Where is the Celtiberian faction?

[Berg-i-dum]

I think the main point that Sarcasm is making is that there won't be a Celtiberian faction in the sense that all the tribes were united. Essentially, there isn't "the" Celtiberians. Those tribes were no more united than the Greek cities could be, and more often fought against each other. Their only common factor was their culture, not their politics. On the other hand, a faction representing a tribe is possible, but not a united whole.

And that is the problem with Berg-i-dum's argument: you can't have the Celtiberians tribes together under one banner like that. That is why they were not a faction in EB1 and why the Lusitani are. With that in mind, the whole argument of the Lusitani being chosen over the Celtiberians as being wrong falls apart.

Does that cover it or did I miss something in the conversation?

In case this argument was reasonable why does then it exist in the game a Koinon Hellenon faction?, but somehow why we have Eduii and Arverni tribes as ancient enemies represented in the game,? when in Iberia we have a single faction as it were united?. what makes the Lusitani more repressentive than Arverni, Cantabri, Edetani...? And why is it better to let the whole leadership of Iberia to a single faction?. What makes the Lusitani more special than the Arevaci?. The Viriato´s stuff is a point on favour, but as the Lusitani made alliances the Arevaci made also them between other nations. The romans itself made a lot of references to the topic of a Celtiberian nation or culture as his harder enemy. The Lusitani obiously made treaties with the Celtiberian tribes to face the same enemy.

So now already we have: celtiberians, astures, callaeci, edetani and several different tribes from both the general areas (indoeuropean and iberic) of the prerroman Peninsula under the banner of the Lusitani?. Is this more suitable than under celtiberian banner which is a more general concept?.