Where is the Celtiberian faction?

[Berg-i-dum]

Well, I'd like to start by saying that this post here, supporting that somehow EB's view is skewed towards the Lusitani, is entirely a subjective opinion. In fact to the contrary, ancient chroniclers had to say in that respect "And yet the country north of the Tagus, Lusitania, is the greatest of the Iberian nations, and is the nation against which the Romans waged war for the longest times".

Lusitanian have this roman words and Celtiberii have in fact 3 long wars (and other texts as long as high recognized mercenaries, and in fact the Celtiberians were the peoples who fought longer the romans in actual campaigns, not only guerrilla warfare that Lusitani, Callaeci and other peoples practiced) which probably caused critical reforms in roman world, like some authors explain, with the result in the marian reforms and the grachus revolts. They had to develop for first time long wars year after year in a far region where they had to send not profesional recruits. They should reform his own military to afford this. Those Wars concentred the roman war machine and this fact permited the Lusitanian revolt itself leaded by Viriato during the Numantia siege (in fact he was allied with Arevaci). The first resistence against romans by lusitani was more a "guerrilla" war than an actual one like we can contrast in Celtiberia: long sieges, alliances, importance of supplies, big roman resources involved, actual campaigns. At least until the great Leader Viriato came.
Romans suffered in this scenario some of the most well know defeats by natives barbarians in his early history, as the infamous Consul Nobilior retreat and plenty more. The siege of Numantia was one of the bigger in the roman history, (and epic ), reminded in all future roman chronicles as a final point to the long and desesperate celtiberian war. Even the Cantabri wars were easy compared to this.

Do not think EB historians to take lightly their work...personal preference takes little or no role in the decision for which factions should feature in the mod. Having said that, it was in fact a hard decision to choose which way to go after the pan-Iberian faction that existed in earlier versions.

I dont try to blame agaisnt EB historians and his personal preference or proffesionality. But If you dont count with celtiberian historians or enthusiasts, the decisions can be uneven sometimes and may be not finally accurate like I think it is the real situation here.

Indeed, the Celtiberians were more advanced than the Lusitani, but so was Syracuse compared to the Sweboz for instance, and that did not warrant them an EB faction slot over them. Their settlements were bigger and their population more urbanized, but just how many major settlements did steppe nomads have? Societies based on pastoralism are usually not based in large groupings of population, and yet they can still be numerous and powerful in their own right. Much more merit in that respect, have the Turdetani.

I think this is an important point, such an advanced protourban complex in celtiberian world shouldnt be understimated as it is now and you are suggesting. More if we add a long warfare tradition represented in ancient necropolis even from first Iron Age. Two good points the Lusitani really dont count themselves. If we have a developed Iberian faction and we select other one not so developed it is not fair. And well the turdetani/iberian question as I noted above cant be discussed since they were almost under carthaginian dominium in EB time, and they didnt count with the warfare society the celtiberians had at that moment and wich themselves were using as excellent mercenaries.

You talk of division among the Lusitani, and then talk of 3 wars needed to submit the Celtiberians, as if they were a single entity. Get your facts straight...for instance, in the first war, the city of Caravis was allied to the Romans even as they were trying to submit Complega (not even the entire Lusones tribe). Defeating a city, or a tribal confederation did not necessarily mean defeating the larger tribal groupings nor the establishment of somekind of authority over the land. In the second War, the Titti were bullied into the fight by the Belli from Segeda...the Arevaci thought they were being smart enough to take the chance to become the dominant political entity in the area (which they were already close to being, especially Numantia in the face of Segeda). Ocilis was allied to Romans at some point, and the Numantines were pretty much alone in the final War....a Roman allied Belli contingent was wiped out by the Lusitani, when they were nominally allied to the Arevaci...the examples of Celtiberian disunion abound...I challenge you to find the same on the Lusitani.




On the contrary, you never see Lusitani fighting among themselves, and their infamous plundering was never primarily against their kinsmen, that we know of. Unlike what you're saying, their story does not begin with Viriato, rather from Hannibal's time, and continue as a distinct people all the way to the time of Sertorius and Caesar, albeit largely romanized by then. Their expeditions ranged far and wide, from the land of the Conni to Bastetania, from Turdetania to Carpetania and Celtiberia....oh let's not forget, once into North Africa. And often leading confederations of Vettones, Vaccei, Carpetani and Callaeci. Were the Celtiberians close to entering a phase in which they could have become city-states, much like the Turdetani? Yes, they were...But so were the Lusitani from carving a regnum from the rich lands of modern Andalucia.

You misinterpreted what I mean about the unity of the prerroman peoples, I really mean the Lusitani were united and not the Celtiberii, as a point in favour of them added to the Lider one. Sorry my english isnt good.

Well the celtiberians werent united at all, but they made some alliances as I noted above with Vaccei (they can be considered celtiberians in some way as I will explain later), Cantabri, Asturi and the Lusitani. They had even some leaders like Caro.

Another good point in favour of Lusitani as you noted is the expansionism. But well may be the celtiberian were more defensive tribes in roman chronicles but if we study the archeology of the nortern Iberia we see a long celtiberian culture expansion: we found some products like ceramics, weapons, this could be only trades result, but we find also social influencies like Gentilitates and warfare society with oppida complexs organization gradually adopted by other peoples firstly not considered celtiberians but affected for a aculturization process - celtiberization; so much that we can even consider some peoples like Vaccei in the final phases like actual celtiberians... So there was somehow an expansion of this high develped society among the North of Spain reflected in archeology but not in roman notes.

Nationalism and regionalism play no part here, Viriato was not Portuguese, nor was Caro Castillan. The simple fact is, we chose the Lusitani, simply because they were more dynamic, and expressed a real desire to expand while maintaining sufficient historical record that we can represent them decently. Not that the Celtiberians don't, so I wouldn't worry about not having its valorous warriors which I admire greatly, be misrepresented.

At least to balance the historic situation there should be celtiberians and lusitani, but for the above reasons if I had to select only one I would select celtiberians. And yes in fact some spanish authors consider Virato as spaniard since it could be be born in spanish Zamora province - Mons Herminius, so it is not point about nationalism, it is history accuracy.