Re: The Best Mod?
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 .
Re: The Best Mod?
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!"Originally Posted by Pindar
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited by khelvan; 01-26-2005 at 11:32.
Cogita tute
Re: The Best Mod?
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.
Re: The Best Mod?
I understand that it is an automatic response to label someone with a moustache and long hair as "uncivilized", but it simply isn't true. The Celts were the developers of chain mail, were fabulously advanced in metalworking, and had an immensely rich culture, they had dyes, chariots, and cities, as well as a dominion that stretched from the tip of Britain to central Turkey. We label the Celts and other northern European peoples as "uncivilized" because that is the view of the people from which we get our records, the Romans. Quite frankly, the Romans hated the Celts, understandable as the Celts were the people that sacked Rome, fought alongside Hannibal, and generally were a thorn in the side of the Roman civilization since its fledgling years. It should be remembered that much of the technology that allowed Rome to flourish came from their neighbours to the north.
- Panda
The Panda Centurion
(click on image for large version)
Re: The Best Mod?
Indeed very accurate description. Romans shaved their beards, and as thus called everyone that had a Beard "Barbarians".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.
And now what about the Greeks, they did have Beards themselves? They called "Barbaros"(singular) or "Barbaroi"(plural, 'oi' pronounced as 'e" of the word "me") those who simply did not speak Greek, another word would be "Xenos"/"Xenoi", (root for Xenophobia, Xenobiology etc.) transliterating as "Starnger"/"Strangers" in Modern Greek but meaning not speaking Greek back then.
And since very often speaking Greek nativelly back then meant you were Greek, independently of your "City State" Citizenship or place of Birth.
Duke Surak'nar
"Η ΤΑΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ"
From:Residing:
Traveled to: Over 70 Countries, most recent:and
~ Ask not what modding can do for you, rather ask what you can do for modding ~
~ Everyone dies, not everyone really fights ~
Re: The Best Mod?
Firstly, I want to apologize publicly for my behavior a month ago. In a rather quixotical way, I charged against a well-known developer in the believing I was actually defending someone, and I chlidishly enraged and tangled in a discalification war when I was called an ignorant.
Now that things have calmed down, I hope I can restart my presence here with a better spirit. I am sorry.
As for this interesting debate, I'd like to give my point of view about the topic:
1) 'Barbarian' does not mean uncivilized or savage, as some people still believe, it means 'stranger', it was later that the term adquired that pejorative tone, from the contact with cultures that practiced blood-thirsty wars and rituals that Greeks and Romans found disgusting. Anyway, it wasn't a good thing to be considered a 'barbarian' in the ancient grecolatine world, given their traditional despise and distrust of anything from abroad. And it certainly has the ethimologic origin given above 'bearded men'. However, don't forget that beards were a common feature for Greek, and that it became a normal fashion from the times of Emperor Hadrian onwards, to the point it is nearly imposible to find a late Roman portrait that has not facial hair.
BTW, for Ptolemaic, Seleucids, Greeks and Macedonians -this is for Hellenic world- Romans were barbarians.
2) Elephants are not those mild and pacific creatures that 'carefully avoid harming the nearby'. They maybe in a peaceful environment, but once enraged they're dreadful enemies with the size and the power of a big bulldozer. We know for ancient references that war elephants panicked easily, and when that happened, they were out of control and attacked the same friends are foes, often causing havoc in the friend lines. The elephant leaders used to carry a hammer and a chisel to open elephant skull and kill it if necessary.
3) It's not that Celtic and Germanic cultures were uncivilized or ignorant. Simply, they had not the engineering knowledge necessary to build the most complex of Roman realizations. Engineering is not an easily transmisible skill, thru contact with advanced cultures, such as pottery, alphabet or masonry. Like Architecture, Math or Physics, it needs of qualified professionals and theorizers to teach others who dedicate their lives to it. The ruralized and hard-living Celtic-Germanic world lacked a 'burguese' class of citizen to do this. They had enough trying to fight off their dangerous neighbours and sustaining their civilization, but their lifestyle just did not favour the figure of the 'scientific' or the 'phylosopher', a rather useless and despised role in a society where prestige can only be achieved thru war and posessions. That's why they had not semicircular archs, real domes -not the false domes done by aproaching rows of stones- and that's why they had no Coliseum, insulæ, or true viæ -of course they had roads, but not the most advanced types, costly engineering works of the macadam type, made in a very similar way than actual roads. And of course, they only had the most simple siege stuff, such as scales, etc. BTW, trebouchets were too complex even for Romans, only late Romans -not in the game- had them, and the bigger were not made till Middle Ages.
4) This doesn't mean they were uncivilized or stupid, simply Celtic and German worlds, while culturally rich, were technologically much inferior to the Grecolatin-Punic world that dominated the Mediterranean. In RTW they're the way they are, because of game balance. But reality wasn't balanced, had it been, the Roman Empire would have never existed. The moment the barbarian assimilated a more urban lifestyle, and cultivated concepts such as state, administration and science -as with Visigoths, etc.- the late Roman Empire couldn't cope with them so efficiently. One of the causes -apart from the inner ones- for Western Empire to fall.
Just my opinion.
And once again sorry for the past.
Re: The Best Mod?
This assumes that the "barbarians" did not have an urban lifestyle, or concepts such as state, administration, and so on. They did. Please read my post above. The Germanic tribes did not, but the Celts certainly did so, and were highly advanced in the areas of state, administration, and science. As advanced as the Romans? No, but advanced, certainly.
Cogita tute
Re: The Best Mod?
Yeah, I know what you mean. True, La Tène culture had reached a high degree of civilization. But note that you have solved the question yourself:
Besides, I referred to the cultural circumstances that make posible an urban class dedied entirely to research and science. The whole Celtic culture was so inclined to the exaltation of war as a mean to reach safety and prosperity, that 'thinking' was just reserved for an special kind of chaman (druids) whose knowledge was oriented to heal wounded warriors (medicine), stimulate their bravery (rites with drugs) and improve their weaponry (chemical metallurgy). Druids were undoubtly initiated in the secrets of early medicine and metallurgy, but they had so a high implication in religion, rites, war and tribal politics that I doubt they would have never reached other knowledge than that available from the surrounding nature.
But, what about engineering? It's not hard to see that Celtics and Germans had craftsmen instead of engineers, and masons instead of architects. Complex knowledge about construction or engineering requires more than craftmanship skills trasferred from father to son, or master to pupil. It requires long technical academic preparation, the kind of infrastructure that non-Mediterranean cultures lacked, because they used nearly all their material and human resources for their war, food and production needs.
That's why they should lack such complex items: a fact backed by archælogic findings -or their absence. Although, well, you never know what they're going to find tomorrow...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks