Genava55

It comes from a french documentary about Paris where they didn't even show the sanctuary, his work was only display for a few seconds, it seems that Pierre Gable is intentionally using the Arte logo as a proof of quality, mixing different pictures on the page with his own personal model without specify it. His model is in fact used by Dassault Systems on a video to make a promotion of their software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-64kHmCJGMA Clearly for me, it is unethical. Since the sanctuary of Corent was modeled by a different company (court-jus prod.). Do you know this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis Thanks for the pictures. About these ones in particular, I want to scan them in good quality, since I have them in a book. It is a very good work from Fernando Quesada Sanz. The first one comes from different findings in Marne and Champagne (where the Hallstatt / La Tène boundary is more complex), with several inspiration from the Roquepertuse statues and this scabbard: It is what the Early La Tène warrior could look like.

For the Gauls, swordsmen wasn't that rare. In the warriors burials of the Parisii, it was in 96% of the La Tène B2 tombs and 94% of the La Tène C1 tombs. In Hungary, it represented 55% of the tombs and 62% of the tombs respectively for LT B2 and C1 tombs. During La Tène D2, it represented 45% of the warrior burials of the Treveri. In a general analysis of several long-term sanctuaries, the votive offers are in majority composed of swords. Especially during La Tène C2. For the Gauls, I can suggest some regional unit like the Nervii swordsmen, the Treveri cavalrymen, the Suebi anti-cavalry warriors (germanic), the Volcae raiders etc. etc. But there is also stronger spearmen as a possibility for the common roster. For the Britons two-handed swordsman, I suggest to go for something more common, like a champion. Or for regional units from irish anx caledonian worlds with swords and clubs maybe. Edit some examples: https://mobile.twitter.com/EBTeam/status/646606115178942465 https://mobile.twitter.com/ebteam/status/646032847879438336 https://mobile.twitter.com/EBTeam/status/646306476684914689

I can't see most of the pics. I know this "tavern" found in Lattara, but it is actually during the Roman period (since the Narbonnaise was Romanized earlier). You can have an academic analysis here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/372294246DB2B888F516079B4DD2C011/S0003598X15001842a.pdf/communal-eating-and-drinking-in-early-roman-mediterranean-france-a-possible-tavern-at-lattara-c-125-75-bc.pdf I don't argue against the existence of "tavern" but against the use of them for recruitment process. I suggest an alternative with a more political custom, the feasting.

Yes. But I suggest to not trash the actual temple and to modify it. It is an interesting building for a feasting place since there is a central and open yard, with two pikes/poles in the entrance.

I think the sanctuary of Corent is best suited for the role of a temple. Since it was a place where the rituals were regularly performed and inside an urban area. What could have been a wonder building for the Gauls is the Sanctuary of Ribemont-sur-Acre. It is very bloody but it seems this is a place regularly visited and maintained without a lot of rituals. We can maybe mix this sanctuary with the one of Gournay-sur-Aronde. Since they are both symbols of victory, I think it is the best solution. Beside the temple/sanctuary/wonder discussion, I would like to suggest a modification with the tavern. Firstly, it is very cliché and I don't see the link with a religious war fanatic. Secondly, I have a simple suggestion to change that: creating a banquet/feasting building (the Celicnon) by lightly modifying the actual building of the gallic temple. Feasting is a practice linked with important social, political, and economic functions. Aristocrats were probably trying to recruit and impress the others in these places.

Yes I have seen it, but there is often a mix of Gallic and Britonic reconstructions, often pictures without any sources (where and when?) and I prefere to centralize the informations, it gives a better idea of the architecture and of the evolution. 0 A.D. is a game, it is impossible to get everything totally accurate, you need to have an artistic imagination to make a Gallic military barrack since this thing never existed. To get this imagination, you need to have an overview of the whole picture. From the items of everyday life to complex sanctuaries and fortifications. Thx a lot, there is a couple of pictures I didn't have. But the problem with pictures on internet is that people never put the sources and the basic informations (what, where and when). For example, a lot of peoples are using the illustration of J.-C. Golvin of Bibracte while he is mostly depicting a gallo-roman town. And about the Parisii oppidum, it is clearly a fraud and a plagiarism. It comes from someone that is unrelated to the archeologic world http://pierregable.fr/portfolio/oppidum-gaulois/ I checked a bit more the opinion of Delamarre and the debate around Octodurus. It seems his opinion is that "Duron/Durum" is meaning a closed place of trading under the control of a local aristocrat, by opposition with "magos" that means a open-field market. It's a recent debate, started in the 2000s, it is probably why it didn't reach english literature yet. The main argument of his view is a better coherence with the archeological findings where a lot of place have "-durum" in their name without any evidence of fortification. It could even explained why the Romans renamed sometimes the places in a "forum" version. And why "Dur-" is related to a door, as was "foris" for the Romans. "Duron" should have a similar meaning for the Gauls than the Forum for the Romans. Espero que estés satisfecho.

I know it is a common translation. I'm not a specialist in linguistic, I use only the gallic dictionary of X. Delamarre. What is your opinion with name like augustodurum? And about octodurus, do you know why Caesar described it as a vicus? And why its name was changed to forum claudii augustii? ----------- I use this as a draft holder: Inclusion of regional differentiation for Celtic factions Opening a new thread instead of flooding the one concerning the rework of the Britons. Stan asked me if it was possible to have technologies specific to the tribes, I include in this suggestion any regional characteristics that could be used, including from neighboring cultures. I already made a similar suggestion in the past concerning some regional units, notable a Lepontian axeman and a Rhenish anti-cavalry horseman. Although maybe it is a good opportunity to open-up a new thread with various similar ideas that could work for the Gauls or for the Britons: - Lepontian/Lepontii, unique axeman unit - Treveri/Treverian, cavalry tech bonus + agrarian tech bonus - Nervii / Nervian, infantry tech bonus or/and anti-cavalry tech bonus - Eburones, skirmishers and guerrilla tech bonus - Belgians / Belgic / Belgae, combination of Eburones and Nervii bonus mentioned above. - Armorican or Veneti, bonus for navy and bonus for forts - Aquitani

Yes, often the Romans have translated the toponym "-duron" in place and in forum. It is the only thing that is the closest to the word "market". Edit: to be more precise, the oppida are mainly places of trading. It is why the name "duron" is translated for a lot of things, including fortress. But it doesn't make any sense when you look to the latinized versions and when you try to understand "duron" as a fortress only. For example there is "Salodurum", you can interpret it like Salt fortress or like salt market. In the opposite, "Dunon" is less ambiguous.

@stanislas69 @Lion.Kanzen @wackyserious I made a short overview of buildings during La Tène period: https://www.docdroid.net/1njBPhO/gauls-architecture.pdf I didn't have a lot of time these days, I will try to do something similar for the weaponry.

Yes, this one. It's the thesis. Thank you for your message. The misinterpretation is normal since the knowledge is not free and accessible. There is only a few peoples that are doing historical mistakes with a bad intention behind. I don't have a grief against good peoples doing mistakes but against scientists that often didn't share their works. It is why I'm a huge supporter of science hub and affiliate platforms. Especially since I went to poor countries where students didn't have access to a good library. Osprey is often the only accessible source for amateurs but their work is sometimes of mediocre quality. Well it is very difficult to interpret anything with coins without a complete series of the same coins. One classical example with a coin of Cunobelin that was described as showing a round shield even by someone like Cunliffe. But when we look in details is it really obvious that it is a round shield? I don't know. When I look to another coin of this serie, the shape of the shield is clearly less obvious. Then how to be sure that it is not an artifact from the coin's matrix? The difficulty for this coin of Cunobelin is the rarity. There is not a lot in circulation. It is the same problem with the coin of Tasciovanus (2nd one) where Cunliffe see a rectangular shield and where the others coins seems to tell a different story. The coins of Epaticcus are a good example of similarity with the Cunobelin coins and they have some variations too. This coin is more difficult, it is a Caesar coin dated of 48 BC. The problem is that all gallic coins from Caesar are showing a carnyx. It is not the case here. And there is spanish and roman coins from Caesar: And the shield is the same that this one used for Juno Sospita: Thus I am skeptical.

Sure. I am an environmental scientist with a specialization in geochemistry. I am not a historian neither an archeologist. I have some basic academic knowledge in archaeology because I had some courses about paleo-ecology, paleo-geomorphology and paleo-geochemistry in Holocene context. Ancient history and La Tène culture are an old hobby I have since my teenage years. The only thing very useful in my academic background is mostly that I know where to look for accurate information. When I got the time, I will. For the moment I have a break because I'm waiting for my results from a laboratory before to continue my research.

This one made me laugh, but not because of you. I tell you why. I already got this discussion a few years ago and someone point me out a post on a thread in the forum kelticos.org. Someone find this press resumee/summary in french and translated it with google. It is true, clearly it mentions a "round shield". Problem, at this period it was very hard to find anything on internet about this discovery. I wanted the publication to verify this because I find it very exciting. Finding a round shield at the end of the Gallic Wars is just amazing and can tell you a lot of things about the weaponry evolution. Contrary to the common belief, there is very few indications of round shields in central Europa at this period, the only ones comes from very far in Poland and Baltic regions. There is small square shields in Jutland, in North-eastern Germany and in Ireland, but nothing that tell you why the round shields become so popular among Germanic tribes during the migrations period. Even during the Marcomannic Wars there is no evidences of round shields. For exemple, in the Thorsberg moor's votive site where there is offerings from 0 to 500 AD, the round shields start to appears only during the 3rd century. Thus for me, this discovery of a round shield in a post-Gallic Wars context was just amazing. Then I took my @#$% to the archeological library of my University. I asked for the 2004 publication of Schönfelder on this tomb and for his original thesis in German from 2000. Since I am from Switzerland, it took one month to get these documents, and do you know what I found? Simply that the person writing the press summary for the city of Agen had misunderstood the findings. It was round umbones. Not round shields. The original thesis conclude on the paragraph about the shield: "Nach den verbliebenen Fragmenten war der Schild von Boé ein gängiger, funktionaler Spätlatènetypus, wie er etwa auch in den Gräbern von Pîtres im Département Eure und Mainzweiler im Saarland gefunden wurde." Meaning it was a common and functional shield similar to two others findings in Gaul. But imagine my frustration to have waited one month and lose two days to read the material in German (not a common language for me). It is why I'm not referring anymore on anything that is not grounded by a publication. You don't imagine the mistakes that appears with this kind of situation. For example, the first mod Europa Barbarorum I, on the first Rome Total War. All the barbarians factions were build using medieval irish tales and the delirium of someone that said he was a historian. Peoples working on Roman and Hellenistic histories, peoples with real knowledge, didn't even realize that an impostor was working on the Celtic factions. Someone who suggested two-handed swordsman, Giant hammer warrior and Irish heavy infantryman with scales armor. Even these peoples believed his information on word. Since the first mod was considerate very historical accurate, peoples took inspiration from their work. It is why you can find some two-handed swordsmen in 0ad. But this thing doesn't exist anymore on the second Europa Barbarorum. You can barely recognize the barbarians factions between the two mods. Because now, the team is very very careful when they are selecting someone for the mod. It was a precision about the Belgians. And the shield wasn't found in a context with what they call "Aylesford-Swarling" culture related with the Belgians. Thus, I didn't consider the find as related with the mainland Gauls. Moreover, the second quote about the La Tène style is what is interesting about the question because clearly this kind of style used on the shield is clearly native to Britain. It is an inspiration from what the mainland celts did. But these findings, with highly decorated shields and mirrors, with this plastic La Tène art, are not known outside of Britain. And as I said, I don't understand why people are referring about this shield as a round shield since it was clearly riveted on something. And there is a couple of shields totally preserved in Britain but none are round. I was maybe a bit rough by saying it is a paralogism. I don't say it is not common sense and logical. It is just that we are, us the moderns peoples living in an industrial world, efficiency focused in our way to think. By the example of the use of rounds shields in celtiberian and italic cultures, I wanted to express something I have maybe misaddressed: the traditions for the use of weapons need to fit the cultural view of warfare. The round shields were used because these peoples wanted to use round shields. There is innovation in barbarian cultures, but they are always grounded with military and cultural changes. For example, the Gallic sword is getting longer from 300 BC to 30BC. Why? Because the elites warriors evolute slowly from an infantry and chariot based warfare to a cavalry based warfare. Because it is simultaneous with an increase of horse in warrior burials and the horses were becoming bigger. Furthermore, the sword tip were sometimes rounded in warrior burial. It seems that the elite warriors were more often on horses than on foot. About the oval shields without umbones, there is evidence even in very late reliefs like this one: Oh sorry, this paragraph is referring about La Tène evolution. For the the Hallstatt-LaTène boundaries (550-450BC), it is a more complex talk because it is based on the destruction and the desertion very sudden of several aristocratic places. There is also burial practices change during this moment. Notably, there is a huge increase of weapons in the more modest burials. The society seems to change from a peaceful to a warfare oriented society. But it is very complex because there is a regional origin proposed for this sociocultural process (the Marne region) and it seems it spread rapidly from this place. But in this region, the evolution from Hallstatt to LaTène was a bit more slower (and a bit more older). There is regional specificity but they are more subtle. The Britons are clearly different because it is not admitted they are from a La Tène culture for most of the british historians. There is clearly a connection because it was the Golden Age of the mainland Celts and everybody started to use their weapons, potteries and crafted items (it is why we can found La Tène items in Jutland and in Ukraine). The Britons have different burial practices and different architectures. The La Tène burials and architecture were only found in the Arras culture in the eastern part of Yorkshire. It is why some british historians are very opposed with the old Franco-germanic theories of La Tène spreading by invasions. Their views are more based on acculturation. The first time I read the book of Cunliffe about Iron Age in Britain, I was surprised how it is different from the common view of the french literature. I think there is a language barrier for the old historians that is hard to overcome. Cunliffe is very bad when he is writing about central European findings and french historians like J.-L. Brunaux are very bad for the british findings. Gladly, it is changing thanks to young peoples. And it is why I'm saying that the use of weapons are more based on cultural views. For me, saying the Golesecca culture could have transmitted the round shield to the La Tène culture by the same time they got dominated and their culture disappeared is weird. There is regional specificity of the Italian group and there is survivance of pre-La-Tène culture in some place. Even during the Roman Republic. But all the time, the specific findings were found in this place. Never outside their sphere. They are a minor and dominated culture, how they could influence another culture in his golden age? For example, in Giubiasco there is a warrior burial with a helmet that seems anachronistic for the period. The warrior is even equipped with a La Tène shield and a Roman gladius. It is known that this place show some survival of the Golesecca culture and some Lepontic unknown culture. The region was never been densely populated before the Roman Empire. Even during the Roman period, when they are officially controlling the region, you can find warrior burials with mainly La Tène items. Because, I will quote a blond modern politician, this is a "shithole country". Besides the joke, the region is really weird for historical findings, always a bit disconnected of the rest of the world. Thus even by considerate the exceptional findings and the rare survival of previous culture, I don't see anything that could have spread into the La Tène culture. It stays always in a local scale. I'm really trying to understand this view for common bilateral cultural sharing of warfare items. But I don't have any example that fit in. Even in the Balkan where there is a huge mess and patchwork of different cultures at this period. More often there, the cultural sharing of warfare items is unilateral, i.e. peoples are starting to use La Tène items. For your pleasure, here the Giubiasco warrior.

As you wish, let me quote someone more qualified than me: And for the La Tène style, yes indeed. But the La Tène style is used in Ireland too for decorating several scabbards. It doesn't mean they are peoples coming from the mainland. Actually the La Tène style was brought in Britain during the fifth century BC, probably by the trades or by a minor migration in the eastern part of Yorkshire. You can find La Tène items everywhere, from the Jutland to Ukraine. You missed my point. I wanted to highlight the fact that round shield were never used by only a class of skirmishers but by the whole warrior class. And I don't understand why a oval shield should be more complicated or more ornate, neither more expensive, to produce. In these cultures, even the elite warrior were using round shield. I think the practical argument that the round shield is better for skirmishing is a paralogism. The argument that the round shield is less expensive and more affordable is a paralogism too. An oval shield doesn't need an umbone, and this piece is the most expensive part. If we want to make a really affordable and cheap shield, why not making something that is proved by some sources, like the wicker shields mentioned in De Bello Gallico. There is this particular point about weaponry I wanted to show: You said I was oversimplifying ?

Actually, the Wandsworth shield is dated before the beginning of the belgian influence in Britain. Well there is a problem with considering the round shields as something regularly used by La Tène skirmishers and in the same time justifying it from Castros, Celtiberian and Italic cultures. Because in these cultures the round shields were never used by skirmishers, it was used by all the warrior class. It was a common shield used by warriors using javelins, spear and sword to fight in close combat. They are not skirmishers. The only proofs of a standardization of the round shield to only the skirmishers are from the Roman velites and the Hellenistic peltasts/javelinists. Even for the slingers, most of the Mediterranean slingers never used a shield. For the Roman, the justification of the parma for the velites comes from the weight and the size of the scutum. But it is known that most of the imperial auxilia used an oval shield, even for skirmishing, because it is still lighter than the scutum. Therefore, why a round shield should be mandatory for skirmishing? For the simple reason there was no united formation of slingers and archers. Archers were used only during the Gallic Wars by Vercingetorix but never before. The archeological record of arrows in La Tène battlefield only start with the Gallic Wars. There is a huge increase of traits weapons during this period (stones and javelins mostly). But before this moment, there is no indication of specialized archers. For the slingers, the most probable is a common weapon used inside all the celtic society. The stones from slings are mostly found in siege battle, therefore it is hard to know who have throw it against the enemies. It could be regular warriors too. Cuchulainn in the irish tales used regularly a sling, thus no reason to think it was forbidden for the warrior class. There is actually a very sharp transition between Hallstatt and La Tène culture, even in the same archeological region. The weapons changed a lot in a few decades. And if there is that much survival from the previous culture, why the innovation in the La Tène weaponry are spreading so fast all the time? There is typology for the sword, the scabbard, the umbones and the helmets, with specific period when they were used. Not a bunch of mixed innovation accumulated through several centuries and across different iron age culture. https://ibb.co/ke4vHy https://ibb.co/hS7FHy https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANNA_672_0295--the-golden-age-of-the-celtic-aristocracy.htm

In my opinion there is no trouble to distinguish between Insular Celts (Britons) and Continental/Mainland Celts (Gauls) while keeping them in the same group/faction. It is true that Celtic culture doesn't mean La Tène culture, but Celtic cultures are very diversified on a large timescale. The peoples from the Atlantic Bronze Age and from the Urnfield culture are actually proposed as the first Celts to explain the differences between the Iron Age Celts (There is a book about this: "Celtic from the West"). Then all the following cultures (Castro, Hallstatt, Golasecca, La Tène etc.) are Celtic from this point of view. The actual purpose of the game is to represent the Celts known by the classical texts. Since the Celtiberians are among the Iberian faction and the less-known cultures (Castro, Golasecca, Liguro-Venetic, Przeworsk etc.) are not considerate as potential factions, there are only remaining the La Tène culture and the Britonnic iron age culture. The Britonnic iron age started around 700-600 BC, and before this period the Atlantic Bronze Age was still the main culture in Britain. And there is a lot of connections between the Insular Celts and the Continental Celts. Since the fifth century, according to Barry Cunliffe: There is Early La Tène items in Wales too: The origin of the war chariots is speculated from the La Tène influence by Barry Cunliffe: About the artistic influence: Aside the first contact in Early La Tène, there is very Late La Tène connection in south-eastern Britain. There is evolution in the coinage and in the pottery. There is indication of a military tense situation: About the sword here is the view of Barry Cunliffe:

It is better to argue here I think. Is it ok for you? @Sundiata Before to start, you need to understand that my position is very difficult to defend. For a very old reason. It is difficult to prove that something didn't exist. An old scientifical, philosphical and legal challenge. Moreover in archaelogical and historical context where there is a lot of room for various interpretations. Firstly, as I said the Bormio's stele is from the Golasecca culture. Not the La Tène culture that is the common iron age culture for the Celts known by classical texts. To understand the difference, we can look at the timeline of the Golasecca culture. It starts around 900BC, in the North of Italy and is contemporaneous of the Hallstatt culture. The Golasecca is considerate as very close to the Hallstatt culture but with important differences: there is cremation burials and they have cultural connection with the Etruscans (they even used their alphabet). Thus, the Golasecca is what we call a "first iron age celtic culture", in the same manner is the Hallstatt culture. But around 600-500BC the Hallstatt culture vanishes, the political structure seems to change completely and there is a lot of artistic innovation. The La Tène culture emerges from the Hallstatt culture and is even spread far beyond the ancient boundaries of the former culture. It is what we call a "second iron age celtic culture", the moment where the Celts are in their maximal expansion. And if you remember the history of the Celts from the Romans, it is around 400BC that the Gauls come in Italy. Archeologically, the Golasecca disappears between 450-400BC and is replaced by the La Tène culture. Notably, by the Insubres, a celtic tribe which have established Mediolanum. It is why referring to this stele is the same level of mistake than referring to the Hallstatt culture for characterizing the Gauls known by the classical texts. They are distinct cultures. There is a hypothese that the Ligures in Italy were close to the Golasecca culture (but probably different too), as a first iron age culture. Moreover, the Bormio's stele poses a second problem. Is it a standard-bearer and a corn-blower? Because we know that the peoples in these roles wore different uniforms and weapons than the usual warrior. It wouldn't be very smart to generalize from them. Secondly, the Castro culture has the same problem than the Golasecca. Even worse because the region never known the La Tène culture and because the Castro culture is even different from the Hallstatt culture. The Castro culture emerges from the Atlantic bronze age and has a lot of similarities with the Britannic iron age. Even for Celtiberians, the association with La Tène culture is difficult and evidence only start late (around 200BC). Why it is so difficult? Because being "celt" is not a ethnicity, it is only cultural. It seems normal in the records that a celtic culture was replaced by another one (no violence needed for this). Thirdly, for the Wandsworth shield, I explicitly said that the insular Celts could have potentially used round shields. Saying that the Celts of Thames's region comes from the mainland is very difficult to prove, the evidences are always late (between 150-50 BC). There is a speculation that the Belgians invaded this region but it seems it was during the time of Diviciacos, king of the Suessiones around 100BC. Furthermore, the Wandsworth shield is known to have been applied on a wooden backing. We have absolutely no idea of the shape of this wooden backing, since it was fixated with rivets. Don't forget that the Witham shield have bronze parts applied on a oval wooden shield. Don't forget the Battersea shield is made of different pieces, all fixated with rivets... Finally, if the round shields were regularly used by the mainland Celts (the Gauls), why there is no depiction of round shields on the Orange's arc? Or on any Roman relief? We can't speculate only because there was round shield during the bronze age in Europe, it is anachronistic.

There is some experimental work in re-enactment about the fabric motifs and techniques. Here some examples: https://mickytissages.wordpress.com/tutoriels/tutoriel-tissage-tablettes/ https://www.archeologies.net/recherches/le-tissage-aux-tablettes-tablet-weaving.html http://www.arkeofabrik.com/2014/05/tissages.html https://mickytissages.wordpress.com/tissages-realisations/realisations-tissage-2010/ It is based on an archeological proposal by Hubert Masurel: https://www.persee.fr/doc/pica_0752-5656_1983_num_1_1_3009 There is also:

Thanks a lot and sorry for the mess.

Well, I don't know where to start. But firstly I noticed you are using osprey illustrations and random archeological finds taken on different websites. The problem with osprey illustrations is that they are often very old and based on very insufficient sources. For exemple, there is often anachronistic choice in Angus McBride's illustrations, mixing items from the early LaTène and the Late LaTène periods. There is even an illustration of a helvetian warrior from him where he used Hallstatt and Bronze Age material to describe a scene occurring in 100BC: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/11/4d/73114d9147321363aaab4cbe6884c5c1.jpg Another example, one previously posted: You can see a strange shield used by standard-bearer. It is actually based on a stele from Bormio made by peoples of the Golasecca culture around 500BC. The scene is depicting the Hannibal's army crossing the alps in 218BC and the reaction of a Gallic tribe (the Allobroges or the Taurini probably). Not very accurate. The other thing is that Osprey illustrations often depicts round shields on Gallic warriors. But there is absolutely no evidence of round shields in La Tène culture. Maybe it has existed among the insulars celts (Britain and Ireland) but not in the continent.

Hi, I see you struggle to get accessible documents about La Tène culture. I propose to help you a bit. If you want an accessible material, there is page from someone working for museums and historians to make re-enactment items: https://www.facebook.com/franck.archeoart/photos Don't forget there is an evolution of the armament, even in a barbarian culture: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/73/ba/69/73ba696b81a206fa9b985bd012602891.jpg https://swordmaster.org/uploads/2016/cassaselvatica/la-tene-a1.jpg (La Tène A - 500 - 400 BC) https://swordmaster.org/uploads/2016/cassaselvatica/la-tene-a2.jpg (La Tène A - 500 - 400 BC) https://swordmaster.org/uploads/2016/cassaselvatica/la-tene-b.jpg (La Tène B - 400 - 300 BC) https://swordmaster.org/uploads/2016/cassaselvatica/la-tene-c.jpg (La Tène C - 300 - 150 BC) https://swordmaster.org/uploads/2016/cassaselvatica/la-tene-d.jpg (La Tène D - 150 - 30 BC) Your welcome.

Eluveitie did a lot of songs in ancient Gaulish. I think you can just re-use their lyrics, maybe just asking to Chrigel (singer and writer of the band). Example:

The general form of a gallic sanctuary is a delimited area with one or several huts/cabines to keep the votive gifts (weapons, jewels, woodden statue etc.). In addition, it can has some sacrificial monument (holes in the ground for the food, and animals or even condemned persons; scaffolds for the heroic dead warriors and their weapons like at Gournay-sur-aronde) and some places for banquets like at Corent. http://www.gournaysuraronde.com/images/sanctuaire/maquette.jpg http://www.gournaysuraronde.com/images/sanctuaire/reconstitution-sanctuaire.jpg Two animation videos: http://www.court-jus.com/film.php?id=28&type=15 http://www.court-jus.com/film.php?id=29&type=15 Illustrations in a paper(journal) about Corent, the oppidum and the sanctuary, near of Gergovia: http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4983/sanctuaryofcorent.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/916/luernfest.jpg Woodden statue, found near the lake of geneva: http://notrehistoire.ch.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2010/08/de0334d0108f4481_jpg_200x200_upscale_q85.jpg http://notrehistoire.ch.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2010/08/c494b1286c9505da_jpg_200x200_upscale_q85.jpg Thus if you need to keep one of these models, I think the second building is better for a sanctuary, it misses simply an enclosure and some religious amenagements. The house is a bit too huge but it isn't really bad.

No... Gallia was more deforested than the France today. The Druids weren't hippies naturalists, there was some sanctuaries during the Celtic LaTene. A model made by Ealabor for a m&b mod, based on the Sanctuary of Corent: http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j158/ealabor/corent1.jpg http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j158/ealabor/corent2.jpg

Just to help the historians about the Celts/Germans, there are some previews really detailled here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=337587 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=347334 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=351425 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=352002 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=413770 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1367 And for Carthage: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=401193 Good day and good luck.

The Gaulish martial vocabulary (source: Gaulish Dictionnary) - Atectos (peasant) - Acuadreti (fast skirmisher, with light javelin which can reach 80 meters) - Batoros (striker) - Gaisatos (javelinman) - Talmori (slinger) - Saitoros (bowman) - Anandogna (foreigner) - Andogna (native) - Bagauda (peasant-warrior) - Iouincos (young warrior) - Excingos (attacker, litt."out of the troop") - Bariouic (angry warrior) - Ambactos ("servants" => guard) - Cingetos (warrior) - Uercingetos (super-warrior) - Solduros (elite guard) - Argos (hero, champion) - Comargos (fighting comrade) - Arios (prince, noble) - Cauaros (giant, hero) - Corionos (war chief) - Corios (army) - Brennos (général) - Gaisaredos (mounted javelinman, on a horse) - Essedon (chariot) - Eporedia (cavalry) - Eporedos (cavalryman) - Rigeporedia (royal cavalry) - Nauson (ship)