Where is the Celtiberian faction?

[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).