Genava55

Oh thx. It is from the authors Vincent Pompetti and Tarek. I like their art. The only things is their tendency to put everything they found in their comics. Montefortino helmet during the gallic wars for example... The first one comes from the comics Alix and is not very accurate since there is almost no archaelogical records of Lutecia on the island before the Romans. The author is not good with accuracy: The second one is the fortress of Paule, during the 1st century BC.

Maybe, but it misses clearly several points and misinterprets the basic function.

Not really, Celtic sanctuaries have the same basic architecture of a "fanum" (which was discovered as their gallo-roman successor): Yes I understand that it is maybe too much gore. The weapons trophy is softer. But anyway I want to verify in the literature something about the Titelberg sanctuary. Maybe there is a good candidate there. It seems to have been a more massive structure but there is no details outside of books (no articles are very descriptive about it). There is only one artistic depiction but I'm not sure of its rigorousness and accuracy:

Corent is not totally unique. There is a similar one in Tintignac (see below), it is mainly a question of time period and regional specificity. Gournay and Ribemont are from the 3rd century, Tintignac and Corent from the 1st century BC. Gournay and Ribemont are from a period without strong urbanization, contrary to the others. For the Celts it should have been important https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302531542_Lieux_de_Memoire_Central_Places_and_the_Sanctuary_of_Ribemont-sur-Ancre_A_Preliminary_Look?_sg=NhY95Jc0CjkOCKa1kEraSUTYkxcgQrJrrWQugBL902EbtZi8zMiJLoPeScySHCJZtq6355AAxg Re-enactment by the association Les Ambiani Edit: irish equivalent, @Sundiata http://www.miotas.org/article.cfm?id=Emain_Macha

I'm glad if I can help you with this kind of trouble. Maybe you could start to the basics of what we known about: http://www.teuta-arverni.com/medias/files/aristocratie-arverne-au-temps-de-vercingetorix-m.poux-1-.pdf http://www.luern.fr/articles/matthieu_poux_OCT11.pdf  And it should be possible to change it a bit, to adapt it. If the problem is the canvas, we can maybe let the building uncovered. We can add a side building in front of the hemicycle with a roof in wooden planks (without any moldiness). It is probable that the Arverni took their inspiration from the Greek Bouleuterion, then there is some room for imagination and adaptation. We don't need to reproduce EXACTLY the hemicycle of Corent, we need only to capture its essence to make something with it. What bothers me the most is the name and the idea behind. Making the tavern as a key building for the Celts is kinda a cliché about barbarians. Especially I don't see the link between "naked fanatics" and alcohol. Personally I am more about using the Corent sanctuary as the basic temple because it was a building with a regular use. If it is not what you want, we could use it as a feast building since there is clear evidences of feasting, wine reservoirs and animal sacrifice and eating in the building (the border between politics and religious is thin during ancient times). For the wonder, I'm thinking about taking inspiration from diverses sanctuaries. Gournay-sur-Aronde for the core basis and the hanging weapons, Ribemont-sur-Ancre for the bloody ossuary, Manching for the golden plant/tree and the wooden statues of Geneva and Yverdon-les-Bains. Yes the Dun Ailinne got two phases, the first one is the one from the picture I put in the document. The second phase is an unique circular enclosure with round building in the middle. I prefered the first phase because of the seats and the "arena" looking. Iron age Ireland is not exactly the same than in Britain but is clearly closer than the La Tène Gauls. And I didn't think it would cause trouble since the actual fortress for the Britons is based on a Iron age Scottish Broch. If someone want to make old monuments (bronze age) there is the woodhenge of Wiltshire and of Pömmelte. It could be possible to add some colours in key buildings since there is several archeological evidences about this: https://www.arar.mom.fr/sites/arar.mom.fr/files/docs/Publications/decorpreromain.pdf I can help with art, pattern and motifs.

Thank you and thank you for your comments. The Gaesatae is a complex discussion and I didn't delete them in my suggestion, I just renamed them in Bariogaisatos (Bario meaning furious). If we look at the latin name of Gaesatae, probably originally Gaisatoi (plural of Gaisatos), it is meaning "those who use the Gaisa" which is a obscur word with both translation in javelin and in spear. Video games and wargames started to use the name for "naked fanatics" but they are not described only by this characteristic: Polybius: 2.22: "Accordingly the two most extensive tribes, the Insubres and Boii, joined in the despatch of messengers to the tribes living about the Alps and on the Rhone, who from a word which means "serving for hire," are called Gaesatae. To their kings Concolitanus and Aneroetes they offered a large sum of gold on the spot; and, for the future, pointed out to them the greatness of the wealth of Rome, and all the riches of which they would become possessed, if they took it." There is a very less known account of the Gaesatae, where their king fought Marcellus with a beautiful armor/cuirass (in my opinion, a leather/lino cuirass): Plutarch: Life of Marcellus, 6: From thence Britomartus the king, taking with him ten thousand of the Gaesatae, ravaged the country about the Po. When Marcellus learned of this, he left his colleague at Acerrae with all the heavy-armed infantry and a third part of the cavalry, while he himself, taking with him the rest of the cavalry and the most lightly equipped men-at‑arms to the number of six hundred, marched, without halting in his course day or night, until he came upon the ten thousand Gaesatae near the place called Clastidium, a Gallic village which not long before had become subject to the Romans. There was no time for him to give his army rest and refreshment, for the Barbarians quickly learned of his arrival, and held in contempt the infantry with him, which were few in number all told, and, being Gauls, made no account of his cavalry. For they were most excellent fighters on horseback, and were thought to be specially superior as such, and, besides, at this time they far outnumbered Marcellus. Immediately, therefore, they charged upon him with great violence and dreadful threats, thinking to overwhelm him, their king riding in front of them. But Marcellus, that they might not succeed in enclosing and surrounding him and his few followers, led his troops of cavalry forward and tried to outflank them, extending his wing into a thin line, until he was not far from the enemy. And now, just as he was turning to make a charge, his horse, frightened by the ferocious aspect of the enemy, wheeled about and bore mostly forcibly back. But he, fearing lest this should be taken as a bad omen by the Romans and lead to confusion among them, quickly reined his horse round to the left and made him face the enemy, while he himself made adoration to the sun, implying that it was not by chance, but for this purpose, that he had wheeled about; for it is the custom with the Romans to turn round in this way when they make adoration to the gods. And in the moment of closing with the enemy he is said to have vowed that he would consecrate to Jupiter Feretrius the most beautiful suit of armour among them. Meanwhile the king of the Gauls espied him, and judging from his insignia that he was the commander, rode far out in front of the rest and confronted him, shouting challenges and brandishing his spear. His stature exceeded that of the other Gauls, and he was conspicuous for a suit of armour which was set off with gold and silver and bright colours and all sorts of broideries; it gleamed like lightning. Accordingly, as Marcellus surveyed the ranks of the enemy, this seemed to him to be the most beautiful armour, and he concluded that it was this which he had vowed to the god. He therefore rushed upon the man, and by a thrust of his spear which pierced his adversary's breastplate, and by the impact of his horse in full career, threw him, still living, upon the ground, where, with a second and third blow, he promptly killed him. Then leaping from his horse and laying his hands upon the armour of the dead, he looked towards heaven and said: "O Jupiter Feretrius, who beholdest the great deeds and exploits of generals and commanders in wars and fightings, I call thee to witness that I have overpowered and slain this man with my own hand, being the third Roman ruler and general so to slay a ruler and king, and that I dedicate to thee the first and most beautiful of the spoils. Do thou therefore grant us a like fortune as we prosecute the rest of the war." There is also another account of naked warriors without any relation with the Gaesatae. It is the Toligistobogioi (Galatians). Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 38, 21: Arrows, sling-bullets, darts, coming from all sides wounded them unexpectedly, nor did they see what to do, as their minds were blinded by rage and fear, and they were involved in a kind of battle for which they were very ill-adapted. For, as in hand-to-hand fighting, where they can receive and inflict wounds in turn, passion inflames their minds, so when they are struck by light weapons, coming from unseen and distant sources, and when they have no place at which they can charge with blind violence, like wounded animals they rush headlong upon their own friends. The fact that they fight naked makes their wounds conspicuous and their bodies are fleshy and white, as is natural, since they are never uncovered except in battle; so that both more blood flowed from their abundant flesh and the wounds stood out to view more fearfully and the whiteness of their skins was more stained by the black blood. But they are not much disturbed by open wounds; indeed, sometimes they cut away the skin, when the gash is broad rather than deep, and think that thus they gain greater glory in the fight; the same men, when the sting of an arrow or of a bullet that has buried itself in the flesh torments them, having caused a wound small to look at, and, as they search for a way to extract the missile, it does not come out, turning to madness and shame at being destroyed by so small a thing, throw their bodies upon the ground. So in this instance they lay prostrate here and there; some, rushing against the enemy, were wounded from every side, and when they had come to close quarters they were slain by the swords of the skirmishers. It is why I propose a new term, less related to the Gaesatae, for naked warriors. Nudity in combat should have been for a very specific reason (religious?) since there is only a few accounts and almost none native depictions of this practice. I only retransformed the latin or greek name in gaulish. Vercingetorix => Uercingetorix, Arverni => Arouernoi/Aruernoi, Treveri => Treoueroi. For the rest, I used my Gaulish dictionary or take inspiration from Europa Barbarorum II (which have used both celtic and proto-IE roots). Yes, I found it not really shocking like this:

Hi guys, I have some suggestions to differentiate the Britons and the Gauls, not only aesthetically but also in the military units and buildings. Here a picture oriented overview, feel free to comment or ask any question: http://docdro.id/YYcHXh2 @Sundiata @Lion.Kanzen @wowgetoffyourcellphone @wackyserious

You should like reading this blog: https://waywardstrategist.com/2016/11/17/what-rts-can-learn/ https://waywardstrategist.com/2015/11/23/rts-design-thought-control-of-economic-processes/ https://waywardstrategist.com/2015/10/02/why-rts-the-challenge-fun-and-benefits-of-playing-rts-games/

This one made me laugh.

It is not mandatory to have a system very demanding in click. Actually in my vision, it was something for defensive players that cannot expand fast enough against some factions. Focusing on the exploitation of one or two resources and investing in infrastructure to maximize capital gain and to buy the others resources. With the risk that the manufactory buildings could be raided. If there is an automatic production system (continuously producing goods and consuming resources) the player needs only to transfer the product to the market with a caravan. If the building is raided, the enemy could win a bonus in money. It is an inspiration from the situation of the Ancient Greece where they needed to export goods to import enough food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_ancient_Greece http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economy-of-ancient-greece/

I have a vague idea about an economic + slave system + mercenaries. It is starting with the introduction a new resource: money/gold. My idea is that each factions can build different buildings permitting the production of specific goods (ceramic, transformed food, bronze dishes, etc.) and each goods need a specific quantity of raw material (food, wood, metal or stone). Each building need to be connected with a market or a port to sold your product which give you a quantity in coins/gold. The interest for the player is firstly a capital gain (the product sold gives a higher value in gold than if you would have sold the raw material). Finally, the buildings need workers to be efficient and productive. You need to use a part of your population, putting them in the buildings to work. My second idea is a slave system. I have seen that it was already suggested before. In this case, I suggest it because it fit well with the previous idea. The player can use money/gold to buy slaves, but to be interesting it should have an advantage. Either a better productivity (a slave work harder and longer) or either to be not included in the population account (I'm not in favor of this one since a slave needs to be feed and to be housed). The backslash: the slaves can't protect buildings from conversion, can't fight, can't build anything and maybe can be stolen. My third idea is to pay all the mercenaries in coins/gold with the advantage of a fast training. They should be more expensive than normal units and maybe with a temporary limit (after 3 min they are disbanded if you don't pay again for example). Why am I suggesting a money system? To give the possibility to players to focus on a economic system with good advantages but with increasing risk since opponents could focus on a few buildings to disturb the resources of the player. We can even force the players to build the productive buildings far enough of the market. It also increases the motivation for players to scout the opponent's base.

Well, it could be like AoM with definitive choice or like Starcraft 2 with costly choices but not definitive.

I agree with the existence of different roles on the battlefield. I disagree with the dichotomy heavy or light, often generalized outside of the battlefield. It is why peoples are using the idea of medium infantry to fill inconsistencies in the theoretical framework but in this case you should apply it to the Roman legionaries as well: "Velites had wholly disappeared by the time of Caesar. Their detachment from the establishment of the legion made possible a gradual decline in numbers, a decline made more likely by the changed conditions of warfare, the greater availability of foreign auxiliaries and the destruction of the economic base for military class distinction. Above all perhaps, the long service and professionalism of the first century army made the ordinary heavy infantryman better able to fill the role of velites as well as their own. In this context of gradual decline, the final disappearance of the velites need not have excited remark." - Bell (1965). Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army. There is also a good example of "light infantry" tactics performed by legionaries during the Battle of Ilerda between Caesar and Pompey. Heavy and light roles on the battlefield are more based on the unit formation, the training of the men and the quality of their officers.

The main difference between the hypaspist and the common phalangite is the training and the experience. Hypaspist had daily training including 56km of walk with full equipment since king Philippe. Not the phalangite. If you look in the history of the Roman army, you will see how they are able to perform actions that even "light" infantry in the hellenistic world would barely perform. It is the training the difference.

I think you have put your finger on the main problem in the discussion. Light and heavy infantry doesn't mean anything for ancient times, it is a modern view. There is a problem with this idea of a different armement for the hypaspist: The duel of Horratas against Dioxippe, the former is very probably a hypaspist, duelling with a sarissa. And when Alexander killed Cleitos with a sarissa took from the hand of a bodyguard... role belonging to the hypaspists. Finally when Nicanor, commander of the hypaspists asked his men to used their sarissa to lay the wheat/crop against the Getai.

I agree at 100%. The Kushites were a good exception because they could take the role of an Egyptian inheritors factions and letting the Ptolemaic to be more hellenized. The only other candidate I see as really credible is the Odrysian kingdom. Well, it is not that easy either. For example, the current Roman Republic faciton is depicted with Polybian legions and with imperial era building. There isn't a lot of remaining buildings from the Republic era. It is why it is really difficult (and maybe too much difficult to change it).

Personally, I would prefer if there is more regional culture included in each factions 0 A.D. currently have. For example, Iberians could permit different choices for the player: more Mediterranean standardized iberian infantry or more traditional tribal warfare with inclusion of Celtiberian and Lusitanian warriors. I am more in favor of deeper strategies and tactics than in a bunch of superficial factions with all the same game mechanics. More qualitative than quantitative. He used often this argument, and this is mostly true. Carthage was the reason for this evolution in the equipment. The only thing, he is forgetting the close influence between iberian and gallic mercenaries for Sicilians, Punics and Greek cities, because the oval shield must comes from somewhere for the Carthaginians too: Justinus: Epitome of Pompeius Trogus' Philippic Histories, book 20, 1: Dionysius the tyrant, who, we have said, had transported an army from Sicily into Italy, and made war upon the Greeks there, proceeded, after taking Locri by storm, to attack the Crotonians, who, in consequence of their losses in the former war, were scarcely recovering their strength in a long peace. 2 With their small force, however, they resisted the great army of Dionysius more valiantly than they had before, with so many thousands, resisted the smaller number of the Locrians. 3 So much spirit has weakness in withstanding insolent power; and so much more sure, at times, is an unexpected than an expected victory. 4 But as Dionysius was prosecuting the war, ambassadors from the Gauls, who had burned Rome some months before, came to him to desire an alliance and friendship with him; 5 observing that "their country lay in the midst of his enemies, and could be of great service to him, either by supporting him in the field, or by annoying his enemies in the rear when they were engaged with him." 6 The embassy was well received by Dionysius, who, having made an alliance with them, and being reinforced with assistance from Gaul, renewed the war as it were afresh. 7 The causes of the Gauls' coming into Italy, in quest of new settlements, were civil discords and perpetual contentions at home; 8 and when, from impatience of those feuds, they had sought refuge in Italy, they expelled the Etruscans from their country, and founded Mediolanum, Comum, Brixia, Verona, Bergamum, Tridentum, and Vicentia. 9 The Etruscans, too, when they were driven from their old settlements, betook themselves, under a captain named Rhaetus, towards the Alps, where they founded the nation of Rhaetia, so named from their leader. 10 An invasion of Sicily by the Carthaginians obliged Dionysius to return thither; for that people, having rebuilt their army, had resumed the war, which they had broken off in consequence of the plague, with increased spirit. 11 The leader in the expedition was Hanno the Carthaginian, 12 whose enemy Juniatus, the most powerful of the Carthaginians at that time, having, from hatred to him, given friendly notice to Dionysius, in a letter written in Greek, of the approach of the army and the inactivity of its leader, was found, through the letter being intercepted, guilty of treason; 13 and a decree of the senate was made, "that no Carthaginian should thenceforward study the Greek literature or language, so that no one might be able to speak with the enemy, or write to him, without an interpreter." 14 Not long after, Dionysius, whom a little before neither Sicily nor Italy could hold, being reduced and weakened by continual wars, was at last killed by a conspiracy among his own subjects. Diodorus Siculus Library of History, Book 15, 70: 1 From Sicily, Celts and Iberians to the number of two thousand sailed to Corinth, for they had been sent by the tyrant Dionysius to fight in an alliance with the Lacedaemonians, and had received pay for five months. The Greeks, in order to make trial of them, led them forth; and they proved their worth in hand-to‑hand fighting and in battles and many both of the Boeotians and of their allies were slain by them. Accordingly, having won repute for superior dexterity and courage and rendered many kinds of service, they were given awards by the Lacedaemonians and sent back home at the close of the summer to Sicily. Diodorus Siculus Library of History, Book 16, 73: 3 The Carthaginians recognized that their generals in Sicily were conducting the war in a spiritless manner and decided to send out new ones, together with heavy reinforcements.Straightway they made a levy for the campaign from among their noblest citizens and made suitable drafts among the Libyans. Furthermore, appropriating a large sum of money, they enlisted mercenaries from among the Iberians, Celts, and Ligurians.They were occupied also with the construction of battleships. They assembled many freighters and manufactured other supplies in enormous quantities. Diodorus Siculus Library of History, Book 20, 11: 1 After Agathocles had viewed the array of the barbarians, he entrusted the right wing to his son Archagathus, giving him twenty-five hundred foot-soldiers; and he drew up the Syracusans, who were thirty-five hundred in number, then three thousand Greek mercenaries, and finally three thousand Samnites, Etruscans, and Celts. The problem with this is the different treatment we made for barbarians factions and greco-romans factions. We accept the use of "hastati", "triari", "hoplite", but not the others, only because we are unfamiliar and because it is difficult.

Are you really neutral on this subject? I'm tired of peoples using ancient history to satisfy their political agenda. For me it looks like you have a grief against the Basques.

I don't understand how it could be more rigoreous. It is like using old French for gallic populations and Italian for the Romans. There is no reason to think there is a continuity between the Iberian language and the Catalan. Using the Basque language is not perfect but it is still a valid hypothesis contrary to the use of Catalan.

I cannot help a lot, I don't read Spanish easily and I don't have the books of Quesada Sanz, but here a document he wrote: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/online/Guerra Iberia Quesada.pdf

Actually, it doesn't make any sense either. Catalan is mostly from latin origins (Occitan languages). Iberian language is for the moment unclassified and there is still debate to know if it is a indo-european language or not. There is a hypothesis relating the iberian language to the basque: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascoiberismo But for the moment, nothing is conclusive.

A suggestion to differentiate Britons and Gauls. Above the Britonic shields and below the Gallic shields: Basic knowledge about umbones chronology:

Sure. Adsedos: resident Atrebatos: dweller Andogna: native Atectos/Atextos: peasant (serfdom like) Cerdon: Artisan Dugilos: manufacturer Gobenos: blacksmith Uassos: servant, under-class member

An illustration of the possible resulting military tree with some suggestions for the names: