Re: Faction names.
As for the Casse; they were a small tribe. Individually. Technically, so were the Aedui; only a small percentage of those in the Aedui's confederation were actually members of the Aedui tribe specifically. However, the Aedui were politically in control of substantial lands and sub-tribes that get lumped into 'Aedui'. The Casse were little different. The Cenimages (proto-Iceni) were part of them, and most tribes in the region around them had yielded to them. Until they were replaced (non-violently, at that; it was a political movement) by the Catuvellaunians, none but the Brigantes had as much stability in terms of a kingdom in Britain, and the Brigantes hardly managed any expansion; the Casse, and then Catuvellaunians brought most of Britain under their control (though they dealt with rebellions, insurrections, and all other manner of treachery; culminating in the exile, or arrest and execution, of pro-Roman nobles, which brought the island to Roman intentions again, about 100 years after Caesar; pro-Roman nobles from all over the southern 2/3rds of Britain had to flee, so far stretched was the arm of the Catuvellaunians).
It would be incorrect to call them Britons; this they surely didn't call themselves; they adopted 'Pretan', and called themselves 'Pretannae' according to a few sources, from Greeks, and sometimes modified it as 'Pryten'; this was modified by Romans into 'Briton', but since the faction does not initially encompass all peoples known as 'Pretannae', this would be inappropriate anyway to call them; they had a specific identity.
In Gaul, again, the faction has a specific identity (I'm more or less going to take this chance to explain the situation of Gaul again). They aren't 'Gauls', they are the Aedui Confederation; a long-standing body of tribes with a senate-like governmental body adjudicated by magistrates who organize local chiefs and kings to the service of a central proto-federal body, not unlike modern republics (they even had elected officials at every tier of government; this isn't just Celtic bloviating, the Romans mention it, and it's part of the reason the Aedui and Romans got along originally; they were governed essentially the same way and had a cultural understanding); it's a specific political body that was vying for control of Gaul (and legally, at that; they technically did inherit control of the entire kingdom of Gaul from the Biturges, but poor efforts against the Belgae and Germanic tribes caused a massive loss of faith, and the region split into various warring kingdoms and confederations). They weren't 'Gaul'; there were numerous bodies that believed they had the right to control Gaul, specifically the Arverni; the most militant of those who broke away, under the leadership of a Verrix (literally 'super-king' or 'great-king'; it's essentially 'high king'), an elected office that was passed through tanistry (electing a replacement before the current official dies, usually, but not always by any means, from the current official's family). The Arverni were eventually edged out in power in this 'over-kingdom' (commonly called an 'alliance', but in truth, the 'allies' of whichever tribe was in control of the Verrix were more or less his puppets) by their allies, the Sequanes. Again, this is a political body. Other bodies included the Aquitanni Alliance; an alliance between the Basque-Celtic Aquitanni, and their king (the Aquitanorix; literally 'King of Aquitane') and the Lemovicians (and their vassals). They were less concerned with conquest of Gaul though, and more concerned with keeping themselves indepedent (which they failed to do; both, at different times, had to yield to either the Aedui or Arverni, and, of course, eventually to the Romans). There were also the Armoricans, a collection of partially Belgic-Gauls (Belgae had settled down there during their invasions of Gaul, after the invasion was put down by the Carnutes), but they had little concern for anything but trade, and again, personal indepedence (though they yielded to the Aedui).
With the Aedui and Casse, or any other barbarian factions, we aren't trying to represent a 'race', we are trying to represent local political bodies that were most influential in their regions during this period in history. Like the Germans; the Sweboz were a powerful confederacy. They are a logical selection for the region. It would be incorrect just to have the 'Germanic tribes'; they weren't all in cahoots; many of them flatly made war on one another. Again, a political body that was influential in the region.
While these were tribal names, they were also the names by which their whole lands were lumped. They are at once a tribal name, and a political name.
As for other names, we select names that are appropriate for the regions' language(s) (as best we can understand them in certain cases when their language is mostly lost). Carthage never called themselves Carthage. They will recieve an appropriate Punic name (though I believe with an anglicized spelling; Punic languages lack vowels, which would make it a right bastard to read if one is unfamiliar). Tsorim, if I recall, was the name Phoenicians called themselves, but I'm also pretty sure we've decided to change that to a political body name, or a somewhat recognizable, but appropriate name, so it'll likely be the Punic name of Carthage. It isn't just to be different from the vanilla game; we want the game to feel immersive. If you're playing as the Aedui, your generals aren't 'Gallic' generals, they're chiefs and chief-magistrates of the Aedui confederation. Hell, they spend a lot of their time fighting other Gallic generals. It's impossible to be immersive as we want, but we aren't going to throw up our hands and determine it's best just to leave it alone when there is something we can do to make it any more immersive for ALL players. Using Roman or anglicized names for all factions breaks a lot of that immersion, unless one is playing Romans (and even the Romans tended to address others by their proper names in their company); Caesar himself spoke Gallic because it was impolite of him to ask his Gallic friends (of which he had many; he didn't just fight the Gauls, he was an ally of numerous Gauls) to speak Latin (which most Gallic aristocracy spoke, in addition to Greek) while they were in Gaul.
Also, I agree with the use of Eleutheroi. No language was in wider use than Greek. Even Celts, who controlled a substantial amount of territory, did not have as wide-spoken a single language; they had numerous languages. However, almost all Celtic aristocracy spoke Greek (it was considered improper not to) and had an appreciation for Greek language. That alone causes the Greek language to stretch in use over most of Europe, even far from any territory that was ever under a Hellenic nation's control.
Bookmarks