Page 1 of 4 1 234 Last

Well I suppose you have been talking about this. They were probably the most advanced native people in Hispania in the EB time frame. They were divided but their warfare (celtic swords, helmets... for example search info about La Osera archeological site and his weapons) and settlements (actual Oppida like Numantia, Pintia, Pallantia, Contrebia Leucade, Tiermes... ) were the most developed (they had even an alphabet) and they were in a stadium previous to a great principate like the celtic middle european ones, it is really possible that if the roman invasion werent come they would become in a big confederation or prince-state.

I reallly dont understand the current situation in the game, I suppose the only fact to made the Lussitani as the only hispanian nation is the Viriato thing, this is true but appart from this great Leader, they werent a enough developed and united tribes (I think at the moment the archeology didnt find such a big Oppida cities culture like in the Duero river region, the majority were little fortified settlements with not a big warfare artifacts, living in little communities-clans), at least not like the celtiberian -or asimilated- ones: Arevaci, Vaccei, Vettoni, etc. And of course it is remarkable that the harder and longer roman campaign in Hispania was the Celtiberian Wars and the famous siege of Numantia.

I dont pretend to blame about Lussotanna but I really think the current situation isnt absolutely accurate with the Archeology and History. It is not a personal view since yes, I am spaniard, but from the "Galllaecia" region which was near to the Lussitani culture (it is common accepted the same lusitanian language in both Lusitania and Gallaecia). and I dont feel bad playing as lussotanna, I only miss the celtiberians aswell; and if it would be only possible a single hispanian faction: for the above reasons, it would be Celtiberia.

More info (plenty more) about Celtiberians in this study:
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekelt...lorrio_6_2.pdf

You're from Galicia? That's a great historical area, also medieval.

Having another Iberian faction might help control the Brown Death (heh) that seems to happen in EB1.

Yeah, the Lussotanna conquer Iberia too early on. There needs to be something to stop them from expanding so quickly.

Yea Iberia is always going a strange way. The Carthagenians do nothing and the Lusothanians are doing nothing the first 20-60 turns and then blitz all the Eleutheroi Cities right into gaul.

Great post Berg-i-dum, i would love to see to some Celtiberian faction, they were really one of the most tough opponents of the roman in their wars in hispania. Also IIRC the nucleus of the troops of Sertorio were composed by celtiberians, on which he added some extra discipline

Here i leave you a web wich contain interesting information about the diverse iberian tribes and also pictures of some coins: http://moneda-hispanica.com/iberhome.htm It is in spanish, but the images are quite useful.

By the way, I as a bastetani with heavy carthaginian influence, would not mind to join our northern brethren agaisnt the invasors!

That is indeed a nice site!

Having a Celtiberian faction would indeed force the Lussotanians to fight for Iberia. If the EB team does not include a Celtiberian faction, however, hopefully they will fix the Carthaginian AI, so that it focuses on actually trying to take other settlements in Iberia.

Having a Celtiberian faction would also put more pressure on the Aedui and Avernai in Gaul. This would also halt Roman expansion into Gaul seeing that Rome waits until the Aedui and Avernai beat each other to a pulp and then the legions march in and take Gaul without a fight.

I think it would create less pressure, as currently the lusotannan often conquer the whole of gaul after dominating Iberia.

Yep I am galician.

You are welcome to our brotherhood Iberian friend hehe.

The romans needed 3 Celtiberian Wars to subjugate them, they suffered infamous defeats like the Nobilior´s one. Other peoples of Iberia like the Cantabri provided support to celtiberians in their fight against Rome. His archeological expansion even affected Asturian or Cantabri areas (for example we can found celtiberian products in Lancia or Asturica), since his culture was higher developed and it was producing an asimilation -celtiberization- in Northern Iberia, expanding in all the Meseta-Duero region and high part of the Ebro river.

Celto-Iberians would help keep the Lusos (or even the Carthies in Iberia) in check - But what if becomes something similer to The Adeui vs Arverni conflict - one defeats the other, gets overstreched and will be overrun by a third (in this case maybe fourth) faction taking the hole of the aera (Iberia in this case)...

There HAS to be a new faction in Iberia. I agree a Celtiberian faction would be a prime candidate, but I think a good case could be made for the Turdetani as well. Descended from the Tartessos, they had their own language and alphabet unique from the rest of the Iberians. They are also considered to be one of the most "civilized" peoples of Iberia. They were early trading partners of the Greeks and Phoenicians and were later heavily influenced by Carthage. I believe they fit in nicely with the EB timeframe, but I'm not really sure about how much information there really is about them.

I of course am biased since I am from that area, specifically Cádiz and Sevilla.

¡Saludos!

vonhaupold, I would love too to see some southern iberian faction, as i am from that area too. But as far as i know, these southern iberian tribes were not really a warlike people, but more related to the carthaginians by trade.

I think there are some quotations of these tribes using mercenaries of northern tribes to fight for them, that would mean that they did not have a strong army by themselves.

Anyway i don´t really know much about their military, but as you say their culture was more "civilized" from the eyes of greeks and phoenicians, and possibly more advanced than others tribes of the interior of the peninsula.

Also they usually offered a lot less of resistance against the invasions, it could be because they knew what benefits would bring them being under carthaginian/roman rule or were simply more tolerant to foreigners as long as their customs were preserved.

Well I am agree with Bucéfalo. Early the Turdetani where under high dependency of Carthago at least since III b. C. and his military at that time were in a big portion celtiberian mercenaries.

But to be honest his culture was higher developed with urban settlements, because of his longer contact with mediterranean colonies. And well to speak about Tartessos -anyway it is way out of the EB timeframe- I am one of the sceptics who thinks more in a mythological kingdom than in a actual one.

@HunGeneral. I am agree that this could be a bad point in the gameplay but well if we had 3 factions in Iberia -Carthago, Lusitani, Celtiberii- it would be even I guess.

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". 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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 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.


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.

There is other question I wanted to clear about the desunion in Celtiberia. You presented some celtiberian peoples or populi fighting each other and challenged me to find the same among Lusitani. We are confusing two different things. Celtiberian-Celtiberia topic is a word that represent a first order community which is based in actual tribes -second order communities-: for example Arevaci, Pelendoni, Bellii, Titi etc. So it is right to see them fighting each other. Lusitani were only a single tribe not a mix of different tribes like we can understand the Celtiberians meaning and how was understood by romans who called those hard wars Celtiberian Wars.

For example in a roman reduced view and early definition here we have a map of Celtiberia region where inhabited several "celtiberian" factions:


Red- Arevaci
Brown- Pelendoni
Green- Beroni
Yellow-Belli and Titti
Blue-Lobetani and Lusoni

Alright, so now you're ticking me off, with the whole patronizing attitude. Listen, for some things, you're considering the Celtiberii as a single entity while for others you prefer to refer to single events or tribes. There were 3 Celtiberian Wars, yes, but the first one for instance was merely against the Lusones, while the second involved the Belli, the Titti and the Arevaci. In the third one, there are no longer others other than the Arevaci from Numantia (not even the whole tribe) and some of the Vaccei. 3 distinct campaigns against several different tribes.

Then you're distorting facts. It was the Lusitanians that brought the Arevaci into the war, not the other way around. By the end of the war, we actually hear of Viriato telling his allies to fend for themselves, 'cause he's way over his head at that point.

We first hear of the Lusitani as part of Hannibal's army, serving as mercenaries in Italy, having departed with him from Iberia in 218 B.C. Then we hear of them around 194 B.C when Nasica supposedly conquered 50 cities that had sided with them and killed 12.000 Lusitanians in battle in Turdetania (an exaggeration for sure, but we get an idea of the scale of warfare involved here. In 190 B.C they're in Bastetania, defeating a Roman Praetorian army, killing 6000 Romans in the process - they're later defeated by a joint Turdetanian and Roman army in Northern Turdetania. In 188 BC, they're attacking the area again, having even taken Hasta to their side, leading to a famous siege. The next 7 years we hear of minor battles over Lusitanians, Vettones and Celtiberians. In 163 B.C we again hear of Consular armies repelling the Lusitani from the province. In 156, war erupts again and a Lusitani incursion defeats another Praetorian army, with another 6000 Roman casualties. In 153, 30.000 Romans are defeated with the loss of over 9000 men (this is the victory, were the Lusitani flaunt captured standards from the Romans and incite the Celtiberians to war ending in the defeat of Nobilior, once more...you'll notice that Viriato is still nowhere to be found). At the same time, other Lusitani armies are operating in the land of the Conni, taking their capital, and crossing over into Africa, laying siege to Ocilis but are heavily defeated in the process. It is in this time when a Roman incursion takes control of Oxtrakae.

Nobilior lost 10.000 in his campaign, the most famous Celtiberian victory, and I'm up to 21.000 confirmed casualties (not counting the times where numbers aren't included) against the Lusitani, and I'm still not into the time of Viriato. But who's counting? You are apparently, and as for me, I view these numbers as somewhat irrelevant.

Next comes the infamous Galba, in 151. You know the story, the Lusitani are able to inflict a major defeat on them (some 7000 casualties) and he instead resorts to treason to defeat them - 9000 Lusitani die and 20.000 become slaves. It is only at this point, 67 years after we first hear of them, fighting against the Romans, that Viriato comes into play. The rest as they say is history...more Roman casualties, long wars, massacres and eventually, Lusitanian defeat under Viriato's successor. Or is it? They're back at it when 'ol Julius is Praetor of the province, and are part of Sertorius armies.

As you see there were actual battles, and sieges (are we stuck on how long they took?) in the Lusitanian wars, there were significant Roman casualties, that equalled or topped those in the Celtiberian wars (but is this relevant?), there were alliances (the Celtiberian one, being the major one) there was intensive political infighting in Turdetania as cities and princes shifted alliances, as is noted again by ancient chroniclers. Viriato's assassins were aristocrats from the city of Urso, and Astoplas, the father of his wife was a rich Betic landowner with ties with Roman administration.

The Lusitanian way of war? Offensive guerrilla, forced marches, ambushes, ploys, disruption of supply lines and actual battles. The Romans responded with genocide and brutal repression, much like they did in "classical" Celtiberia. Is it really important how they fought, as opposed to their results and intentions? The Lusitani at one point wipe out an army of Celtiberian Roman allies that was sent against them, should we have based our decision on this point? Were the Lusitani superior in battle to the Celtiberians? I can't make that statement, nor can you to the contrary.

Excuse me? What makes you a bigger Celtiberian enthusiast or historian than me? Or than any of the team's Iberian members?

Who says I'm underestimating anything? Not everything is a matter of political or urbanistic development, nor did the Celtiberians have a longer military tradition than any culture on Earth.

To say the Turdetani were wholely under Carthaginian control is to hugely oversimplify the situation, it's just that the game engine doesn't allow us to elaborate on the subject any further. And you're right, they did use Celtiberians as mercenaries and they were excellent, perhaps even the best in the western world if you ask my opinion, and yet they were defeated by Lusitani armies (or did they simply vanish?). Does that make them less of choice in that perspective? See how you can look at it from a different direction and still not count that as a reason to exclude them?

Actually, no they weren't. Just that they apparently had a sense of identity...the Lusitani were not a single tribe per-se, actually more like a large tribal group whose composition varied from time to time. We hear of certain Lusitanian tribes switching their allegiance to the Callaeci, after their demonstration of valour. Epigraphy clearly shows that there were several smaller tribes, that were part of Lusitani. Still not sure what you mean by this though....

So the reason for including the Celtiberians, as a whole, is acculturation of *other* people? Should we have a La Tene faction then? Or perhaps a Orientalizante one? Or perhaps a Hellenised one? Or even Romanized? And you are wrong, Romans did notice this "spread", just that they had too much of a "they-all-look-alike" mentality to anything that wasn't of their cultural group, to dedicate too many lines on the subject. One sees this in Gaul, Britain, Africa, Germania, etc...

Indeed, there should be space for both, but alas there isn't (in EB1 at least; maybe they're in EB2, who knows), and I'll have to respectively disagree with you. And those Spanish authors are idiots, much like those that consider him to be Portuguese. He was Lusitani, a people much like the Celtiberi, that's no longer around as a cultural group and that no current nationality can claim for its own. And that's that.











...But let me or you be lucky enough to be descended from one of these brave tribes. I care not which, pick a place in Iberia, and there you'll find plains or mountains where brave men once lived, fought and died for their right to exist as a people.

I dont pretend that, I want to learn and may be teach some new points of view in this subject. If I sounded unpolite I am sorry. I really respect the EB team work and I am playing and following this great mod since the early first movements.


This is not me, the romans and nowadays studies consider it in this way.
It depends on the point of view, I know there are slighty differences between tuga historians and spaniard ones about this theme but there are some facts: One of the stats of the roman ceasefire after the second celtiberian war was not to fortified the city of Segesta (principal capital of celtiberii, in Bellii territorium), Caro began to fortified it with the consequent roman protest and this is the trivial fact that ruined the status quo dicted by Rome, later the Arevaci began a revolt and united with Belli declaring Caro as Leader in the warriors Asambleia creating a military confederation against Rome, when the Lusitani were just defeated and in they were somehow in ceasefire, also yeah, Viriato encouraged in some way the Arevaci to revolt and he got an alliance with them -of course I have to admit this is good point in favour of this great leader- and because of that he could rebuild his forces with the roman war machine far away again from Lusitania, concentrated in Celtiberia, but until he died assesinated (139) when he was actully in peace with romans (since 140) while the Numantine War was in action (until the fall of Numantia, 133).

Yeah, we can expect a very similar narration about Celtiberians from the first mention of the celtiberians by Polibius in 219 until the Sertorian Wars, and even with more Wars (3) and numbers involved (for example the numbers in the siege of Numantia -20.000 plus 40.000 auxiliam with the neccesary presence of Scipio as brillant commander- and the defeat of Consul Quintus Fulvius Nobilior -he lost almost the 30.000 men he had-).









I figure you are a Lusitani enthusiast as far I am understanding. Probably you dont have in your team a celtiberian counterpart. But I am sorry, I cant definite myself as a celtiberian enthusiast or historian, since my theme is the NW. Castro´s Culture and then in the Callaeci and Asturian peoples . But in the other hand I am graduated in a university based in the Celtiberian archeology (specially Pintia oppidum) who biased me a bit in this way.


But they have a higher urban and military development than Lusitani as you admited, so actually this is some understimation not to count with this, In the Iberia game situation it is.

This is not the same as with celtiberians. Lusitani appeared in History as a compact populus, that probably had other second order communities inside it. As for example the Vaccei were divided in big principates with his own capital and little cities as dependencies, as the Pallantini, Caucenses, Intercatienses. Or the Asturians as Zoelae and so.... It is not the same as in the Celtiberian question: they had also 3rd order communites as Caucenses, then they had 2nd order Vaccei and then we have a bigger concept as 1st order comunity: Celtiberii peoples. This reflects a higher social development situation, previous to a Regnum or bigger Principatus stadium, this reminds to the Gallii confederations. The Lusitani, or the Asturi, or the Callaeci didnt count with all this...



It is a provided reason to speak about the Lusitani expansionism to include them in game so this is an important question since in the other hand we can not speak about a Lusitani acculturation of other areas, in fact his warfare debt a lot to celtiberians also. Yeah the romans noticed this when they called to Vaccei celtiberians (only in the last stages), or even called to the inhabitants of Castulo celtiberians (way to the south of the original celtiberia), so this acculturation was really important and can be assimilated to an expansionist culture.

But hey we can even speak about actual Celtiberian migrations or invasions, affecting Baeturia, Aquitania and Carpetania, for more info about this and other questions please have a look on this study: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekelt...rillo_6_8.html



Pliny (N.H., III, 3, 13): "The Celtici arriving from Lusitania originate from the Celtiberians, and this is manifested through the religious rites, the language, and the names of the oppida, which are identified in Baetica by their cognomen: Seria, which is called Fama Iulia, Nertobriga, which is called Concordia Iulia, Segida, called Restituta Iulia...".

And other related good study: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekelt...atero_6_4.html

I really hope so!

Again, you underestimate and patronize me, as if I hadn't read any of those studies before you ever posted them, haven't a critical mind or read anything more than a children's book on the subject. And this will cause me to remove myself from this conversation. It's not any "tuga" (seriously? tuga?) historian that says this...try Greek, and Roman. Not that guys like Pastor Muñoz don't refer this but...try the Greek and Roman ones first.





Auf wiedersehen, 'cause I got better things to do.

Ok. For second time I should apologize, I dont know which are your reads or formation in the subject as you dont know mine. I only see the current situation in this excellent game and I dont understand at all it, and as far as I am seeing you are a Lusitani enthusiast so I am trying to provide a reasonable Celtiberian enthusiast point of view (altought I am not).

My english is crappy and unfluent and because of that I think it can sound rude or unpolite, I dont pretend that. I paste links to support my words (more when my english words are so few and poor) and for the general knowledge of the people reading this post, not to patronize you.

About the tuga word, let me explain this: I have a good friend from Oporto and he always name himself as tuga, as a abreviation of Portugal. May be it was not accurate to say that but I really didnt pretend to offend.

About the romans authors I prefer to compare what they said with the archeology. Even some portuguese authors like Morais deffend Arevaci aculturation in Alentejo and even a possible migration of arevaci clans.




Going Back to the topic I would like to resume the main keys we are defending to include a celtiberian faction in the game:

-Excellent Warfare focused society. They were remarkable mercenaries also. This can provide a lot of units in the game, in fact plenty of the weapons and some of the current units in Lusotanna faction are celtiberians.









-High developed society with actual Oppida-fortified cities. Stadium previous to principates.



-Probably the harder native opponent for romans in Iberia. Three Celtiberian Wars involved to subjugate them. With episodies like the famous siege of Numantia. Leaders as Caro. This is added also to the battles and sieges concept in the game.








-Some expansionist skills. The celtiberian acculturation of a lot of native populi (not only trade products, also warfare stile, society organization system - oppida and gentilitates), some of them in the last phase are considered celtiberians like the Vaccei. This can reflect in game the government type buliding avaiable to build in each province, quite well.

Well after doing a little research in the question, now I think I can understand the current situation and the reject to continue the discussion. Sarcasm defended there arent personal points/nationalism of view involved in this subject when I even didnt pointed to that before. Now I am not sure about this, if I am allowed to opine and now, this time, to critize. There isnt current spaniard members in the whole Team -hey, may be I am wrong-, and in the other hand I think there are 4 portuguese members: one is the mod Leader and other one is the "Iberian" team leader (in fact the "Lusotanna" team), at least in the 1.1 version. Now I understand also the lack of spanish players in this excellent mod -it is not only the bad english level of my countrymen -, more when I share opinions with spanish total war clans. Anyway I can stand the current situation and of course love the rest of your work, there isnt problems to play a somehow ahistorical single Lusitani faction in Iberia, more when most of the units have celtiberian/asturian/callaeci weapons, so it is a bit balanced in this way. I have played as Lussotana several times.

If some other member want to revert this or is interested in reflect this new faction, I wont have problems in share opinions or even help in historical resarching about different points of view in the subject. And of course I can be wrong in all I said above since I am a simple player not involved in the mod, it is just a suspect that may be somebody want to clear.

I'd have sworn Dux Corvanus was Spanish and a key historian of the Lusotanna faction and for the entire Iberian peninsula? As far as I know Foot definitely isn't from Portugal either? (If you are talking about Aymar de Bois Mauri, he's been inactive for a looong time - and while he did use to be mod leader (for EB I), mod leaders don't decide on how a faction should look like. Their job is to keep things going.)


Let's attribute that statement to a poor grasp of English, shall we? If you don't see what I'm getting at: if a faction x is not as powerful as faction y, how does it follow that faction x is ahistorical? Unless of course you meant to imply that faction x had been rather poorly researched merely because we did not settle for faction y.

Ok cleared then. Excuse me about that. I really respect your uninterested work in a excellent and free mod.





Well I was referring to the general current Historical situation in Iberia and I wanted to say that when we can only select a single native iberian faction we must decide between several ones wich one can be the elected. We can balance historic relevance, but of course also gameplay possibilities: as far I am seeing the potential units avaiable, expansionism, degree of civilization and cohesion of them. In this total I guess a celtiberian faction is the most suitable, as I was trying to defend.

And I think the most powerful of Iberia in around the EB timeframe was celtiberian tribes, in the History point of view and probably in the gameplay one. And in fact in the current situation, going in a simple way, we are playing celtiberians with other name since weapons and units can be considerer celtiberians. Lusitanian warfare was involved more in guerrilla and light equipment than the heavy infantry units we are playing right now. Of course the Viriathus Leader is a high point in favour of Lusitani but I think not enough.

We've had two members from Spain in EB, both left due to RL issues.

Angadil or Pedro, from Madrid. He did work on our steppe factions though.

But then there is Dux Corvanus, or Victor from Cadiz. He knew his stuff and he supported turning old Iberia faction into Lusotannan. And if you did not play EB 0.7 before, the old Iberia faction was basically two "tribal groups", the Lusitanians & Celtiberians rolled into one faction.
Dux Corvanus even dressed up in warrior gear from the Second Punic War-era and ran with it on. He only managed 20 metres before he was out of breath.

And that's all from me in this thread.

what was he wearing? I'm compelled to try >_>

I see. Well I could known Angadil a bit in spanish forums and I know he is out since a long time. About Dux Corvanus I dont know him but as far as I know he is currently out also.

Yeah I remember that 0.7 beta, and I think that schema was more accurate.

About dressing up, that is cool . Well at this point I have to admit that once I dressed up in astur warrior when I was 16 lol.

Ok, so now it gets fucking personal. So you *are* in fact accusing me of nationalistic bias? If you are, say so plainly and stop dicking around. Because it's either that or you just can't contradict my arguments. To not agree with me, and say it's your personal opinion is one thing. To accuse me of being irresponsible, incompetent, a nationalistic moron, and the culprit of Spanish players not playing the mod is quite another. Seriously? What ARE you smoking? You do know there are American players as Romans, Norwegians as Seleukids, Persians playing Saba and so on, right? Even if, as you say, the Celtiberians are botched, how would that be an impediment in way for Spanish people to play? And I couldn't care less about what those clans say.

You haven't a clue as to what my (or any other Portuguese member) involvement was in the unit or faction creation process. You just chose to pick the thought which pleases you the most, again I might add. When I joined there were exactly 3 (that's three btw) members working on the Iberian faction, one Portuguese, one American and the other Spanish (that's Aymar, Urnamma and Dux Corvanus respectively) and the vast majority of the Iberian roster was defined then. I joined relatively late, and was responsible only for a handful of units, some of which you are probably happier about, but which you choose not to mention...funny that I introduced no Lusitani unit whatsoever, and fought (and it was a hard fight believe me), to include units such as the Callaeci swordsmen, the Northern Axemen, the Northern infantryman, the Celtiberian light spearmen or the Northeastern Longswordsman, none of which are exclusively belonging to the territory of modern day Portugal.

And what do you mean exactly, by the Lusitani using Celtiberian weapons? They are said to have carried to have carried weapons like the Celtiberians, much like the Celtiberians are said to have carried weapons like the Lusitani. The Iberian panoply wasn't exactly varied, though there is perhaps an excess in the amount of falcatas and armour in the roster, something that will be corrected in EB2, much like what is happening with all the factions in the mod.



There will be NO "Celtiberian" faction. Christ you're annoying with this, stop referring to them as the same thing, as if there was somekind of unity between Callaeci, Vaccei, Vettones, Carpetani, Arevaci, Belli, etc... and any reason to include any of them over the present faction. Acculturation is not military expansionism and cohesion they sorely lacked. That's why they LOST. The people of Iberia were never united, the "classic" Celtiberians were not the miraculous exception, not even among the same tribe, and everyone was pretty much following their own agenda...forget the infantile notion that they were all after the common good of some proposed Celtiberian nation.

Like I said, read the classical authors, and get some god damn Archaeological logs before opening your mouth, as if you had all the reason in the world and everyone else is just missing the obvious - that you're right. Like I said before, Lusitanians did use Celtiberian-like weapons, and Celtiberians used Lusitanian-like weapons. There's exactly one unit of heavy infantry in the Lusitani roster, the rest are all caetrati and a simple spearmen. Even their elite unit is only armed with a sword, a caetra and wearing a helmet, while only their officers wear chainmail, even though simple infantrymen are mentioned as using it. Considering how they were done, they're not bad at all.

The Lusitani *were* notorious for their light infantry-based army, and placed a heavy emphasis on supply line disruption, forced marches and ambushes you're right. But, like I said before (let me underline that for you), they did siege cities, they did fight in battlelines and they did do the massive Trebia-like ambushes the Celtiberians also did. How was Nobilior's defeat any different from Vetilius'? Celtiberians and Lusitanians could be used in the exact same role you know, as infantry specialized in rough terrain, just like Hannibal did.

Was I talking to a wall, were you not reading when I mentioned that the Lusitani were in the scene for 67 years before you ever hear of Viriathos? Of course it was their time of glory, but so was the Belli's when Caro was on scene...what does this particular fact mean, at all? You have no solid ground on which to stand, do you suppose to win the argument by attrition?

And look at me leaving as a good thing...You are now free to talk as much as you want and feel all superior. Always remember that I chose to retire from the conversation not because I have something against Spanish people, but for the simple, simple, simple fact that you have no constructive criticism to offer, and that trying to convince you of anything would do about as much good as me trying to keep horseshit from stinking.

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!):



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.

I actually think that the latest post of Berg-i-dum does offer some valuable information regarding the different tribes ethnic composition. He is mostly criticising this: that being so many distint cultural groups in the peninsula, there is still only one faction (the lusitani) to represent them. I understand that on the original EB possibly some factions did not get to the release, but he is merely saying that to reflect better the different groups it would be needed at least one more faction. He is suggesting the celtiberians as they were one of the people who, along with the lusitani, were more warlike and a torn for the romans in their conquest of hispania.

I understand the point of Sarcasm saying that the lusitani were united while the celtiberian tribes weren´t, but i have some dudes. I mean, how can we know if a tribe were enough united and had ambitions to carve a "kingdom"? Were is the line that makes the difference between some warrior tribes or a single confederation of tribes? I don´t want to be mean with anyone, i am merely asking what i think is the clave of this discussion: how can we know what tribes were expansionistic and who were not? I know that the lusitani launched organized attacks outside of their territory, even more under the command of their leader Viriato. But then does we know of other tribes that launched similar attacks?

I would like to call for respect too, it is never of more and less on the internet when everybody can easily misunderstood your words. I am sure that here we all don´t give a crap about nationalism and we are only concerned on discussing others possible tribes, that, along with the lusitani, were strong enough to pose a thread to the romans/carthaginians.

Page 1 of 4 1 234 Last