I wouldn't be surprised if....

[Brennus]

...The Galatians were a new faction. I know people have suggested the Galatians before as a possibility but right now it would come as no shock to me if they were announced. This post does not pretend to be a proposal for the Galatians but merely it hopes to point out some of the factors which would make the Galatians suitable as a possible faction:

1. Expansionism. From my understanding one of the key attributes of any possible faction is that they must at some point (post 272BC) have expanded from their original territory or at least entered into a prolonged war with another major power during which they were reasonably succesful at defending their homeland (ie Viriathus and the Lusotana). The Galatians do fit this requirement having raided various sites in Asia Minor for over a century, thus coming into conflict with Pergamon, the Seleucids, the Romans, Cappadocia, and Pontus. Cities attacked post 272BC include Laodicea (268BC), Heraclea (?190BC), Tlos (?250sBC). In some respects the Galatians were more expansive (from what we know from the surviving historical texts) than already confirmed factions such as the Pritanoi, Saba and Bosporan Greeks.

2. Government. For the EBII team to be able to create a faction a sufficient degree of information is required as to how that factions government functioned, hence it is very unlikely despite excellent archaeological material that the Balts will be included. The faction's government must also show a degree of unity. Surviving evidence is sufficient for us to be able to understand the Galatian leadership system with its tri-monarchical system of the united tribes of the Trocmi, Tectosages and Tolistobogii.

3. Archaeology (in my view the most important aspect). Sufficient archaeology exists from Asia Minor to allow Galatian settlement, economic systems and units to be recreated. Also, as a people who produced and utilised La Tene material like other Celts already existing models for Arverni, Aedui, Boii (and hopefully Belgae) units would not require much re-modelling to make them suitable for inclusion in a Galatian unit roster.

4. Reform. One aspect which is desired in a potential faction is that it's military reformed over time. The Galatians like other non-Hellenic powers in this region also became increasingly Hellenised and later Romanised and these influences are reflected in the Galatian military, such as the manipular formation and "imitation legionaries" employed by the Galatians at the time of the Roman Civil War.

These are just a few thoughts of mine. In my view there is sufficient evidence for the Galatians to be included as a faction. Possible victory conditions may include conquest of Asia Minor and Thrace, sacking Delphi and the Destruction of Pergamon as a faction.

Right everyone, it's now that time when you rip large chunks out of these thoughts and demolish this thread completley.

[Arjos]

I'd love to see them, just as maybe 10 other factions XD
But they aren't on the top of that list...
On the imitation legionaries, I don't know exactly how these galatians fought, they had been vassals for more than a century at that time, maybe was their usual way of fighiting etiquetted as their own by the romans...

[Lysimachos]

The Galatians indeed started fighting in the roman fashion, as they were trained by roman officers and fought under roman commanders like Pompeius Magnus and Caesar. Eventually the galatian military was formally formed into a legion. However, at that point they historically were not much more than a roman Type IV government, in EB terms.

I remember reading some good arguments against their inclusion as an own faction, though I would have to search for the respective thread, and I myself woudn't mind seeing - and playing - them. It has something to it leading a celtic army in an environment like that.

[Arjos]

The Galatians indeed started fighting in the roman fashion, as they were trained by roman officers and fought under roman commanders like Pompeius Magnus and Caesar. Eventually the galatian military was formally formed into a legion.

Thank you for the info, so Dejotaros wasn't such a reformer afterall XD

[Andy1984]

I thought a Galatian-Bythnian faction was considered but ruled out. No idea where I read that.

[Brennus]

I thought a Galatian-Bythnian faction was considered but ruled out. No idea where I read that.

From what I understand Bythnia was a nation in its own right, neither Hellenic nor Celtic.

[Ludens]

I thought a Galatian-Bythnian faction was considered but ruled out. No idea where I read that.

IIRC the Galatians were one of the candidates for the final faction slot of EB1, which eventually went to the Saba. They are a candidate for EB2. That said, Asia Minor is already very crowded, so I am not sure if they are going to put another faction there. The Bythnians were allied to the Galatians at EB's start date or near enough; and together they make a far more viable faction than the Galatians alone.

[Ibrahim]

Thank you for the info, so Dejotaros wasn't such a reformer afterall XD

when he died (and Galatia absorbed as a province), his soldiers were formed into Legio XXII Deiotoriana-to elaborte on Lysimachos.

EDIT: wrong number. corrected it.

link to information on the legion: http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/xxii_deiotariana.html

[WinsingtonIII]

I definitely wouldn't be surprised if the Galatians made it as a faction, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did not. They are in what I believe is a unique position of fulfilling the requirements for factionhood as well as the sufficient information requirements, but from a gameplay perspective (and for the sake of accurate representation of the world at this time), other areas of the map would benefit far more greatly from the addition of a new faction. From that perspective, I think that if the EB team can dig up sufficient information on some of the other candidates for factionhood, they will include them over Galatia, but if they are left with a spot they cannot fill, the Galatians will most likely take that spot.

Just my thoughts (which may be completely misguided) on the subject.