Genava55

I agree, it would be the easiest solution. My proposals are part of a context where other people propose to better differentiate the two factions for a long time. I think there is a real opportunity to seize and there is enough material to make two different roster. I will make a short summary of the history of Celtic warfare and how things have settled differently on the islands compared to the continent. The continental Celtic culture where the Gauls come from is known as the La Tène culture. This culture appeared in three regions around 500BC: Marne-Champagne (Northeastern-France), Hunsrück-Eifel (western Germany) and Bohemia (Czech republic). This culture has spread in all the direction in a short time and in 400BC they started to be a threat to Rome. We don't know how they spread so fast, migration and conquest are not enough to explain it. The period between 500 BC to 350 BC is often described as the Early phase of the La Tène culture. During this period, the Continental Celts (Gauls) use mainly the chariot for the war. There are plenty of burials with chariots and simultaneously a lot of javelins, of shield decorations with bronze applique and of very decorated helmets and scabbards. Between 350 to 200 BC a new phase described as Middle La Tène occurred with a progressive switch from chariot warfare to cavalry warfare. Chariots burials are far less frequent, the swords start to become longer and shield bosses are simpler but more practical with a net increase in their sizes and in their frequencies through time. A new art started to appeared, mostly on scabbards, from Central and Eastern Europe and has become very popular in the continent. During this period, the infantry start to grow in importance as well as the Romans described often Gallic armies to use different shield walls formations they called phalanx and testudo (the terms are misleading and confusing, this is not the same testudo than the imperial roman armies). Between 200 BC to 50 BC, it is a period described as Late La Tène where the transformation of the Gallic society is important. Urbanization and fortification are more frequent and more elaborated. The economy and trading boom up, a lot of import and export in direction with the Roman world start to occurs. Moreover the coins start to be accepted in the Celtic culture. The switch to a cavalry elite warfare is continuing, the swords become specialized with long version for the cavalry and slightly shorter ones for the infantrymen. Oppida are growing and are spreading from Central Europe and Southern France in direction of Northern France. When the Gallic Wars occurred, the late phase wasn't over and was still in maturation. The Belgians are described by Caesar as more belligerents and more brave. The Nervians are described as having an elite warrior class fighting in foot contrary to the others Gauls. This different description from Caesar agrees with the archeological records suggesting that the Belgians had smaller oppida, often with a role of hillfort more than cities contrary to the Arvernes for example. Therefore, the Late phase wasn't as much developed in the North-East than in the others parts of France. The uprising of Ambiorix shows striking difference with the other Gauls and Belgians in his tactics, with more skirmishing and ambushes. While the Eburones are as well the more distant tribe from the southern Gauls. The Britons have a different history. There isn't a sudden change in their culture in the whole island. The first significative change during the Iron Age occurred with the Arras culture in Yorkshire. This culture has striking similarity with the Early phase of the continental La Tène. A lot of chariot burials very decorated, a lot of javelins, decorated scabbards and decorated shield bosses with bronze applique. This habit of having prestigious weapons and chariots spread first in Wales, Cornwall and Wessex and later in the whole territory of the actual England. It was a process that took a long time, from 400 BC to 150 BC. Farming developed and hill-forts spread intensively during this period. The period after 150 BC is known to have seen the development of the Aylesford–Swarling culture, with simultaneously more connection between the Belgians tribes and the Britons. This period seen a slight development of the swords in length but generally it has kept the main basis for their warfare culture: chariots, decorated shield bosses, javelins etc. The understanding of the culture of the British Iron Age is much more complex because of far less burials. For example in Dorset they had the custom to not bury every deceased persons, probably related to different beliefs. But clearly, the warfare tradition in Britain didn't have follow the same evolution than the Gauls. They used chariots for warfare from 400 BC to 70 AD. There is also the interesting customs of using bone-javelinhead in Britain, in Scotland and in Ireland as well during the iron age. In conclusion, the Britons share more similarity with the Gauls of the Early phase of La Tène, probably with a slight transition to the cavalry when the Gallic Wars occurred and perturbed the evolution. If we add the different accounts from Roman historians, we should conclude they had different way to fight during the wars. The Gauls started to have a warfare tradition based on the chariots, on Homeric combats and mobility. Then they switched to focus first on the infantry and the cavalry as articulate pieces of the battles to finally focusing mainly on the cavalry at the end, especially among the elites warriors. While the Britons kept a focus on chariot and on mobility, with clearly the same custom of overdecorating the weapons as suggesting more Homeric combats.

Diodurus says only the nobles wears the moustach, but what is a noble in his mind? And is this custom the same from the early La Tène to the Late La Tène (500 years of history and evolution)? Generally, the experts suggest that the moustach custom was an old and ancient custom for the ruling class. The practice seems to have nearly disappeared among the Gauls during the Late La Tène and the Gallic Wars, but to have survived among the Britons. Shaved face, full beard, narrow chin beard (goatee) and collar beard (chin strap) are found in iconographic representations as well.

A point about this illustration. It is mostly based on reenactors outfits and it is mixing two or three things from different periods. Moreover, the sword is bullsh*t. For the women it could be a good enough inspiration, but for the warrior I would avoid it. The druid is legit, it is a quite simple representation. The artist didn't take any risk to represent the druid, it is halfway in the cliché and in a neutral interpretation. He probably took his inspiration from coins, there are sleeveless references: . Large neckline reference: But I don't see anything to support the square shape of the neckline.

The account from Pliny is legit and it could be a real tradition, though I won't believe easily his statement about human sacrifice since the Romans have a true problem to talk about it, often exaggerating the reality. The sickle is definitely something plausible but I don't think it is really the symbol of the Druids. It seems more to be a sacred tool used at specific events. Druids have different roles, they are also healers and chirurgeons/surgeons, guardian of laws and memory and philosophers. Therefore I suggest that the sickle could be a part of their tools but probably medical tools and divinatory tools as well. Archeologically, the subject is very very complicated but there are some findings of medical tools and even a bone helicoidal pendulum. The difficulty comes from the fact there are weapons in these burials sometimes. There is also actually something interesting in Britain with several divinatory rods in copper and iron found: About the staff, I have no idea. Nothing really prove or contradict it. Maybe a golden gilded staff is a possibility. We know there was a golden gilded tree cult in Manching, however it is not a staff nor something easier to carry. I just say that technologically, the Celts know how to gild a staff in gold. Seriously, it is one of the most complicated subject. I have read only Christian-Joseph Guyonvarc'h, Jean-Louis Brunaux and Raimund Karl on this matter and honestly... they are contradicting each others. For example Guyonvarc'h relies mostly on Irish literature whereas Brunaux avoid to use Irish literature. It is very difficult for me to take a position on this subject, there are some concordance but this is still a black box even for experts.

Superbe like this. Much better. I like it. The white is a sacrous color for the druids in Irish mythology, thus it is justifiable. I have the book from this expo. I will check tomorrow (4 am there and too much wine in my blood for the moment). I will see for an item tomorrow as well balduin.

It is a very debated and unresolved issue, with no true consensus. But generally there are a concordance of hints from Irish mythology and Classical accounts for a priestess role in the Celtic religion. Guyonvarc'h in his book thinks they are not druids since they never carry any sacrifice or any instruction. They are more related to the divination and invocation, like the germanic Vates. The problem is that some classical authors call them druids, but these accounts are very late and enigmatic (like Septimius Severus meeting one female druid) and several authors have confuse the different categories and mixed them in only one: the druids.

The cucullus is an usual cloth, popular both among the Romans and the Gauls. The only unusual word related with the cucullus is bardocucullus, that could means something related to the bard (musician). http://www.arbre-celtique.com/encyclopedie/cucullus-cuculla-manteau-314.htm The three peoples with the cucullus are often three goddesses or nymphae. Xulsigiae. Related to the roman mythology as well (Matres and Matronae). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xulsigiae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matres_and_Matronae The problem is common with these figures. There are males representations, but often distinguishing the gender is hard. Moreover, the influence of the Roman can cause the gender to switch sometimes for some cult. There is a long debate in this article here: http://archive.fo/xcqd With an headdress like the one I proposed, it should be okay no?

I personally prefer something more remote from Asterix and XIXth century romanticism representations. If we have the possibility to give a different vision of these cultures, it is something good to do.

I think the re-enactor and the warrior in the illustration wear it like this. It is a cape folded two or three times, put on the shoulder in half way and winded on the back and on the chest in direction of the belt to fix it. The two ends of the cape are on the same side. It is something re-enactors like to do because it is practical, comfy and it even protect the body.

On the statue of Glauberg, it is a full cap. The symbol is also recurrent in the Celtic art on the continent, but it is impossible to say if it is a cap or a headband in these cases. A headband is plausible but the cap is the closer from the archeological material.

You can find some interesting papers with different views on academia.edu about this subject. True Colours: Polychromy in Ancient Greek Art and its Dissemination in Museum Collections https://www.academia.edu/37712353/True_Colours_Polychromy_in_Ancient_Greek_Art_and_its_Dissemination_in_Museum_Collections Pigment vs. the Texture and Colour of Stone. To what Extent was Stone part of the polychrome Appearance of Hellenistic Sculpture? https://www.academia.edu/6090245/Pigment_vs._the_Texture_and_Colour_of_Stone._To_what_Extent_was_Stone_part_of_the_polychrome_Appearance_of_Hellenistic_Sculpture

I have an idea. You know this headdress from Glauberg: It is actually an inspiration from sacred plant from the Celts. The mistletoe: Re-enactors have proposed this headdress for a chieftain: BUT, it could be a religious symbol used by the Druids as well, the mistletoe is known to be used by the Druids.

The temple of Serapis at Alexandria was quite famous and renown. I know a depiction about it, what do you think @Anaxandridas ho Skandiates ? https://sites.google.com/a/hanovernorwichschools.org/alexandria-tourism-commitee/attractions/the-temple-of-serapis https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2015/11/09/what-did-the-serapeum-in-alexandria-actually-look-like/

If the others don't find it problematic to give a chainmail armor to a priest unit, why not. I have no problem with this, it could have been the case. Some druids took the military leadership during the Gallic Wars. However I find the texture of the cape/sagum a bit unesthetic at the bottom. Maybe a bit more on the side like this:

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.