Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

@Genava55, nice references! 

The Osprey images are sometimes a bit of a mash up of references indeed, and some are a bit outdated, but generally speaking they're quite decent, as far as historical art goes... The Gauls in 0AD are essentially a mash up of many celtic tribes anyway. I agree however that explicitly Bronze Age equipment has no place among the Iron Age Celts.

About the round shields, I'm not familiar with mainland La Tene period primary references, but mainland Celts did use round shields, they were just not as common as the oval ones. 

That Bormio relief you mentioned actually depicts a beautiful mainland Celtic(-ish) round shield:

bormio-stele-lombardy-golasecca-4-c-bc.jpg.a5aca51f9f8b25dcc64ca87843d85123.jpg

 

Celts of the Castro Culture in North Western Iberia also depicted warriors with round shields in some of their statues:

d83e91f8e649e8fbcda49c7c8688b6ff.jpg.87d059017807f5366916b2a51152d25d.jpg

 

Celts from the British Isles also used round shields. You may think this isn't relevant in terms of what mainland celts used, but one of the most famous British Celtic round shields, the Wandsworth shield, is actually decorated in La Tène style... Many Celts from this region (river Thames) actually came from the mainland...  

  Reveal hidden contents

Wandsworth shield, British round shield with La Tène style decoration:

51334a39d8dfe6e0ded69793b7a3b391.thumb.jpg.7eab6eab68a29f66ce4d9128503d279c.jpg

Round shields were also used by virtually all of their contemporary neighbours, as well as their Bronze Age predecessors.

 

It is better to argue here I think. Is it ok for you? @Sundiata

Before to start, you need to understand that my position is very difficult to defend. For a very old reason. It is difficult to prove that something didn't exist. An old scientifical, philosphical and legal challenge. Moreover in archaelogical and historical context where there is a lot of room for various interpretations.

Firstly, as I said the Bormio's stele is from the Golasecca culture. Not the La Tène culture that is the common iron age culture for the Celts known by classical texts. To understand the difference, we can look at the timeline of the Golasecca culture. It starts around 900BC, in the North of Italy and is contemporaneous of the Hallstatt culture. The Golasecca is considerate as very close to the Hallstatt culture but with important differences: there is cremation burials and they have cultural connection with the Etruscans (they even used their alphabet). Thus, the Golasecca is what we call a "first iron age celtic culture", in the same manner is the Hallstatt culture. But around 600-500BC the Hallstatt culture vanishes, the political structure seems to change completely and there is a lot of artistic innovation. The La Tène culture emerges from the Hallstatt culture and is even spread far beyond the ancient boundaries of the former culture. It is what we call a "second iron age celtic culture", the moment where the Celts are in their maximal expansion. And if you remember the history of the Celts from the Romans, it is around 400BC that the Gauls come in Italy. Archeologically, the Golasecca disappears between 450-400BC and is replaced by the La Tène culture. Notably, by the Insubres, a celtic tribe which have established Mediolanum. It is why referring to this stele is the same level of mistake than referring to the Hallstatt culture for characterizing the Gauls known by the classical texts. They are distinct cultures. There is a hypothese that the Ligures in Italy were close to the Golasecca culture (but probably different too), as a first iron age culture.

Moreover, the Bormio's stele poses a second problem. Is it a standard-bearer and a corn-blower? Because we know that the peoples in these roles wore different uniforms and weapons than the usual warrior. It wouldn't be very smart to generalize from them.

Secondly, the Castro culture has the same problem than the Golasecca. Even worse because the region never known the La Tène culture and because the Castro culture is even different from the Hallstatt culture. The Castro culture emerges from the Atlantic bronze age and has a lot of similarities with the Britannic iron age. Even for Celtiberians, the association with La Tène culture is difficult and evidence only start late (around 200BC). Why it is so difficult? Because being "celt" is not a ethnicity, it is only cultural. It seems normal in the records that a celtic culture was replaced by another one (no violence needed for this).

Thirdly, for the Wandsworth shield, I explicitly said that the insular Celts could have potentially used round shields. Saying that the Celts of Thames's region comes from the mainland is very difficult to prove, the evidences are always late (between 150-50 BC). There is a speculation that the Belgians invaded this region but it seems it was during the time of Diviciacos, king of the Suessiones around 100BC. Furthermore, the Wandsworth shield is known to have been applied on a wooden backing. We have absolutely no idea of the shape of this wooden backing, since it was fixated with rivets. Don't forget that the Witham shield have bronze parts applied on a oval wooden shield. Don't forget the Battersea shield is made of different pieces, all fixated with rivets...

Finally, if the round shields were regularly used by the mainland Celts (the Gauls), why there is no depiction of round shields on the Orange's arc? Or on any Roman relief? We can't speculate only because there was round shield during the bronze age in Europe, it is anachronistic.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Genava55 I do appreciate your position, and the difficulty to defend it. My own position isn't rock solid either considering the relatively random nature of material remains from this place and time. The archaeological record is not complete and the ancient sources can be ambiguous, conflicting and incomplete. So lets agree that the question of round shields among La Tène period Celts from Gaul is not one we're likely to find a definitive answer to. 

What I get from you're commentaries on the Bormio stele is that a  c. 5th century BC reference from the (9th -4th century BC) Celtic speaking Golasecca culture from Cisalpine Gaul is not an acceptable reference for the Gauls in 0AD, because it's not La Tène. I think this depends more on how "Gauls" is defined in 0AD (seems to be defined quite loosely: "The Gauls represent the Celtic tribes of Continental Western Europe which currently encompasses most of modern day France during the times of before and Roman conquest"). I understand that these are all distinct cultures, but there is also clear continuity (also in material culture). Celts were more similar to each-other than they were to anyone else. Considering the incomplete material record, borrowing ideas from related Celts in the same geographic region doesn't seem so bad to me. 

16 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Moreover, the Bormio's stele poses a second problem. Is it a standard-bearer and a corn-blower? Because we know that the peoples in these roles wore different uniforms and weapons than the usual warrior. It wouldn't be very smart to generalize from them.

There was little standardization in Celtic armies. Especially not across tribal lines. Different types of equipment were distributed differently according to the specific tribe being discussed. Because of a lack of wealth in primary sources on this subject, these kind of inferences are difficult to make. 

Castro culture is definitely Celtic, related to Hallstatt, with pre-Celtic influences. They're not La Tène, but they do have influence from them. It's the same as with the Golasecca, in that it's not an absolute reference for La Tène period Gauls, but it offers a good clue. Again, it depends on how "strictly" Gauls are defined in 0AD. 

 

16 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Thirdly, for the Wandsworth shield, I explicitly said that the insular Celts could have potentially used round shields. Saying that the Celts of Thames's region comes from the mainland is very difficult to prove, the evidences are always late (between 150-50 BC). There is a speculation that the Belgians invaded this region but it seems it was during the time of Diviciacos, king of the Suessiones around 100BC.

The Britons in 0AD are Celts: "The Britons represent the celtic tribes of the British Isles around or before the times of Roman conquest. They are similar to the Gauls, but have slightly divergent specialty." All Celtic culture came from the mainland at some point, including La Tène culture, which locally developed into Insular La Tène style. The Belgic presence in Britain may have been exaggerated, but it's not disputed, and is very relevant to the time-frame for the Britons in-game (which are actually more like 1st century BC to 1st centiry AD, I know, an anomaly I've addressed before). The Wandsworth shield is indeed associated with the Cantiaci, but that area is within the Belgic sphere of influence. Either way, my point is that they were Celts, and that they probably used round shields. Considering the proximity and interaction with Gaul, that isn't trivial. Again, I'm not saying it's absolute either.

 

16 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Furthermore, the Wandsworth shield is known to have been applied on a wooden backing. We have absolutely no idea of the shape of this wooden backing, since it was fixated with rivets. Don't forget that the Witham shield have bronze parts applied on a oval wooden shield. Don't forget the Battersea shield is made of different pieces, all fixated with rivets...

Hmmm, interesting... You might actually be right about this... Not going to dispute this too much, but as with almost everything in this discussion, it's not certain either.

 

16 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Finally, if the round shields were regularly used by the mainland Celts (the Gauls), why there is no depiction of round shields on the Orange's arc? Or on any Roman relief?

Because they probably weren't common among (elite) heavy infantry units. I think (small) round shields would have been used primarily by light skirmishers (speculation on my part), and their equipment probably wasn't prestigious enough to be depicted in either Roman or Celtic art. Gallic archers aren't depicted anywhere to my knowledge either, but they are still mentioned in de Bello Gallico. Slingers are not depicted either, but we know they used them from the piles of "sling-bullets" found at Celtic fortifications. You wouldn't expect to find wooden shields of this period intact either, further compounding the question. 

 

16 hours ago, Genava55 said:

We can't speculate only because there was round shield during the bronze age in Europe, it is anachronistic.

Not only... Round shields were used by the Celts of the Castro Culture (during the Iron Age), by the Celts of the Golasecca Culture (during the Iron Age) and by the Celts of the British Isles (during the Iron Age), as well as by other contemporaries they regularly came into contact with, like Italics, Greeks, non-Celtic Iberians, Germanics...

What you're suggesting is that there is a sudden absence of a piece of equipment among the Gauls of the La-Tène period, that was used by all their contemporary neighbors, as well as their predecessors, as well as their successors. It's possible... But is it likely? 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Wandsworth shield is indeed associated with the Cantiaci, but that area is within the Belgic sphere of influence. Either way, my point is that they were Celts, and that they probably used round shields. Considering the proximity and interaction with Gaul, that isn't trivial. Again, I'm not saying it's absolute either. 

Actually, the Wandsworth shield is dated before the beginning of the belgian influence in Britain.

Quote

Not only... Round shields were used by the Celts of the Castro Culture (during the Iron Age), by the Celts of the Golasecca Culture (during the Iron Age) and by the Celts of the British Isles (during the Iron Age), as well as by other contemporaries they regularly came into contact with, like Italics, Greeks, non-Celtic Iberians, Germanics... 

Well there is a problem with considering the round shields as something regularly used by La Tène skirmishers and in the same time justifying it from Castros, Celtiberian and Italic cultures. Because in these cultures the round shields were never used by skirmishers, it was used by all the warrior class. It was a common shield used by warriors using javelins, spear and sword to fight in close combat. They are not skirmishers.

The only proofs of a standardization of the round shield to only the skirmishers are from the Roman velites and the Hellenistic peltasts/javelinists. Even for the slingers, most of the Mediterranean slingers never used a shield. For the Roman, the justification of the parma for the velites comes from the weight and the size of the scutum. But it is known that most of the imperial auxilia used an oval shield, even for skirmishing, because it is still lighter than the scutum. Therefore, why a round shield should be mandatory for skirmishing?

Quote

Gallic archers aren't depicted anywhere to my knowledge either, but they are still mentioned in de Bello Gallico. Slingers are not depicted either, but we know they used them from the piles of "sling-bullets" found at Celtic fortifications. You wouldn't expect to find wooden shields of this period intact either, further compounding the question.  

For the simple reason there was no united formation of slingers and archers. Archers were used only during the Gallic Wars by Vercingetorix but never before. The archeological record of arrows in La Tène battlefield only start with the Gallic Wars. There is a huge increase of traits weapons during this period (stones and javelins mostly). But before this moment, there is no indication of specialized archers. For the slingers, the most probable is a common weapon used inside all the celtic society. The stones from slings are mostly found in siege battle, therefore it is hard to know who have throw it against the enemies. It could be regular warriors too. Cuchulainn in the irish tales used regularly a sling, thus no reason to think it was forbidden for the warrior class.

Quote

I understand that these are all distinct cultures, but there is also clear continuity (also in material culture).

There is actually a very sharp transition between Hallstatt and La Tène culture, even in the same archeological region. The weapons changed a lot in a few decades. And if there is that much survival from the previous culture, why the innovation in the La Tène weaponry are spreading so fast all the time? There is typology for the sword, the scabbard, the umbones and the helmets, with specific period when they were used. Not a bunch of mixed innovation accumulated through several centuries and across different iron age culture.

https://ibb.co/ke4vHy
https://ibb.co/hS7FHy

https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANNA_672_0295--the-golden-age-of-the-celtic-aristocracy.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Actually, the Wandsworth shield is dated before the beginning of the belgian influence in Britain.

Actually it's not. That particular Shield is dated to the 2nd century BC, and Belgic influence (even settlement) is proposed to begin around 200BC, only becoming more explicit during/after the Gallic wars. But that's kind of besides the point. My point was that it's in La Tène style, which is Celtic, and that style does indeed predate the Belgic influence (we think). Either way, La Tène culture originates from the mainland...

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Well there is a problem with considering the round shields as something regularly used by La Tène skirmishers and in the same time justifying it from Castros, Celtiberian and Italic cultures. Because in these cultures the round shields were never used by skirmishers, it was used by all the warrior class. It was a common shield used by warriors using javelins, spear and sword to fight in close combat. They are not skirmishers.

I Never said it was regularly used. There seems to be a contradiction in what you wrote. How can it never be used by skirmishers, and used by all the warrior classes at the same time? And what about warriors that simply can't afford a sword or even a spear?? Javelins, slings and a simple wooden (round) shield are way more accessible than metal weapons or the more complicated and ornate  (therefore more prestigious) Celtic oval shields. The Celtic oval/oblong shields depicted in Roman art are clearly ornate spoils of war, and not necessarily indicative of the equipment used by peasant levies, for example.

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Therefore, why a round shield should be mandatory for skirmishing?

Again, I didn't say it was mandatory. It's just generally simpler and cheaper, therefore more accessible for poor warriors or levies in a Celtic context. 

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

For the simple reason there was no united formation of slingers and archers. Archers were used only during the Gallic Wars by Vercingetorix but never before. The archeological record of arrows in La Tène battlefield only start with the Gallic Wars. There is a huge increase of traits weapons during this period (stones and javelins mostly). But before this moment, there is no indication of specialized archers.

The civilizations in 0AD depict around their height, as well as the periods that they had the most contact with other civilizations in-game. For Gauls that would be roughly from the 4th Century BC up to and including the Gallic Wars... You're also making absolute statements about a historical period with a very incomplete archaeological and written record, at best...

and

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

The stones from slings are mostly found in siege battle, therefore it is hard to know who have throw it against the enemies. It could be regular warriors too. Cuchulainn in the irish tales used regularly a sling, thus no reason to think it was forbidden for the warrior class.

I never said it was forbidden for the warrior class. We don't have secondary attacks for units in 0AD yet, so this point applies to all civilizations with units with only 1 attack, but actually had a few weapons at their disposal... I understand that some civilizations fielded specialized slingers, and the Celtic ones may not have been "specialized", but they used slings, so they were given slingers in-game. Are you suggesting specialized slingers should be removed from the Celtic unit rosters?

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

There is actually a very sharp transition between Hallstatt and La Tène culture, even in the same archeological region. The weapons changed a lot in a few decades. And if there is that much survival from the previous culture, why the innovation in the La Tène weaponry are spreading so fast all the time? There is typology for the sword, the scabbard, the umbones and the helmets, with specific period when they were used. Not a bunch of mixed innovation accumulated through several centuries and across different iron age culture.

I think you're oversimplifying a very complex period in Celtic history, which doesn't even necessarily have any bearing on the question of round shields, rather about how they would be decorated or fitted. 

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Interesting read... Should take my time to read through it again more thoroughly, but I didn't read anything relevant to the discussion on round shields, neither anything about a sharp or sudden break from Hallstatt Culture, but rather a gradual expansion across Europe that may have lasted as much as 200 years, not decades.

Edited by Sundiata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Actually it's not. That particular Shield is dated to the 2nd century BC, and Belgic influence (even settlement) is proposed to begin around 200BC, only becoming more explicit during/after the Gallic wars. But that's kind of besides the point. My point was that it's in La Tène style, which is Celtic, and that style does indeed predate the Belgic influence (we think). Either way, La Tène culture originates from the mainland...

As you wish, let me quote someone more qualified than me:

Quote

The most prolific group of imports came from Belgic Gaul, roughly the area between the Seine and the Rhine, and were found concentrated in south-eastern Britain. These were called Gallo-Belgic and were divided by D.F.Allen into six types, A–F which, he believed, reached Britain in a series of waves between c. 120 and 50 BC (D.F. Allen 1961a). The belief that these waves represented successive bands of invaders was further elaborated by C.F.C. Hawkes (1968). Both writers accepted that Gallo-Belgic A–D coins were brought to Britain at different periods before Caesar’s invasions, Gallo-Belgic E roughly dated to the time of the Gallic War and Gallo-Belgic F reflected a later incursion led by Commius about 50 BC. An alternative view was put forward by Kent (1978) who saw the first wave as Gallo-Belgic B reaching Britain in the early first century BC, followed by A and C arriving at the same time as Gallo-Belgic E which is now widely believed to be the coinage used by the Belgic confederacy to wage war against the Romans in and after 58 BC (Scheers 1972).
- Cunliffe, Barry W. in Iron Age Communities in Britain.

And for the La Tène style, yes indeed. But the La Tène style is used in Ireland too for decorating several scabbards. It doesn't mean they are peoples coming from the mainland. Actually the La Tène style was brought in Britain during the fifth century BC, probably by the trades or by a minor migration in the eastern part of Yorkshire. You can find La Tène items everywhere, from the Jutland to Ukraine.

Quote

Much has been written on the problem of British La Tène art and its relationship to Continental styles. De Navarro, basing his work on the scheme created by Paul Jacobstahl, divided the British finds into four styles which he numbered I–IV. This terminology has been revised by Stead (1985b) who has extended it by adding a Style V. Stead’s scheme provides a simple classification which helps to place individual pieces in a broad chronological context. Style I is characterized by motifs of recognizable Greek ancestry incorporating palmettes flanked by lotus flowers. Few objects decorated in this style are known in Britain. The scabbard from Minster Ditch, near Oxford, with its somewhat halting attempts at a flowing pattern (Figure 17.22), is close to the early Continental style though evidently of local manufacture, but by far the most impressive of the early British pieces is the scabbard of a dagger found in the Wisbech area, Cambs. (Figure 17.23). It is decorated in the rocked tracer technique with a palmette flanked by lotus petals or lyres. The same motifs, though in more elaborate combinations, decorate the flange of a bronze lid from a cist grave at Cerrig y Drudion, Clwyd (Stead 1982). This last item is particularly interesting in that it may be an import; such pieces would have inspired native craftsmen, like those who made the Minster Ditch and Wisbech scabbards, in their experiments which created the first insular La Tene art style in Britain.

- Cunliffe, Barry W. in Iron Age Communities in Britain.

 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

I Never said it was regularly used. There seems to be a contradiction in what you wrote. How can it never be used by skirmishers, and used by all the warrior classes at the same time? And what about warriors that simply can't afford a sword or even a spear?? Javelins, slings and a simple wooden (round) shield are way more accessible than metal weapons or the more complicated and ornate  (therefore more prestigious) Celtic oval shields. The Celtic oval/oblong shields depicted in Roman art are clearly ornate spoils of war, and not necessarily indicative of the equipment used by peasant levies, for example. 

You missed my point. I wanted to highlight the fact that round shield were never used by only a class of skirmishers but by the whole warrior class. And I don't understand why a oval shield should be more complicated or more ornate, neither more expensive, to produce. In these cultures, even the elite warrior were using round shield. I think the practical argument that the round shield is better for skirmishing is a paralogism. The argument that the round shield is less expensive and more affordable is a paralogism too. An oval shield doesn't need an umbone, and this piece is the most expensive part. If we want to make a really affordable and cheap shield, why not making something that is proved by some sources, like the wicker shields mentioned in De Bello Gallico. 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Interesting read... Should take my time to read through it again more thoroughly, but I didn't read anything relevant to the discussion on round shields, neither anything about a sharp or sudden break from Hallstatt Culture, but rather a gradual expansion across Europe that may have lasted as much as 200 years, not decades. 

There is this particular point about weaponry I wanted to show:

Quote

"The vitality of Celtic societies in the fourth and third centuries is expressed by the standardization of craftsmanship, particularly where anything to do with adornment, instruments of war,and symbols of power such as chariots and helmets are concerned. This gradual homogeneity varied depending on a given object’s purpose. For adornment, it was partial inasmuch as the elaboration and development of such items obeyed sartorial practices that differed from one community to another or according to specific social groups: this was the case particularly with torcs and annular jewelry, which, as has been demonstrated for Champagne and the Middle Rhineland, enabled distinct regional features to be defined.This homogeneity, already relatively marked in the case of fibulae, is even more pronounced when it comes to arms and decorative detail. This is because these groups had a common ideology of war and shared beliefs.It is one of the major cultural features that created the unity of the La Tene Celtic world over and above tribal and political divisions. This process, which distinguished the elites and partially affected the production of consumer goods, was certainly not new. What changed in the fourth and third centuries BC was that standardization gained greater ground than ever before; the same standards could now be found from one end of Europe to the other, from the Atlantic Ocean to the shores of the Black Sea." [...]

[...] "For an idea of the scale of standardization, it is sufficient to examine the distribution not just of personal items (for example, the copper alloy fibulae from Duchcov or Munsingen,or short swords that have scabbards with openwork and rounded chape ends,which are typical series from the last two-thirds of the fourth century BC), but also the sets of weapons, combining a sword (complete with scabbard and suspension system), a spear, and personal shields, which have been found in lands separated by several hundreds or thousands of kilometers.The patterns, more symbolic than ornamental, in an escutcheon arrangement — such as zoomorphic lyres on a textured background — that were reproduced identically on certain swords of similar shape and design found in France (Champagne, Languedoc), northern Italy, Hungary, and even Britainalso give another idea of the scale of standardization."

https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANNA_672_0295--the-golden-age-of-the-celtic-aristocracy.htm

You said I was oversimplifying ?

Edited by Genava55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"La tombe à char de Boé, située à 5 km de l'oppidum de l'Ermitage d'Agen, est une découverte capitale. La fosse dans laquelle ont été découverts des restes de planches est une immense chambre funéraire de 70 m2, datée du dernier quart du Ier siècle avant J.-C.1. Des destructions modernes et un probable pillage antique avaient malheureusement fortement dégradé le mobilier. 
Un mobilier riche et abondant se trouvait dans la tombe. Un équipement de guerrier, comprenant un casque conique à ornements d'émail, les fragments d'un bouclier rond et d'une cotte de mailles, attestent du très haut rang du défunt." 

"Rich and abundant furniture was found in the tomb. Warrior equipment, including a conical helmet with enamel ornamentation, fragments of a round shield and a coat of mail, attest to the very high rank of the deceased."

http://media.agen.fr/culture/musees/beaux_arts/mini_sites/gaulois/dossier_presse.pdf

A vague yet direct reference to a round shield from the 1st century BC Gauls at Agen. As I said, actually finding intact shields from this period is very hard, no matter the type, but apparently a round shield has been found in a La Tène context at Agen. 

 

Nice quotes, but I don't understand how they refute what I said... I said Belgic influence in Britain begins in the 2nd century BC (perhaps not 200 BC, but 120 BC is still 2nd century BC...). I also indicated that La Tène style probably predates Belgic influence. The point is that La Tène came from the mainland...

22 hours ago, Genava55 said:

It doesn't mean they are peoples coming from the mainland.

I didn't say that. We're talking about the material culture here. My whole point from the beginning is that the La Tène period equipment from Southern Britain gives us clues about the equipment used by mainland Celts as well, because La Tène was so widely spread (not identical, but similar)...

 

22 hours ago, Genava55 said:

You missed my point. I wanted to highlight the fact that round shield were never used by only a class of skirmishers but by the whole warrior class. And I don't understand why a oval shield should be more complicated or more ornate, neither more expensive, to produce. In these cultures, even the elite warrior were using round shield. I think the practical argument that the round shield is better for skirmishing is a paralogism. The argument that the round shield is less expensive and more affordable is a paralogism too. An oval shield doesn't need an umbone, and this piece is the most expensive part. If we want to make a really affordable and cheap shield, why not making something that is proved by some sources, like the wicker shields mentioned in De Bello Gallico. 

Maintaining the round shield for skirmishers was just a suggestion to differentiate them from the more prestigious noble warriors or dedicated warrior classes carrying oval/hexagonal shields in-game. I was obviously referring to the more complicated and ornate oval and hexagonal Celtic shields more commonly depicted, often with umbone, as opposed to what non-nobles would have used. The Celtic round shields depicted in historical reconstructions and seen among the Golasecca and Castro cultures are clearly smaller than the oval and hexagonal types. They use less material and are less cumbersome to put together (and handle) simply because they're smaller. Not a paralogism, just common sense. That having said, I'm not opposed to wicker shields...

 

22 hours ago, Genava55 said:
Quote

"The vitality of Celtic societies in the fourth and third centuries is expressed by the standardization of craftsmanship, [...]"

 

That's 2 centuries, as I said, not a few decades. Regional evolutions might have happened fast, but that doesn't mean La Tène became uniform across Europe with a snap of the fingers. Also, standardization in craftsmanship doesn't mean uniformity in distribution of equipment. The way equipment is distributed is not equal across the Celtic world, not even in La Tène period. There were clear and noticeable differences between those Celts living close to the Mediterranean, vs the ones in the interior, vs the Belgae vs the Britons. Environmental differences, accessibility to raw materials, proximity to non-Celtic groups, etc, result in differences in material culture, even if they were wearing the same helmet or whatever. But again, this is besides the point. My point from the beginning is that they were actually similar enough, to draw inspiration from various mainland Celts to create the Gallic faction in 0AD, e.g. round shields are ok (they just shouldn't be overly prominent)...  

 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

A vague yet direct reference to a round shield from the 1st century BC Gauls at Agen. As I said, actually finding intact shields from this period is very hard, no matter the type, but apparently a round shield has been found in a La Tène context at Agen.  

This one made me laugh, but not because of you. I tell you why. I already got this discussion a few years ago and someone point me out a post on a thread in the forum kelticos.org. Someone find this press resumee/summary in french and translated it with google. It is true, clearly it mentions a "round shield". Problem, at this period it was very hard to find anything on internet about this discovery. I wanted the publication to verify this because I find it very exciting. Finding a round shield at the end of the Gallic Wars is just amazing and can tell you a lot of things about the weaponry evolution. Contrary to the common belief, there is very few indications of round shields in central Europa at this period, the only ones comes from very far in Poland and Baltic regions. There is small square shields in Jutland, in North-eastern Germany and in Ireland, but nothing that tell you why the round shields become so popular among Germanic tribes during the migrations period. Even during the Marcomannic Wars there is no evidences of round shields. For exemple, in the Thorsberg moor's votive site where there is offerings from 0 to 500 AD, the round shields start to appears only during the 3rd century. Thus for me, this discovery of a round shield in a post-Gallic Wars context was just amazing. Then I took my @#$% to the archeological library of my University. I asked for the 2004 publication of Schönfelder on this tomb and for his original thesis in German from 2000. Since I am from Switzerland, it took one month to get these documents, and do you know what I found? Simply that the person writing the press summary for the city of Agen had misunderstood the findings. It was round umbones. Not round shields. The original thesis conclude on the paragraph about the shield: "Nach den verbliebenen Fragmenten war der Schild von Boé ein gängiger, funktionaler Spätlatènetypus, wie er etwa auch in den Gräbern von Pîtres im Département Eure und Mainzweiler im Saarland gefunden wurde." Meaning it was a common and functional shield similar to two others findings in Gaul. But imagine my frustration to have waited one month and lose two days to read the material in German (not a common language for me). It is why I'm not referring anymore on anything that is not grounded by a publication.

You don't imagine the mistakes that appears with this kind of situation. For example, the first mod Europa Barbarorum I, on the first Rome Total War. All the barbarians factions were build using medieval irish tales and the delirium of someone that said he was a historian. Peoples working on Roman and Hellenistic histories, peoples with real knowledge, didn't even realize that an impostor was working on the Celtic factions. Someone who suggested two-handed swordsman, Giant hammer warrior and Irish heavy infantryman with scales armor. Even these peoples believed his information on word. Since the first mod was considerate very historical accurate, peoples took inspiration from their work. It is why you can find some two-handed swordsmen in 0ad. But this thing doesn't exist anymore on the second Europa Barbarorum. You can barely recognize the barbarians factions between the two mods. Because now, the team is very very careful when they are selecting someone for the mod.

3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Nice quotes, but I don't understand how they refute what I said... I said Belgic influence in Britain begins in the 2nd century BC (perhaps not 200 BC, but 120 BC is still 2nd century BC...). I also indicated that La Tène style probably predates Belgic influence. The point is that La Tène came from the mainland... 

It was a precision about the Belgians. And the shield wasn't found in a context with what they call "Aylesford-Swarling" culture related with the Belgians. Thus, I didn't consider the find as related with the mainland Gauls. Moreover, the second quote about the La Tène style is what is interesting about the question because clearly this kind of style used on the shield is clearly native to Britain. It is an inspiration from what the mainland celts did. But these findings, with highly decorated shields and mirrors, with this plastic La Tène art, are not known outside of Britain. And as I said, I don't understand why people are referring about this shield as a round shield since it was clearly riveted on something. And there is a couple of shields totally preserved in Britain but none are round.

3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Maintaining the round shield for skirmishers was just a suggestion to differentiate them from the more prestigious noble warriors or dedicated warrior classes carrying oval/hexagonal shields in-game. I was obviously referring to the more complicated and ornate oval and hexagonal Celtic shields more commonly depicted, often with umbone, as opposed to what non-nobles would have used. The Celtic round shields depicted in historical reconstructions and seen among the Golasecca and Castro cultures are clearly smaller than the oval and hexagonal types. They use less material and are less cumbersome to put together simply because they're smaller. Not a paralogism, just common sense. That having said, I'm not opposed to wicker shields... 

I was maybe a bit rough by saying it is a paralogism. I don't say it is not common sense and logical. It is just that we are, us the moderns peoples living in an industrial world, efficiency focused in our way to think. By the example of the use of rounds shields in celtiberian and italic cultures, I wanted to express something I have maybe misaddressed: the traditions for the use of weapons need to fit the cultural view of warfare. The round shields were used because these peoples wanted to use round shields. There is innovation in barbarian cultures, but they are always grounded with military and cultural changes. For example, the Gallic sword is getting longer from 300 BC to 30BC. Why? Because the elites warriors evolute slowly from an infantry and chariot based warfare to a cavalry based warfare. Because it is simultaneous with an increase of horse in warrior burials and the horses were becoming bigger. Furthermore, the sword tip were sometimes rounded in warrior burial. It seems that the elite warriors were more often on horses than on foot.

About the oval shields without umbones, there is evidence even in very late reliefs like this one:

gallic_cluny.jpg

3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

That's 2 centuries, as I said, not a few decades. Regional evolutions might have happened fast, but that doesn't mean La Tène became uniform across Europe with a snap of the fingers.

Oh sorry, this paragraph is referring about La Tène evolution. For the the Hallstatt-LaTène boundaries (550-450BC), it is a more complex talk because it is based on the destruction and the desertion very sudden of several aristocratic places. There is also burial practices change during this moment. Notably, there is a huge increase of weapons in the more modest burials. The society seems to change from a peaceful to a warfare oriented society. But it is very complex because there is a regional origin proposed for this sociocultural process (the Marne region) and it seems it spread rapidly from this place. But in this region, the evolution from Hallstatt to LaTène was a bit more slower (and a bit more older).

3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Also, standardization in craftsmanship doesn't mean uniformity in distribution of equipment. The way equipment is distributed is not equal across the Celtic world, not even in La Tène period. There were clear and noticeable differences between those Celts living close to the Mediterranean, vs the ones in the interior, vs the Belgae vs the Britons. Environmental differences, accessibility to raw materials, proximity to non-Celtic groups, etc, result in differences in material culture, even if they were wearing the same helmet or whatever.

There is regional specificity but they are more subtle. The Britons are clearly different because it is not admitted they are from a La Tène culture for most of the british historians. There is clearly a connection because it was the Golden Age of the mainland Celts and everybody started to use their weapons, potteries and crafted items (it is why we can found La Tène items in Jutland and in Ukraine). The Britons have different burial practices and different architectures. The La Tène burials and architecture were only found in the Arras culture in the eastern part of Yorkshire. It is why some british historians are very opposed with the old Franco-germanic theories of La Tène spreading by invasions. Their views are more based on acculturation. The first time I read the book of Cunliffe about Iron Age in Britain, I was surprised how it is different from the common view of the french literature. I think there is a language barrier for the old historians that is hard to overcome. Cunliffe is very bad when he is writing about central European findings and french historians like J.-L. Brunaux are very bad for the british findings. Gladly, it is changing thanks to young peoples.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

My point from the beginning is that they were actually similar enough, to draw inspiration from various mainland Celts to create the Gallic faction in 0AD, e.g. round shields are ok (they just shouldn't be overly prominent)...   

And it is why I'm saying that the use of weapons are more based on cultural views. For me, saying the Golesecca culture could have transmitted the round shield to the La Tène culture by the same time they got dominated and their culture disappeared is weird. There is regional specificity of the Italian group and there is survivance of pre-La-Tène culture in some place. Even during the Roman Republic. But all the time, the specific findings were found in this place. Never outside their sphere. They are a minor and dominated culture, how they could influence another culture in his golden age? For example, in Giubiasco there is a warrior burial with a helmet that seems anachronistic for the period. The warrior is even equipped with a La Tène shield and a Roman gladius. It is known that this place show some survival of the Golesecca culture and some Lepontic unknown culture. The region was never been densely populated before the Roman Empire. Even during the Roman period, when they are officially controlling the region, you can find warrior burials with mainly La Tène items. Because, I will quote a blond modern politician, this is a "shithole country". Besides the joke, the region is really weird for historical findings, always a bit disconnected of the rest of the world.

Thus even by considerate the exceptional findings and the rare survival of previous culture, I don't see anything that could have spread into the La Tène culture. It stays always in a local scale. I'm really trying to understand this view for common bilateral cultural sharing of warfare items. But I don't have any example that fit in. Even in the Balkan where there is a huge mess and patchwork of different cultures at this period. More often there, the cultural sharing of warfare items is unilateral, i.e. peoples are starting to use La Tène items.

For your pleasure, here the Giubiasco warrior.

Giubiasco_warrior.jpg

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Genava55 Might be a weird question but since you mentioned the Rome I mod having traitors in their ranks if I might say can you tell us a bit more about your references ? :)

Maybe you could put up a thread with all the incorrectness of the current Celtic factions with screenshots saying what is innacurate ? Also maybe update the design document for those civ and give some way of improvements.What do you think ?

i love those endless discussions about history but I also like productive talking :) here in the form of making 0AD better.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

@Genava55 Might be a weird question but since you mentioned the Rome I mod having traitors in their ranks if I might say can you tell us a bit more about your references ? :)

Sure. I am an environmental scientist with a specialization in geochemistry. I am not a historian neither an archeologist. I have some basic academic knowledge in archaeology because I had some courses about paleo-ecology, paleo-geomorphology and paleo-geochemistry in Holocene context. Ancient history and La Tène culture are an old hobby I have since my teenage years. The only thing very useful in my academic background is mostly that I know where to look for accurate information.

Quote

Maybe you could put up a thread with all the incorrectness of the current Celtic factions with screenshots saying what is innacurate ? Also maybe update the design document for those civ and give some way of improvements.What do you think ? 

i love those endless discussions about history but I also like productive talking :) here in the form of making 0AD better.

When I got the time, I will. For the moment I have a break because I'm waiting for my results from a laboratory before to continue my research.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

This one made me laugh, but not because of you. I tell you why. [...]

You seem to be right... This publication http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2000/0093/pdf/dms.pdf ? It does indeed talk about runden schildbuckel and not rundschild. Interesting...

Yeah, a lot of misconceptions and inaccuracies are spread through popular culture like games and movies and even mistranslations or misinterpretation of academic sources like we see here. Thanks for pointing it out, and taking your time to explain. That's one of the reasons why I like 0AD so much, because people here at least try to keep it as historical as possible, but as you can see, it's a work in progress. 

I don't really disagree with anything in your response, and I have to admit you do seem to have a decent grip on Celtic history. I can understand better where you are coming from, and won't further oppose your opposition to round shields among the La Tène period Gauls (unless I actually find something :P). I'm still not convinced about a total lack of round shields though, but I get you. There is no concrete evidence we know of to support the notion.

What are your thoughts though on some of the (obscure) coins seemingly depicting round shields? I know some are Roman or Greek/Macedonian replica's, but the presences of Hellenic armour like the linothorax among some Celts might suggest they're more than just replica's, no? The way that the Thyreos entered the Greek world or the Gallic helmet entered the Roman world, light round (skirmishing) shields (think of Velites or Cretan archers) may have entered the Gallic panoply, as archery did by the time of the Gallic wars? I know, I know, pure conjecture, but entertain me..

As @stanislas69 said, sharing quality references is always appreciated, and good visual references are extremely useful for artists to work with, especially primary stuff. You could also share your interpretations of historical illustrations, discussing what is accurate and what is not/should be changed and how. I'm particularly interested in the architecture. I think it looks pretty good right now for a rural setting, but I feel like the proto-urban feel of the oppida is lacking. I collected a few artists' renditions of various oppida, ready for scrutiny (should post them soon) then I'll give you a ping. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

You seem to be right... This publication http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2000/0093/pdf/dms.pdf ? It does indeed talk about runden schildbuckel and not rundschild. Interesting...

Yes, this one. It's the thesis.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Yeah, a lot of misconceptions and inaccuracies are spread through popular culture like games and movies and even mistranslations or misinterpretation of academic sources like we see here. Thanks for pointing it out, and taking your time to explain. That's one of the reasons why I like 0AD so much, because people here at least try to keep it as historical as possible, but as you can see, it's a work in progress. 

Thank you for your message. The misinterpretation is normal since the knowledge is not free and accessible. There is only a few peoples that are doing historical mistakes with a bad intention behind. I don't have a grief against good peoples doing mistakes but against scientists that often didn't share their works. It is why I'm a huge supporter of science hub and affiliate platforms. Especially since I went to poor countries where students didn't have access to a good library. Osprey is often the only accessible source for amateurs but their work is sometimes of mediocre quality.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

What are your thoughts though on some of the (obscure) coins seemingly depicting round shields?

Well it is very difficult to interpret anything with coins without a complete series of the same coins. One classical example with a coin of Cunobelin that was described as showing a round shield even by someone like Cunliffe. But when we look in details is it really obvious that it is a round shield? I don't know. When I look to another coin of this serie, the shape of the shield is clearly less obvious. Then how to be sure that it is not an artifact from the coin's matrix? The difficulty for this coin of Cunobelin is the rarity. There is not a lot in circulation. It is the same problem with the coin of Tasciovanus (2nd one) where Cunliffe see a rectangular shield and where the others coins seems to tell a different story. The coins of Epaticcus are a good example of similarity with the Cunobelin coins and they have some variations too.

Spoiler

 

roundshield_cunliffe.jpg

image.png.32628d9b6a49b1ba91aacd1f684d428d.png

 

image00013.jpg

IA_coin12_184a.jpg

117.49.jpg

original.jpg

image.png.c16933e505fd8600113dca6800a085d6.png

image.thumb.png.2f0a4133e29c1dbda1d9b2dfd0373ee6.png

image.png.3638281439bbef29ad895ffd02260864.png

 

This coin is more difficult, it is a Caesar coin dated of 48 BC.
 

Spoiler

image.png.331e60c9fe37b2769bfff0d10b40df4f.png


The problem is that all gallic coins from Caesar are showing a carnyx. It is not the case here.

Spoiler

 

image.png.255befd5735cbe9a3479acec4d92df18.png

image.png.b7a26b5067454e2d8fc181bea0811712.png

image.png.97a9d13ac97be0cd4d9ebbad7dceebf7.png

image.png.f2b056c28875d6f2a8532631415f5913.png

 

And there is spanish and roman coins from Caesar:
  

Spoiler

 

image.png.39c8be9201322a6215af9cd237ccf2e4.png

image.png.ce9f9d1da8c35221c670cd53151397f7.png

 

And the shield is the same that this one used for Juno Sospita:

Spoiler

image.png.58c6a7539e5ca066a1fa8fdd989f4cde.png

Thus I am skeptical.

 

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Thank you for your message. The misinterpretation is normal since the knowledge is not free and accessible. There is only a few peoples that are doing historical mistakes with a bad intention behind. I don't have a grief against good peoples doing mistakes but against scientists that often didn't share their works. It is why I'm a huge supporter of science hub and affiliate platforms. Especially since I went to poor countries where students didn't have access to a good library. Osprey is often the only accessible source for amateurs but their work is sometimes of mediocre quality.

Yeah, I also get annoyed by not being able to access juicy information sometimes, especially when dealing with obscure or controversial histories where quality research really matters. I'm a strong believer in freedom of information, as I believe it's a basic ingredient for the universal development of the human race on a whole. The real difference between have's and have not's is often simply access and exposure to information. 

Some ramblings about bad intentions:

Spoiler

You'd be surprised about people having bad (or questionable) intentions when it comes to history writing though. I have a broad interest in African history, among other things, and it's downright shocking what some people write. Some of it is simply (academic) ignorance, but on all sides of the "political spectrum" there are individuals and organizations dedicated to re-wrriting African history in a way that benefits their own political narratives, and the deliberate mis-information spread by these people often starts living a life of its own. For example: from a black supremacist perspective there are people spreading the idea that all the ancient civilizations of the Romans, Greeks, even Chinese and Native Americans where actually built by black Africans, and evil white devils came along, killed all the black people and erased every trace of them from the records in a monumental cover-up. Socrates was black. The Roman Emperors were black. Even the Celts were actually black people... Yeah... On the other end of the spectrum, there are white supremacists that claim black Africans never left the stone-age, never achieved anything, and every trace of civilization in Africa was actually built by white men, who were later murdered by the evil blackies... Africans never invented writing, the wheel, architecture, agriculture or animal husbandry... Yeah...  It's scary how active these people are, but what's more scary is that not every falsehood they spread is as obvious to spot as the blatant examples given. Some of these guys are actually intelligent, and mix falsehoods with real facts in such a way that even intelligent people start believing them, and this misinformation starts entering the mainstream... You even see these things in Europe, when ancient histories are used to construct national narratives, look at the situation between Greece and Macedonia. Some of these narratives are "innocent, like the naming of Belgium (one of my home counties), after the Belgae "the bravest of the Gauls"... My other home country (Ghana), is named after the Ghana Empire, which was actually in Mali and Mauritania... But other narratives are not so innocent. e.g. the Aryan race vs the Untermensch. Growing up in Belgium, the dominant narrative around the colonization of Congo, for example, was one of a civilizational mission, and the school curriculum said nothing about the more than 10 million Congolese people that perished as a result, and completely omitted the history of previous states that had existed in these area's. My high-school history teacher didn't even know about the horrors, and was visibly shocked when she found out...  In fact, all African history was omitted from our curriculum, and pre-Colombian and East-Asian history was merely glossed over. Many "situations" around the world, like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Rohingya crisis, Kashmir, American race-relations, Crimea, Sunni-Shia divide, to name a few are steeped so deeply in politicized historical narratives that the need to be aware of these political dimensions becomes a necessity when assessing history writing on these subjects. Everyone has an opinion, even if they're not aware of having it, or where it comes from, and these sometimes subconscious opinions influence the way we digest and recall information. 

 

These guys could definitely be interpreted as round shields:

1720296278_PossibleCelticroundshields.thumb.jpg.9ee4034258f5138b2bf62a1e64f1fd39.jpg

But as you indicated, it's more of a matter of interpretation. The 2 on the left could almost be interpreted as some kind of highly stylized solar wheel (the shields seem kind of off-set from the rider, while the other proportions are alright, and other similar coins depict solar wheels in a variety of styles). I saw the one on the right before, but didn't share it because I was having difficulty identifying it... It's definitely a round shield. But who's? 

What do you think about a few round shields for the Britons in-game, to differentiate them from the Gauls? Do you have any clear visualisations of the wicker shields? What are your opinions on the small square and small rectangular shields? 

 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Duron is  the market? 

Yes, often the Romans have translated the toponym "-duron" in place and in forum. It is the only thing that is the closest to the word "market".

 

Edit: to be more precise, the oppida are mainly places of trading. It is why the name "duron" is translated for a lot of things, including fortress. But it doesn't make any sense when you look to the latinized versions and when you try to understand "duron" as a fortress only. For example there is "Salodurum", you can interpret it like Salt fortress or like salt market. In the opposite, "Dunon" is less ambiguous.

Edited by Genava55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The denomination Οκελοδούρον and its equivalent Latin description Octoduron is the oldest documented. It is known that octo- is a god in Celtic culture.6 However, other authors believe that the prefix ocelo- means promontory or hill, and is frequently found in Celtic toponyms such as: Alaunocelum, lulocelum, Cinctocelu. In the same way the word Ocelus in Lower Germania and Brittany is used as a theonymy of Mars. The later denomination oceloduri from octoduron is a corruption that transforms octo- by ocelo-. Being popular and incorrect Ocelo duri.

7 The suffix -durum (* hard- "strong" or "castro"). Some meanings have given rise to the Latinized translation of Ocelo Duri as eye of the Duero (as in Anonymous of Ravenna). It appears as an ectodurum in the Mendoza codex. This suffix appears in various place names throughout the Celtic peoples of Europe, such as Boiodurum and Sorviodurum in Upper Germania, Brivodurum, Divodurum and Icciodurum la Gaul, and Mutudurum in Celtiberia. The name of Octoduron can mean the "fort of the promontory".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is a common translation. I'm not a specialist in linguistic, I use only the gallic dictionary of X. Delamarre. What is your opinion with name like augustodurum?

And about octodurus, do you know why Caesar described it as a vicus? And why its name was changed to forum claudii augustii?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Genava55 said:

I know it is a common translation. I'm not a specialist in linguistic, I use only the gallic dictionary of X. Delamarre. What is your opinion with name like augustodurum?

And about octodurus, do you know why Caesar described it as a vicus? And why its name was changed to forum claudii augustii?

My last name is Durón is why I'm very curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Genava55, very nice pdf...

Let me add a few artists' interpretations (feel free to scrutinize) 

Spoiler

Manching (Germany):

M1-1.jpg.569ade494bad6e90b66fd24a9ce098ce.jpg

600px-Manching_oppidum_siedlung.thumb.JPG.73eb733929c5b7db0efe296839528078.JPG

Foto-Wolfgang-David_Keltenstadt-von-Manching-Modell__PICT3211-klein.jpg.24c112c0dd93b7a9e1d1bcace4c9a000.jpg

05Modell-der-Keltenstadt-von-Manching-um-130-vor-Christus_FotoWolfgangDavidPICT0742.jpg.30e9bb809266843034aa3f670285f556.jpg

 

 

Corent

CORENT.thumb.jpg.dcabd1b16c4652dd1193051269664659.jpg

 

 

Bibracte:

1743748901_Bibracte_1st_century_B.C.jpg.59122fcdc2b0cab34c19125c2754cf63.jpg

559611906_ScreenShot2017-08-10at20_35_58.thumb.png.91ea1cf2ce412d338266cb4691016a94.png

gaule-bibracte-porte-de-rebout.jpg.7ead88bb09d3598ef2e58be8aec65f90.jpg

gaule-bibracte-mont-beuvray-come-chaudron.jpg.d9ed2ea2977a9b8e149e04ba7872c356.jpg

gaule-bibracte-pature-du-couvent.thumb.jpg.7b2eb5d38e963a95f516500adc743773.jpg

1869619560_ScreenShot2017-08-10at20_37_53.thumb.png.a753b8be261a821f162535ee98616140.png

 

 

Entremont :

gaule-entremont-vue.jpg.393418177f75cdf50a1dd19a47148c58.jpg

gaule-entremont-rue-bis.thumb.jpg.13969a11973c4b2249da950704172b49.jpg

 

Parisii Oppidum

P3D-Gaulois_screenshot_38.jpg.35e8c7acc5802c1297318e0641ee86fc.jpg

With Corent Sanctuary?? :P 

P3D-Gaulois_screenshot_42.jpg.124985ec223f64d009ad17647aec6ead.jpg

Paris-3D-gaulois.jpg.ef27441c02fa860f6c72e0878b7d2f0b.jpg

 

 

Heuneburg (Germany, mostly Halstatt):

1596506493_cover-r4x3w1000-585279a77e84f-RestitutiondusitefortifiedeHeuneburgenAllemagnecopyrightdapd-AP.jpg.5e675d8f9faa1cd595390aef8b52375e.jpg

1117400455_Heuneburg_(Diorama_im_Heuneburg-Museum_Hundersingen).thumb.jpg.1afcac9d724d64891b5592898533c477.jpg

2018-foto_sonnenuntergang_heuneburg.thumb.jpg.78ca1243cf35d031cd0f41bc77af4b6d.jpg

260877_1_fullwide_ez10kr12b.jpg.4c50ec3dd9617bac86a8e0d9593609e9.jpg

 

 

Others:

71.jpg.7a57d205b864248142e3f5cf5f039d30.jpg

72af43f2ed2b19886b6d4bb15d6507d0.jpg.65c45152ac993f6cbfb0ccb1cc76ac0e.jpg

Acy01.thumb.jpg.4cd757b86a37348d5385086fded18d36.jpg

f325dd981bdc65e841f54d072e9b1043.thumb.jpg.93e9db4609b1b90bbe88d85b7cda85fc.jpg

get.jpeg.a1279191b8651b37c815de385faf9b4a.jpeg

 

@stanislas69 Didn't you already make the sanctuary at Corent?? Since Stonehenge is such a terrible choice for the Gallic wonder (don't get me wrong it's a gorgeous model, just totally wrong), wouldn't the Corent sanctuary be a much better choice?

Spoiler

Since monumental architecture wasn't much of a thing in Gaul, I elect the Corent sanctuary for Wonder:

gauls_architecture2.thumb.jpg.e5a0209e944c85869d0def7a31308713.jpg

gauls_architecture3.thumb.jpg.07ccadf51353785ac70832f1fc192020.jpg

 

I really think the sanctuary of Gournay sur Aronde should replace the current Gallic temple... This one looks way more authentic. 

gauls_architecture.thumb.jpg.6a84cd4f74692ec6bb23f885888a0ab1.jpg

 

 

This would indeed make for a really lovely market place

gauls_architecture4.thumb.jpg.3227fcdaf200f0c809d43a18fbd4f665.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...