Holland. Subsequently this tall, fair-skinned tribe forms the basis of the people from the provinces of Holland. And that is only those two provinces, I haven't even begun about the other fourteen. And that for such a small piece of land :dizzy2:

Personally one could call me a Frank. This is for two reasons: my family on my mother's side are Huguenots, thus they come from France, in this case Southern France, around Toulouse. They stayed pretty French in character, since where they live there is a large amount of people of Huguenot descent. The second reason is because my family on my father's side comes from the southern Netherlands, which was part of the Frankish heartland of Austrasia (its name under the Merovingians and Carolingians, but the region itself, and its Frankish character, existed long before Clodovech came along) from the time the Franks became foederati of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD. And to say that 'part' of me is purely Frankish is bullocks -- the Franks mixed with Celts, Romans, and anything else they found in Austrasia at the time. And the term 'pure' is a wrong word to begin with, but I use it because of the lack of alternatives.

But, mind you, that's the so-called 'ethnic' character of myself. The term itself is biased, but I simply mean of which peoples the blood which runs in my veins descends. And no-one can claim that is pure, for that is an impossibility. Pure itself is a wrong term anyways. In any case, being technically a Frank (with 25% Jewish blood as well; yes, I'm a mixed bag ~D), my nationality is Dutch. And even that isn't fully true -- I was born and grew up on the Dutch Antilles. Now there's a brain-teaser, isn't there? ~D

---

HE!HE!HE! :grin: We can say that from almost any person in Europe. "Pure" is a completelly ridiculous concept. Even in the paleolitic there never was really such a concept, let alone in later times with full migrations and intermingling.

You mean all my historic education based on volumes of Asterix is wrong?? :D

according to christians we all have pure adam & eva blood :p

I ve not made myself clear (maybe it's because I do not speak very well english), when in around 100 BC I said lusitanians threathened Rome I wasn't speaking of Viriato but of Quinto Sertorio a roman general who came to lusitania and led them into several victories he conquered the peninsula and divided it it into two regions one of them was lusitania the other was celtiberia. He created a senate in evora and occupied les passes dans les Alpes d'où il menaça Rome toutte puissante...
Then you say that the lusitans are not the Portuguese's ancestors well if you say that to any History teacher in Portugal (or even in france by the way) well that person will be anoid~:) for example when you say you speak portuguese you say you are Lusofono and luso comes from lusitano
French say they are descendents from gaulish people say to them that isn't true and they'll spit on you!!(no kidding it already happenned to me)
I'm not portuguese by the way but I know lot's of them and they are very atached to their past and the fact that in medieval tw Portugal was integrated as rebels anoys them really!!
When I said ethnical civilization I wanted to say ethnie ( french word ) which designates a people like lusitans or greeks or sarmatians saxons...
And above all Im not speaking of purity of races or anything like that I'm just speaking of a game for god sake J'essaye pas de vous impiger des discours raciaux. Talking of purity for me would be ironic my mother is french but her parents were austrian and swedish my father's parents were irish and portuguese so you see i cannot speak of purity!!!

Sorry for all these confusions!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam

I ve not made myself clear (maybe it's because I do not speak very well english), when in around 100 BC I said lusitanians threathened Rome I wasn't speaking of Viriato but of Quinto Sertorio a roman general who came to lusitania and led them into several victories he conquered the peninsula and divided it it into two regions one of them was lusitania the other was celtiberia. He created a senate in evora and occupied les passes dans les Alpes d'où il menaça Rome toutte puissante...

---

That's an episode of Roman civil wars. Sertorio was a follower of Marius. He found support in the peninsule -from all parts of the peninsule, not only Lusitania- and used Iberian troops as a client army, part of the Marian army. But still was -a Roman army. And he didn't divide anything, nor he conquered the peninsula, but established foedus with many local chieftains.

Quote:

---

Then you say that the lusitans are not the Portuguese's ancestors well if you say that to any History teacher in Portugal (or even in france by the way) well that person will be anoid

---

Worst for him.

Quote:

---

for example when you say you speak portuguese you say you are Lusofono and luso comes from lusitano

---

And they say Hispanoamericano to refer to American Spanish speakers. Both Spain/Spanish and Hispano come from Hispania. But Hispania is the way Romans called the whole peninsule, including Lusitania. And they say francofono to say someone speaks French. Franco- comes from frank, but French don't speak Frank -a germanic tongue.

As you see, mass media is supremely ignorant and seeks nice words with a feeble ethimological basis.

Quote:

---

French say they are descendents from gaulish people say to them that isn't true and they'll spit on you!!(no kidding it already happenned to me)

---

They shouldn't: they're wrong. The French nation has his roots in the western Frank kingdom of the three formed after the disintegration of the Caroligian Empire, following the Verdun treaty division among the three sons of emperor Ludwig in 843, Charles I being the first king. A germanic origin, which has nothing to do with Celtic ancestors.

well, there were many tribes back, then and they cant all be portraited and since "faction" like bactria, seleucids, romans etc were far more important the the (as it seems to me) rebbellion of portugal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam

I ve not made myself clear (maybe it's because I do not speak very well english), when in around 100 BC I said lusitanians threathened Rome I wasn't speaking of Viriato but of Quinto Sertorio a roman general who came to lusitania and led them into several victories he conquered the peninsula and divided it it into two regions one of them was lusitania the other was celtiberia. He created a senate in evora and occupied les passes dans les Alpes d'où il menaça Rome toutte puissante...

---

Read Dux Corvanus's reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam

Then you say that the lusitans are not the Portuguese's ancestors well if you say that to any History teacher in Portugal (or even in france by the way) well that person will be anoid~:) for example when you say you speak portuguese you say you are Lusofono and luso comes from lusitano

---

I am a Portuguese and I'm not annoyed. We have some blood from them, yes. And somewhat less from the Romans too, also from the Suebii, from the Alans, from the Visigoths, from the Berbers, etc... I could go on and on.

What matters here is that the Lusitanian's heritage regarding the Portuguese is more an inspiration to Portuguese independance than anything else. It is a concept, an idea more then an ethnic (although there is some), cultural or religious heritage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam

French say they are descendents from gaulish people say to them that isn't true and they'll spit on you!!(no kidding it already happenned to me)

---

They are wrong. They might identify themselves as Gauls but it's the same thing has with Lusitanians vs Portuguese. There is some Roman and a lot of Frankish, Burgundian, etc... blood among the French. And culturally and religiously, they descend from Charlemagne's middle age empire, not a politeistic, animistic warriot socciety as was the case with Gauls.

What people think is unimportant in these matters. What historians know as fact is what is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam

I'm not portuguese by the way but I know lot's of them and they are very atached to their past and the fact that in medieval tw Portugal was integrated as rebels anoys them really!!

---

Well, I have to agree it annoyed me too, but what to expect from thise Brits? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam

When I said ethnical civilization I wanted to say ethnie ( french word ) which designates a people like lusitans or greeks or sarmatians saxons...
And above all Im not speaking of purity of races or anything like that I'm just speaking of a game for god sake J'essaye pas de vous impiger des discours raciaux. Talking of purity for me would be ironic my mother is french but her parents were austrian and swedish my father's parents were irish and portuguese so you see i cannot speak of purity!!!

Sorry for all these confusions!!

---

Well, Saxons mixed with Angles and Jutes and a bit with Romano-Britons (Welsh and Cornish). Vikings with Franks creating the people of Normandy. Lusitanians with Romans, Suebii, Alans, Visigoths, Berbers, etc...

So, identifying Portuguese with Lusitanians is "optimistic" to say the least. Specially in regard to culture or religion. A bit less regarding ethnicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Well, I have to agree it annoyed me too, but what to expect from thise Brits? :wink:

---

Yeah, it was quite a deception. Even if they added Aragon in the expansion to have a more complex peninsular depiction, I still missed Portugal and Navarre, and deplored the simplistic way the muslim factions were treated as well -with those 'Almohads' getting all the stuff. Not to talk about Eastern Europe. Looks like, the farer from UK, the less interest they took in the thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

And that is only those two provinces, I haven't even begun about the other fourteen. And that for such a small piece of land :dizzy2:

---

Last time I checked we still only had 12 provinces ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Personally one could call me a Frank. This is for two reasons: my family on my mother's side are Huguenots, thus they come from France, in this case Southern France, around Toulouse. They stayed pretty French in character, since where they live there is a large amount of people of Huguenot descent. The second reason is because my family on my father's side comes from the southern Netherlands, which was part of the Frankish heartland of Austrasia (its name under the Merovingians and Carolingians, but the region itself, and its Frankish character, existed long before Clodovech came along) from the time the Franks became foederati of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD. And to say that 'part' of me is purely Frankish is bullocks -- the Franks mixed with Celts, Romans, and anything else they found in Austrasia at the time. And the term 'pure' is a wrong word to begin with, but I use it because of the lack of alternatives.

But, mind you, that's the so-called 'ethnic' character of myself. The term itself is biased, but I simply mean of which peoples the blood which runs in my veins descends. And no-one can claim that is pure, for that is an impossibility. Pure itself is a wrong term anyways. In any case, being technically a Frank (with 25% Jewish blood as well; yes, I'm a mixed bag ~D), my nationality is Dutch. And even that isn't fully true -- I was born and grew up on the Dutch Antilles. Now there's a brain-teaser, isn't there? ~D



~Wiz

---

With this I totally agree, all this so-called ethnic stuff is mostly bullsh**. However, in respect to your 'frankish' descent, It is true that the soutern Netherlands once were part of Austrasia, thus being Frankish (though with high quantities of other peoples like for example the Frisians mixing in, as you said). However, your huguenot descet from southern France does actually not mean any Frankish descent; it is unlikely many 'real Franks' went to live south of the Loire, at least their relative proportion would get lower and lower. Depending on the region Roman, Visigoth or Burgundian 'descent' would be more plausible.

Sorry, I can be a "Pietje Precies" at times ~D

Actually southern France is more Frankish than you assume, but a lot less Frankish than northern France. It's a big melting pot over there, really.

You have a much greater Visigothic presence on the Mediterranean coast, because there they remained for a good two centuries longer than elsewhere in modern France. Then you have the Basques who once predominated across the Garonne, in Gascony. And then there is the Arab influence (a city in the Provence, Fraxinetum, was mostly in Arab hands until the first half of the 8th century AD).

But, even though these peoples remained virtually independent and homogenous (a bad term, but I use it with lack of alternatives), they were conquered by Pepin, the father of Charlemagne (the Aquitanians and Gascons, unified in the Duchy of Aquitaine, were actually conquered by Charles Martel) in the 8th century. There is a reason why the Occitan language is largely extinct nowadays, surviving here and there in the Provence. Sure, the southern French have their own dialect in the form of Languedoc French(langue d'Occitane; language of Aquitaine), but the fact that they speak French, which they did over the course of several centuries spanning from the late Middle Ages to the 18th or 19th centuries, is proof enough of the fact that the region has become far more French in character than it was in the time of courtly love etcetera.

But, my family emigrated to the Netherlands when Louis XIV chased all the huguenots out of France. They spoke French, being nobility which had become Protestant, and being nobility they had to be able to speak French to interact with the central government in Paris, and the provincial governors they sent out. But you can clearly see in my mother's family their Mediterranean features, showing Roman, Basque and perhaps Arab influence.

I'm quite aware of the fact that there are so many influences in Aquitaine, but Toulouse was already in the 17th century quite far in the process of losing its Occitan character.

Bah, who cares; the sole thing that defines you is you.



~Wiz

Ah, Occitan, old Provençal...! The langue d'Oc, the tongue of the troubadours! It's really full of a music essence... ~:)

Can vei la lauzeta mover
De joi sas alas contral rai,
Que s'oblid' e.s laissa chazer
Per la doussor c'al cor li vai,
Ai! Tan grans enveya m'en ve
De cui qu'eu veya jauzion,
Meravilhas ai, car desse
Lo cor de dezirer nom fon.

Bernart de Ventadorn

Yep... the only thing spoken a lot that is reminiscient of it is its sister language, Catalan. Although there is a movement for recognition of the Occitan language and culture, and even a harder core of that movement which advocates independence of the ancient territory of Aquitaine at the most, and the Provence at the least, like the ETA. Less militant though.

The fact remains, however, that simply too few Occitan speakers remain, making the claims of the movement weakly backed and therefore largely ignored, as far as I know. Or does the French government acknowledge Occitan as an official language, like the Spanish government does of Catalan?



~Wiz

Here in Toulouse there are a lot of Occitan's associations who try to make this culture live but for the moment the only thing they have been allowed to do is to rename some streets in Occitan. Even the "calandretas" which are bilingual schools are not really developped. The main problem in that the government doesn't recognise any power to local cultures like occitan, corsican, breton which are only considered as folklore for parisian tourists...
Macarel de parisenc ! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Yep... the only thing spoken a lot that is reminiscient of it is its sister language, Catalan.

---

Yeah, it's easy to see the similarities.

Quote:

---

Although there is a movement for recognition of the Occitan language and culture, and even a harder core of that movement which advocates independence of the ancient territory of Aquitaine at the most, and the Provence at the least, like the ETA. Less militant though.

---

Less militant for sure, and thank God for that. Because ETA's nationalist terrorism scores more than 1000 victims in the last 30 years -while Basque Country has national rights officially recognized, Basque is an official language, they enjoy their own parlament, own laws, own police, etc. and have received nothing else than privileges in the last 500 years, except for the years of Franco's dictatorship... :embarassed:

Quote:

---

The fact remains, however, that simply too few Occitan speakers remain, making the claims of the movement weakly backed and therefore largely ignored, as far as I know. Or does the French government acknowledge Occitan as an official language, like the Spanish government does of Catalan?

---

Certainly they should, but France politics -even in times of the Borbons- has always been furiously centralist. Spanish example -with a growing feeling of national disintegration and increasing nationalistic uproar- is not going to encourage them, anyway. :inquisitive:

And now, end of contemporary politics. (Rules of the house, I'm afraid) ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Yep... the only thing spoken a lot that is reminiscient of it is its sister language, Catalan. Although there is a movement for recognition of the Occitan language and culture, and even a harder core of that movement which advocates independence of the ancient territory of Aquitaine at the most, and the Provence at the least, like the ETA. Less militant though.

The fact remains, however, that simply too few Occitan speakers remain, making the claims of the movement weakly backed and therefore largely ignored, as far as I know. Or does the French government acknowledge Occitan as an official language, like the Spanish government does of Catalan?



~Wiz

---

Only the Catalan government does recognise the occitan language, spoken by less than 6,000 people in the north-west corner of Catalonia (Vall d'Aran). The Vall d'Aran (Aran Valley) is almost an autonomy within Catalonia. Except few valleys in western Italy where occitan is also spoken (Valadas), the rest of the occitan territory is found in France, the country that outstands for being the most repressive in Europe against their own languages and cultures other than official French :embarassed: . And I stop here because this is not the appropiate forum to talk about politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Actually southern France is more Frankish than you assume, but a lot less Frankish than northern France. It's a big melting pot over there, really.

You have a much greater Visigothic presence on the Mediterranean coast, because there they remained for a good two centuries longer than elsewhere in modern France. Then you have the Basques who once predominated across the Garonne, in Gascony. And then there is the Arab influence (a city in the Provence, Fraxinetum, was mostly in Arab hands until the first half of the 8th century AD).

~Wiz

---

The dynamics of ancestrial or ethnic makeup are largely determined by the nature of the cultural exchange. To make a few examples as simple as they possibly can be (and I know we can make them much more complicated): In the island of Britain the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et. al drove the local Britons to modern day Wales, Cornwall, Britanny, and Scotland, so the English are with the exception of some Cornish not descended from the Britons (meaning that they have been ironically desparaging their ancestors with the the legend of King Arthur for almost 1000 years). In France, even though the Romans killed and enslaved many Gauls, and there were large migrations of Franks and Burgundians, since the invaders "mixed" (far less fun of a word than what actually happened ~D ) with the local people and did not replace them, and since the invaders were not a clear majority, most people in France probably have Gallic ancestors,but of course they are a mixed people. While it would be incorrect to equate a certain tribe directly with national heritage, it would also be incorrect to say that it negates the ancestrial link of people to that tribe. After all, you need all of your ancestors to exist, and if you can only link your heritage to one ancestor of a certain tribe, then that ancestor had many ancestors of that tribe, etc. etc. The situation is further complicated by cultural exchange not equating with ethnic exchange.

I can definately understand your ideas about the complications of heritage, Wiz, after all, how couldn't a French Calvinist of Yankee English Protestant, French Catholic Canadian, Norwegian, Scottish, and probably Native American descent who has an Anglicisation of a Francophonation of a Dutch name which is almost exclusively present in America not understand? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

Last time I checked we still only had 12 provinces ~;)

---

Don't blame me -- I'm from the Antilles. ~;)



~Wiz

Occitan lyrics and the dynamics of ancestral makeup?
LOL

Fascinating!

I dont know what they have to do with the original topic but the last 15 posts or so were very interesting.

I love how in this forum, the most random question can become an interesting perhaps quasi scholarly discussion of some obscure subject.

Keep up the good work ~;)

:bow:

Problem is, there's a limited number of factions in rtw, so you can't add in who you want. Hence, no Portugese, no Irish, none of the smaller peoples.

Not that us small ones would be integral to the game though. I can't see any benefit to the game in having an Irish faction, even if I'd love making Tara the capital of the world ~;) It's just of no value for anyone not Irish.

Same with the Portugese, there'd be a lot less demand from non-Portugese people for a Portugese faction, though I sympathise with their wishes.

Anyway, let's not forget game balance, a Portugese people would only start with 1, max 2 provinces, which would hardly lead to a dramatically balanced game, would it?

Who said it should be? We did well enough, me thinks......

A number of factions only start with one or two provinces. That isn't much of a problem, really. Factions that start with huge numbers of provinces often have early managerial problems, though they can be held together. However, a small starting faction can begin very focused, and is very viable. As such, the number of provinces a faction starts with is relatively unimportant in deciding what factions are used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonymous_joe

even if I'd love making Tara the capital of the world ~;) It's just of no value for anyone not Irish.

---

Whoa, what about the Scottish? We're Hibernians too ~;)

Gaels (technically Goidils at the time) hadn't invaded Caledonia yet, so no Scots existed. Goidils had only recently conquered Mann in this period, and while there is evidence some migrated to Caledonia, the large scale invasions that would eventually form Scots hadn't occured yet.

Also, Tara wasn't a city at this time. It was just a temple complex with a small outlying town. More important were Menapia, Ivernis, Nagnata, and Eahmain Macha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Gaels (technically Goidils at the time) hadn't invaded Caledonia yet, so no Scots existed.

---

Exactly my point, if they hadn't invaded Caledonia, then they would still be on Hibernia.

But then we wouldn't call them Scots. We'd call them Irish, if we used modern terminology. Though, the English called the Scots Irish for centuries (they had a tendency to lump people together by their common ancestors; even the Manx, who had a huge number of Norse ancestors, were called Irish). Additionally, though, Scots do have Caledonian ancestors; why wouldn't you wish to play as Caledonians too? Aside from their being remarkably primitive with almost no armor and poor quality weapons in this period. You could make Attuaca the capitol of the world! And with your remarkably unadvanced system of politics, you could use brute force to control everything.


...Caledonians would be kind of fun, for the sake of having a barbarian faction almost exactly the way fantasy and jack asses portray all barbarians. They rely pretty much on pure brute strength to enforce rule, they have very simplified concepts of everything (as far as we can tell), and they'd have to use ambush and horde tactics to do much. It'd be a bit fun. We will have one, hopefully two or three, Caledonian units though to kick around. I will play as the Britons, purposely loose all my land except Caledonia (once I conquer Caledonia), and just hurl Caledonian thugs at people. That's a game, damn it.

Of course the ancestry of any modern European people is diverse, but I was simply replying to the statement "It's just of no value to anyone who's not Irish" because the Irish are not the only people descended from Hibernians. I think we all know better than to call a Scotsman an Irishman ~D

Oh, right. Actually, we did consider Goidils; they were comparatively united and well-off in this period, but aside from shore raids and conquering Mann, they did little until the Roman conquest of Britain (which was followed by the setting up of huge numbers of Irish slave colonies along the British coast, a large raiding invasion at the request of the recently formed Picts, as well as large migrations; the latter kingdoms of Cumbria and Regydd both had substantial Gaelic populations because of this), and the conquest doesn't occur within our period, so it seems needless to use them; by that point, they'd become steadily more disunited anyway, which, due to territorial claims and the like, eventually led to the Ulaidi invading what would become Dal Riada.

Problem is the Irish (Gaels even) didn't really go in for cities much at this time.

And Gael/Goidil wasn't our name at that stage. That's the Welsh word for, I think "wild man" in reference to the Irish penchant for massive slave raids on poor defenceless Roman-less Welsh people.

To be fair, the Irish wouldn't add much, as we were principly a chariot and single combat people.

Still, the Irish, (and our Scottish cousins) might enjoy playing as themselves. And I'll make sure to use the Celtic units.

Btw, will Lusitanian provinces give us any troops that would benefit a Viriathus-esque style of ambushing and guerilla warfare?

Quote:

---

Btw, will Lusitanian provinces give us any troops that would benefit a Viriathus-esque style of ambushing and guerilla warfare?

---

Certainly, but bear in mind that Lusitanians were fully capable of defeating a Roman Legion in open battle. Actually, they did, and won.

Ok. Cool.

Actually, chariot war wasn't that popular in Ireland except in modern Ulster and some of the flatter regions. The rest of Ireland was just too much of a logistical pain in the ass to use them as anything but a sign of wealth or power. Also, the Goidils did fight in large numbers, not just single combat, and Goidil was their own name; Goidilic war actually degenerated into less organized war during the 300s-600s; before hand evidence shows huge numbers engaging in large battles, and not usually with other Goidils (as they had been substantially more unified, though they did engage in ritual tribal war, which WAS single combat); they had other enemies, which they recorded in their stories, often with decent accuracy (such as Caledonian raiders, raiders from Britain, etc., all of which they tended to destroy, though some of the Caledonians they gave a parcel of land for turning on their 'allies', which explains the presence of a completely different culture in a small section of Ulster). The Welsh took the name Goidiluae (Goidil) from them (a huge amount of what we call 'Welsh' has substantial Gaelic influence); it was a bastardization of an Iberian name by most accounts, as a large number of the early Goidils came from Iberia. It simply came to mean 'wild men' in the old Welsh because of how the Welsh associated them (as raiders). Also, the Goidils did have cities; several of them. Menapia was a huge trade city (burned by the vikings), Eahmain Macha was of massive size (mostly destroyed during the 200s, then ravaged by the vikings later, etc., but, hey, Navan is still kicking), Nagnata was pretty big, but then completely destroyed at some point, Brege was large, but destroyed and Dublin built over it, and Ivernis was also huge, and survived into the middle of the dark ages when it was burned. There were a few other main cities, but they weren't near the size, and more or less just large towns, but the Goidils were capable of city building (though Nagnata was actually a Belgic-Celtic place originally, not Goidilic-Celtic).

The decision to not include the Goidils hinged largely on expansion. They completed their conquest and the subsequent 'Gaelicization' of Ireland and Mann in this period, but they didn't do anything else important on the scale we're displaying. The Casse (Britons, who would've been replaced) at least exercised defacto control over southern Britain near the end of the period, though that fell apart before the second Roman invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Certainly, but bear in mind that Lusitanians were fully capable of defeating a Roman Legion in open battle. Actually, they did, and won.

---

Of course, many of the "barbarians" that are popularly considered inferior soldiers to the Romans challenged and defeated them in open battle on many occasions. Even Sparticus' slave revolt defeated Roman armies in pitched battle (though many of those slaves were captured warriors, so they had distinct advantages compared to most slave revolts).

Not to mention they were green, small and poorly led armies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Not to mention they were green, small and poorly led armies.

---

If they were blue and small I would think they were the Smurfs, but being green... That's flu. ~;p

:laugh4: LOL


....or those little green men from Moby's video!

http://www.lightworker.com/album/ind...lien_hello.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Actually, chariot war wasn't that popular in Ireland except in modern Ulster and some of the flatter regions. The rest of Ireland was just too much of a logistical pain in the ass to use them as anything but a sign of wealth or power. Also, the Goidils did fight in large numbers, not just single combat, and Goidil was their own name; Goidilic war actually degenerated into less organized war during the 300s-600s; before hand evidence shows huge numbers engaging in large battles, and not usually with other Goidils (as they had been substantially more unified, though they did engage in ritual tribal war, which WAS single combat); they had other enemies, which they recorded in their stories, often with decent accuracy (such as Caledonian raiders, raiders from Britain, etc., all of which they tended to destroy, though some of the Caledonians they gave a parcel of land for turning on their 'allies', which explains the presence of a completely different culture in a small section of Ulster). The Welsh took the name Goidiluae (Goidil) from them (a huge amount of what we call 'Welsh' has substantial Gaelic influence); it was a bastardization of an Iberian name by most accounts, as a large number of the early Goidils came from Iberia. It simply came to mean 'wild men' in the old Welsh because of how the Welsh associated them (as raiders). Also, the Goidils did have cities; several of them. Menapia was a huge trade city (burned by the vikings), Eahmain Macha was of massive size (mostly destroyed during the 200s, then ravaged by the vikings later, etc., but, hey, Navan is still kicking), Nagnata was pretty big, but then completely destroyed at some point, Brege was large, but destroyed and Dublin built over it, and Ivernis was also huge, and survived into the middle of the dark ages when it was burned. There were a few other main cities, but they weren't near the size, and more or less just large towns, but the Goidils were capable of city building (though Nagnata was actually a Belgic-Celtic place originally, not Goidilic-Celtic).

The decision to not include the Goidils hinged largely on expansion. They completed their conquest and the subsequent 'Gaelicization' of Ireland and Mann in this period, but they didn't do anything else important on the scale we're displaying. The Casse (Britons, who would've been replaced) at least exercised defacto control over southern Britain near the end of the period, though that fell apart before the second Roman invasion.

---

Yeah, schooling's gone downhill in Ireland. ~;)

I bow to your superior knowledge, I don't think Eamhain Macha was supposed to be massive though, what I hear is it was a palace, along the lines of Mycenae, rather than an actual city, though I could be wrong.

On chariots, I'm not certain, but I think that they were used by noble warriors as a form of "taxi" to get them to battle, at least in the more ritualistic ceremonial battles.

By small group of foreigners in the north do you mean Donegal, ie. Dún na nGall - Fort of the Gauls (meaning foreigners)

I do know that the Táin mentions similare cultures in nearby areas, such as Scotland, and mainland Gauls, mentioned relating to places warriors and traders visited.

But hey, you're the expert.

Eahmain Macha was the colloquial name of the city the fortress was constructed in. The formal name of the city was so long people felt it unnecessary to say it, and the fortress was so impressive it was easier to remember. It was the palace of the high king, and an impressive fortification. In its prime, it's estimated that it could probably stop a cannonball in its walls; pretty impressive considering it was mainly made of wood and packed dirt with a little stone. The high king's office only held direct control over two regions; Eahmain Macha (and the city around it), and the hill of Teamhaidh (Teamhair/Tara), since it was the coronation hill of the king. Otherwise, all other issues were done through subservient sub-kings (which, at one point, broke apart from one another, forming the more recognizable fractured Ireland, though the ghost of the high kingship remained for centuries).

Chariots were used as a status symbol in the form of a 'taxi', yes, but the Volunts and their under tribes (like the Ulaidi and such) in modern Ulster fought in chariots in the same manner as Britons, as did some of the Kintaris and Bolgia (Belgic Celts in modern Connacht; from them come 'Firbolgs', from the name for particularly vicious Bolgia warriors called Fer Bolgia).

Dún na nGall is one place; it's mentioned in the epic of Troidhan. Troidhan (the conqueror of Mann) needed heavy cavalry, so he asked the Gauls for assistance (since they were actual Gauls, not Goidils of Gallic extraction). The Gauls sent for aide from the mainland and got him some better cavalry (since most Goidilic cavalry was more for skirmishing and harassing than shock). The place wasn't just home to the 'Gauls' we recognize, but also housed small communities of Brigantes, Belgae, and Cruithne (hence the foreigner connotations).

The Goidils had their own private colonies along the coasts of Gaul and Britain; just trade things really. Likewise, Britons and Gauls (and even Romans, later, though they may have just been following the British tradition) had trade centers/forts in Ireland, to conduct peacable trade. Used forts though, usually, because, even when the Goidils were united under one king (and not just in title like during the dark ages, but actually united), there were problems in Ireland (as there were in most places), with thieves, bandits, and all manner of upstarts. The necessity to have a good fortification capable of withstanding at least a minor attack was apparent.

Alright cool. That all makes sense.

In reference to single combat, the Goidils and early Gaels were very similar to the latter Japanese in a sense; they formed extensive schools dedicated to types of combat and formalized duelling martial arts (Cu Chullain attends one run by a woman in every version of his legend, though what weapon he is training in varies, though it's usually a spear plus something else, though some exist where he doesn't learn how to use a spear, and others exist where he only learns to fight with a spear). That does imply a great deal of single combat, and the kind of majestic, almost cinematic quality of single combat made it more popular in stories. If you ever read the historical epics, and not the legends, things can be much more boring, from an 'action' aspect. They mostly talk about what you'd expect any history of battle and war to talk about; numbers, positions, tactics, more numbers, manuevers, types of weapons and armor used, etc.; they lacked a human feel to them, because they weren't for entertainment or inspiration. They were just histories, and they weren't nearly as popular as hero epics. It's a lot like comparing watching an action movie to a documentary. Many people would definitely opt for the further than the latter. It's just more interesting to the common man because you get idealized characters, and hyped up situations, and so on. While duelling was extremely common in Ireland (and most other Celtic societies, for that matter), it's made out to be much more important than it actually was, because it's built up in legendary sources so much. Actual battles, if mentioned at all, are relegated to the background, because they lack the color or flare of a single champion defeating dozens of enemies in honorable methods in formal ritual duels.

I've studied the Táin. Cú Chulainn is trained in all conventional martial weapons, he also uses the "Gae Bolga" bolg is stomach as Gaeilge, and the Gae Bolga is supposed to tear someone apart from the inside, though no specific details exist regarding what it actually exists, all that is known is it is some kind of weapon, wielded only by the boy/teenage warrior Cú Chulainn.

The gae bolga is based on a real weapon (and I speak Irish, so I don't know if the translations are for me or others). A type of barbed dart, it could be balanced on the foot and rammed up into the stomach (a kind of anti-charge tactic), and then yanked out; the barbs would pull out the innards. It could also be thrown as normal, and used as a thrusting weapon (usually in the left hand, in place of a shield). Several were found in a burial south of Sligo, though, that was fairly recent; subsequently, new accounts from between 500-1050 AD report their use, though it notably dwindles to such a rare occurence it's reported with amazement by 1050.

Edit; I should note, even in earlier accounts, it's not depicted as 'common' by any means, and likely a very specialized weapon only a few soldiers would bother to carry; it likely developed first as a duelling weapon.

The Irish was for anyone who doesn't speak it. The gae bolga has always seemed strange, it was described as uniquely as Cú Chulainn's in the Tain though wasn't it? What were the later examples like?

Whatever happens, I'm looking forward to a few historically accurate Gaelic units, a slight improvement from Dark Age gallowglasses and Bonnachts.

Being described as 'unique' doesn't necessarily mean it was literally so. It was an awkward weapon, probably used by combat enthusiasts of a sort, who were inclined to learn to fight with awkward weapons, maybe as a form of showmanship. The dart in question is essentially a 1/3rd scale javelin, with a wide head, with barbed hooks running along the lower part of the head. They're blade as well, on the side that'll stab inward, but the alternate side would be blunt, so the hooks would catch, instead of cut, when it was pulled out.

And I agree. Viking Invasion was irritating in so many ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Eahmain Macha was the colloquial name of the city the fortress was constructed in. The formal name of the city was so long people felt it unnecessary to say it, and the fortress was so impressive it was easier to remember. It was the palace of the high king, and an impressive fortification. In its prime, it's estimated that it could probably stop a cannonball in its walls; pretty impressive considering it was mainly made of wood and packed dirt with a little stone. .

---

*ahem* "La Paz"

Considering that fortresses in the gunpowder age changed their focus to dirt it seems to make sense to me. Force=(change in velocity)/Time so anything that would increase the amount of time involved in the impact would decrease the force (the difference between falling down on a pillow or on a cement floor, for example).

I have a question Ranika. If the Picts were a non-Celtic culture then is it possible that they were some sort of vestige of the pre-Celtic culture of the British isles?

I never said I knew much about fortress building, but it still impresses me. Anyway, on the Picts, yes, it's possible. There are a lot of theories about the Picts though, so saying 'yes, definitely' or 'no, definitely not' is not really possible. The southern Picts we'd surely consider Celts (since fleeing Britons integrated there, so even if the Caledonians hadn't been Celtic there before, the huge influx of Britons would surely shift their culture); the northern Picts it's hard to say. 'Pict' is a catchall term for tribes that had been in a confederacy to fight the Romans, and eventually formed a few kingdoms, then united and made a kingdom we often just call 'Pictland', since we don't know what they called it (odd, considering we know the names of the lesser kingdoms that formed it). It's important not to think Picts = Caledonians; the Picts formed out of necessity, and a mix of cultures. Gaelic-blooded settlers (not the Dal Riadan invasion, they'd come later) and British refugees helped form the Pict confederacy, and the Pict culture. Caledonians, I personally, do not think of as being Celts. At least not in the north. Again, the lowland Caledonians may have been, on account of constant interaction with Britons. The northern Caledonians I'm fairly sure weren't.

The Gae Bolg, I believe is supposed to be a sort of magical weapon, given that it also never misses a target it's thrown at, and unless I'm mistaken can only be used when standing in water. It is certainly based on types of barbed Irish spears, but THE Gae Bolg is as uniquely CuChullain's weapon as Excalibur was Arthur's (a bad example, I guess, given that several other heroes carry weapons with staggeringly similar names, but you get the point...)

Oh, as for the Picts and Celts question, the Picts, we can be pretty sure, spoke a Celtic language, and therefore are Celts in the only sense in which that term is at all meaningful. Their "racial" background is undetermined, and will probably remain so, and I really can't see that it matters much. "Celt" is more of a cultural and linguistic grouping anyway, and a pretty loose cultural one at that.

Actually, language doesn't come into it, and the northernmost Caledonians (at least in the Pict period) don't seem to speak a Celtic language (or they spoke a very isolated one), as missionaries from Ireland and Britain both needed translators to understand them, even those who were versed in languages from all over Britain (like St. Columba). If language defined 'Celts', Celtiberians and other Iberians would be considered Celts, but they aren't. Celtiberians are simply Iberians who descended from Celts, and maintain some cultural traditions, and the language, but were not Celts themselves. Additionally, there are three whole Celtic language families (one being completely dead now), and those families don't sound remotely similar; basing anything Celtic on language is tenous at best. Language should probably be viewed as a tertiary sign of a culture being 'Celtic'; first and second would be the type of art/weapons, and the type of religion, before language.


And yes, the Gae Bolg in Cu Chullain is magical, but it is based on real weapons, and dark age/medieval Irish (likely as homage) called their barbed 'foot' spears also 'stomach' darts (Gae Bolge).