greycat Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) I was playing Field of Glory and I noticed we are missing a major Celtic faction, the Galatians. Celtic State existed 280–64 BC. Roman province Galatia.The Galatians were in their origin a part of the great Celtic migration which invaded Macedon, led by Brennus. The original Celts who settled in Galatia came through Thrace under the leadership of Leotarios and Leonnorios c. 270 BC. These Celts consisted of three tribes, the Tectosages, the Trocmii, and the Tolistobogii.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia Edited November 27, 2013 by greycat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodmar Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 They are not a faction, they are Gauls. Put Gauls on an Anatolian map and you have Galatians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Then why have Britons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 They used war chariots in Gaul also. They just abandoned it by the time Caesar was around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Couldn't we make it so your culture can choose to adopt or not to other cultures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) For instance a Gaul is going to be less "Roman", if he is never made a province by them... Edited November 28, 2013 by greycat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I'm not opposed to having the Galatians in the game. But how would you differentiate them from the Gauls and Britons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 only by time period I think... I mean at at least one point in timeline of game (I think?) They would essentially be the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 only by time period I think... I mean at at least one point in timeline of game (I think?) They would essentially be the same.Maybe they could have the "chariots" of the Britons and the Champion Swordsmen of the Gauls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Mostly they would be labeled accordingly to scenario I think.Maybe they could have the "chariots" of the Britons and the Champion Swordsmen of the Gauls.That sounds cool. Balance is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodmar Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Good question. A sub-faction is worth as long as it bears enough cultural (even if only cosmetic such as the garbs) and military differences with the mother/mainstream faction.The Galatians are a raiding party originated from Gaul (either Cis- or Trans-Alpine, or both) and the difference between them and Caesar's Gauls is their century of existence. As such they should be less advanced (fighting nake or with solid cuirass). But 0 A.D. decided to have the same civ. for several centuries (like the other games). The Galatians in the 3nd century B.C. are just like the Celts in 3nd century Gaul. Likewise, the Cimbri in Italy are like the Cimbri in Jutland 20 years before.Maybe, in the 1st century B.C. (two centuries later) the isolated Galatians, though they had kept their language) could have begun to become more greek and to "orientalize", who knows? We have nothing to start with! It will prove difficult to really differentiate Belgians and Celtiberians from those "continental" Celts (maybe, architecture and economy?).Britons are meant to be another flavor, should they be more differentiated as they are (the dev. seem to try and differentiate them). Not only do they stand for the opponent to the Romans in the 1st century A.D., but they could be seen as opposed earlier to the Belgians (late 2nd/early 1st century B.C.), and depicting fights between Romans or Gauls against Hibernes and Caledonians.The question is: with only two sub-factions, what would be more accurate: Britons and Gauls, or Gauls and Belgians. Forget the term "Briton" and see them more like "rural"/"old-time" Celts compared to "urbanized"/"greco-romanized" Celts. And don't forget all the SE Britain was colonized by Gauls (Belgians), included some of the Brittish heroes in game, and more easily romanized. For instance, we could use Britons to depict the Bohemian Boii?Yes, I agree. You could see them as who could have became the Celts with only loose contacts with the Mediterranean world, in the continuity with the Bronze Age (although there was trade, they could be be less thriving economically, have smaller horses, etc.). A bit like the people the Belgians have drove out/assimilated in northern Gaul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) I think the Belgae are considered Gauls. Unless they migrate to Britain as many have for instance... Edited November 28, 2013 by greycat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Maybe, in the 1st century B.C. (two centuries later) the isolated Galatians, though they had kept their language) could have begun to become more greek and to "orientalize", who knows? We have nothing to start with! The Galatians were still speaking the Galatian language (Gaulish) in the time of St. Jerome (347–420 AD), who wrote that the Galatians of Ancyra and the Treveri of Trier (in what is now the German Rhineland) spoke the same language (Comentarii in Epistolam ad Galatos, 2.3, composed c. 387). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 A Galatian's head as depicted on a gold Thracian objet d'art, 3rd century BC. Istanbul Archaeological Museum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 A Galatian's head as depicted on a gold Thracian objet d'art, 3rd century BC. Istanbul Archaeological MuseumSoo beautiful. Nice pic is CC by 3.0? Can use it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greycat Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) There is other resolutions of picture on Wikipedia link on first post. Are you asking if it is copyrighted? the picture itself maybe... but not the design.edit:Copyrights generally are only an issue if you are making money from it. (the picture itself.) Edited November 28, 2013 by greycat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 There is other resolutions of picture on Wikipedia link on first post. Are you asking if it is copyrighted? the picture itself maybe... but not the design.edit:Copyrights generally are only an issue if you are making money from it. (the picture itself.)I know I'm graphic designer but not all license CC are compatible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.