The Best Mod?

[Pindar]

What is the collective opinion on the best mod?

I am interested in more as oppposed to less realistic. I only recently installed this game. I don't know if these have been addressed but: the few things I have noted that seem to need changing are:

-Only Rome should be able to build roads.

-Only civilized powers should be able to build seige equipment.

-Playable Barbarian powers should be reduced to a single province with surrounding similar ethnic areas made rebel and much strenghened. This should make it much more difficult for any unification.

-Elephants should kill and not just distrupt friendly units when stampeding.

-Chariots should be weakened. They were antiquated by the time this game begins.

-Barbarians should not be able to build fleets: save for perhaps the Britons.

[Herodotus]

-The barbarians can only build primitive roads anyway.
-Knowledge of Siege equiptment was not exclusive to the Romans or the 'civilised' parts of the world. The advantage the Romans and civilised peoples had was their knowledge of mathematics which allowed them to build more accurately and also to fire more accurately.
-The AI already simulates a poor team effort very well. The game would be a complete walkover if it were mostly rebs out there.
-Elephants, cant argue with that.
-I haven't played with chariots much so i wouldn't know
-Bull, they had ship building technology of their own. An AI tweek so that they don't spam them would be good though.

[Pindar]

-The barbarians can only build primitive roads anyway.

Barbarians didn't build roads.

-Knowledge of Siege equiptment was not exclusive to the Romans or the 'civilised' parts of the world.

What barbarian people of the period in question are you thinking of that had seige equipment? I think you are mistaken.

-Bull, they had ship building technology of their own. An AI tweek so that they don't spam them would be good though.

What Barbaric people are you thinking of that could build anything other than a basic boat? I know the Britions built ships of a sort, but do you consider these equal to a trireme? If not, that should impact your views: particularly considering Classical ships are standard being used.

Do you have an opinion on any of the mods being offered? I haven't tried any as of yet.

[eadingas]

I guess you won't like Europa Barbarorum, then :)

[tommh]

Man, you want to try reading a book or two. You are completly wrong about pretty much all of your assertions.

For instance "Barbarians" DID build roads, in fact the Ptolemeys for instance built roads that easily rivaled the Roman road of the time. It is indisputable that Rome EVENTUALLY became the premier road builder of the ancient world, but this is a far cry from a monopoly. Even in Gaule, road construction was undestood and practiced.

As to sieging the various peoples are represented roughly accuratly, (in reality it was less an issue of engines but of logistics anyway)

Your third point, about naval advances misses the crucial difference between the Atlantic and Med. (to be far so does the game). Each tech developed speratatly (as you'd expect) and to compare one to the other is pretty much a case of apples and oranges.

[Pindar]

Man, you want to try reading a book or two. You are completly wrong about pretty much all of your assertions.

Perhaps you could suggest a book or two that demonstrates my errors.

For instance "Barbarians" DID build roads, in fact the Ptolemeys for instance built roads that easily rivaled the Roman road of the time. It is indisputable that Rome EVENTUALLY became the premier road builder of the ancient world, but this is a far cry from a monopoly. Even in Gaule, road construction was undestood and practiced.

The Ptolemaic Dynasty was Greek. The Greeks were the intellectual and cultural forerunners of Rome. It would be problematic to label the one civilized while condemning the other. The term barbarian being used here is not a simple language difference, but a distinction based on a particular people's ability to inculcate and expand upon abstract knowledge and applied arts. A simple tool typically considered necessary to achieve such advance would be a writing system.

Regarding roads: a Roman road was not a simple worn path, but an impressive engineering accomplishment that had both military and trade impact upon any area involved. If you wish to argue that the Gauls/German tribes etc. developed a road system similarly used for military and large scale trade: where did this occur, which tribe(s) built them and maintained them?

As to sieging the various peoples are represented roughly accuratly, (in reality it was less an issue of engines but of logistics anyway)

Which barbarian peoples of the Period built and used siege craft? When were they employed? What would be the names in Celt or German for onagers, mangonels, ballistae, catapults, siege towers etc.? Given such were used against large urban centers and established fortifictions: what great Celtic/German locales are you thinking of that had these used against them by their fellow tribes? Given that Rome was still, by and large, lacking in the technical skills for large scale siege operations even as late as the 262 B.C. seige of Agrigentum, I'll be interested in your reply.

Your third point, about naval advances misses the crucial difference between the Atlantic and Med. (to be far so does the game). Each tech developed speratatly (as you'd expect) and to compare one to the other is pretty much a case of apples and oranges.

What would be the Atlantic apple that would compare with a trireme orange?


The above distractions don't get me any closer to people's opinions on the better mods they've used. Opnions?

[Pindar]

I guess you won't like Europa Barbarorum, then :)

I don't know. I am interested in people's opinions. I don't know much about Europa Barbarorum. Is there a mod out? Is there a read me, of sorts, that explains what changes have been made? I would think playing a Barbarian faction facing the technical challenges of the Age would be very interesting. This, plus the challenge of trying to unite a people could be fun, I would wager. That is one of the reasons I suggested such should start with only a single area surrounded by beefed up rebel neighbors. That difficulty added to facing an expanding Rome would perhaps be worthy of a Vercingetorix?

[BassV2]

Yes Barbarians had seige equipement, how else do you think they could've taken Rome and other cities with huge walls? No, they didn't take a sword and swing at the wall until it broke.

Ok, the brieme, quintreme, and trieme, all they did was if they could ram opponents ship, otherwise the main purpose was to board the enemy's ship. So those ships weren't used to max power .

[khelvan]

sharrukin and khelvan thank you for your posts: very interesting reading. It seems there very well may have been a simple road network of sorts. Before I retract my position regarding the civilizational level of the "barbarians" however, I would like to ask a few questions.

Thank you for discussing this civilly. You would be surprised at how many people are not willing to listen to ideas that challenge common assumptions about "barbarians!"

The Celts, at least, had more than a "simple" road network. They had major interconnected trade routes, some even being paved. Caesar himself made favorable comments about the roads, and used them to invade Gaul. Given how much the Romans hated the Gauls, these roads must truly have impressed Caesar for him to speak favorably of them.

The transliteration you refer to was most probably due to Gaul contacts with the Greek colony Massila. How common do you assume this to have been? The general thrust of Celtic culture seems to have been based upon an oral tradition. I know there was the ogham system that was a primitive script primarily used for divination and only used by the Druids, but I don't believe a larger literary culture existed. Are you rejecting this view and suggesting there was a literary inculcation?

The Celts knew about writing, and were a literate people. They saw writing as uncivilized because it weakened the memory. Many Celts learned Latin and other letters due to their contact with different foreigners. This of course must impact how little knowledge of the Celts has spread; much history was passed down through the oral tradition, and much of what survives in written form has not even been translated yet. I am familiar with much of the information I relate here because I have had the great pleasure and honor to collaborate with an Irish scholar who knows several different ancient Celtic languages, has studied the history of the people extensively, and has had access to these documents.

An example of both Gallic literacy, and a sophisticated Celtic calendar:
http://www.roman-britain.org/coligny.htm

The letters of the Coligny calendar are Latin, but the language is Gallic. This calendar may possibly be of post-Roman influence, but it does match some words with the few rare inscriptions found on the figurines of Gallic gods. Certainly, this calendar is impressive - it is better than the Roman calendar in some ways. It is more accurate than a modern calendar, accounting for the fact that a day is 23 hours and 50-something minutes long. The calendar also confirms that the Gallic druids maintained a thirty-year cycle of timekeeping, comprising five cycles of 62 lunations and one cycle of 61 lunations, during which period, eleven intercalary months would be added.

I believe it was Pliny the Elder who made this claim.

Yes, we get some information here. However, there are other examples, and the one I refer to (this is third-hand, forgive me) was Brennus writing in Greek to a Greek friend, expressing his distaste for the Romans.

This is one of the more surprising of your claims. Romans had been exposed to Greek siege craft at least from the Third Century. While it is well known the Romans were not the Greeks equal in this field, you seem to be suggesting that Rome couldn't reproduce siege artillery. What do you base this on? I recall reference to siege craft during the Punic Wars if my memory is correct, are you suggesting these were simply pilfered?

The Osprey books on this subject state that the Romans first built siege artillery between 75 and 50 BCE, and built their first siege engine in the early 2nd century BCE. I don't have access to them, our team member Shigawire does; he did copy some relevant bits, and they're quite clear on the subject. They do make reference to Vitruvius' De Architectura, where he apparently laments the lack of Roman sources, and how they must rely on the Greeks.

The Osprey books strongly state that the Romans acquired their siege artillery primarily through capturing them, especially from the Carthaginians.

I don't know what a Chythrsydh or Cyrthcanepo are. I've never heard of them. Are they torsion powered or spring operated? Could you expand on this? I find this very interesting: what would be historic examples of their use during a siege?

Please forgive me, I misstated; the Chythrsydh ('Breath Bolts') and Cyrthcanepo ('Eater of Horses') are more field artillery than siege artillery. The Chythrsydh was like a long, multi-shot crossbow, not very big, though wide; it fired 4-10 bolts rapidly, used for anti-personnel. The Cyrthcanepo was a larger version firing much larger bolts, meant to kill cavalry. Both the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo are like the bricoli in the way they fire; a spring mechanism slams up a plank into the back of the missles, which are set through bore holes, and launches them. The Celts used rams for sieges, and quite commonly sapped.

Actually the Veneti built ships: a rather large number to fight the Romans as I recall, but were badly beaten. My point wasn't that ship building was beyond Celtic knowledge, but I did question their ability to build ships of sophistication capable of and used for distance trade or naval combat (with exceptions noted).

Yes, I apologze, you are quite correct on the Veneti. The Veneti engaged in long-distance sea trade; they had a lengthy trade run, for their own ports in Armorica, a land route to Masilla, and trade from there in the Mediterranean.

The other Gauls traded too. The Helvetii traded with the Greeks a great deal, which is where they learned to imitate the phalanx. Celtic armor was absorbed and modified by the Greeks (the theuros and chain in particular). The Briton tribes, particularly where the Catuvellanii kingdom would be, were major trade partners of Phoenicia and the Greeks.

In addition, we know the Celtic tribes of Gaul and Iberia must have built massive fleets in order to arrive in Hibernia in such numbers, in so little time.

Are you thinking of oppida? If so, these were not large walled cities as much as hill fortresses. The immergence of these is usually cited as a marked change in Celt practice. Previously Celt cities did not have such defensive measures.

Oppida were the fortresses, but they were cities, like Bibracte, the capital of the Aedui. Bibracte was over 480 acres, densely populated, with two thick outer walls. These walls were between 3 and 6 meters tall, and thick enough for a group of people to stand on them. Outside the Oppida itself was a temple district with a necropolis, temples, and paths; large enough that it was like a small city for the dead.

These walls were not simple to make, nor were they copied from the Romans or Greeks. The Celts used a combination of wood frames, cut stones, and a type of quasi-cement to hold the walls together. Manching, near Ingolstadt in Upper Bavaria, is the site of the oldest and one of the tallest Celtic cities in Europe. The oldest finds are dated in the Hallstatt period. However, the stone walls weren't until the second century BCE.

This wall was about 6 meters high. Composed of about 2 tons of nails, 11800 cubic meters of wood, another 6900 cubic meters of limestone, and about 191,000 cubic meters of earth were used to make the wall. There is no proof the Celts there had been trading with Greeks, and certainly no Roman influence.

About 10000 people actually lived inside the wall; they would have been aristocracy and wealthy merchants. The interior houses are multi-room mansions. The exterior structures are regular houses. We don't know how many people lived outside the wall, but there was an amount of sprawl and a good number of exterior citizens.

Oppidum are usually defined as 'A large, permanent settlement of Iron Age Europe, which served as a center of administration, trade, crafts, and religion." They were much more than "hill fortresses;" in many cases they were indeed walled cities.

The reference to the Arveni and Aedui respectively from the modern Lyon and Burgundy regions I also find interesting. I recall mention of at least twenty different major tribes within Gaul. Are you suggesting these other tribes were subservient to and recognized the lordship of the Arveni or Aedui?

Yes, there were twenty or so 'major' tribes, but the Arverni and Aedui controlled many of them. The Aedui and Arverni each had a 'high king.' The major tribes beneath them had kings, who answered to the high king. Below those major tribes were lesser tribes, with chieftains and such that answered to the king they were under.

Celtic kings couldn't take thrones without often first citing lengthy poems or histories of their people. Rulers had to be well read, brave, capable fighters, skilled in hand-to-hand combat, able to speak publically, have a great deal of wealth (so they could deal properly with lawsuits), always pay their debts, and be known to be patriots. They were elected from a pool of close relatives of the former king. All kings, chieftains, and other Celtic leaders were elected. They had to exhibit the characteristics above to be eligible.

The kings were elected by chieftains, who were themselves elected by lower chiefs, who were elected by the families they were chief of. The high king was likewise elected by kings, from a pool of close relatives (and 'selected' relatives; heroes and such that a high king, or other high level leader, had personally selected as a potential heir). The kings could name an heir, but chieftains and lower could not. This heir was not usually a child; if named, it was like the Irish kingdoms, where it was often actually a respected political rival.

Kings could be ejected, too, if they broke the law. Celtic law actually punished kings more severely than regular citizens. There were special elected judges who oversaw trials, and judged in all cases. No one was above the law. The position of a king was not as an adjuticator, ever. He was the leader of the military, and a governor.

The Celts broke their government up amongst several classes, as they feared the tyranny of a single leader. The judges developed laws over time, but the majority of judges of a whole kingdom had to agree with the creation or abolition of a law. Even then they did not make the final choice themselves; each represented the opinion of the tribe that elected them.

The Celts confederated by conquering or buying other tribes' loyalty. Their king would then swear fealty to the high king, and was essentially a puppet; they would do anything they were told. The Gallic civil war came about because the confederacy collapsed.

The Britons did try to build kingdoms like the Gauls, but none managed to gain the influence necessary to be as great as the Arverni or Aedui. The closest would probably be the Casii, and they only managed to control an area about the size of a kingdom in the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy.

My general opinion has been that the Celts were a people who existed on the periphery of a more advance cultural apparatus generally centered around the Mediterranean. Contacts with this more advanced civilization naturally had an impact on a number of levels. Nonetheless, this was an asymmetric relationship, by and large, and the Celts were the dependant group. You have brought up a number of intriguing points. I look forward to your reply.

Contemporary historians regard the ancient world as a number of closed local systems, mostly isolated from one another, so that it was only in certain areas that they influenced each other. South-eastern Europe and Asia Minor are examples. It is inadmissible to regard the history of various "barbarian" groups as the product of the influence of a cultural center such as Athens or Rome. Cultures interconnected, but in a recognizable way.

The Celts were a cultured and inventive people. The misconception about this comes from the lack of written records, and where those records existed, they were mainly written by their enemies. As I discussed above, the lack of written records was another part of Celtic culture; their memory training. The Celts were highly advanced metallurgists, introducing chain armor and the method of making longswords to many cultures they came into contact with. Much in the way of weapons and armor innovation during the period stems from the Celts.

The Celts were a clean people; They invented soap, they shaved their body hair, they ritually bathed before battle. They had an advanced culture with respect to the arts; poetry, and music. During Roman rule, Gaul's production of music, poetry, and stories (along with wine) was considered the finest in the empire. The highest warriors and nobles were expected to know poetry and stories, and memorize them all by heart. They had a very formalized upper warrior class, similar to the Japanese samurai; it is apparent even in Dark-Middle age Gaelic cultures.

Certainly, Rome and Greece were the dominant cultures of this age. However, to place the Celts on the periphery is not accurate; they were a highly advanced people in ways that differed from the Romans and Greeks, and passed quite a bit of this culture to the people they came into contact with. I hope I have answered the questions you have raised to your satisfaction!

Cheers,

-khel

[Gangstaman590]

Just to clear something up for people that don't know latin. Barbarian does not mean stupid naked men who are dirty, it means men with beards if you try to translate it. Barbarian comes from the word barbar which is latin for chin I believe. The romans called them barbarians because they usually had beards. So that is where the name barbarians comes from.

[Alexandr III. Biges]

-Only Rome should be able to build roads.

You know, Romans are famous for their paved roads, but others were building them as well, maybee not paved. But if you look at the map of Italy, it's mainly covered by hills (that's why Italy is famous for olives/oil and wine, not for grain production), so Romans needed good roads to move their armies fast and lately to cross mountains to reach their provinces.
Galia is more flat, so their inhabitants sin't need so good roads and with all likely nations they were not building empires. Eastern armies were far more cavalry based, so it's the likley situation and northen Africa civilizations more used sea and river boat transportation, but built roads when needed, but they usually didn't last to our times, because desert dand is far less merciful to human creations than snow of Alpes.

-Only civilized powers should be able to build seige equipment.

These "civilized" biult more siege equipment because they needed so so conquer their neighbours, but othe "barbarian" nations need so, they were quickly to copy them, they were in contact with greco-civilizations via traders.

-Playable Barbarian powers should be reduced to a single province with surrounding similar ethnic areas made rebel and much strenghened. This should make it much more difficult for any unification.

That would complicate the game too much, note that Romans and other nations as well were also divided and often wage wars upon their themselves :) When facing outside invasion, bunch of clans were usually able to unite to defend their land, that's the situation in RTW, which is war simulation, not trade or likely :)

-Elephants should kill and not just distrupt friendly units when stampeding.

When elephants move through friendly units, they take sare not to injure them, elephants are slow and calm animals, they are forced by their riders to attack furiously enemy soldiers.

-Barbarians should not be able to build fleets: save for perhaps the Britons.

"Barbarians" usually din't need fleets :) But they would be able to do so, if they would need. And this is reflected in RTW as it's "alternate history" game. And to the technology level of ships, northen nations simply built ships, shich were more suitable for their waters, trireme would do bad in Northen sea, I guest there were more storms and more winds, so ships there were smaller, faster and more wind and less oars depedable. Don't forget Viking later even visited northen America in likely ships :)
For example, do you know, that the design of majority of roman arms were inspired by gallic weapons? And their helmets too.
So I understand your opinions, maybee I'd even agree with some, would I know less 'bout the era. Anyway, it's good start for you to get to know more :)

Note: Sorry for mispells :)
Note: I'm not expert on the era, so anyone feel free to correct my answers :)

[Scipio]

I have to agree with Tommh and thwe others here Pindar, sure they were barbaric but not that uneducated! They could build roads, ships etc just not on the same level Romans and other civilisations could. Seige equitment is a hard one. I could see them using basic things like rams etc but the thing is, seige equitment wasnt used much in that period by anybody. Most lacked the technology for good equitment so for the most part nations just starved out their foes...

[Pindar]

I have to agree with Tommh and thwe others here Pindar, sure they were barbaric but not that uneducated! They could build roads, ships etc just not on the same level Romans and other civilisations could. Seige equitment is a hard one. I could see them using basic things like rams etc but the thing is, seige equitment wasnt used much in that period by anybody. Most lacked the technology for good equitment so for the most part nations just starved out their foes...

Hello,

I had quite forgotten about this thread of mine. I hadn't noticed any real replies. In any case, sorry my good man I must disagree. The barbarians were quite barbaric. The Celts and Germans were without any of the social accoutrements one would associate with their betters to the South i.e. no written language, no developed engineering, no large urban centers, no centralized states, no interconnected system of trade etc.

Roads: as I mentioned, for game purposes the roads play a key economic/strategic function. No such equivalent existed in the barbaric North. To argue to the contrary is to suggest some builders, maintainers and centralized interest existed. This is ahistorical.

Ships: building a ship an maintaining a fleet for war purposes are not the same. There are no examples (minus the Britons) for this occurring. Thus the options should be removed.

Siege: I have no problem with barbarian use of ladders or perhaps rams. Towers, sapping etc. were beyond their ken. I agree, that starvation was more of the norm than what the game portrays even amongst the civilized powers. The point however, siege war, if included in the game, should not allow a parity between the barbarian peoples and their civilized adversaries. There are no examples of Celts or Germans using such.

[Andreas]

Hello,

I had quite forgotten about this thread of mine. I hadn't noticed any real replies. In any case, sorry my good man I must disagree. The barbarians were quite barbaric. The Celts and Germans were without any of the social accoutrements one would associate with their betters to the South i.e. no written language, no developed engineering, no large urban centers, no centralized states, no interconnected system of trade etc.

Roads: as I mentioned, for game purposes the roads play a key economic/strategic function. No such equivalent existed in the barbaric North. To argue to the contrary is to suggest some builders, maintainers and centralized interest existed. This is ahistorical.

Ships: building a ship an maintaining a fleet for war purposes are not the same. There are no examples (minus the Britons) for this occurring. Thus the options should be removed.

Siege: I have no problem with barbarian use of ladders or perhaps rams. Towers, sapping etc. were beyond their ken. I agree, that starvation was more of the norm than what the game portrays even amongst the civilized powers. The point however, siege war, if included in the game, should not allow a parity between the barbarian peoples and their civilized adversaries. There are no examples of Celts or Germans using such.

You must remeber that there is such thing as balancing. If you didn't gave the barabarians their roads, which really isn't more then a path, they wouldn't be able to trade, and trade is the best income there is in the game. And they must have boats to, imagine Brittania with out boats in the Realism mod. Would not work. And the barbarians are already among the hardest factions to play as, and it would be impossible if thye started with just one province. There must be a balance between realism and maing the fame playable.

[Pindar]

You must remeber that there is such thing as balancing. If you didn't gave the barabarians their roads, which really isn't more then a path, they wouldn't be able to trade, and trade is the best income there is in the game. And they must have boats to, imagine Brittania with out boats in the Realism mod. Would not work. And the barbarians are already among the hardest factions to play as, and it would be impossible if thye started with just one province. There must be a balance between realism and maing the fame playable.

Yes, balancing is a key factor.

[khelvan]

The barbarians were quite barbaric. The Celts and Germans were without any of the social accoutrements one would associate with their betters to the South i.e. no written language, no developed engineering, no large urban centers, no centralized states, no interconnected system of trade etc.

Roads: as I mentioned, for game purposes the roads play a key economic/strategic function. No such equivalent existed in the barbaric North. To argue to the contrary is to suggest some builders, maintainers and centralized interest existed. This is ahistorical.

In the eyes of the Romans, this might be true. Thankfully, we have other sources than Roman writers who depicted the barbarians as much less civilized than they actually were.

First, both the Gauls and the Britons had written language. Gallic Nobles usually spoke Latin and Greek, in addition to Gallic. They (the Gauls) wrote using Greek letters. The Gauls hated the Romans as much as the Romans hated the Gauls - they each wrote about the other being uncivilized.

For instance, the Celts were an extremely clean people. They invented soap; they bathed regularly, they shaved off all body hair as they felt it was dirty, and some even burned the hair off with a substance made of lye so that it would not grow back. The Celts felt the Romans were the "dirty" ones.

The Celts were much more advanced than you believe in the area of engineering. In fact, the Romans did not build their own siege artillery until somewhere around 70 to 50 BCE. Until this point, they relied on captured siege artillery. Where the Celts had several older types of siege artillery, including the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo, both similar to the bricoli in function, and large-bolt firing systems such as the Chwythstwg (and no, don't ask me to pronounce it).

Sharrukin has posted a nice link referring to barbarian roads. The Iron Age Gaels had a stone road between Ivernis and Emain Macha. The Gauls had elaborate road systems, including main highways. The Romans used Gallic roads to invade Gaul!

Both the Iberians and the southern Gauls landed on Ireland in huge numbers, both building entire cities practically overnight. This clearly required large fleets. Just because the Romans never fought naval action against the barbarians, does not mean they did not have the capability to build fleets of ships - they had, and did.

The Celts built large, stone-walled cities, and were divided into two kingdoms under the direct control of a single king, with organized nobility. These were the Arverni and Aedui - they held direct, strong control over numerous tribes. These were not loose confederacies of independent tribes - the Celts were feudalists. A tribe in Gaul was was actually like a medieval fiefdom; it had a chieftain (who operated like a lord) in charge of it, who answered to the king.

The tribes had to provide soldiers for the king's army; they were well organized, fully trained, and used advanced military tactics. Caesar encouraged the Arverni and Aedui to fight each other. By the time he invaded, the two kingdoms had essentially destroyed each other's fighting ability, combined with German encroachments.

The Celts had a highly advanced calendar system, and did indeed build large population centers, such as Alesia, Bibracte, Gergovia, and Numantia. They were advanced medically, possibly importing medical knowledge from the Greeks and the Egyptians. Evidence has been found of advanced surgery, including (successful) brain surgery, and the reattachment of an arm!

So, as you see, relying on the recorded history of the Romans, who openly detested these people, is not very accurate.

[Pindar]

sharrukin and khelvan thank you for your posts: very interesting reading. It seems there very well may have been a simple road network of sorts. Before I retract my position regarding the civilizational level of the "barbarians" however, I would like to ask a few questions.

First, both the Gauls and the Britons had written language. Gallic Nobles usually spoke Latin and Greek, in addition to Gallic. They (the Gauls) wrote using Greek letters.

The transliteration you refer to was most probably due to Gaul contacts with the Greek colony Massila. How common do you assume this to have been? The general thrust of Celtic culture seems to have been based upon an oral tradition. I know there was the ogham system that was a primitive script primarily used for divination and only used by the Druids, but I don't believe a larger literary culture existed. Are you rejecting this view and suggesting there was a literary inculcation?

For instance, the Celts were an extremely clean people. They invented soap; they bathed regularly, they shaved off all body hair as they felt it was dirty, and some even burned the hair off with a substance made of lye so that it would not grow back. The Celts felt the Romans were the "dirty" ones.

I believe it was Pliny the Elder who made this claim.

The Celts were much more advanced than you believe in the area of engineering. In fact, the Romans did not build their own siege artillery until somewhere around 70 to 50 BCE. Until this point, they relied on captured siege artillery. Where the Celts had several older types of siege artillery, including the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo, both similar to the bricoli in function, and large-bolt firing systems such as the Chwythstwg (and no, don't ask me to pronounce it).

This is one of the more surprising of your claims. Romans had been exposed to Greek siege craft at least from the Third Century. While it is well known the Romans were not the Greeks equal in this field, you seem to be suggesting that Rome couldn't reproduce siege artillery. What do you base this on? I recall reference to siege craft during the Punic Wars if my memory is correct, are you suggesting these were simply pilfered?

I don't know what a Chythrsydh or Cyrthcanepo are. I've never heard of them. Are they torsion powered or spring operated? Could you expand on this? I find this very interesting: what would be historic examples of their use during a siege?

Both the Iberians and the southern Gauls landed on Ireland in huge numbers, both building entire cities practically overnight. This clearly required large fleets. Just because the Romans never fought naval action against the barbarians, does not mean they did not have the capability to build fleets of ships - they had, and did.

Actually the Veneti built ships: a rather large number to fight the Romans as I recall, but were badly beaten. My point wasn't that ship building was beyond Celtic knowledge, but I did question their ability to build ships of sophistication capable of and used for distance trade or naval combat (with exceptions noted).

The Celts built large, stone-walled cities, and were divided into two kingdoms under the direct control of a single king, with organized nobility. These were the Arverni and Aedui - they held direct, strong control over numerous tribes. These were not loose confederacies of independent tribes - the Celts were feudalists. A tribe in Gaul was actually like a medieval fiefdom; it had a chieftain (who operated like a lord) in charge of it, who answered to the king.

Are you thinking of oppida? If so, these were not large walled cities as much as hill fortresses. The immergence of these is usually cited as a marked change in Celt practice. Previously Celt cities did not have such defensive measures.

The reference to the Arveni and Aedui respectively from the modern Lyon and Burgundy regions I also find interesting. I recall mention of at least twenty different major tribes within Gaul. Are you suggesting these other tribes were subservient to and recognized the lordship of the Arveni or Aedui?

The Celts had a highly advanced calendar system

I thought there was no consensus on exactly what was the Celt calendar system.

My general opinion has been that the Celts were a people who existed on the periphery of a more advance cultural apparatus generally centered around the Mediterranean. Contacts with this more advanced civilization naturally had an impact on a number of levels. Nonetheless, this was an asymmetric relationship, by and large, and the Celts were the dependant group. You have brought up a number of intriguing points. I look forward to your reply.