How would you describe the politics and cultures of some faction?

[VikingPower]

Hello there.

I am attempting to create a setting for a role-playing games and I am looking for some short overview of the following cultures:

1. Barbarian culture (Lusotana, Celts, Sweboz, Getai).

2. Romans

3. Hellenic

3. Eastern Nomad cultures

Like if I would be describing the Roman culture then I could speak about the tension between the Plebeians and Patricians, how popular generals could overthrow the government, how all pompous expression of glory and 'for Rome' was merely a tool to increase the landowners power even more, and so forth.

[QuintusSertorius]

Roman and Hellenic were sufficiently different (at least until much later Roman Republic) to have overviews of their own. Often the problems between the Romans and Hellenistic powers was because they simply didn't understand each other.

[fomalhaut]

Well the Hellenes seemed, to me at least, to be very ethnocentristic self important jerks, but that's just me.

And the broad 'Hellenic' blanket might not be sufficient, as you can't realy compare the culture of Sparte, or Athens, or Massalia, or Syracuse yet they are certainly are Hellenic cultures

Maybe when talking to barbaroi they would assume the Hellenic term as a way to attribute to a wider and perceived superior culture, but when talking to eachother you know they would be all about their home polis

[QuintusSertorius]

Well the Hellenes seemed, to me at least, to be very ethnocentristic self important jerks, but that's just me.

And the broad 'Hellenic' blanket might not be sufficient, as you can't realy compare the culture of Sparte, or Athens, or Massalia, or Syracuse yet they are certainly are Hellenic cultures

Maybe when talking to barbaroi they would assume the Hellenic term as a way to attribute to a wider and perceived superior culture, but when talking to eachother you know they would be all about their home polis

And the Romans were the same, according to their own (different) mores. Even after the Romans conquered the Greeks, the Greeks still regarded Romans as half-barbarous and barely civilised. Hell, look at the way they regarded Macedonians even after Philip then Alexander put them down.

[VikingPower]

The Greeks were always quarrelsome and windbags in their nature.

Like how ignorant can people get in destroying each other in city-state warfare within a territory which was about 1/60 of the whole Persian empire AFTER they became aware that they could beat that empire.

Its like when Xenophon said that all Greeks knew what was right but the Spartans alone acted upon it (in the tale about the old man which could not get a seat).

The most industrious nation wins, but a great libraries can not save peoples whom are without discipline.

[antisocialmunky]

Eastern Nomad Cultures:

Ride horses, pillage dudes, acquire gold and chicks, repeat.

[fomalhaut]

not much nuance there, eh? i'm sure we'd make those same type of generalities about our cultural ancestors had they no permanent monuments or surviving writings :P

[Ca Putt]

well judgeing the greeks from todays perspective may hold some problems. whereas today you may call it sectionalism as we all live in organised and somewhat centralized states in 400 bc things were different and the beeing independent from sparta maybe was just slightly less important than beeing independent from Persia. apart from that conquest is no end in itself as the romans may have thought by times and the greeks valued their individual(poleic(new word YAY)) freedom even to ally against them higher than the prospect of more land and riches.
that and they were always quarrelsome and windbags in their nature.
:D

this however would be the significant difference to roman thinking.


on factions of the ingame Culture group "Barbaric" or just slightly or un- hellenized european settled people as I prefer to call them jsouhesp:
you cannot just put them all in one pot, even amung the celts there are significant differences when germanics Lusotanns(and iberians and celtiberians(no expert on them so don't complain)) and Tracians come in the chaos is perfect, so you have to either add extra groups (celts, Germanics, inhabitants of Iberia(ha) and tracians) or leave out some.

[Brennus]

It is difficult to ascertain how Celtic social structure operated. Caesar informs us that Celtic society was divided into 5 classes (Kings, Warrior Aristocracy, Druids, Craftsmen and finally peasents with Druids and Warrior Aristocracy being in rough parity). It does appear that over time the Celts adopted the more Mediterranean system of government, electing rulers rather than passing power down the male line (evidence of this can be found in Caesar's descriptions in the Gallic wars) although those Celtic tribes further from the Med continued to practice hierachical power transfers (strong evidence of this can be found in Belgic and British coinage of the 1st century BC and 1st century AD). Certainly amongst the Aedui and Arverni leadership was elective by the 1st Century BC and amongst the Arverni at least there was a republican movement. Later Irish and Welsh vernacular literature also suggests that insular Celtic communities had a complex governmental system, with several tiers of kingship beginning with a High King (the Ard Ri in Ireland, the Rex Britorum in Wales) as well as several tiers of nobility, the divsions between which were very small. Whilst amongst the Bretons possible kings had to prove they were of sufficient power to rule as King and if unable to do this then they had to accept a lower title, for example Alain Twistbeard who, despite liberating Brittany from the Vikings could not impress his fellow nobles enough to claim the title of King of Brittany. I would say, however, that key to maintaining a social position in any Celtic society was your prestige, the ability to impress others appears to have been key to maintaining a title. It wasn't sufficient in Celtic society to simply have a title, you had to re-inforce the fact you were the most suitable man to hold such a position in society.One final thing of note is that, unlike Hellenic, Roman and Punic society Celtic society was very mobile, in some cases the state would be entire tribes (for example the migrations of the Galatians and the Boii) whilst in others a "Je suis l'etat" system appears to have existed with individuals like Ambiorix, Llewellyn ap Gruffyd, Brian Boru and possibly Commios the Atrebatian being the living embodyment of the state.

[artavazd]

Hello there.

I am attempting to create a setting for a role-playing games and I am looking for some short overview of the following cultures:

1. Barbarian culture (Lusotana, Celts, Sweboz, Getai).

2. Romans

3. Hellenic

3. Eastern Nomad cultures

Like if I would be describing the Roman culture then I could speak about the tension between the Plebeians and Patricians, how popular generals could overthrow the government, how all pompous expression of glory and 'for Rome' was merely a tool to increase the landowners power even more, and so forth.

might want to add "Eastern Feudalism", or "Helenic Feudalism" because factions such as Armenia and Pontus do not fit with Eastern Nomad culture (neither were nomadic )

[antisocialmunky]

not much nuance there, eh? i'm sure we'd make those same type of generalities about our cultural ancestors had they no permanent monuments or surviving writings :P

You can be as general or specific as you want in your description. However, I went with the one that that would probably make our ancestors have a good laugh if we had a time machine.

[Tyrfingr]

Problem is that most people sees the greeks and the celts as one people, where in reality there was no such unity...there were independent greek city-states and independent celtic tribes, yes, but no unified nation. If quite a few of the celts and greeks unified under one banner from time to time, these federations were both rare and short-lived.

[moonburn]

the germans put a great amount of importance in not allowing 1 man to have too much power (but then again so did the athenians and their democracy and eventually the roman republic with the boni trying to ostracize cesar at every step he took)

basic point is how strong where the kinship ties beteween diferent comunities in the barbarian world that was the most important thing the blood ties thats why it was so important for diferent tribes to retain their names and find comon ancestry (normally gods or demigods) and even in roman literacture we see that where some german tribes where considered brothers or cousins of other celtic tribes and could call for help when in need

in those regards the doric lineage that the spartans shared with the syracusans and a few other colonies where stronger then for instance an alliance with the boitians

lets put it this way the people of my street rule the dudes from the other street suck but they don´t suck as hard as people from other blocks after all theire in our side of town but even the dudes on the other side of town don´t suck as hard as the dudes on the next village and even they are cooler then people from another district wich in term are cooler then dudes who are from other regions and everyone in my country is always better then any foreigner but then again we´re all europeans and dudes from other continents suck hard but we´re all 1 planet and if there are martians they will undoubatly be douchebags and will smell milky way all the way the other galaxy´s can´t get it straight ...

something like this until there´s a perceived threat being a greek/lusitanii/german/gaul didn´t mattered only the people in your imediate family and then extented family and then town and so forth

this being said social hierarchy was none until there where perceived threats or influences from "outside" you will not see a need for a leader and to waste resources in a leader until there are catleraiders threatning you and then you and the dudes from the other farms will join to defend your combined property´s and will elect a leader who in turn will not be able to tend his plot and must be suported by the rest and thus hierarchy starts how it evolves will always depend on the threat from above and the bad experiences from whitin (democracy and the need to elect leaders comes from bad past experiences in the same way as dictatorships rise from either the need to have stronger leadership or from greed and understandment that a stronger and more united group will enable you to rise higher)

the lusitanii for instance never had kings and never had the need for kings until they where trully threaten by galba and the process started there ended with viriathus being acclaimed king by his soldiers (wich included also celtiberians iberians and not just people from his tribe the lusi )

original barbaric societies are anarchy´s wich have an organic development dependent on the stimulus they have both from outside (threats) or needs from within (excess population search for better or more resources or lack of social peace)

kelts are diferent in the sence they where no longer an original barbaric society but instead a culture as developed as the hellenic one in the terms that they had hierarchies that expanded beyond their towns and went as far as tribal confederations

in the end a strong leader is only as strong as he can provide his suporters with what he needs (or in ceasar words speak with passion and you´ll get many suporters but unleass you temper your passion with reason and inteligence you´ll never be able to provide your suporters with what they need and thus your fall will come fast enough)


what are we talking again ?

[fomalhaut]

Problem is that most people sees the greeks and the celts as one people, where in reality there was no such unity...there were independent greek city-states and independent celtic tribes, yes, but no unified nation. If quite a few of the celts and greeks unified under one banner from time to time, these federations were both rare and short-lived.

i'd say EB fixed that perception for me.

and moonburn idk what we are talking about now but that's a great post!