greycat

OK I see. I guess the Huns would have been coming into contact with them then, which would qualify them as being active.

I do like the idea of goths but they seem to be a more nomadic Germanic group that sacked Rome only in order to become citizens of Rome.

"we don't put cheruschi or sweben or batavi or marcommanni!" Maybe I am not understanding...The Saxons were just a confederation of Germanic tribes. They don't seem to be active during timeline do they? Saxon : a member of the Germanic people who entered and conquered England in the fifth century A.D.

Good info. Yes. The Romans were very good at adopting others ideas. They even adopted Gallic helmet designs into their own...

In the ancient literature I have encountered Kelt (German) is the more proper pronunciation. Gaul is a term for a more Roman (Latin) Celt living in the area of Gaul. The German Kelts seems to have another religion than the druids of Gaul. Both were anciently of the same people and called Kelts/Celts.

AD 260 - Clement of Alexandria’s Stromala I, xv, 71, 3 1 Thus philosophy, a science of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the pro-phets of the Egyptians ; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians ; and the Druids among the Gauls ; and the Samanaeans among the Bactrians; and the philosophers of the Kelts; and the Magi of the Persians.

People born into Celtic speaking country are not really Celtic.Those that learn the culture are Celtic.

The druids claim to to be Aborigine, which most scholars interpret as meaning "from the earth".

we all came from Africa originally.

"Nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government" It is the second part I am not comfortable with...

They do seem a little generic to me though compared to say like the Spartans...i.m.o. It is probably my own personal rejection of national identities also...

Yes. sry I have ocd and social anxiety... communication is probably not my strong point...

As a military force they went up against Ceassar during the Gallic wars but were subdued. Some migrated to southern Britain and they introduced the heavy plow, which was used to clear many lands previously untillable.

In modern times we got very excited about the Celts and classified things such as languages and even mistakenly to older cultures (stonehenge). We just never looked deep enough...

I agree for game purposes these divisions are acceptable. What I was attempting to explain is the Germans were also anciently called Celts. Much has been written both ancient and modern that concludes the Roman divisions are based on geography not the people. I am not saying the game needs the change, it our minds. The Celts didn't have one language. The modern classification of Celtic languages is thus flawed. Ancient German would be as much a Celtic language according to ancient writers. You are correct there is nothing wrong with the classifications in the game.

ok

we are not talking about the same thing...

It should be cultures name not a province name of Rome. i.m.o. It doesn't matter if it is in Greek or English to me.

...they were but lately denominated Gauls, for they have always called themselves Celtae. Pausanias (fl. c. 150 A.D.) was a Greek geographer and native of Lydia who explored Greece, Macedonia, Asia and Africa, and then settled in Rome. This is what the Scotish Highlanders also call them, as well as Celt

In my opinion using Gaul would be the akin to taking one native American tribal name and then applying it to a whole region that you wanted to control, but not reflecting any of the other tribal names. I think during a certain time period(during the Gallic wars)this would be appropriate but not to all the time the game covers...

True, but Celt was a name given to us by them from multiple sources. Gaul was a name given by the Romans only. Like I said this just my own opinion. So we can discuss... Gaul apparently came from one tribal name then applied as a geographical location. Also the name Gaul was later dropped by cartographers and replaced by a region called Celtica which encompassed the region. Romans liked to divide things by areas they could control and not based on the people.

Just an idea...Call the area Celtica? We can then have both Celts, Germans and Belgae etc.. I am fine with just a German faction also. "europe and celtica are synonymous" * It was stated by the creator of the modern atlas Abraham Ortelius.Abraham Ortelius (Abraham Ortels) (14 April 1527 – 28 June 1598) was a Flemish cartographer and geographer, generally recognized as the creator of the first modern atlas, the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (Theatre of the World). He is also believed to be the first person to imagine that the continents were joined together before drifting to their present positions. *source: The Scottish Gaël; Or, Celtic Manners, as Preserved Among the Highlanders: Being an Historical and Descriptive Account of the Inhabitants, Antiquities, and National Peculiarities of Scotland : More Particularly of the Northern, Or Gäelic Parts of the Country, where the Singular Habits of the Aboriginal Celts are Most Tenaciously Retained, Volume 1 Celtica, Aquitania and the Roman Province. 1736.

...Also the Belgae are known to be Gallo-Germanic.

It could be Germanic to start with at least. The Suebi were a good fraction of Germany according to ancient writers . It is strange to me they are missing. i.m.o. ...also c. 500 BC shows major Celtic city in Germany. The Gauls were more Roman later. According to ancient writers that created the terms we use today, both Gaul and Germany are of the same people anciently called Celts.

In my own words. I feel the Celts would have never called themselves British. It was not my intention to seem like I was arguing, I was using this as a forum. Thanks for listening to my opinion.