Genava55

The quote from Plutarch: Maybe we can add some golden and silver object on the cuirass? https://ansionnachfionn.com/2017/09/20/did-leather-armour-really-exist-not-for-the-celts-romans-and-vikings/ And despite the frequent online references to the hide “battle-harness” of the legendary Irish hero, Cú Chulainn, the speculations and the early 20th century translations they are based upon are probably wrong. Almost certainly what is being referred to is layers of textiles and flexible soft leather braced with a wide cowhide belt. (Linen? Felt? Linothorax?) “Then the champion and warrior, the marshalled fence of battle of all the men of earth who was Cú Chulainn, put on his battle-array of fighting and contest and strife. Of that battle-array which he put on were the twenty-seven shirts, waxed, board-like, compact, which used to be bound with strings and ropes and thongs next to his fair body that his mind and understanding might not be deranged whenever his rage should come upon him. Outside these he put on his hero’s battle-girdle of hard leather, tough and tanned, made from the choicest part of seven yearling ox-hides which covered him from the thin part of his side to the thick part of his armpit. He wore it to repel spears and points and darts and lances and arrows, for they used to glance from it as if they had struck on stone or rock or horn. Then he put on his apron of filmy silk with its border of variegated white gold against the soft lower part of his body. Outside his apron of filmy silk he put on his dark apron of pliable brown leather made from the choicest part of four yearling ox-hides with his battle-girdle of cows’ hides about it.”

For the back: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1080040398756590&set=pb.100002519195744.-2207520000.1546426868.&type=3&theater Other useful symbols:

Yes no problem with this one. It is another way to close the chainmail shoulder protection, there are indication of this way in the few chainmail found. The Romans described his armor as very colorful and shiny. It could have been a linothorax or a leather cuirass because it is easier to color it. In my draft for the design of the Gauls, I took some liberty to suggest an addition of a square cardiophylax for the front part of the cuirass. What do you think? https://www.docdroid.net/9fLYce0/gauls-design.pdf#page=12

Why not. This illustration is based on the weapons from a tomb with both etruscan and celtic items. The author choose to use the Mars of Todi since it represents an etruscan cuirass. These cuirasses are probably what could have motivated the Celts to use them. The warrior is therefore a cisalpine warrior. Yes you can. https://medias.monuments-nationaux.fr/var/cmn_inter/storage/images/mediatheque/mediatheque-commune/images/087glanum/602353-1-fre-FR/087GLANUM.jpg Why a bronze cuirass? It is kinda uncommon in the Italic peninsula after the fifth century. I don't think any Celts of the La Tène period could have use it Europe. Maybe some Galatian bodyguards. But thats all.

To inspire you. A recent french book with nice illustrations.

Normally it is a feature from the later period, the Roman Empire. If you want to try you can, but usually it is kinda discrete. 1 or 2 layers of rings in the neckline and in the lowest part. It is not very fancy from a long distance. A tiny bit too long. You can find an example on the Vachères warrior statue.

No problem with the tattoos. The bronze chain mail is a problem. I don't think there is any evidence in the world for an entire armor made of bronze rings. Technologically speaking, it is not practical. As far as I know there is only small quantity of bronze rings on some chain mail armor to decorate the thing during the Roman Empire. The length seems excessive as well. It looks like a medieval hauberk. The helmet seems fine. It is a coolus model, maybe the one from Canterbury. Is this a Briton unit? It looks like you took your inspiration from a Pict outfit but entirely in chain mail.

Yes it is a common problem with Osprey illustration. They mix everything. Everything that is labeled Celtic goes in, no regards for the period or for the region. They have seen the Bormio stele and they have think "oh yes Celtic round shield", no regards for a very specific and very regional culture disconnected from the succeeding La Tène culture. They did the bad reasoning from common sense premises by extrapolating the round shield for a cavalry shield since the Romans and the Greeks did the same. Without consideration from the HUNDREDS of representation of the Celtic cavalry with oval shields. Osprey has a long history of @#$% reasoning like this, the first illustrations showing Celtic warrior with bronze age equipment. It is a shame than the incredible talent of Angus McBride got wasted by poor research and poor advice from Osprey writers.

Thank you Nescio for your reply, I can provide different artistic patterns and symbols for the Gauls, not a problem for me. There is a tremendous literature on the subject and a huge evolution in the art of the continental Celts from the 5th to the 1st century BC. I already done this for the Britons in their shield thread and if it is needed I can add more things for them as well. I agree with your statement that the units should be differentiated. The classical accounts are already good to distinguish different trends and different fighting styles among the Celts. The archaeology and the etymology give only more depth to these accounts and more nuance. For my proposed unit roster, it was only a draft to discuss and I can suggest other things or adapt my previous ideas. There is a lot of room for modification and improvement. If I am very motivated to give a proper and accurate representation of iron age Celtic cultures, I don't want to ruin the gameplay so far. 0 A.D. is a game and it is mandatory to twist a tiny bit the reality when you portray a culture in a game. The only rule is to make a historical framework to limit the imagination and to avoid the fantasy, but inside this framework it is a sand-box. For the historical accounts about the Britons. Caesar emphasize often their mobility and their ability to drawn the enemy under tons of missiles (probably javelins and slingstones). He says the Britons often tricked the enemy to pursuit them and suddenly engage them in loose formation, to disorganize their battle formation. The chariots are particularly good for this, they threw javelins from it and soon engage the battle on foot by getting off the chariot and if the enemy regroups and resists, they go back to their chariots and flew. They have also a good ability to hide in the woods and to use the woods to their advantage. Their cavalry is not necessarily only light cavalry since they use it to engage the enemy in close-combat but they clearly not stand a chance against the Gallic cavalry from the allies of Caesar. Tacitus is less talkative on their warfare techniques. He emphasizes the importance of their infantry, he notes their ability to fight in the hills to avoid direct engagement and their ability to attack at night in small groups. About the Caledonians, he says they fought with long swords and small shields, they wear their decoration as warrior symbols and that they were able to dodge the Roman javelins with their loose formation, their sword's and their shield's skill. They sent a lot of missiles as well. For the archaeological accounts there are plenty of iron javelins remains founds. Notably there are as well javelinheads made out of bones in Ireland and in Britain, exactly like the population of the Jutland. The shields bosses from the British isles are clearly more decorated than the Gallic counterparts. They look like the early shield bosses of the La Tène culture found in France and Germany (mostly 5th and 4th century BC) but with more development and a longer tradition. It could suggest a more Homeric way to fight in agreement with the Roman accounts. Chariots, long swords and small shields are also confirmed by archeological remains. But short swords seem to have existed as well. There are interesting shields with important fork-crescent like end-parts, I wonder if it is more useful for close-combat and dueling, to trap the spears or the blade of the opponent. Helmets are rare and only bronze version were found in the isles. In the contrary, the Gauls are renown for their cavalry. Their infantry were described as using the phalanx and the tortoise formations during the Cisalpine wars, which means at this time various shield walls (the imperial square tortoise didn't existed during these wars). There are more helmets found, an incredible quantity of swords and scabbards remains, same thing for the spearheads. If the Gauls seem to rely on mobility as well, it is more to charge and overthrown the enemy. But they have the same tendency to panic when everything goes wrong as the Britons (a common particularity of tribal societies).

Etymological dictionary for Basque language: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30873859/lxwp23-08-edb.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1546340201&Signature=alC56zsJ9NFdEghRwnVXmJD6k0k%3D&response-content-disposition=attachment%3B filename%3DEtymological_Dictionary_of_Basque_by_R..pdf Some interesting words: Gudari, meaning warrior/combatant (Gudu- for combat). Burtzi, meaning spike/spear/lance. Aide nagusi, meaning clan chief. Buruzagi, meaning leader, chief. Eralle, meaning killer. These are the few words relevant I found and without any borrowing from IE languages.

Bronze brooch with vitreous enamel colored in yellow and in blue.

Good question. Caesar describe them clearly as tattooed warriors. Probably more naked. However the Britons are far from savage, they are even very careful with their body, they have a lot jewelry as well. A lot of mirrors also. Moreover, during the Roman period the region is reputed for its textile. But it is true that Caesar describes some of them as more pastoral cultures. If you want to go to this direction, there are the "Huldremose Woman", "Tollund Man" and "Borum Eshøj" bog bodies to gives you an idea. But I won't discard the Celtic textile and outfit neither. If you are looking for some inspiration, EBII is not perfected but they have often interesting idea: https://imgur.com/a/Ihl2y

Yep, the Germans are better to understand during the imperial period. Before the Roman, it much more complicated and they use mostly a Celtic panoply for warfare. I only put the subject to avoid the same issue we had with the celtic thread.

Maybe it is better to let the other thread clean like this

Hi, Since @Lion.Kanzen is very interested about the subject, I can give some references here for people interested about the iron age cultures around germanic regions. The birth of a new world. Barrows, warriors, and metallurgists https://www.academia.edu/36278706/The_birth_of_a_new_world._Barrows_warriors_and_metallurgists Late Bronze and Early Iron Age communities in the northern part of the Polish Lowland (1000-500 BC) https://www.academia.edu/37548759/Late_Bronze_and_Early_Iron_Age_communities_in_the_northern_part_of_the_Polish_Lowland_1000-500_BC_ Expansion of the Pomeranian culture in Poland during the Early Iron Age: remarks on the mechanism and possible causes https://www.academia.edu/2254548/Expansion_of_the_Pomeranian_culture_in_Poland_during_the_Early_Iron_Age_remarks_on_the_mechanism_and_possible_causes The rise and fall of Biskupin and its counterparts https://www.academia.edu/37112278/The_rise_and_fall_of_Biskupin_and_its_counterparts Societies of the younger segment of the early Iron Age in Poland (500–250 BC) https://www.academia.edu/36930633/Societies_of_the_younger_segment_of_the_early_Iron_Age_in_Poland_500_250_BC_ It's a man's world... Germanic societies of the Jastorf and the Przeworsk cultures in southern and central Poland (300 BC –10 AD) https://www.academia.edu/37471966/Its_a_mans_world..._Germanic_societies_of_the_Jastorf_and_the_Przeworsk_cultures_in_southern_and_central_Poland_300_BC_10_AD_ The Przeworsk Culture. A Brief Story (for the Foreigners) https://www.academia.edu/4115218/The_Przeworsk_Culture._A_Brief_Story_for_the_Foreigners_In_U._Lund_Hansen_and_A._Bitner-Wróblewska_eds._Worlds_Apart_Contacts_across_the_Baltic_Sea_in_the_Iron_Age._Nordiske_Fortidsminder_C_7_København-Warszawa_2010 1990: Tribal societies in Northern Gaul. An anthropological perspective. https://www.academia.edu/12485250/1990_Tribal_societies_in_Northern_Gaul._An_anthropological_perspective._Amsterdam 2009: Ethnic constructs in Antiquity. The role of power and tradition https://www.academia.edu/12299580/2009_Ethnic_constructs_in_Antiquity._The_role_of_power_and_tradition Jastorf and Jutland (On the northern extent of the so-called Jastorf Culture) https://www.academia.edu/10276827/Jastorf_and_Jutland_On_the_northern_extent_of_the_so-called_Jastorf_Culture_ Two simple wikipedia articles important to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_parent_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language#Evolution ;-)

Probably, but now the word "German" is another problem. There is no single germanic cultures at this time but several with quite a lot of difference. The Rugians and the Lemovians are suspected to be from the Oksywie/Oxhöft culture or related to the Przeworsk culture. The creation of the Germanic identity is something very debated and it seems that the old view that everything comes from the Jastorf culture is getting less and less popular. Probably that the Przeworsk and the Oksywie cultures, with very warlike traditions, filled the void caused by the Gallic Wars and the creation of the Principate. Celtic warfare was very popular until another successor comes out.

Thank you buddy! I appreciate your support I wish you a happy new year. And I wish a happy new year to everybody, to this marvelous game, to the volunteers of this great adventure and especially to the artists and programmers.

Of course I can and I understand your position. Especially because we discuss this in another thread, drawn with different debates. To start I will say that this unit is clearly coming from the first Europa Barbarorum mod. This mod had a huge impact at this time and sadly there was an issue with the guy doing the design of the celtic factions. When the second mod was started, Europa Barbarorum 2, the guy already left the team. But its successor, using the pseudonym Commios on the forum twcenter, has started to check the design of these factions. I talked with him, he is a very nice guy and he is a British archeologist specializing in the iron age. He realized that the previous supervisor relied mostly on Gaelic mythology and medieval folklore to build the celtic factions. Added with over-interpretation to put the maximum of diversity in the game, for example giant hammer bearer because there are Gallo-Roman statues of Sucellus with giant hammers... As you can see now, there is no two-handed swordsman and no giant hammer bearer in the new version of the mod. Some peoples complaint about this, asking why and the team always answered that they were fantasy units removed for good reasons. Recently we talked about this: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?247598-EB-Twitter-updates-Discussion&p=15612194&viewfull=1#post15612194 But I am not only relying on the words of Commios from EB2. This issue with the two-handed swordsman is old and I already debunked the problem in the past on french forum. I read two academic books on the subject, "Guerre et armement chez les Gaulois" by Brunaux and "The Celtic sword" by Pleiner, there is no mention of any two-handed swords in these books. Moreover, Tacitus talk two times of the swords of the Britons and of the Caledonians, saying they are very long. But he never says that they use them with two-hands, in the contrary he says that they are impractical for close-combat and thinks very badly about them (it is a common opinion among the Romans about the Celtic sword, a cliché). Nothing unusual then. I will find it incredible surprising that Tacitus would not precise it if they were used with two-hands. Especially from him, a person that described the uncommon weapons of the Germanic tribes like the round shields being a characteristic of the Rugians and of the Lemovians. If you think about the Thraco-Dacian rhomphaia, the Romans were surprised by this weapon and they described its shape, its use and they even represented it in their Tropaeum Traiani. Therefore I find very unlikely that no classical author never described a two-handed swords if they were in use. There is a relief about the Picts on the Antonine wall and nothing could represents a two-handed sword on it. There are plenty reliefs about the Gauls like the Arc of Orange and there is as well nothing that could suggest this weapon. The difficulty with this debate about the two-handed sword is the same I had with Sundiata in the beginning about the round shields: it is incredible hard to disprove something that doesn't exist. It is well-known ontological problem. Everything about the two-handed sword in the iron age is a matter of deductive logic with common sense premises. We argue about the length of the blade, about the hilt, about the weight and finally about why it is so obviously a good idea that they should have done it. And this kind of reasoning is exactly what differentiates amateurs from experts. Experts built their premises with historical evidences first, to build limits at their reasoning. The explanation is simple: this way to think has no end. You can easily apply this logic to throwing axes, long battle-axe, scale armor, bronze cuirasses, crossbows etc. It works very well with any culture but it is easier to use it on cultures with little information. You only fill the void of evidences with everything you can. In history, this is a common problem, especially for argument "a silentio". Even experts can fell to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

To help everybody, I put the Caesar accounts of his battles in my previous messages and I highlighted in blue some useful parts. Thank you in advance to help me.

When I did my first draft with some proposals, I had in my mind to make two different rosters. It is a draft, nothing complete, nothing discussed, nothing agreed by the community. It is only proposals for the moment. Nobody gives me an opinion about it. https://www.docdroid.net/YYcHXh2/gauls-britons-tree.pdf https://www.docdroid.net/9fLYce0/gauls-design.pdf My basic idea was to propose a British roster with earlier access to a lance cavalry and a sword infantry. With elite skirmishers in the late stage from Irish and Pictish inspiration. Edit: Caesar sources about the Britons

I think it will be the most problematic issue since a lot of player are attached to that unit. I don't see a similar possible unit, even among the Picts. A possible solution is to make a "battle champion" with splendid look and splendid weapons (bronze shield bosses, Kirkburn sword, tattoos). Or a noble swordsman like the Gauls. There is another possible problem, is it good to have exactly the same roster for both Gauls and Britons with only cosmetical change? Because the Gauls are very famous for their cavalry, not the Britons. The Britons seem to be very good at throwing projectiles according to Caesar and Tacitus, maybe better than the Gauls. Maybe a complete change of the Britons roster could be a solution. Will the players using the Gauls agree with this?

Hi guys, I should write my thesis and prepare my upcoming courses in GIS, but I realize that the important points were drowned in the discussion and debates in the "celtic reference" thread. For the moment, the Celtic roster of units is the same for both factions and there is a mixing of elements from both continental and insular cultures. Click on the spoiler to see the issues: Future problem to distinguish Britons and Gauls: As you have seen, there are a lot of various shields shapes and shield bosses found in the British islands. There is a very nice looking insular art as well to decorate everything. I can easily found insular swords and spearhead as well. BUT for the helmets there are almost nothing in the British islands. The only pieces are three bronze helmets and two of them could be related to the Roman auxiliaries but we will assume it is not. Therefore no iron helmet is known for the British Islands during the iron age. Another decorative helmet is on the Aylesford bucket but it seems impractical and still a bronze model with this shape. Same thing for the armor, excepted chain mail, there is no proof of cuirass in leather or in linen. It is something the Gauls have learned from the Greeks and the Etruscans but probably it is not something culturally interesting for the Britons who weren't in contact with these cultures. Thus I suggest the following guideline to distinguish the Britons from the Gauls: - Native shield shapes - Native british art - Woad tattoos - Reserving the cap-jockey helmets (like the Meyrick helmet) and the round coolus helmet (Cantebury) for the Britons. There is plenty of others types for the Gauls. See this thread: Edit: Ideas for Celtic rosters Edit: Outdated suggestions for Gauls and Britons, see there for complementary information:

Very nice. Maybe avoid mixing the linothorax/cuirass with the chain mail, it is probably to much to wear both.

If it is more distinctive, a more circular structure for a Celtiberian hillfort with Las Eretas. A circular structure and enclose/enfold with a continuum of houses:

It is a good point. There is no historical problem with the architecture of thatched buildings since it could been used elsewhere by the Iberians. But it is true that for the Celtiberians from Numancia, the difference will be not significative in the architecture since it is already used by the Iberians in game. All this talk and successive proposals seems to emerge from an observation; the current state of the Iberian factions is based on a non-indo-european culture while the others indo-european cultures on the peninsula are not really included in the game while they are very significative in the history of Rome (Three Celtiberians Wars against Rome, two Lusitanians Wars against Rome and some rebellion during the Sertorian War). Somehow the few Celtiberian elements are used opportunistically for the Iberians like two of the current heroes are Celtiberian and Lusitanian and not Iberians. While the others elements from these cultures are not included at all.