Genava55

Edit: actually I am not sure it was from the reforged edition.

Seriously? The only intelligent reason I see could be related to visibility and quick identification...

Carthaginian Mercenaries: Soldiers of Fortune,Allied Conscripts, and Multi-Ethnic Armies in Antiquity https://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.ch/&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=studentpubs Chapter 22 : Carthage and Numidia, 201–149 BC ; in A Companion to the Punic Wars https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444393712.ch22 Numidian Kings and Numidian Garrisons during the Second Punic War: Coins and History https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Potestas/article/download/301105/390561 How monetarized was Numidian society in Antiquity? https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/58811955/Maria_Cristina_Nicolau_Kormikiari.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DHow_monetarized_was_Numidian_society_in.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20200120%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200120T195522Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=e37007445be39f4b82d91100909daefa763cc2e42aee232134762320f05b99c8 La relación de Cartago con los Mauri del África Occidental (Marruecos) http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/2478/2215 EL MUNDO INDÍGENA Y ROMA EN EL MARRUECOS ANTIGUO: LA RELIGIÓN DURANTE LOS PERÍODOS PRERROMANO Y ROMANO https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/16868190/http___hera.ugr.es_tesisugr_15472954.PDF?response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DEl_mundo_indigena_y_Roma_en_el_Marruecos.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20200120%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200120T200247Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a34f5080c71b3083b33b760db710e63fc1129cf19d1931944218a271fd023e50

https://www.deviantart.com/dewitteillustration/art/Reconstruction-of-North-Bersted-helmet-50BC-807452367

At least after the players would have played AoE4 for years, they won't be destabilized when they will see it implemented in 0AD.

There are arguments in favor like the fact that Gallic leaders could be druid. The irish mythology is full of characters with a mixed role as priest and warrior, often labelled by the two names. But for example during the attack on Ynys Môn, the druids do not seem to defend themselves. Moreover druids were exempt of military service, so probably they weren't usually skilled warriors. Although it is probable they had the right to bear arms and ride horses.

Why not. Could be a discount in wood and metal, Gauls made a few type of pre-manufactured bars, easier to trade and to process. The other thing interesting I see is the invention of the reaper by the Gauls: There was a lot of mineral resources in Britain, it boomed during the Roman Empire but mostly because the resources weren't exploited before (Romans have bring hydraulic mining with hushing). Although, yes Britons were good with tin trading, good at working with bronze and gold. Since there was some trading and merchant connection on the Atlantic facade, maybe a bonus especially for maritime trade. Otherwise, a huge part of the Iron Age society there, was cattle and pasturing.

Should be better to have a bonus split between navy and economy: example Allied Warships −15% construction time and Allies +10% barter sell prices. Simply to avoid useless bonus on land maps. Since Caesar emphasizes the training of Gallic youths as druids in Britain, it seems a historically coherent bonus. It is simply the healers that are useless currently in the game. The Gauls weren't in technological advance, they weren't "retards" or "primitives" like 19th century historians portrayed them but they weren't in advance in regards of the others. A few elements of their metallurgy were really innovative but that doesn't make them the best ironsmiths. Actually the thing that had huge impact on nearby populations was: - Slave trading, they were really selling slaves at a competitive price. - Selling weapons, especially swords and scabbards (found in Spain, Italy, Crimea, Thracia etc., even in foreign cultures). Selling adornments, like fibula. - Strabo talks about them exporting resin, pitch, honey, wax, amber, salt, woolens and leather products. - Mercenaries. That was one of their main asset.

Actually, all the champions have the same stats. Nothing is balanced in this regard. This is something for the upcoming versions. And anyway, the Celtic two-handed swordsman will be removed because of lack of evidences. Over the thousands of swords found from this period, none are suggesting a two-handed use.

The debate between a Gallo-Brittonic origin or an Insular origin with influences from the continent is still going. Basically, there are two main models:

So the point of view of Delamarre for a Gaulish druis has your preference? It is very probable that Common Brittonic and Gaulish used the same word.

https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Saba https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Nabatu https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Reglaya_Mehrebay_(North_Arabian_Shortswordsmen) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Fayah_'Alatin_(South_Arabian_Tribal_Highlanders) https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Erínamesh_ana-Arabim_(East_Coast_Levies)#EB2 https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Aba'al_(Sabean_Citizen_Militia)

Google translate: Este artículo explora los orígenes de los juegos de caballos (hippika gymnasia) del ejército imperial romano. Sostiene que las exhibiciones ecuestres descritas extensamente por Arrian en su tratado táctico fueron tomadas prestadas de los celtas galeses e ibéricos, que formaron la parte más importante de la caballería auxiliar romana al final de la República y al comienzo del Principado. Los jinetes más famosos usaron cascos de máscara durante estos juegos. Los primeros ejemplos de tales máscaras en el contexto romano se pueden encontrar en representaciones triunfales que celebran victorias sobre enemigos celtíberos o galeses. La evidencia sugiere que inicialmente estaban hechos de materiales orgánicos, como las máscaras de cráneo sobremoldeadas o enlucidas que podrían adornar monumentos públicos en la Galia prerromana. Desde finales del siglo I a. C. en adelante, comenzaron a adoptar la forma de cascos de metal y se adaptaron progresivamente al gusto grecorromano. La idea de que la hippika gymnasia se tomó prestada del desfile ecuestre romano llamado lusus Troiae y que los cascos de máscara eran parte de una antigua tradición itálica debería, por lo tanto, ser abandonada.

There is one possible suggestion for the use of the mask by cavalrymen but generally among Celtiberians / Celts, not only the Lusitanians. Although I cannot access this article, even from my university (if someone can get access, tell me): https://brill.com/view/journals/ijmh/aop/article-10.1163-24683302-20190004/article-10.1163-24683302-20190004.xml?language=en

Ok. But what is the reference? I saw everywhere this thing about Lusitanians, twcenter, here etc. but nobody explains what is the source. If it is one of these Augustean coins, then it is really problematic.

Siempre me he preguntado: de dónde viene este casco con máscara entre los lusitanos? Cuál es la evidencia de esto?

Los pueblos prerromanos de la península Ibérica (pdf), descargar aqui.

Checked what Delamarre says about the druid and he suggests druis as singular nominative while Savignac suggests druid as singular nominative. Delamarre starts from the case of a "druias", a female druid reported by Ælius Lampridus. Personnally I find the druid and druides more probable. @wackyserious do you want to do a female version of the druid? You will wait a long time if you are hoping to find someone specialized in the Iberian language. It is still not decipherable. The only solution I see is to assume a connection with proto-Basque. Which is probably the less wrong solution.

Sacred grove, shrines, heroic statue are possible as well.

It is assumed that the word druid comes from Proto-Celtic *druwits / *druwid. As reported by the Romans, Druid is the use in gaulish. If we assume singular Druid, then it is Druides in plural form. In Scottish Gaelic, singular form is draoidh and plural is draoidhean. In Old Irish, the singular forms are either drui or druid. So I would say Druid and Druides are correct for both Gauls and Britons. Nick is fine.

I know this is weird but the old historians choose to use the label "British" to designate the southern Iron Age. Cannot change history. Now, British archeology moved during the last decades to a paranoid state, refusing to generalize anything properly, questioning even the use of the term "Celtic" to the Britons. So, there is no widespread terminology for the Iron Age in Scotland.

Until the first half of the 1st century AD, I don't think the rectangular scutum has been popular among the legions.

Generally Druids are considered practicing medical intervention. Although there are debates about the wide term and its limits. Druid could be a generic term applied to a wide range of intellectual practitioners with specialists. Or a very specific term for high-ranking member of the priest class. Anyway, I think it is safe to use the Druid terminology for the healer but if you want several kind of "priests", you can use for the healer another name known from the Celtic society: the Uatis, which is the counterpart of the Roman Vates. But in my opinion, Druid is ok currently. I agree, furthermore it gives a difference with the Britons. For me, the Gallic cavalryman is probably the most important figure of the Gallic warfare and probably the most reputed tactical unit in the view of other cultures. However, I do not want to make them overpowered with regular foot swordsmen AND cavalry swordsmen if the current gameplay favors the sword that much. Swords and longswords are a kind of topos (cliché) for the Gauls at their time and clearly from the material evidences, the sword is really an important item of the warrior class, following as well the evolution of the warfare century after century with adapting features. Without any doubt, Gauls did used chariots in battles. There are depictions, classical accounts and material evidences for these. However, the use of war chariot started to fade during the 3rd century BC and we find no material evidences and no accounts for the 2nd and 1st century BC for the Gauls. So, I would suggest to keep it for the Britons. But if you guys prefer to give it to both, no problem with that. I agree. I agree. I agree. Different temples can be done for them. I agree and I liked the prototypes made by Stan. I agree and I can suggest new helmets to differentiate them. We can even give weapons. To discuss if needed. Edit: Britons are a harder topic even for me. Lower area (only England and Wales), lower density of warfare related material evidences, fewer classical accounts, fewer interest for decades (for various reasons), very restrictive practice of publication, tendency in the past from British historians to apply blindly what have been found on the continent to Britons to fill the gap etc. However, I want to highlight that the current faction of the Britons is mixing Scottish and British Iron Age (Broch for example). Which I don't think is a problem since most of the time, the Romans weren't able to differentiate them. And it could be a good opportunity to give unique features to the Britons through inclusion of Scottish and Irish Iron Age (although complex topics).