Q : Galatia - Gallic factions

[Ower]

I am curious, just been going through the RV of 1.1. and I noticed that none of the gallic factions can recruit Gaesatae in Galatia (which was possible in 1.0) or their Galatian counter part the Galatikoi Tindanotae.
Can I as as to why were the naked wariors removed from the Gallic recruitment?

[beatoangelico]

my RV tells me that "Galatian "Wild Men" Infantry" can be recruited in galatia with a lv 4 regional MIC

[Ower]

my RV tells me that "Galatian "Wild Men" Infantry" can be recruited in galatia with a lv 4 regional MIC

Do you have the 1.1 version? And which faction? I am talking about Aedui, Arveni and Casse.
And as i went through it again, as well as the other factions, I am suprised that the Gauls cant recruit any Galatian unit except the swordsmen. while factions like Ptolies, the AS, Pontus, Hai and even Saba can atleast 2 units from said tribe, which i find a bit wierd.

[brymht]

REcruitment is so easy to change, lets just change this small issue on the client side, and not request a 1.2 for this.....

[Korlon]

I checked it earlier. It would appear that you are right. Perhaps it's just an error in the RV rather than it being reality as it would seem insane to not include the Galatian wild men in the unit roster of the celtic factions.

Edit: A quick run through in the EDU appears to say that only Arche Seleukeia, Pontos, and Ptolemaioi can recruit them, no one else.

[Ower]

REcruitment is so easy to change, lets just change this small issue on the client side, and not request a 1.2 for this.....

I am just asking if this is intentional (I doubt it), or an error in the RV or recruitment?
Oand if it is by chance intentional, I am curious as to why did the team decide to do it?

[Jaywalker-Jack]

This was a problem in 1.0, I asked about it and I think I remember MiniMe saying he'd take a look at it after 1.1 was out.
Before 1.1's release he made a quick fix to give the Ptolies a few Arab regionals, among other recruitment changes; so these Galatian woes may well be sorted in the near future. But don't quote me on that.

[Khazar_Dahvos]

technicaly the the gestae (sp) and the galatian wildmen are the same unit and use the same skeleton or something else or another that they use the same for. the same goes for the galatian heavy spearmen and either the neitos or the arjos (cant remember which). But the celtic factions should be able to recruit geastea (sp) in galatia (well they did in 1.0 anyways) .

[V.T. Marvin]

IIRC Gaesatae were not a TYPE of unit, but a specific TRIBE. As such it would make sense NOT to change their AOR, but rather leave in Galatia the Galatikoi Tindolatae (sp. - the "Wildmen") - direct equivalent of Gaesatae - as a regional unit available to anyone who owns the province of Galatia, of course including the Gallic factions.

Making Gaesatae proper recruitable in Galatia would represent that this tribe somehow resettled in this region, which is in my opinion rather unralistic.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The Gaesatae and the Tindolatae share the same model, so it is impossible for one faction to be able to get both (unless there is the merc trick, but I don't know if that is used on this model).

The Gaesatae AoR was reduced for v1.1 to prevent the AI spamming them (leading to threads complaining about how hard it is to fight Gaesatae). Galatia must have been removed from the AoR at that time. I suppose they should probably be able to get them there, though, since they can't get Tindolatae.

[Watchman]

There's a merc version of the Tindanotae, so the Gauls could use that just fine. Brihentin/Lavotuxri, OTOH...

IIRC Gaesatae were not a TYPE of unit, but a specific TRIBE.

Well, one Roman author talks about them as if the matter was so. Personally, I'm rather convinced he's either talking out of his ass or using "Gaesatae" as an umbrella name for all Transalpine mercenaries...

[Elmetiacos]

What was the reason for giving the Gaesatae such "kewl powerz" anyway? They fought two battles against the Romans and were routed in both. How were they any different from the Britons' or Gauls' fighting nudists?

[blacksnail]

Fair warning, this is the equivalent of asking why the Romans don't all wear lorica segmentata. It's something that people argue about frequently but that we just aren't going to change in EB1.

We should really put this in the FAQ if we haven't already, as it is a frequent flashpoint for long, involved, pointless threads that only end in tragedy.

EDIT: I stand corrected. "Read the FAQ."

[cmacq]

Well, one Roman author talks about them as if the matter was so. Personally, I'm rather convinced he's either talking out of his ass or using "Gaesatae" as an umbrella name for all Transalpine mercenaries...

Not to draw too fine a point, but overall the Med types did appear to have used that term, Gaesatae as an umbrella to denote all large groups of Keltic warriors employed by local states, paid in land and/or swag and bound by feudal obligations. Technically, after the 4tn century they appear to have been the engine or physical expression of Keltic cultural expansion in Spain, Italy, the Balkans, and Anatolia. Now, when I write Gaesatae I'm not implying the near 'Naked Fanatics (shock troops).' While the fanatics appear as companys amoung the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class.

As far as EB is concerned, the game seems to have it right, as only a relatively small element of most Keltic field formations consist of the 'Naked Fanatics.' To me its a case of the Rose by another name; or the numbers are right so it dosn't matter.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It IS part of the FAQ. We might as well put an entry in the FAQ "Read the FAQ!"....

[Tellos Athenaios]

Okay here we go again:

EB dictionary - your guide to all lingo in EB:

Gaesatae - noun
1) Tribe of transalpine Celts, or catch all for 'Celtic mercenary'. Used by ignorant authors from back in the day. (Like: all Chinese are the same, despite the fact there are over 1 billion distinctly different Chinese...)
2) Unit in EB: drugged up, naked men fighting with a longsword. Considerably skilled at it too. Drop like flies under missile fire; but in melee it will be your boys dropping like flies.

Tindanotae - noun
1) Galatian equivalent of the European Gaesatae EB unit.

[cmacq]

Was just making a note about the historical aspect, as I don't think that the Gaesatae were providing a free service. As they seemed to often been paid in land, they solidified the Keltic presence within a given district while at the same time could in fact be seen as mercenaries. For example, because information is so fragmentary, its possible that the vanguard of Keltic expansion into Italy, in the 4th century, may have actually been lead by Gaesatae, that were employed by native northern rulers, to fight against the Etruscans. I've even read that there is some evidence of a Keltic military presence in northern Italy in the early 5th century. The traditional Roman view of the timing and reason why the Kelts moved into northern Italy is a little weak, at best.

[Urnamma]

What was the reason for giving the Gaesatae such "kewl powerz" anyway? They fought two battles against the Romans and were routed in both. How were they any different from the Britons' or Gauls' fighting nudists?

By being different? You probably ought to read the secondary literature.

[Elmetiacos]

I can't find them in the FAQ... can anyone help me with a page number?

[blacksnail]

6th question from the bottom talks about fighting them. I don't think there's anything in there specifically related to the controversy and why we aren't changing that for EB1. Tellos?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oww.... Where are our FAQ wizards, when you need 'em?

Anyways, it does state that we are quite happy with the way they are now, and aren't going to change it. That's for the moment, sufficient answer to the faq.

[cmacq]

Not that I will ever have a say, but with all things considered, I don't see any good reason to change them.

[Watchman]

Was just making a note about the historical aspect, as I don't think that the Gaesatae were providing a free service. As they seemed to often been paid in land, they solidified the Keltic presence within a given district while at the same time could in fact be seen as mercenaries. For example, because information is so fragmentary, its possible that the vanguard of Keltic expansion into Italy, in the 4th century, may have actually been lead by Gaesatae, that were employed by native northern rulers, to fight against the Etruscans. I've even read that there is some evidence of a Keltic military presence in northern Italy in the early 5th century. The traditional Roman view of the timing and reason why the Kelts moved into northern Italy is a little weak, at best.

By what little I've read of it, the Celts had a practice of dealing with local overpopulation by a considerable part of the populace packing up their stuff and moving somewhere else, such as now northern Italy or south-southwest the Balkans eventually into Anatolia. The peculiar Gaesatae warrior-cult and other wandering bodies of mercenaries were apparently at least partially linked to this phenomenom, as the ones the Romans fought in Italy were apparently footloose warriors repulsed from the Balkans front who had wandered westwards along the Alps before taking up service in the Northern Italian Celts' squabbles with the Romans (or that's what the book argued anyway). The surplus adult male warrior demographic out in search of adventure, fortune and, perhaps, a nice little plot of land to lay claim to basically, not really unlike the "knights errant" and other freelance soldiery of the Middle Ages.

[cmacq]

Very good research Watchman. I think this Gaesatae phenomenon was linked to private land redistribution after the death of the holder and individual male birth order. As a result of a relatively rapid population growth each generation of the Ruling Ethnos produced a larger number of potentially landless males on reaching adulthood. Given the nature of the culture, to have them remain within the realm of the society that produced them would have been madness. It seems one big difference with the Medieval model was that they collected in huge groups around their own war leaders.

[Watchman]

"Have shield, will travel." What to do with the excess population, particularly young males of the warrior class where such existed, once the decently available land started running short has been a constant headache to quite a few societies in general. Heck, "excess of dispossessed young males = trouble" seems to be an equation still perfectly valid today as well...

[Elmetiacos]

All intriguing... wonder if there's a way of modelling this possibility in the game...

[blacksnail]

Somewhat. I think we can do it better in EB2 due to some of the newer options available. With EB1 the answer is pretty much unrest and rebel stacks.

[cmacq]

Right,
thats why I posted that they effectively became the engine of Keltic cultural expansion. You'll also note a similar phenomenon in the late 2nd and 1st centuries in Italy, among the land holding class, that helped fuel the late Roman expansion and move to imperial rule. However, in reverse this was not causality, rather it occurred as a direct result of their wars of conquest and the inability the vast majority of small-farmers to cope with the very small minority of wealthy large-landholders engorged with dirt cheap labor.

[Watchman]

All intriguing... wonder if there's a way of modelling this possibility in the game...

Arguably, the way every faction makes war on everything in the immediate vicinity the second an opportunity shows up achieves the effect pretty well...

[cmacq]

I agree with Watchman, you may not see them gears a'turn'n, but its already there.