Rodmar

And ? That only tends toward showing that Celtic populations (the core centers of Celtic Iron Age!) were more likely assimilated and acculturated there than repelled or destroyed. This doesn't contradict the fact that those people are of Germanic culture now, and for more than a millenary. But look at the Germanic invasions maps: I'm not a linguist, but you could nearly say that those areas with a former Celtic substrate (La Tène) are now speaking High German or Bavaro-austrian... Anyway, for the "most Celtic DNA", I have to reread your sources... I know very well that you want to conclude that the Insular Celts were only an elite minority ruling a non Indo-European people (like the Iberian). I'd oppose another point of view: the Celts are not the same depending on what time you consider. I guess that this "Celtic DNA" is a late mutation more or less contemporary to the Iron Age, and archaeologists know where Celtic Iron spawned. Other geneticists and linguists speak about Celts from the Bronze Age on, and those ones could have migrated in mass to the islands. But I have to reread your sources.

Thank you very much for this very interesting link (one of those pages has a comprehensive meta-search from late paleolithic to iron age skeleton analysis). However, it seems that most of these DNA search are far beyond the scope of the Iron Age and the 500 BC - 0 AD period. Hopefully one day, a transversal study will consolidate knowledge about the complex settlement of Europe and the World. For now and even concerning BC events, archaeologists are reluctant to associate ethnicity (tribes) to material evidences and prefer to talk about "material cultures", because a grave won't tell for sure whether a culture trait had just been adopted by an otherwise foreigner culture. In some cases however, it may show a cultural habit brusquely disappearing (in one generation), and that could be an evidence for a tribe being "pushed" rather than assimilated by another one. As an example, have a look at the wiki page about the interactions (or lack of) between the Przeworsk and Wielbark Germanic cultures and the migrations in central-oriental Europe. As I tried to say to posts ago, of course you can say that Celts and Germans (and whoever they have subjugated) are culturally and linguistically nearer to each other than to Hellens and Indo-Iranians, but that won't help us for the 500 BC - 0 AD period. Also, concerning those marvelous genetic tools, they are only meant to be used jointly with other fields of study such as archeology, linguistic, myth and historic accountancies, etc. In another thread, I thought I had already suggested you that some modern theories don't credit the mass murdering of the druids in Ireland, but I will make it more clear. You can admit that through cultural influences and maturation, the Celtic religion was prepared for monotheism to some extend (faith into a hell/hostile invisible world, one greater, less anthropomorphic, more allegoric divinity compared to the Olympus' many, contractual and anthropomorphic gods);Welsh missionaries are said to have debated with the druids (we aren't so naive as to think it was just a display of a better magic!);The Gaelic society did massively and "immediately" adhere to the new religion; this is hardly understandable when you consider Ireland was not conquered nor threatened, and the Celtic society was very hierarchic with a strong sacerdotal class;The bards, who were more central here than in other Celtic culture (being their kings' counselors), are considered to have evangelized their country;Ireland and Wales sent missionaries eastward to other former Celtic lands such as the Gaul, whereas these lands had already met a more "oriental" Christianity;I don't want to be OT here, but some early churches are weirdly decorated (only vegetal and allegoric motives), and some of the Christian mysticism is clearly influenced by Celtic remnants (initiating path or to develop one's karma).So, an explanation could be that the Gaelic church massively and rapidly adopted the new religion, adapted its beliefs to the Celtic mindset, operating a subtle synchretism, and then have this spread among the population. That is, before Rome could have a chance to look at it and something to say about, much later. This doesn't preclude some bloodshed from having happened, but I'd rather consider it more like a political elimination of some refractories to the consensus (in place of a thorough elimination of the whole sacerdotal class).

I wouldn't suggest that, only that for those scholars, everything north from the Alps was Celtic. Do you see the nuance? The "from the Iberian coast to the Danube's mouth Celtic world" was just a carpet that blinded them before they could actually travel beyond it, much later. BC, you had the same extrapolation in the fringe of the known world with Ethiopa (south), India (east) and Scythia (north).

I feel like greycat is right here. But it really depends on what you call Scythian/Getes... Cataphractes were Samartan and Massagetes (then Alaans). Western Scythian had cavalry archers only as it seems (or an hybrid light spear/archer cavalry). Pisistratus' Scythian archers were equipped with composite bow and hand-axe. In fact, it looks like all Scythians were archers before hellenization. For period 1 (500 BC - 0 AD), Samartan would be unknown. For period 2, you could introduce heavy armored cavalry and female warrior (egalitarian Samartan, not western Scythian).

There! Those kind of culture maps should precisely help you differentiate true Germans from true Celts. Please, don't mix true Germans with people who lived in what Caesar called Germania in the 2nd part of the 1st century BC. and do use fragmentary (a few occurrence) late (posterior to Caesar) accounts with care as far as the epoch 1 is concerned. In other terms, don't mix people of true Nordic ascendancy with people who were only germanized by contact or by sharing a common ancestry who could barely be qualified as Germanic. To this account, better call the Roman, the Cimbri and the Britton cousins and stop this thread! We surely all know that people migrated, were acculturated or even absorbed in that period. 500 BC - 0 AD witnessed the Celtic raids and late migrations, and the Cimbri event, but because of the incredible mix/push that occurred after 0 AD, we lack informations. To my point of view, the most conservative stanza is to clearly identify which people were truly Germanic when they were quite enough depicted and referenced, and only speculate on what happened before, centuries before, to their predecessor. Now, on the arguments: my sources are various Wikis I deem documented and rational enough, as well as an interresting discussion on the Rome:Total War Europa Barbarorum ("What are the Cimbri"). Take care that I will use "Germania" in the sense of Caesar and post-Caesar authors' "Germania Magna": all the land east from the Rhine, north from the Danube and west from Belarus. * Archeology: The Celtic and Germanic iron age central spots are VERY clearly separated. However, in the late La Tène age, a Celtic centre seemed to have came in direct contact with another emerging culture that will be called Germanic. Those Germans were expanding south in the river valleys. In those area at the same times, we find both remains of Celtic oppida and a lot of Germanic artifacts, but that could only mean commercial exchanges. Don't forget about all the Celtic artifacts retrieved in Jutland Germanic tombs, dated from after the Cimbri raid, although trade might not have been the only mean used to acquire them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture * Linguistics: There are three theories to locate the "heartland" where the Indo-Europeans came from in several waves. First is Kurgan (Ural), second is Anatolia, and third is Balkans, the latest being maybe backed by genetic studies. The map shows the first one but the other would be merely shifts from it (with an Aegean/Bosphoran route for the Anatolian's). In short, what is shown is that after the early separation of the Anatolian and Hellenic groups two western group diverged into Proto-Germanic and Celto-Italic. The first went north to the Baltic, the second to the balkans and then separated from each other. Also, the Celts had been given a specific name by the German (Waal or Gaul), maybe based on the Volcae, a tribe that settled in the northern Celtic area, near the Boii. That's nothing to do with the Rhine valley, and now France. Also, do you know the Nordwestblock theory? It seems that all recent maps take account of it. - Belgian anthroponyms and toponyms don't show much evidences of Germanic influence until the Germans started to fight the Roman. - They are much more akin to Gaulish with an anomaly in some words that would antecede P-Celtic. - Maybe only the elite would have spoke Celtic, while the other would have only spoke a language akin to the Italic languages (such as Indo-European(ized) Liguric). - However, Cesar used translators from Iberia and Narbonensis to communicate with the Belgian (and the whole Belgica is considered being populated with peoples using a distinctive dialect). - Some "Celtic" Belgian would call neighbor tribes as "german", that could mean "brother" in Gaulish. At the same time they would boast about their "germanic" origin (in the sense: "we were like them before"). However, they felt Gallic in dire situations. - Cesar naturally called those neighbor land : "Germania", and this was west from the Rhine at first, or a little beyond it (as far as Belgian settled). Then, for the political reasons you explain, the Rhine became a border, and the unknown lands in the NE became Germania (the same for the Danube). - The Belgian formed a federation of peoples either fully, or only partially (or non) celticized. As a result, this theory speculates that the Belgian were Proto-Indo-European people, a bronze age Celtico-Italic branch isolated before the migration of some of them to the Italian peninsula, that were celticized to some extent by eastern and southern Celts as those expanded in Gaul and Britain. A pocket between Main, Rhine, and the North Sea would have been barely touched, however. Thus, the first German ever Cesar encountered in Belgica would be Belgian, both west and east of the Rhine, except maybe some remnants of the Cimbri raid, and the Batavian, further north on the Rhine (they could be the least integrated Belgian too). Then only during 1st century BC, did form or come what will become the Frankish League and the Chatti, truly Germanic speakers. This lead to a Belgian migration in SW Britain, and maybe in all the NW coastal area of Gaul, Armorica included. The same hypothesis might apply to the most southern "germanic" people that really departs from mainstream Germanic penetration. So to say, as soon as German-speaking people (true German, germanized PIE and germanized Celts) appeared near the limes, they would be called... "Germans", that is brothers among the Belgian, which become more ridiculous, the farthest you are from the Rhine valley. A corollary of this is that we are not sure who, east from the Belgian federation, were non federated celticized PIE, germanized PIE or "true" German. As an example, the Sicambri are sometimes depicted as "Celtic", but does it mean that they were not federated Belgian, or another partly celticized local isolate, or a migrating celiticized Proto-German? But they disappeared at the advent of the Frankish League. It is probable that all ended in merging with the pushing German, in the first centuries AD. By the way, in the above I use indistinctly "Belgian" and "Belgian federation" to refer to all the people the Belgian felt akin to (NW PIE in the exposed theory), not to the specific Belgae tribe.

some might bring too much micro You mean for the engine, because most of them would be automated behavior. The end-user would just have to select his units, to click on a formation icon, to click on a stanza, and to click on one or two additional icons. This part could also bring the interesting option of choosing to level your basic unit How do you think I'm currently micro-managing my citizen-units ? (even if leveled units are less efficient workers...) see phalanxes (only "hoplites", and only historical numbers of ranks): no tercios before their time! I was not clear with this phrase. I meant: okay, the phalanx and syntagma are already hoplites only, but you still may have boxed formations with archers, skirmishers and priests inside... while it seems historically okay to form such a defensive last square, should we enable them to walk/run to battle in such a composite formation ? It would be like tercios, really. Now, that leads to the question: could it be interesting to split formations in two categories: * Travel/display formations: only allowed to stand ground / move without breaking. * Battle formations: able to maneuver and go melee without breaking, with more bonus/malus.

Feel free to sanction this bumping (by deleting my post), but it seems the appropriate place to recall that as displayed on the picture above, the whole syntagma should be granted a fairly high piercing armor, or more precisely some resistance to arrow damage, as the arrayed sarissa would ultimately act as solid net able to deflect some missiles. I'm not a specialist however to quantify the deflection, but it should surely be less protective than a tortuga. The distinction between general piercing damage and arrows is not a problem for the first ranks, because of the sheer length of the sarissa, no match to other spears. Or make the archer less efficient (on the opposite, skirmishers would hit normal piercing armor). I don't know how you can handle a flanking or rear attack by archers, though. This is in case you schedule to have raining arrows over a formation...

A few suggestions/wanting of mine. They are not unlike those in this post (March 2012). I too am willing to retrieve some American Conquest features in 0 A.D., but I'll try to go beyond this game experience and suggest something useful (I hope so!): Formations:Entering and changing formations:Depending on the civ. and on acquired technology (training), the speed of gathering in/breaking/changing formations could spread from clumsy and slow to half running, the best being the Hellene and the Roman infantry, Carthaginian light and Gaulish elite (and some German if introduced) cavalry and Ptolemaic archer chariotry (Brittons chariot were more individual units). It would not only reproduce skills and training but also battle mentality (having disciplined warriors could be hard for some civ.). Rigidity of the formation:Depending on the civ. and on the type of formation, engaging in battle could slightly alter the formation (add a little scattering and lessen the bonus/malus). Said otherwise, some civ./units would behave more like current alpha formations, breaking for individual fight, while others would barely move when their first line is engaged. Also, the maneuver superiority of the macedonian phalanx over the hoplite one is known, as well as the even greater flexibility of the roman century (ability to turn 180°, to shift from unidirectional "phalanx" to 4-direction square). Automation and personalization of the grouping:The AI could automatically form a group of diverse units in preset patterns according to a selected defensive/offensive/anti-cavalry stance. As an example, an offensive pattern (column, square, ...) would put skirmishers in first line while a defensive pattern would try and surround weaker units on all sides by shield bearers. Also, some formations couldn't be "personalized" (by selecting units): see phalanxes (only "hoplites", and only historical numbers of ranks): no tercios before their time! Also, the player could be allowed to select a conservative/risky grouping mechanic ; I mean, either spare the veteran (like in the Roman legion) or put them in first line to shorten the fight. Formation and unit AI:Hopefully, the implementation of a formation system and AI could lighten the computing for targeting/ranging, reducing the "field of interest" of each unit in the formation. American Conquest could handle hundreds of melee or distance units on the same battlefield, and I guess it was partly because a unit in formation "knew" that she couldn't stray too far from its neighbors. I have no idea of the algorithm, but formations going to melee looked a bit like galaxies slowly colliding (maybe the formation AI would filter what was passed to the unit AIs ?). Also, animations and micro-tactical behaviour would be great. By this I mean, having the first three ranks of sarissa be lowered down as the enemy closes a phalanx, or a mixed cavalry/infantry having the horsemen charge the closing enemy , followed by the charge of the infantry (like in LoTR:Battle for Middle Earth, Gondor and Rohan factions), having skirmisher automatically retreat behind the first line (of the same formation), having charge specialized units... charge (with bonus) and then retreat to some distance without waiting to be chopped down (before the player order them to reposition and charge again), ... http://swordandarrow.ucoz.com/ A dream : have the Roman legionary rotate inside their formation (even if cosmetic, it could legitimate a huge endurance bonus). The Hellene's first rank would fight to the wound, whereas the Roman would got to the rear to rest a bit and help pushing the front line. By the way, this pushing would prevail with phalanxes whenever not ordered to keep the position (a phalanx would always slightly move forward). Morale:Moral could have a great and realistic impact, but it should be very tuned to the civ. and the type of units (champions vs. citizen). Mediterranean people would highly benefit from close formations. The morale feature should allow the revival of historical facts such as the Cimbri "melting" to the last face to the legion, and at the opposite, the Teuton and later the Gaul panicking at the mere appearance of the enemy in their back (so to say). Knowing how to rout a given enemy or unit type could be great, as well as allowing cavalry to automatically pursue and wreck routing infantry (counting sometimes in great proportions to the total casualties). Maybe the morale system in Cossacks/American Conquest would be too heavy in computing resource, but for those who don't know, type of formation, nearby allied slaughter (lot's of dead in a short time), nearby routed allied, total formation's death toll, death of commander/standard/drummer, being charged at, surrounded, flanked or pinned down by missiles, etc. all of this would sum up and determine whether a formation breaks (loosing bonus) and then retreats or is routed, and whether an individual unit would continue to fight or flee. Some civ. formations could benefit from experience (number of kills) like the Roman and the Hellene to resist morale attrition better. Suicide (self or throwing oneself against a far superior enemy) could eventually occur (German women in some desperate situation would avoid slavery and rape by those who had vanquish their very family). Hiding and escaping, surrendering could occur alike. A feature could allow to rally fleeing units (proximity of a hero or an intact elite formation). In American Conquest, routed units would gather at the town center, but native would roam the map in a silly way (not a good implementation imo). Garrison and assault:Melee infantry would have an assault score to allow them to enter tower and garrisoned building and to capture them. Distance infantry could eventually decrease the number of garrisoned units, but this should of course be pondered (huge defensive bonus for the garrison). Captured building could be manned so as they could shoot at the enemy only if the garrison has distance units (although with less efficiency, and no unmanned arrows !). That would allow for temporary entrenchment during city assault phases. (Under a certain level of damage, damaged) captured building would crumble down over time as if in neutral territory. Unmanned towers, barracks, fortress and town centers would damage the assaulter (to emulate those defenders who fire the arrows); All garrisoned building would further damage the assaulter, with no prisoner taken (either the building is captured or the assaulter are slain). Women inside building would not contribute (except for some civ. ?) and would be automatically enslaved if the building is captured (or get suicided).

I will answer to you about the German and Germania in the proper topic. For now, the fact that true Germanic people's Iron Age spawning area (Jutland, then now northern Germany) is not the same as true Celtic people's Iron Age spawning areas (Austria, then several spots up to the Trier parallel), as well as strong cultural differences (language, religion, social hierarchy) are enough for me to not consider the German as Celts, or reciprocally. As time pass, there comes necessarily a time when you have to reckon that two groups of Indo-european people are not the same people anymore, should have they been "cousin" thousand years ago. Also, I never heard about Celts claiming territories over Germans. It was rather the opposite, the Celt being driven away south then west and east as soon as the German's expansion arose. The only case I could imagine is some temporary land reclamation after a migrating Germanic tribe had been destroyed by the Romans, but it would have been only an opportunistic and natural "fill in the freed gaps" behaviour.

He guys, I only read Wikipaedia (with modern references) and it explains quite well all the current theories: Gaul/Gallia comes from a germanic word "Walxisk" that meant "foreigner" at first (the Celt being neighbours to the southern German), then specifically "Celts" as in "those who speak a celtic language", and lastly "those who are romanized or Romanes" because the Celt the German came in contact with on the Rhine belonged to the Roman Empire. This was not as depreciative as the Greek "Barbaros" and some so-called Gauls adopted the word for themselves. Also this word was not used to call other people such as Slavic or Huns, etc. So, old Germans knew exactly who were Gauls (the Celts and then, the whole Roman Empire Area) and who were not. The word was transmitted to Slavic people who used it in turn. If you think about it, the same happened with the word "Rom/Roum" that the Turkoman used to call the Byzantine at first and then all the northern mediterranean (by then christian) people. Even during the modern area, Germanic people kept calling Romane people as "Gauls". From the same world comes many celtic/romane people and country names: Welsh/Wales (the 5th century Germans calling romanized Brittons "Gauls"), Walloons (the Dutch (Germans) calling this romanized Belgian/Frankish people "Gauls"), Welschen (the Alemanish Swiss calling all the non German-speaking Swiss "Gauls"), Wallach (romanized Dacian) Even the modern-day Polish call the Italian "Gauls", that is "Romans". The Roman or former geographers learned this word from the German. It was first used to name all the Celtic peoples NW from Roma, beginning with those who invaded and settled Italia (Gallia Cisalpina), but would eventually designate all the Celt during the Empire. The Galates that devastated part of the Asia Minor in 278 came from the Gallia Cisalpina, hence their name. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walh http://www.orbilat.com/General_Survey/Terms--Wallachians_Walloons_Welschen_etc.html [EDIT] I should add that a hypothesis for "Walxisk"'s origin is the name of an extremely mobile tribe (or a new ethnic group made out of non tribal elements) named Volques/Volcae, who settled lands in the eastern Hercynian forest, W of the Boii's during the 3rd century and the Celtic invasions (maybe after the Boii left). There, in now Bohemia, they would have developed exchanges with the German coming from the north until they eventually returned to the west, pressured by both the German and the Dacian. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volques%C2'> [/EDIT] Celt is more straightforward. One of the three people who inhabited Gallia before the invasion (58 BC) were just calling themselves as "Céltes" that became Roman "Celtae". The Greek "Keltoi/Keltai" refers to the same people, either a subbranch of the future western Gaul, or those same Gaul from Cisalpina that called themselves "Céltes". It is not for nothing if the Roman Republic divided Gallia in three parts: Aquitania, Celtica and Belgica (during the Empire, those administrative boundaries shifted and were less related to former cultural and political entities) Only the Celtica was inhabited only by Celts stricto-sensus (with pre and proto-Indo-european substrates). Aquitania was inhabited by non Indo-european with a few Celtic tribes in the plains (N and E). Belgica was mostly inhabited by celtized and partly celtized proto-Indo-european people (according to a seducing new theory, the German not being on the Rhine yet at this time), who recognized themselves as the Belgian Federation, proud of their non-celtic ("germanic") ascendancy (plus the non-Indo-european substrate). Those Belgian invaded or strongly influenced all the SW of Britain and were more advanced than the Brittons in technology and craftsmanship. As for the Britton, according to the Roman, they were culturally nearer to the Céltes than to the Belgian.

About mail armour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour) Nothing is told about how Etruscans learned the mail armour. Maybe from their Gaulish neighbours, or from the Celts beyond them, in Norica ? (Ciumesti graves are dated from the 4th century). What could differentiate Gauls from Brittons in game? - Gallia may have been more urbanized and inhabited than Britain. The "gaulish wall" was much estimated by the Roman, because its composite nature could absorb the impact from catapults and batter rams better than an all stone/brick wall. Gaulish citizen could be more numerous but less fight-able (more peasant-like). I mean that they were not citizen-soldiers like Hellenes or Romans. (Maybe less military units in early game) - Northern Celts were deemed by the Roman as being more "savage" (that could mean "fierce"): maybe the Brittons could stay as they are, less romanized, less urbanized, keeping with the chariot, etc. - Gaulish tribes seem to have had quite specialized separated economies, and their territorial borders were following landscape changes (keeping on the same general landscape). The Gauls could have a penalty/advantage in economy, such as being unable to specialize both in mining/harvesting/farming and herding at the same time (for the same tribe), but having a bonus technology in the same chosen economy (double herding/farming/mining). This system would be even more drastic than the current "make a choice" system because if you'd choose farming, you would have less mining tech available, etc.). - The Iceni case: I'm not sure (read that this is an undocumented idea) whether AD southern Britain Celts should be used to depict the earlier Brittons. According to various maps, the Iceni were a Belgian tribe much in relation with the continent. Maybe they had acquired and trained a heavy cavalry by the times Roma invaded Britain. But BC ? If they kept up to their chariotry (several centuries more than the continental Celts), maybe it is because they didn't had horses tall enough to replace them. They didn't had the Gaulish cavalry yet? Or was it really because they had a strong and change-resistant, more "traditional" warrior cast? What is not clear in the game is how the Celts had a strong tripartite social hierarchy. I don't see how to implement this in game. Maybe: The sacerdotal cast: - give druids in battle and in town defense a moral boost aura. - give druids a slight bonus when they are in groups of druids. - or/and add a bard unit that would be a moral/offensive booster in battle. The warrior cast: - besides champions, keep only two citizen soldiers and soldiers: the skirmisher and the spearman. No fanatic, no cavalry skirmisher (they would be champions). Those champions would form the warrior cast, only recruited at the barracks and the fortress. The worker cast: - those free men, able craftsmen, could enlist only in basic "horde" infantry, less able in 1-vs-1 than most of the other citizen soldiers throughout the game (to be balanced).

Hello, I'm not a linguist, but from what I read, the pre-medieval languages nearest to antic Brythonic are old Welsh and hence old Breton. Given that modern Welsh and modern Breton are almost mutually-understandable, yet people were quite isolated for many centuries from each other, chances are that both languages haven't much departed from their common ancestor. (Welsh: pedwar = Breton: pevar; Welsh: bara = Breton: bara; Welsh: pen = Breton: pen; Welch: corff = Breton coff) So, for the Briton in game, you'd better ask Welch (or Breton) linguists whether they have an idea about the old pronunciation. As far as continental Celtic is concerned, you could use the same data and try to alter the pronunciation according to linguistic works, or use such artistic work as Eluveitie's from Switzerland (I don't know what their sources are, and how this language was recreated, however) According to those artists, Gaulish (Helvetian) could have been like this: Here, you can look at their songs' lyrics and see if a Welch-speaking can read it (or at least understand the songs on youtube). I guess they'd know how to say "I'm going to hunt" or "Go to battle!" in this recreated language, should they be asked. It would definitively add to diversity. [EDIT] Okay, after some search, it is recreated Gaulish (or invented from some roots, toponyms and the few words left on stones). Here is a translation to English; does it make sense to an Irish- or Welsh-speaker ?