The only one who is getting in personal critizism and unpolite, referring to nationalismus, trying to involve me in a duel thing, and with a general superiority attitude since the early first moment of your intervention here is YOU. I am only referring to nationalismus since yourself brought it in discussion. I provide links and you say i am patronizing you, I am not agree and provide my reasons and you say I am understimating you?. I even try to apologize and you disruptly abandoned the discussion...¿!?

I only wanted to hear which are the reasons provided to select as single native faction in Iberia the Lusitani, because of, for me and plenty players -specially the majority of the spanish players-, it sounds pretty strange and not accurate.

And now I will try again to go back in the topic althought actually I am the only who can say in my case I am speaking with a wall , since you are telling things like this (being you the Iberian team Leader!):

Quote Originally Posted by Sarcasm View Post
There will be NO "Celtiberian" faction. Christ you're annoying with this


So then, can you provide me a example of privative Lusitanian panoply?. I am not doubing about this I only want to know more about that. I am in archeology focused since it has been demostrated how careful we must consider the Classical sources. The most of the scholars always defend the higher importance of celtiberian warfare and his influence across prerroman Hispania.

If you are the author of the Callaeci warriors I must congratulate sincerely you, since I love them and how near from the Gallaecian Warriors statues are. And of course the excellent Asturian Axemen, excellent textures here also. They are my favourite units in the mod, for personal reasons. I am not blaming about your whole work as you want to demostrate or put in my mounth, even I love most of it. But as you, I have my personal point of view in other aspects.

Ok Iberian peoples never got united, but then why we see a former Lussotanna faction?. It would be even more accurate to call them Iberian as it was in the first release, more when most of the units arent Lusitani. Here is the point when we return to the single reason of the Leader figure.

About the history facts, I know the Lusitanian facts but also know the celtiberian tribes ones, and as I said above also are even higher in numbers and importance. It is not only Nobilior or Numantia, we can for instead speak about the long campaign of Mancinus who after surrender and sign a infamous peace with celtiberians the Roman senate refused his treats and sent him naked as present to celtiberias who rejected them . This was a hard roman campaign with long sieges, winter campamentes, -and a buch of prostitutes - that lately the great Scipio Emilianus remove and disciplinate his legions to face this long and depressive war in the roman side.

For you the higher developed stadium of the celtiberian tribes is irrelevant. Me, as archeologist, can not be agree with this. And I can not also understimate the aculturation processes involved from the Celtiberian nodus along the whole Indoeropean Iberia.

About this I want to go beyond, let me explain my whole point of view, and no, I am not trying to patronize you since I am sure you know this, it is for general knowledge. I think there would be neccessary 2 native Iberian factions to reflect the actual situation of the prerroman world. We know there are 2 big areas dividing the peninsula:

a) Indo-european ( Ist Iron Age ethnics, as good example the ancient lusitani language and the little settlements situation in W-NW Iberia) - celtic (IInd Iron Age tribes: celtiberian phenomenus with his spread from central Iberia -Douros and Ebro valleys)

b) Iberic - mediterranean area (ancient preindoerupean tribes in all the levantine shore connected with phoenician, carthago and greek inlfuence and the tartessian conglomerate).

In this map we see both areas divided by a mark and the situation and territory of several ancient languages in the Peninsula.


Here it is only represented one of both, we can assimilate the Lusotanna as the a) group but focused to the more ancient tribe of the Ist Iron Age, in a strange mix with units of the b) group. This isnt in anyway accurate, more when we call them Lusitani.

So my statement would be to had first a Celtiberian faction (this name is more general and it is not focused in a single tribe, althought in a cofederation of several indoeuropean ones as it existed with this name and the roman sources used to describe; not as a name as Lusitani who is focused in a single tribe as leading actor). And then a Iberic faction, here I can not participate since my knowledge about iberic Spain isnt enough to go in depth in the subject, but I think Turdetani or Edetani can be a suitable tribe or even call them Iberian as again a more general and probably accurate denomination.