Whats numidia and armenia

[Ranika]

Carthage's great enemy was Rome, not Numidia. What is Numidia's real importance? Their soldiers often worked for Rome and Carthage, and did near nothing on their own that can't be represented just as easily as rebels and regional units. Baktria became a significant eastern power. Baktria became far too significant in the events of the east to disclude them in favor of a faction that's only true significance was service to two actual major powers. What real major events were orchestrated by Numidia itself, or massive trade endeavors? To whom were they a real threat or major obstacle? Every faction in provides a fill to having been a major enemy or ally of world powers of the period. Our western European/African factions include Romans, Gauls, Britons, Carthage, Iberians, and Germans; the major players if the area. Rome for clearly obvious reasons, Carthage as well should be obvious, the Gauls, Iberians, and Germans were all major enemies of Rome, and propagated extremely important parts of what would develop into being 'western society', the British islanders were some of the most prolific traders in Europe (trading tin, silver, dyes, linen, etc.) with numerous major powers in the mediterranean, and were a complex grouping of 5 cultures (not 1); that is harder to represent than Numidians, which are a single culture, and easier to represent with a few regional units. Britons are arguably the least important faction we've selected in the period, but I'd still vouch for them over Numidians; Britons at least accomplished a modest amount of unifying expansion. Numidians were ancilliaries; side players of the stage of ensuing events, rarely accomplishing anything themselves. Perhaps we should include Ligurians? They sometimes rebelled against their masters, and were allies of Gaul (and Carthage, by proxy). But they did little themselves, they accomplished nothing of importance. They certainly had interesting armies; a mixture of Celtic and Italic/Mediterranean combat philosophies and equipment. But they were simply not prolific or important enough to include, considering the scope. If the scope were smaller (like set only in the regions of the Punic Wars and immediate surrounding territories) the Numidians (and Ligurians, for that matter, who are admittedly more minor than Numidia, but similar in pertinent historical aspects) would be fine. Given our scope though, without the ability to add new factions, or some faction space left over, they simply aren't important enough when stacked against their replacement, Baktria.

[SwordsMaster]

So, the big battlefield of the West is going to be Iberia, with Iberians Carthaginians and Gauls all holding on to their territories....

[TheTank]

................the British islanders were some of the most prolific traders in Europe (trading tin, silver, dyes, linen, etc.) with numerous major powers in the mediterranean, and were a complex grouping of 5 cultures (not 1); that is harder to represent than Numidians.................

This sounds interesting Ranika can you enlighten me about 5 British cultures.
I am very interested in Celtic cultures in general......

I can come up with The Caledonians, Geals, Belgae but the other 2 are for me

[Ranika]

Belgae, Goidils (Gaels), Caledonians, Midlanders, and Southerners.

Belgae inhabit parts of Ireland and parts of southern Britain. Goidils inhabit most of Ireland. Caledonians, of course, inhabit Caledonia. Midlanders are P-Celtic speaking 'Britons', and are the only 'actual' Britons. The southern 'Britons' are actually essentially Gauls or Belgae, depending on the region. They have some distinguishing characteristics and unique natures to them, but they're more similar to Gauls/Belgae than they are to the midlanders or Caledonians.

[TheTank]

Belgae, Goidils (Gaels), Caledonians, Midlanders, and Southerners.

Belgae inhabit parts of Ireland and parts of southern Britain. Goidils inhabit most of Ireland. Caledonians, of course, inhabit Caledonia. Midlanders are P-Celtic speaking 'Britons', and are the only 'actual' Britons. The southern 'Britons' are actually essentially Gauls or Belgae, depending on the region. They have some distinguishing characteristics and unique natures to them, but they're more similar to Gauls/Belgae than they are to the midlanders or Caledonians.

Ok thank you for the info.

Are EB doing the same with the Gauls divide them in subculture groups
Like Amoricans, Eastern Celts (Helvetii,Nori) Southern Gauls Norther Gauls etc...
Or are the "Gallic" cultures more alike then the Insular Celts?!

PS: Where the Alpine and subAlpine Celts the direct ancestors of the first celts.
I know that the Hallstatt Culture starts in this area.

[Ranika]

Eastern Celts will have a few regional units. Gaul itself is much more homogenized, but has some main varied areas. Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul, and Belgica. Noricum and its surrounding areas aren't truly 'Gallic', but they are Celts, but with numerous Hellenic influences, and will have a few regional units to display their variety from Gaul. There will be variety of continental Celts, but the variety of cultures in eastern Europe is quite wide, so things will generally be a bit more generic.

[GoreBag]

Belgae, Goidils (Gaels), Caledonians, Midlanders, and Southerners.

Belgae inhabit parts of Ireland and parts of southern Britain. Goidils inhabit most of Ireland. Caledonians, of course, inhabit Caledonia. Midlanders are P-Celtic speaking 'Britons', and are the only 'actual' Britons. The southern 'Britons' are actually essentially Gauls or Belgae, depending on the region. They have some distinguishing characteristics and unique natures to them, but they're more similar to Gauls/Belgae than they are to the midlanders or Caledonians.

Has it been determined with some degree unanimity that the Picts were indeed Celts?

[Ranika]

Not really. We know so little of the Picts it's kind of hard to tell. If you go off the descriptions of those who converted them, the southern Picts were definitely Celts, but the northern Picts were almost surely not (they didn't speak a language related to any of the other British or Irish languages; their culture is described in a way that seems to describe a quasi-nomadic people, they lacked a concept of last names, and instead associated their families with 'houses', vaguely similar to a tribe or clan, but not based on bloodlines, the method and commonality of their tattoos, etc.). However, in this period, the Picts don't actually exist. Pict is not a culture or race. Pict was a confederacy of Caledonian tribes that formed to combat Roman pressure in the south. They were, at different times, allies of the Gaels, and enemies. The weapons they used, their armor, and so on, were rather unusual in the north. They could still potentially be Celts, just very awkward Celts (much in the way that Gaelic Celts are actually barely considered Celts in the iron age. Native and Iberian influences are very strong in Gaelic culture). I'd be wary of calling the northern Picts definitively Celts or non-Celts, though I'd learn toward the latter.

[GoreBag]

Not really. We know so little of the Picts it's kind of hard to tell. If you go off the descriptions of those who converted them, the southern Picts were definitely Celts, but the northern Picts were almost surely not (they didn't speak a language related to any of the other British or Irish languages; their culture is described in a way that seems to describe a quasi-nomadic people, they lacked a concept of last names, and instead associated their families with 'houses', vaguely similar to a tribe or clan, but not based on bloodlines, the method and commonality of their tattoos, etc.). However, in this period, the Picts don't actually exist. Pict is not a culture or race. Pict was a confederacy of Caledonian tribes that formed to combat Roman pressure in the south. They were, at different times, allies of the Gaels, and enemies. The weapons they used, their armor, and so on, were rather unusual in the north. They could still potentially be Celts, just very awkward Celts (much in the way that Gaelic Celts are actually barely considered Celts in the iron age. Native and Iberian influences are very strong in Gaelic culture). I'd be wary of calling the northern Picts definitively Celts or non-Celts, though I'd learn toward the latter.

I wish someone would figure it out or find something definitively proving one way or another. I was under the impression that the Picts (for the most part, I suppose) were Celts, based on the style of art carved into their standing stones, but it's pretty flimsy by itself.

[Ranika]

I wish someone would figure it out or find something definitively proving one way or another. I was under the impression that the Picts (for the most part, I suppose) were Celts, based on the style of art carved into their standing stones, but it's pretty flimsy by itself.

The style of art they use precedes Celts in the British isles. It appears on monoliths that are present before Celtic incursions, and is usually not actually that Celtic in appearance (except superficially). They favored clumps of spirals of varying size and direction. While that may look Celtic to some, it's not. Celts did use spirals, but they were arrayed in an orderly fashion with common patterns. Northern Pict art is rather wild and seems purposely disorganized to an extent. Their anthromorphic imagery doesn't show up until midlanders and southern Britons migrated north to escape the Romans (subsequently, due to that, the formerly undeveloped Caledonians suddenly acquired a great deal of La Tene culture, in the south, and somewhat in the north). When the Picts formed, the south was definably Celtic, and the dark age kingdoms of Strathclyde, Regydd, Gonnodin (all not Picts), were British Celts (though Regyddites had a substantial Gaelic Celt population), Fibb was Celtic (they were the southern Picts), as was Dal Riada (the Gaelic kingdom that would become formative into Alba), but the north kingdom (Caithness) has substantially less Celtic influence. If we called them Celts, it's a very loose usage of the term. A few Celtic swords, the occassional piece of Celtic art (mostly brought in by Christian conversion by Gaelic monks), etc. It probably doesn't help that Caithness was more effected by Gaels than it was by Britons. As such, they were being Celticized by a culture that was barely Celtic anyway. Mixed with their own culture and extreme isolatanism, it heavily dilutes what changes they did experience, and makes them all but superficial. When the House of Dilei took control of both the north and south kingdoms though, and formed a single Pict kingdom, the north absorbed more Celtic culture, due to the southern kingdom being Celtic, with some old Caledonian influences. It's notable, however, that the Pict government system was a form of monarchic-despotism; a rather unchecked monarch who came to power by bloodline (actually how Alba ended up taking control of all of remaining Pict lands, the king, Kenneth mac Alpin was considered the rightful heir; interesting side note, the Christian missionaries noted that, while they were extremely patriarchal, their king was decided by the matriolinical line). Celtic governments were more along the lines of a vaguely anarcho-capitalistic republican-monarchy. Everyone was elected to their position, 'heirs' more often just meant the inheritor of a business (and thus wealth and power that comes with it), and had little to do with politics. Also, the matter of an extreme patriarchal society does not fully fit (though it's concievable) with how Celts saw gender (essentially a non-issue in terms of politics). Celts usually did worship male gods as the creator of the universe, but that doesn't mean they were patriarchal societally (though certainly not matriarchal either). The northern Picts saw women as property, according to St. Columba, which was considered abhorrent by their neighbors (including the Fibban Picts). In terms of religion, Picts were obsessed with death gods, which lended itself to Christian conversion by relating the plagues, the ressurection, and other biblical events, to concepts they understood from their own religion, which seems quite a bit disassociated with Celtic religions (who had death gods, but they generally prefered law and hero gods). Picts were said to have 'little knowledge of good or evil, and live through a concept of pure strength being best'; this is completely incompatible with any known Celtic philosophies, which are almost always based on good (obeying the law, family, king, and religion, respecting slaves, enemies, elders, and children {very important}), and evil (disobediance and disrespect to such things). Picts wantonly executed children during wars with Dal Riada. That seems untennable to being 'true' Celts. Perhaps they just had war-mad leaders (such as Boudicca's mass executions of Romano-British women, including children, during her revolt in the 1st century, but it's notable those were sacrifices to Andraste), but Celts did not tend to kill children purposely. It was against the law; they were supposed to adopt them to bolster their tribes and make them stronger by absorbing foreign blood, taking their strengths and filtering out foreign weaknesses. They even did that with slaves. Slaves were often adopted into a tribe after so long in service. Of course, accounts of them may be trumped up a bit, but the missionaries hardly talk about any other people in Britain as being remotely so brutal, even people their cultures were less friendly with. The Picts are described in such an ogrish manner, and with customs devoid of seemingly any Celtic influence. Celts could be very harsh and brutal, but not on such a scale as the men of the north Picts were described, and it makes it hard to see them as 'real' Celts, but, the Christian Picts were substantially more Celtic. They adopted the Gaelic method of names (first name, 'son of' father's name, 'tribe' name, like Drude mac Cord Delei), numerous Celtic words (such as 'mac', from the Gaelic languages), Celtic artwork (produced in monastaries; since they were converted by Celts, and taught to do monastic duties by them, this only makes sense that they would produce Celtic monastic art), Celtic metalwork, stonework, etc. Christian conversion, and the uniting of Fibb and Caithness (and Monouth, to an extent, which was a third kingdom, but it's essentially more north Picts), led to a Celticization of the Picts, but even then they're really bizarre, but at that point, they are a type of quasi-Celt, at least, or just very awkward Celts.

[TheTank]

... They could still potentially be Celts, just very awkward Celts (much in the way that Gaelic Celts are actually barely considered Celts in the iron age. Native and Iberian influences are very strong in Gaelic culture). I'd be wary of calling the northern Picts definitively Celts or non-Celts, though I'd learn toward the latter....

When did Ireland really became "Celtic" in culture.....
Where only the Belgae and maybe Gaulish refugees from ceasar's Gallic war responsible for bringing celtic culture in Ireland?!

[caesar44]

Carthage's great enemy was Rome, not Numidia. What is Numidia's real importance? Their soldiers often worked for Rome and Carthage, and did near nothing on their own that can't be represented just as easily as rebels and regional units. Baktria became a significant eastern power. Baktria became far too significant in the events of the east to disclude them in favor of a faction that's only true significance was service to two actual major powers. What real major events were orchestrated by Numidia itself, or massive trade endeavors? To whom were they a real threat or major obstacle? Every faction in provides a fill to having been a major enemy or ally of world powers of the period. Our western European/African factions include Romans, Gauls, Britons, Carthage, Iberians, and Germans; the major players if the area. Rome for clearly obvious reasons, Carthage as well should be obvious, the Gauls, Iberians, and Germans were all major enemies of Rome, and propagated extremely important parts of what would develop into being 'western society', the British islanders were some of the most prolific traders in Europe (trading tin, silver, dyes, linen, etc.) with numerous major powers in the mediterranean, and were a complex grouping of 5 cultures (not 1); that is harder to represent than Numidians, which are a single culture, and easier to represent with a few regional units. Britons are arguably the least important faction we've selected in the period, but I'd still vouch for them over Numidians; Britons at least accomplished a modest amount of unifying expansion. Numidians were ancilliaries; side players of the stage of ensuing events, rarely accomplishing anything themselves. Perhaps we should include Ligurians? They sometimes rebelled against their masters, and were allies of Gaul (and Carthage, by proxy). But they did little themselves, they accomplished nothing of importance. They certainly had interesting armies; a mixture of Celtic and Italic/Mediterranean combat philosophies and equipment. But they were simply not prolific or important enough to include, considering the scope. If the scope were smaller (like set only in the regions of the Punic Wars and immediate surrounding territories) the Numidians (and Ligurians, for that matter, who are admittedly more minor than Numidia, but similar in pertinent historical aspects) would be fine. Given our scope though, without the ability to add new factions, or some faction space left over, they simply aren't important enough when stacked against their replacement, Baktria.

ok but my questions were for the sake of realism and game play
realism - there was a numidian kingdom that fought against carthage for centuries and the romans used it to limit the punic empire in north africa
you should remember the jugorthine war . the most important war of rome between the years 134 to 89 (between the numantine war and the marsic war) so how can one say that numidia was nothing ??

game play - in strategy game you should have minor factions like numidia to use them as buffer states . to use them as a base of operations against major factions etc' it's make the game more interesting

about baktria . i really don't know ... what they did ? they fought the parthians and seleusids with no success so ...

btw . good work !

[Teleklos Archelaou]

ok but my questions were for the sake of realism and game play
realism - there was a numidian kingdom that fought against carthage for centuries and the romans used it to limit the punic empire in north africa
you should remember the jugorthine war . the most important war of rome between the years 134 to 89 (between the numantine war and the marsic war) so how can one say that numidia was nothing ??

game play - in strategy game you should have minor factions like numidia to use them as buffer states . to use them as a base of operations against major factions etc' it's make the game more interesting

about baktria . i really don't know ... what they did ? they fought the parthians and seleusids with no success so ...

btw . good work !

The decision there has been made. There is no going back on it. I'd like to have numidia too, but baktria is more deserving. But you're totally wrong about the relative success between baktria and numidia. Baktria had a dynastic kingdom that covered a large area in central asia and then was forced into their southern possessions by nomadic incursions. They still controlled a large section of northwestern India even then before we lose track of them and they are somewhat absorbed into the larger Indian culture. At its height, it encompassed an area comprising all of Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, up to the Indus River. Quite possibly controlled large areas south of there too, but it's hard to say about some of the areas with limited excavations.