Where is the Celtiberian faction?

[Berg-i-dum]

But then does we know of other tribes that launched similar attacks?

About this subject I pointed above to some archeologycal and classical sources that point to celtiberian migrations or invasions, specially across Carpetania and Bastetania, there are some references about his presence in Castulo area (famous mining settlement).

Most of the iberian prerroman tribes, clans or gens were involved in constat wars with each other, what explain the aboundance of hillforts, Oppida and other fortified settlements among the Peninsula since the Bronze Age.

But going more in depth, we could speak about the Arevaci expansionism. Some scholars think that the came of Rome cut off the in crescendo expansionism of this celtiberian tribe. For instance they conquered Numantia itself from the Pelendoni. This classical celts cainism ended in some way when the romans came and most of the tribes wanted to fear the common enemy united. But of course the romans tried explode his natural agressivity to divided them again, for example a celtiberian clan allied with romans to fight against the Lusitani, but later Titus Didius invite this "traitors" to his campement promising the looting and then closed the gates and kill all of them, as Appian said "for this Didius was actually hounred with a triuph". A good example of divide and conqueror tactic which later employed Julius Caesar to subjugate Gaul (Some authors suggest that the siege of Numantia by Scipio Emilianus -gradson of Scipio Africanus- may well have inspired the tactics of Caesar in Alesia siege).

By the way, speaking more about the repercusions in roman world of the celtiberian wars, for instance until these wars they elected the Consuli with the year entrance (in march), but as they needed fast new consuls to lead the troops in the campaign they change the election of them to January month, thing what some authors even think can be in relation to the later change of the year coming to the current one. The celtiberian wars were a kind of Vietnam war for Republican Rome during most of the II century BC, with a vicious spiral of attrocities, indecisive campaigns, militar incompetence (Pallantia 136 BC, Mancinus, Nobilior) and cruelity (Titus Didius, Scipio, Lutia hillfort) who provoqued controversy among roman senators. But this Vietnam was finally subjugated , (althought there were more sublevations after that, and later for example when the cimbri and teutones migration asolated the whole Empire, were the celtiberians the first who defeated them when they invaded their own lands -already under roman rule-).

As Polybius said: "This war between the Romans and Celtiberians is called the fiery War, for while wars in Greece or Asia are settled with one or two pitched battles, the battles there dragged on, only brought to a temporary end by the darkness of the night. Both sides refused to let their courage flag or their bodies tire" (my signature :D)

[geala]

When I subtract the personal and unnecessary remarks there remain considerable arguments for both parties, although I tend to the pro-Luso side. It is a little bit a matter of taste what to prefer. You just have to understand and accept that the EB team made a decision with good reasons and no arguments exist that would force them necessarily to change it.

I don't like the Lusotannans so much, because of their ugly beards and so and I always use more or less only Iberian units when I play as Lusotanna (Koinon Hellenon and Lusotanna are my preferred factions). As long as regional units, also from Celtiberia, are recruitable I don't see such a big problem not to have a Celtiberian faction.

[Sarcasm]

As Polybius said: "This war between the Romans and Celtiberians is called the fiery War, for while wars in Greece or Asia are settled with one or two pitched battles, the battles there dragged on, only brought to a temporary end by the darkness of the night. Both sides refused to let their courage flag or their bodies tire" (my signature :D)

Funny you should mention this. Except when he talks of Celtiberians, he most probably is talking about all the Indo-European people Rome was fighting at the time, and not just the "classic" Celtiberians...within the same book (the next paragraph in fact) he mentions a expedition to Lusitania by Marcus Claudius Marcellus. And speaking of Celtiberian unity, against foreign aggression, within that same book he also mentions that the Belli and Titti (clans? tribes, my friend) go so far as sending an Embassy to Rome, specifically requesting that Roman legions stay in Iberian soil, a Consul come every year with an army to protect them, or that the Arevaci (Arevacae) should be punished in such a way that they would never again be capable of threatening them. This speaks tons about Celtiberian solidarity, and just how much they were all after their own agenda. Though it does speak about the only real expansion (not cultural one) that was ever attempted among the Celtiberians, namely Arevaci hegemony among the "classic" Celtiberians (which they never did succeed, as you so correctly pointed out). All known facts, don't worry.

Nice PR try though.

[Berg-i-dum]

First of all, I am happy you are now calmy enough to continue the discussion, I hope you can continue in this way. Now I will respond your last commentary. (btw I am still awaiting other commentaries in other questions you just avoided with personal attacks).

Funny you should mention this. Except when he talks of Celtiberians, he most probably is talking about all the Indo-European people Rome was fighting at the time, and not just the "classic" Celtiberians

Probably you are right. But this, far to be an argument against a Celtiberian named faction, it is a good point. As we pointed above the celtiberian term doesnt mean a tribe, altought a general name who represents in some cases a confederation of tribes or a group of related ethnics. I have to say also that you referred too much to Classical sources, we must share this sources with the archeologycal ones. But well at least when you did the Callaeci units or the Northern Skirmishers I think you did it. (Not so with the ambakaro, that I think you didnt made).

And speaking of Celtiberian unity, against foreign aggression, within that same book he also mentions that the Belli and Titti (clans? tribes, my friend) go so far as sending an Embassy to Rome, specifically requesting that Roman legions stay in Iberian soil, a Consul come every year with an army to protect them, or that the Arevaci (Arevacae) should be punished in such a way that they would never again be capable of threatening them. This speaks tons about Celtiberian solidarity, and just how much they were all after their own agenda.

As we saw above celtiberias werent a tribe, they were several tribes with his own agenda (and I have to note that this was what roman sources noted, it can be some kind of propaganda). Celtic tribes always fought each other even being related ethnic tribes, but when a foraigner enemy invade his lands and become dangerous the used to fight united in some way, here in Hispania or in Gaul (In Gaul we have a lot of examples of the roman tactic of "divide and conquer" exploiting the natural cainism in the Celts). It is more difficult to see wars inside a tribe between clans or second order communities, so it is more dificult to see Lusitani fighting between themselves, but we see them fighting other tribes. Those belli first tried to ally with romans to fight Arevaci, later when things went worst were a loyal allies of them. Other tribes tried to find a peace with Rome since they were intellegent enough to see a war already lost, specially with the coming of Scipio the conqueror of Carthago and his massive army, only some of them like the Arevaci -or the Lusitani of course- faced a desesperate war.


So resuming all this about Celtiberian controversy, it is a suitable name which definite a confederation or ethnic with several tribes. More than a single Lusitani tribe leading under his name even iberian units. An Arevaci name is so suitable as the current Lusitani name.

[abou]

I think the main point that Sarcasm is making is that there won't be a Celtiberian faction in the sense that all the tribes were united. Essentially, there isn't "the" Celtiberians. Those tribes were no more united than the Greek cities could be, and more often fought against each other. Their only common factor was their culture, not their politics. On the other hand, a faction representing a tribe is possible, but not a united whole.

And that is the problem with Berg-i-dum's argument: you can't have the Celtiberians tribes together under one banner like that. That is why they were not a faction in EB1 and why the Lusitani are. With that in mind, the whole argument of the Lusitani being chosen over the Celtiberians as being wrong falls apart.

Does that cover it or did I miss something in the conversation?

[Berg-i-dum]

I think the main point that Sarcasm is making is that there won't be a Celtiberian faction in the sense that all the tribes were united. Essentially, there isn't "the" Celtiberians. Those tribes were no more united than the Greek cities could be, and more often fought against each other. Their only common factor was their culture, not their politics. On the other hand, a faction representing a tribe is possible, but not a united whole.

And that is the problem with Berg-i-dum's argument: you can't have the Celtiberians tribes together under one banner like that. That is why they were not a faction in EB1 and why the Lusitani are. With that in mind, the whole argument of the Lusitani being chosen over the Celtiberians as being wrong falls apart.

Does that cover it or did I miss something in the conversation?

In case this argument was reasonable why does then it exist in the game a Koinon Hellenon faction?, but somehow why we have Eduii and Arverni tribes as ancient enemies represented in the game,? when in Iberia we have a single faction as it were united?. what makes the Lusitani more repressentive than Arverni, Cantabri, Edetani...? And why is it better to let the whole leadership of Iberia to a single faction?. What makes the Lusitani more special than the Arevaci?. The Viriato´s stuff is a point on favour, but as the Lusitani made alliances the Arevaci made also them between other nations. The romans itself made a lot of references to the topic of a Celtiberian nation or culture as his harder enemy. The Lusitani obiously made treaties with the Celtiberian tribes to face the same enemy.

So now already we have: celtiberians, astures, callaeci, edetani and several different tribes from both the general areas (indoeuropean and iberic) of the prerroman Peninsula under the banner of the Lusitani?. Is this more suitable than under celtiberian banner which is a more general concept?.

[Ludens]

Yes, the KH existed as a unified faction, although not for long. Were the Celtiberians ever unified against an outsider? Not individual tribes banding together, but a real union? I don't think so. Sarcasm is arguing that the Lusotanians were far more cohesive, and that's why they have been preferred.

That said, I do think we will be seeing a Celtiberian faction, probably the Arevacci. Just not the Celtiberians as a faction.

[Krusader]

Adding all Celtiberian tribes as one faction? Sure lets add all Gauls as one, or all Greek cities that weren't part of Chremenidean League (I can never spell that word correctly, even if my life depended on it).
If a Celtiberian tribe will be added to EB2 it will be as one tribe, not every single of them in a union to appease Spanish total war clans.

[Megas Methuselah]

That said, I do think we will be seeing a Celtiberian faction, probably the Arevacci. Just not the Celtiberians as a faction.

That sounds real nice.

[lobf]

I think the main point that Sarcasm is making is that there won't be a Celtiberian faction in the sense that all the tribes were united. Essentially, there isn't "the" Celtiberians. Those tribes were no more united than the Greek cities could be, and more often fought against each other. Their only common factor was their culture, not their politics. On the other hand, a faction representing a tribe is possible, but not a united whole.

And that is the problem with Berg-i-dum's argument: you can't have the Celtiberians tribes together under one banner like that. That is why they were not a faction in EB1 and why the Lusitani are. With that in mind, the whole argument of the Lusitani being chosen over the Celtiberians as being wrong falls apart.

Does that cover it or did I miss something in the conversation?

This is what I was going to say. I realize that a Celtiberian faction could mean what abou describes here, but it could also mean a faction of Celtiberians. Seems like Berg is arguing for the former, though.

[Berg-i-dum]

Adding all Celtiberian tribes as one faction? Sure lets add all Gauls as one, or all Greek cities that weren't part of Chremenidean League (I can never spell that word correctly, even if my life depended on it).
If a Celtiberian tribe will be added to EB2 it will be as one tribe, not every single of them in a union to appease Spanish total war clans.

It would be more accurate from my point of view than a single faction as we have now. It is a very similar issue like we have with KH, or like with the Suevii. We have several really different tribes united under a single one, isnt better to have a more general name than one so privative?. But hey, if we add more factions in Iberia may be we can balance it more.

So I can not say nothing against a new Arevaci faction, for me that would be a good election, and a really good news

[Jolt]

I only wanted to hear which are the reasons provided to select as single native faction in Iberia the Lusitani, because of, for me and plenty players -specially the majority of the spanish players-, it sounds pretty strange and not accurate.

I usually stay out of Iberian discussions, as Sarcasm has the usual habit of dropping by and going berserk against anyone who disputes something or asks for information (As you have quite noticed), and I prefer to lay back and laugh at the threads in which Sarcasm participates with a more in-depth attitude. (Though Sarcasm often makes good points, if not full of fallacies, but still good points) I'm a Portuguese student archaeologist (Currently on the second year), but my specialization is for the Discoveries than to Bronze-Iron Ages in which this period deals with (Though I have a very good grasp of the period in Iberia).
On topic, while I agree with Sarcasm's argument that the Lusitanians were overall more important (In terms of expansion, unity, etc.) than any single Celtiberian tribe (Unity is applied only for the Celtiberian as an aglomerate of tribes with often diverging interests, while the Lusitanian aglomerate of tribes always had the same interests, which would explain their inclusion as a single faction, contrarily to any possible Celtiberi single faction), I was quite ticked-off by the quoted phrase, especially from someone who criticized the EB Team of incorporating the Lusitanians because of nationalistic bias, so I would ask you: "Why do you think the EB team would give a **** that spanish players think its not accurate (The mention of Spanish clans was laughable)?"

In any case, other users have already defended the inclusion of the "Lusitani tribe aglomerate" over any single Celtiberian tribe.

*Goes back into lurker mode*

[antisocialmunky]

Speaking of confederation-type governments. Has the EB team found much luck with the new mechanics to implement governments that actually feel different?

[Berg-i-dum]

I usually stay out of Iberian discussions, as Sarcasm has the usual habit of dropping by and going berserk against anyone who disputes something or asks for information (As you have quite noticed), and I prefer to lay back and laugh at the threads in which Sarcasm participates with a more in-depth attitude. (Though Sarcasm often makes good points, if not full of fallacies, but still good points) I'm a Portuguese student archaeologist (Currently on the second year), but my specialization is for the Discoveries than to Bronze-Iron Ages in which this period deals with (Though I have a very good grasp of the period in Iberia)

I am agree with most of this. Thank you for the tip. Glad to see a colegue here also.

I was quite ticked-off by the quoted phrase, especially from someone who criticized the EB Team of incorporating the Lusitanians because of nationalistic bias, so I would ask you: "Why do you think the EB team would give a **** that spanish players think its not accurate (The mention of Spanish clans was laughable)?"

I am not in any clan, I just have exchanged points of view with other spanish players that are in clans and they think it isnt accurate. At the same time I see there are really few spanish players in this excellent mod. And also, there are some portuguese team members and currently no spaniards. These are the facts, then you can interpret them as you want...

But I want to think there arent any nationalistic bias involved as I respect this mod too much and what is more, having a look at the general work I cant say this. It was only a suspicion.

Also I consider the EB members may want to know the disagree about the current situation with the Iberia subject among some spaniard players. More if the disagree is based in historical facts.

I wont enter again in the discussion about what is most suitable iberian faction or not, as I dont want to be "attritionist", if you want to critice any of the previous reasons I pointed above in the thread, let me know wich one and we can right comment it.

On topic, while I agree with Sarcasm's argument that the Lusitanians were overall more important (In terms of expansion, unity, etc.) than any single Celtiberian tribe (Unity is applied only for the Celtiberian as an aglomerate of tribes with often diverging interests, while the Lusitanian aglomerate of tribes always had the same interests, which would explain their inclusion as a single faction, contrarily to any possible Celtiberi single faction),

My argument was that the Lusitani is a single tribe, the Celtiberians is general concept that can represent several tribes or a ethnic culture (indeouropean area and also in expansionism and acculturation procces as we can see in Archeology). The latter for me is more suitable with historic accuracy -being more general- than the Lussotanna Empire with Lusitani, Astures, Cantabri, Celtiberi and Iberi under the same banner of a single tribe, as it is the current situation. The celtiberian concept itself would reflect the Indoeuropean nature of one of the 2 sides of the prerroman Iberia, as I noted above (we would need a Iberic faction also).

But as far as I see, the developers dont see adecuate the general concepts / tribes-cities confederations, at least in Hispania. In this case I am absolutely agree with the add of a Arevaci faction in this scenary, so I can not say more than to support this new faction.

[Jolt]

I am not in any clan, I just have exchanged points of view with other spanish players that are in clans and they think it isnt accurate. At the same time I see there are really few spanish players in this excellent mod. And also, there are some portuguese team members and currently no spaniards. These are the facts, then you can interpret them as you want...

I doubt clan players can forward any arguments why they think its not valid other than "?Como puede haber una faccion iberica qué no sea completamente baseada en nuestro territorio? !Es absurdo! !Solamente Portugueses podrian hacer semejante cosa!" - They have no historical arguments to forward. They are the only ones driven by nationalism. Probably the same clan players don't complain when they see "Spain" representing the entire peninsula. EDIT: Thus the fact that them being clan players adds no relevant information as to why they should be listened.

The Portuguese vs Spanish facts, I interpret them as completely and absolutely irrelevant. It isn't about portuguese and spanish in any case.

Also I consider the EB members may want to know the disagree about the current situation with the Iberia subject among some spaniard players. More if the disagree is based in historical facts.

Your facts were rebutted multiple times by several users (EB Members and non-members) and the fact is that by spaniard players specifically disagreeing doesn't help your cause in any way. If anything it makes it seems like its a national driven questioning of the EB's team work (Since it's just Spanish) The fact that each Celtiberian tribe separately doesn't outdo the deeds of the Lusitanians as a whole has been pointed out a few times.

My argument was that the Lusitani is a single tribe, the Celtiberians is general concept that can represent several tribes or a ethnic culture (indeouropean area and also in expansionism and acculturation procces as we can see in Archeology). The latter for me is more suitable with historic accuracy -being more general- than the Lussotanna Empire with Lusitani, Astures, Cantabri, Celtiberi and Iberi under the same banner of a single tribe, as it is the current situation. The celtiberian concept itself would reflect the Indoeuropean nature of one of the 2 sides of the prerroman Iberia, as I noted above (we would need a Iberic faction also).

But as far as I see, the developers dont see adecuate the general concepts / tribes-cities confederations, at least in Hispania. In this case I am absolutely agree with the add of a Arevaci faction in this scenary, so I can not say more than to support this new faction.

The basic flaw of your reasoning mattering to EB is that EB's Factions aren't general concepts.

As pointed out, from there we could also have the "Illyrians" faction or the "Gauls" faction. Since the EB team has decided that there would be no tribe confederations that weren't distinctly united under common leadership, the Celtiberians simply couldn't enter into EB. Instead, the EB Team has decided to depict situations where a particular tribe or confederation of tribes (Which were historically under the same leadership, and persuing the same interests) achieves domination over other tribes and these due to their culturally similarity with the dominant faction/tribe provide units for it, simulating a kind of ahistorical union/federation/confederation/whatever. As far as I see you're arguing semantics. Also arguing that the Lusitani are a single tribe is wrong since it is quite known that they aren't. Your dispute with the EB Team rationale is that "you see using confederations which weren't historical continuous nor the interests of its members shared." as a viable option for the inclusion of a faction, while the EB team didn't. Since that is so, there is nothing you or any person who agrees with your attribution to factions can do other than start your own historical mod according to your own ideas for plausible historical factions. Other than that, that's it.

[Berg-i-dum]

It isn't about portuguese and spanish in any case.

I hope so.

Your facts were rebutted multiple times by several users (EB Members and non-members) and the fact is that by spaniard players specifically disagreeing doesn't help your cause in any way. If anything it makes it seems like its a national driven questioning of the EB's team work (Since it's just Spanish) The fact that each Celtiberian tribe separately doesn't outdo the deeds of the Lusitanians as a whole has been pointed out a few times.

Wich facts?. You are speaking all the time general, so lets go in depth ok?. I understand the confederation idea isnt suitable for this game and I respect it, althought I see it is represented in Koinon Hellenon and Suevii for instance, as I already noted above, and Iberia was a general faction in the first open beta also (when still there was spaniard team members, may be just a coincidence). So lets see the most important facts:


The facts in favour of the Lusitani are: independency ideas, leadership in the historic figure of Viriathus and his associated expansionism. These are the only reasons in the desk and the only you probably will find. About this we can note that the historic fact of a Leader is of course important but it counts only as a decision of destiny and luck, and a so primitive culture as Lusitani (or yeah the Callaeci, Astures, Cantabri...) was really lucky to get a leader like that, but it is only a lucky fact.


Then we have the celtiberian facts: war society based with a high amount of warfare (in necropolis the 25% of bodies are from Warriors) wich acculturiced the whole indoeuropean Iberia. High developed society with Oppida and cities, gens and gentilitates, settlements dependency on others. So we have a really high potential to have here a Regnum, in fact most of the scholars as we noted above in the thread are agree about the High stadium previous to a Celtiberian Confederacy or big state, similar to the ones in middle europa or among the Gauls. In the Lusitani we didnt count with this potential. Going in a simple way, we can see a Celtiberian necropolis and a Lusitani one (if we find it, to be fair I would say it is heavy needed some archeological investigation in Lusitania) and we can see the really high differences in development of both communities, we see a pastoral community with few weapons and warriors classes and then a proto-urban and warfare focused one. Still I havent see the Lusitanian privative panoply and what is different in it than the Callaeci one to be compared with the celtiberan one (in fact they imported celtiberian weapons).

We can in this side speak about high ranked historical facts too, as the Numantine Wars that we also pointed and described a bit above in the thread. And even some expansionism activity.

So, ok we wont have Celtiberians confederations (btw also we could discuss how was this confederation and find some good points about his unity here), but at least the Arevaci would deserve a faction seat.

Also arguing that the Lusitani are a single tribe is wrong since it is quite known that they aren't.

What?. This is a basic concept and error in this case.

Of course the Lusitani as other tribes had inside them other communities or clans based in settlements and so regions. As the Vaccei have: for instance Intercatienses etc. This dont make them special or a confederation of tribes... they were a single and regular tribe, probably to be fair bigger in space an population than others, but no scholars or Classical sources see the lusitani as a confederation or a concept like the Celtiberians one. They always see them as a tribe, populus or gens.





P.S: And no, I wont create my own mod since I dont have the knowledge and I love so much this one. In fact my favourite factions are Rome and Hayasdan. I have played as Lussotana with 1.0 and liked it also.

[Jolt]

Which facts? You are speaking all the time general, so lets go in depth ok?. I understand the confederation idea isnt suitable for this game and I respect it, althought I see it is represented in Koinon Hellenon and Suevii for instance, as I already noted above, and Iberia was a general faction in the first open beta also (when still there was spaniard team members, may be just a coincidence). So lets see the most important facts:

You continuously point out the fact that there are no spanish team members in the EB team as either they are suffering some kind of discrimination or it is necessary to have spanish team members to accurately represent any tribe in the modern spanish territory. It is not and Iberia was the first and only general faction that ever was in EB, and it never existed. As I said, you are arguing Semantics. If you want so much the Lusitanian faction to be the Iberians just edit the faction name.

You see represented a confederation which existed historically on the beginning of EBs timeline and was the ONLY (As far as I'm aware) way the independent Greek City-States could be represented as there was little option to do something else. As for the Suevii, I have no knowledge on that matter to talk about it. My only great knowledge of Proto-historical Germany is only for the Megalithic culture in that zone. The Iberians weren't incorporated because we could have a single political entity which was far more historical then any generalization of the Iberians or the Celtiberians because of their history of internal conflict. And since that was so, the Lusitanians are the best pick.

The facts in favour of the Lusitani are: independency ideas, leadership in the historic figure of Viriathus and his associated expansionism. These are the only reasons in the desk and the only you probably will find. About this we can note that the historic fact of a Leader is of course important but it counts only as a decision of destiny and luck, and a so primitive culture as Lusitani (or yeah the Callaeci, Astures, Cantabri...) was really lucky to get a leader like that, but it is only a lucky fact.

That is downplaying the Lusitanians overwhelmingly. You don't mention that they were already involved in plenty of warfare before Viriathus, with equally high degrees of boldness and success (Which only went so far), Sarcasm mentions a great great deal of examples. No mention of how the ancient historians spoke of Lusitanians, among several other things.

Then we have the celtiberian facts: war society based with a high amount of warfare (in necropolis the 25% of bodies are from Warriors) wich acculturiced the whole indoeuropean Iberia. High developed society with Oppida and cities, gens and gentilitates, settlements dependency on others. So we have a really high potential to have here a Regnum, in fact most of the scholars as we noted above in the thread are agree about the High stadium previous to a Celtiberian Confederacy or big state, similar to the ones in middle europa or among the Gauls. In the Lusitani we didnt count with this potential. Going in a simple way, we can see a Celtiberian necropolis and a Lusitani one (if we find it, to be fair I would say it is heavy needed some archeological investigation in Lusitania) and we can see the really high differences in development of both communities, we see a pastoral community with few weapons and warriors classes and then a proto-urban and warfare focused one. Still I havent see the Lusitanian privative panoply and what is different in it than the Callaeci one to be compared with the celtiberan one (in fact they imported celtiberian weapons).

You're arguing in circles. You are giving us joint Celtiberian facts as if they were always a single people with a single leadership and single interests. They weren't. We discussed this. Now if you give out the facts of each Celtiberian tribe (Belli facts against Lusitani facts) and pit them against the Lusitanians, then you may be getting somewhere.

What? This is a basic concept and error in this case.

Of course the Lusitani as other tribes had inside them other communities or clans based in settlements and so regions. As the Vaccei have: for instance Intercatienses etc. This dont make them special or a confederation of tribes... they were a single and regular tribe, probably to be fair bigger in space an population than others, but no scholars or Classical sources see the lusitani as a confederation or a concept like the Celtiberians one. They always see them as a tribe, populus or gens.

Yet the truth still is that tribes banded into aglomerates and if the tribes were culturally united and politically close, for a foreign person from which we inherit most of the written history about they were talked as the same entity, when they weren't, and one particular good example of that is when several Galician tribes declared themselves Lusitanians and were mentioned being Lusitanians when they weren't. That's the difference. The Celtiberians happened to be a confederation a handful of times, while the Lusitanians were an aglomerate of different small tribes which were culturally similar for all we know. A confederation implies that its members are bound by common interest but do not always have so. At least that is the idea I sport.

P.S: And no, I wont create my own mod since I dont have the knowledge and I love so much this one. In fact my favourite factions are Rome and Hayasdan. I have played as Lussotana with 1.0 and liked it also.

Then I'm afraid there is little room for your ideas to be incorporated in any way. In any case, its practically confirmed that they'll be in EB 2.

[Berg-i-dum]

You're arguing in circles. You are giving us joint Celtiberian facts as if they were always a single people with a single leadership and single interests. They weren't. We discussed this. Now if you give out the facts of each Celtiberian tribe (Belli facts against Lusitani facts) and pit them against the Lusitanians, then you may be getting somewhere.

I think I am not the only going in circles, and in each post I try to be constructive with new facts. You are the only one who is going in circles and speaking in general most of the time.

Yet the truth still is that tribes banded into aglomerates and if the tribes were culturally united and politically close, for a foreign person from which we inherit most of the written history about they were talked as the same entity, when they weren't, and one particular good example of that is when several Galician tribes declared themselves Lusitanians and were mentioned being Lusitanians when they weren't. That's the difference. The Celtiberians happened to be a confederation a handful of times, while the Lusitanians were an aglomerate of different small tribes which were culturally similar for all we know. A confederation implies that its members are bound by common interest but do not always have so. At least that is the idea I sport.

Again, this happens in all the tribes across Iberia, all the tribes in the map are aglomeration of other groups, I could bring you infinite examples, for example the Zoelae -a really big group- being part of the Astures. So the most important in the Celtiberian issue is that they were several tribes with their own aglomerate each one that in some moments they were united under a kind of confederation, were considered a pack by Classical sources, or the arqueology identify them as a arqueologycal differencied group. ...So be sure it is not my creation

Then I'm afraid there is little room for your ideas to be incorporated in any way. In any case, its practically confirmed that they'll be in EB 2.

I am only discussing and trying to give other sources and points of view in a matter that I think it is biased in some way or it isnt accurate enough. If the developers want to fix this in some way, it is their decission, what is the problem with you and your fellow country-man with this?.

If a Arevaci faction is added in EB2 I really would love it, and as me plenty other players, spanish or not.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Thanks to you, Berg-i-dum, for those interesting information.
So I think there are many factions are not represented in the EB.
This because of limited number of factions and balancing in geography.

I also liked very Germanic 2 factions, but that's another topic ... I personally like the idea of a celtiberian faction but for the reasons given above I am sure that will not EB2.
I'd like to remove some eastern side and focus to the west.

However, the choice of the modder was to distribute the best sides on the whole map.
Choice, for me, it was just because I think that the factions should be designed to survive the longest possible.
Is unnecessary to create a faction that is destroyed in a few turns.

I do not want to enter the subject of historical factions, but the game would say, look that one celtiberian faction between another barb factions would be unfavorable to the neighboring factions and pro-Roman.

However, I appreciate your argument and your voice to our expectations on this fantastic mod.

[Berg-i-dum]

Thak you for your support Severus.

I understand there is such a hard decission to select wich factions will be or not in the game, more when we have so few slots to distribute, I am absolutely sure the developers try to make it the best they can. Perhaps in EB2 with more slots there are more posibilities to have other forgotten factions. Also I am agree about one german faction more, or the Belgae for instance.

In the Iberia case, I think a new faction will even the situation gameplay there since the Lusotanna become very hard as other players noted.

[Jolt]

I think I am not the only going in circles, and in each post I try to be constructive with new facts. You are the only one who is going in circles and speaking in general most of the time.

You have given the very same examples over and over again (The siege of Numantia has been mentioned how many times? The Celtiberian Wars have been mentioned how many times?), examples which are invalid considering you are speaking about the Celtiberians in general. I'm speaking in general because: - This argument from my point of view is pointless to the point where I'd have to hit the books to prove some superiority in this is too much hassle. Frankly I couldn't give a damn - Sarcasm has given enough pointers to save me the job of informing the uninformed masses about the deeds of Lusitanians.

Again, this happens in all the tribes across Iberia, all the tribes in the map are aglomeration of other groups, I could bring you infinite examples, for example the Zoelae -a really big group- being part of the Astures. So the most important in the Celtiberian issue is that they were several tribes with their own aglomerate each one that in some moments they were united under a kind of confederation, were considered a pack by Classical sources, or the arqueology identify them as a arqueologycal differencied group. ...So be sure it is not my creation

"In some moments" is the critical sentence. One which I have also argued repeatedly for and since I suppose you get what I mean, then I'll need not to explain it to you in a different set of words.

I am only discussing and trying to give other sources and points of view in a matter that I think it is biased in some way or it isnt accurate enough. If the developers want to fix this in some way, it is their decission, what is the problem with you and your fellow country-man with this?

If a Arevaci faction is added in EB2 I really would love it, and as me plenty other players, spanish or not.

You have never contested the accuracy of EBs work in any post, leaving only the other option. All you did was try to argue that the Celtiberians were better than the Lusitanians. Then you just concluded that EB was a Portuguese conspiracy to discriminate the Spanish. The developpers won't "fix" that, when taking into consideration the work they put into the texts and buildings to turn the Lusotanna into a viable faction with their own descriptions. Further, the work in EB 1 has practically halted, so even if they suddenly saw your arguments as quite superior to the set of historians of different nationalities, they wouldn't "fix" it. Yes it is their decision, and frankly even if they decided to go back to EB 1 just to "fix" this, I wouldn't give a damn. And where you did get the impression that me and my "countrymen" have a problem or would have had a problem with the "fix"? The only ones with the problem about this, as you repeatedly point out this as a problem of Portuguese vs Spanish, is you. Noone else. Not me, not Sarcasm, not Foot, not Moros, not Tellos, not anyone.

EDIT: In any case, many different users have suggested often pertinent things to be added to EB, other than dispute why some factions are in over other factions. Often, although those ideas are brilliant, the EB just doesn't adopt them for a myriad reasons. That's why I'm saying I'm completely sure your words aren't going to make anything different.

[Berg-i-dum]

Ok so thank you for your constructive critizism. Really who is going in circles here?. You cant give more facts than the ones Sarcasm gave to explain the current situation, we already discussed them and argued others in the other side.

P.S: for instance, can you give me examples of Lusitanian Necropolis and his social classes distribution, warfare and so?. This would be helpful and constructive. I already have some info about that but since you and your fellow-countryman are the supporters of Lusitani I am still waiting to see your conclusions.

You only are arguing in the way "shut up", you dont have nothing to do with this subject etc. Give real arguments!

[Jolt]

Ok so thank you for your constructive critizism. Really who is going in circles here?. You cant give more facts than the ones Sarcasm gave to explain the current situation, we already discussed them and argued others in the other side.

Glad to see you finally agree.

P.S: for instance, can you give me examples of Lusitanian Necropolis and his social classes distribution, warfare and so?. This would be helpful and constructive. I already have some info about that but since you and your fellow-countryman are the supporters of Lusitani I am still waiting to see your conclusions.

It's mid-night. I'm at home. As I said, I couldn't care less. It won't be helpful (Other than prolonging this argument which isn't leading anywhere). As I said, I don't specialize in this area and although I could probably give you the information you so much seek, I'm not gonna run to my university to give you information that not only it takes a while to get, but also that you apparently have. I could give you an essay on the impact of Portuguese-guided contact and evangelization of Japan on its modern culture. Do you want that? Once again the "Portuguese vs Spanish card". Have you read what I bolded in the past post? And you still haven't answered which countrymen, and why are we specific supporters of the Lusitanians.

You only are arguing in the way "shut up", you dont have nothing to do with this subject etc. Give real arguments!

No, I'm prolonging an argument which will have nothing to show for. (Other than keeping it for my amusement and adding it to my conspiracies list) I already gave you the argument you can't argue with and which ends this discussion. Which I will do you the favour of retrieving it.

The basic flaw of your reasoning mattering to EB is that EB's Factions aren't general concepts.

As pointed out, from there we could also have the "Illyrians" faction or the "Gauls" faction. Since the EB team has decided that there would be no tribe confederations that weren't distinctly united under common leadership, the Celtiberians simply couldn't enter into EB. Instead, the EB Team has decided to depict situations where a particular tribe or confederation of tribes (Which were historically under the same leadership, and persuing the same interests) achieves domination over other tribes and these due to their culturally similarity with the dominant faction/tribe provide units for it, simulating a kind of ahistorical union/federation/confederation/whatever. As far as I see you're arguing semantics. Your dispute with the EB Team rationale is that "you see using confederations which weren't historical continuous nor the interests of its members shared." as a viable option for the inclusion of a faction, while the EB team didn't. Since that is so, there is nothing you or any person who agrees with your attribution to factions can do other than start your own historical mod according to your own ideas for plausible historical factions. Other than that, that's it.

I feel I have explained to you why the EB team has picked the Lusitanians over the Celtiberians (Celtiberians weren't a continuous single entity), and I feel you have explained your primary reason to dispute the choice of the faction (EB is a Portuguese conspiracy aimed at discriminating Spanish people). And since you most probably won't respond to my question about why do you think I and Sarcasm and other Portuguese favour the Lusitanians over other Iberian entities, I must say I'm satisfied with this argument and therefore will most probably remove myself from it.

[Berg-i-dum]

So that is all your argument, you have almost any knowledge about this subject -only what your fellow countryman told you- but hey you only want to invalidate my position with no historic arguments at all. Excellent, and more "impactant" coming from a future colegue. This is pointless.

I already discussed that quote of your intervetion, and showed a different idea about it. So thats all. You have a different idea about that, it is you right as it is mine as player to defend my own.

I actually dont pretend nothing with this post, I am historian and like my proffesion so I love to discuss about History. (and play this mod as I consider it mostly accurate).

[The Persian Cataphract]

See, this is a problem. And it extends to some other factions as well. Including the Pahlava (Which shouldn't even be called that, considering the start given at 272 BCE). However one must keep in mind that much of the nomenclature established for the mod were conceived at the beginning of the mod's efforts. And ever since, the project has matured, and with it the depth of historiography, scholastics, linguistics and archaeology.

That Pahlava should rather on such basis, even if ad hoc, be referred to either as the Dahae confederacy, or simply as the Parni/Aparni/Sparni; Âpârnîg in Middle Persian form, or as Aparnioi/Parnioi in Greek form, or as Sparnii in Classical Latin form. They would eventually rear the Arsacid/Arsakid dynasty (Arshkânîg/Arsacidae) at around 250 BCE, and establish themselves in the old satrapy of Parthava (Old Persian), which would in Parthian (Parthian Pahlavîg language) and Middle Persian (Pâzhênd/Medieval Pahlavîg) become "Pahlava", with its natives being called the "Pahlavân". It were to be these Pahlavân which would form the bourgeoisie of this new Iranian empire (Or if one wills it, a projected "Persian empire"), being represented by various noble houses, until the fall of the Arsacids at Hôrmuzjân at 224 CE.

So what the team ultimately went with, in order to spare themselves a lot of headache figuring out the proper nomenclature, was to go with something more popular, simplified... And trivialized. But this causes a confusion by itself, because on one hand we are used to thinking in "Parthian" and "Persian" empires, and on the other hand, we have made it more complicated by whimsically applying a native name which is both out of place and incongruent with our polished requirements.

This is very reminiscent of the situation of the "united" Iberians we used to have, until the historians decided to go one level of abstraction better and make the Lusitanian faction. A job which has been remarkable, full of controversy, and in the ending a gigantic undertaking accomplished well. This is an accolade practically owed to Sarcasm. You guys would have no fucking idea, mildly speaking, on what kind of work and effort the man has pulled through to get one of the most neglected factions in the modification the treatment it truthfully deserved. I have never seen someone in the entire community so thorough and so passionate in the matter of ancient Iberian history.

I am not going to say that the team is infallible. Far from it. We welcome criticism that can help us. We embrace it. And sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. But be reminded that we all do this in our spare time. We don't get paid, or get any extra time. Some of us have yet to even find the time to play the fruits of our toils. Please do bear this in mind.

[Berg-i-dum]

Nice post Persian Cataphract. Good info about Pahlava here also, I love the Persian and Assyrian themes, but I must admit I am lost in the EB timeframe. I like Hayasdan since I understand them as in someway the "heirs" of the Achemenid Empire, may be I am in a mistake, I think in fact in game you can get a reform building to go and recover the ancient King of Kings concept. Are the Pahlava more near in some way from this interpretation?.

About the rest, well may be I have been rude in some points with the team. As I said I really love this mod and your work, and I understand also how annoying can be sometimes the discussions when such a hard -and free- work is involved. For me it is really enjojable and accurate in the current situation and even I enjoyed playing as Lussotana, but I only want to provide other points of view and things that can be fixed or be more accurate than they are now. I try to apply my criticism in historical and constructive questions and provide different points of view, as I think I showed in the thread -or tried to-. Also I have seen that this mod team usually heard reasonable points and sometimes they even note them, that this is much to say in mod like this. I even dont pretend to change nothing, just to discuss facts and accuracies.

[Mediolanicus]

I'd love to see a Celtiberian faction. In the sense as we have the Sweboz as a Germanic faction.

Seeing "the Celtiberians" appear would be only a bit less shocking than seeing "Gaul" or "the Belgians" or "the Germans" in EB II, IMHO. I would rather see one tribe with the potential to unite the Celtiberian tribes. And after a few game years you, Berg-i-dum, will have exactly what you crave for.

BTW, TPC, I must say I'm fan of your posts. They are always interesting and make me remember important things, like the terrible sacking of the Baghdad museum or the unbelievebly great job the EB team has done. Maybe not a "perfect" job, but near perfect in all your limitations (RL, Total War engine limitations, lacking sources, controversialities,...).

[Glaurung]

Question: Where is the Celtiberian faction?
Answer: There isn't, and we don't care about this because the mod is fantastic as well.
The same question/answer could be repeated hundred of times for each tribe/group of tribes/city state of europe and asia.
Just play one of the other 19 factions and enjoy!

[satalexton]

Where can you train Dunaminica? Thats the place.

[athanaric]

Where can you train Dunaminica? Thats the place.

The city of Numantia. The Eleutheroi there are called Arevaci. Nasty buggers they are.