Instead of Technology, per se, we have Culture

[Vacceo]

I think the game should give any "barbaric" culture the chance to get developed and reach "civilization".

In the beggining "civilized" factions (Rome, Greek Polis, Ptolemaic Egipt, Seleucids...) could have acces to things like academies, good roads, better management of territory but still, I hope germanic, gallic and other "barbarian" folks could also reach those stages, at a slow rate, but at least, get to a urban culture with wide access to written stuff, a powerfull state...

Other forum members sugested something like Victoria: you take an uncivilized nation and you´re able to make it civilized or even a great power. It´s hard, it´s slow and the great powers will give you a hard time in lots of moments but still, it´s possible.

 

[minority]

Why not represent "barbarians" and "civilisation" with domestic policy sliders?

Break it down a little and we get that what Rome considered a civilisation required more urbanised societies. So have a slider for that that gives different benefits and penalties.

I don't see the need for binary categorisations of civilised and uncivilised, whereas the obtainment of technology or the availability of national ideas based on a culture's lifestyle can be perfectly represented with sliders.

Vlad,
Borneo?

LOL. I'm from Borneo, and to be fair, my ancestors did cover up the groin areas and usually entered battle with more garments covering the body as well.

cheers

 

[Archaalen]

I was arguing was that we need something NOT like Victoria! The differences between Rome and the Gauls were nowhere nearly as significant as the differences between the British Empire and the Zulu, and it was entirely conceivable that a Gallic army could have ended up in control of Rome for a second time had the conditions been right. Mediterranean civilizations had advantages, certainly, and these need to be represented. However, this doesn't mean that the civilzations to the north of the Mediterranean should be strongly handicapped by "culture". Their major handicaps should be in the fragmented nature of their societies (ie, many minor tribes in competition for the same space) and in lack of good logistical support for their armies (though that could be remedied with some work on the player's part).

 

[Dunderdon]

I have read this discussion and I find it very interesting.

IMHO the advantage of the Romans was their social system of centralized and highly organized slavery, which allowed them to produce more efficient and to accumulate more wealth and population.

The nordic tribes, such as the Gauls, were basically half nomadic and thus had no centralized state and probably did not use slave labour in a way as effective as the Romans did. Thus they could not spare enough ressources to build impressive cities, display wealth and outfit large armies. There are exceptions of course.

Factors such as skilled diplomacy and devoted marshalls might contribute to the fact that it was Rome that dominated the world and not Carthage but these are rather random factors, while the economical superiority provided the basis for Roman success.

 

[Archaalen]

Nomadic? Much of Gallic civilization was based around permanent settlements and small-landowner farms, not seasonal migration. The only mobile groups were the mercenaries and professional bandits (mostly, the same thing), and they were not representative of the Gauls as a whole. Also, large-scale slave exploitation was a product of slave influxes from the Punic and Gallic Wars, and was by no means a factor in Caesar's victory over the Gauls (and it was Caesar's victory, not "Rome's", almost no one else back in Italy was involved with these conflicts at all).

 

[unmerged(85264)]

Gallic society was not by any means nomadic, except, as mentioned, for mercenary bands and bandits. Gauls DID build large cities, had huge numbers of slaves, and were described as oppulent because of their habit of 'displaying wealth'. They also did outfit large armies early in the period (the situation with Caesar's involvement is very convoluted and shouldn't be taken as the standard by which the earlier period of Gallic development should be seen). Gauls built large buildings, complex city infrastructure (maintained roads, sewage, water, planned out districts, etc.), particularly as the period went on. However, the earliest Celtic cities would predate the start of EU:Rome, and were built the same way for the most part. They used huge numbers of slaves to build complex, large defenses, dug channels, built massive earthworks, and manufactured huge amounts of arms and armor; there even seems to be some standardization of design (compare later Celtic helmets in northern Italy to their contemporaries from northern Gaul; they're identical in their basic design, the variation is more in decoration).

Even Gauls outside the cities could not be termed nomadic. Gallic nobility and ignoble aristocracy lived on permanent farming estates of various sizes depending on individual wealth, on which they raised a wide variety of crops and livestock, some of which the Gauls actually introduced to the regions they inhabited. The estates could vary from a single family farmstead up to entire villages and towns built around sustaining an estate, with plenty of slaves to do the field labor, as well as care for the aristocracy dwelling there.

Slaves were a large part of Celtic trade. The Greeks seem confused how the Gauls could sell them so cheaply, in exchange for what they saw as such little wine for so many slaves (apparently not grasping supply-and-demand; the Celts had huge numbers of slaves, but little wine compared to the Hellenes). They knew how to utilize slaves on a large scale.

By the Romans' own account, it is more by a matter of politics and prolonged warfare depleting soldiery that led to the conquest. Germanic incursion, war between the two main powers (the Aedui controlling the north, the Arverni then Sequani controlling the south) depleted the armies, so, the Aedui requested foreign intervention (from the Romans). Not all of the tribes loyal to their head magistrate agreed, and, then, weren't loyal anymore; they abandoned the Aedui, and their control of about half of Gaul collapsed due to individual tribes, lesser magistrates, sub-kings, druids, etc., not wanting Roman aide.

Also, in 280 (I think that's the start given?), Rome wouldn't be economically superior to the Gauls. The large two federations, and the kingdom of the Aquitanians, would both probably be substantially richer. The Gauls mined huge amounts of gold, silver, and other precious metals, produced large amounts of tradable goods like linen, art in the form of metalwork, weapons, armor, etc. Again, they were called opulent. They were veritably loaded.

Also mind, when Augustus became emperor, Rome still had dirt roads. The pre-Roman Gallic oppida Bibracte, Alesia, and Gergovia, all had had roads covered with wood plank and stone for sometime from what we find digging up the sites. Rome really wasn't that amazingly different from the Gauls in a lot of ways. They were different, but they weren't seperated by 'Gauls: Mud hut dwelling savages, Romans: Enormous, well-ordered cities'. Gauls created a lunar calendar that until the advent of the computer, we couldn't make one so accurate. They did live in cities. They had armies, we know, because their contemporaries tell us about them, and we find physical evidence of actual armies from the Celts that can't be summed as cheaply equipped warbands, as well as standards and horns, evidencing command structure. They could fight in tight phalanx formations, or in looser formations, could commit to complex manuevers, and had a system of merit and reward, which encouraged sometimes rash action. But, if we focus on that, we should also focus on descriptions of Romans jumping on Germanic warriors' shields to get at the men in the German shieldwall, or the foolish rash behavior of the praetor at Faesula.

They were, in the sense of the word, a civilized people if Romans are being used as the measure (though I'd rather Hellenes and Carthage be used more as a standard for 280, if there needs to be one), because they were developed as the Romans, but had developed in a different way (their knowledge of mathematics, for example, was more used for astronomical calculations it'd seem, but, they apparently must've had a pretty advanced knowledge based on the Coligny Calendar). It's not a matter of being PC, there were people in Europe who were undeveloped, and truly pretty barbaric, but Gauls wouldn't be among them in sheer sense of technical development.

 

[Archaalen]

Another factor in the Gaul's reputation as barbarians is their lack of written records, which is given as an example of their unsophisticated nature. However, several Greek and Roman sources state that Celtic religion had specific prohibitions against the writing down of, in particular, religious knowledge. This is the reason why we have few Celtic writings, and no idea of what philosophical concepts existed within Gallic societies. For all we know, they could have had intellectual figures comparable to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

 

[Divi]

Another factor in the Gaul's reputation as barbarians is their lack of written records, which is given as an example of their unsophisticated nature. However, several Greek and Roman sources state that Celtic religion had specific prohibitions against the writing down of, in particular, religious knowledge. This is the reason why we have few Celtic writings, and no idea of what philosophical concepts existed within Gallic societies. For all we know, they could have had intellectual figures comparable to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

We at least know that they probably had some intellectual figures comparable to Pythagore, given how often this seems to come up. But their lack of philosophical and religious writing can also be balanced by their use of writing for administrative purpose, as noted even in De Bello Gallico.

 

[unmerged(85264)]

Yes, writing it seems had a number of religious injunctions. We do know they wrote with Greek characters, and their nobility Caesar I believe it was notes as being proficient in writing and reading Greek and Latin. They did write in their own language, but to what extent we're not one hundred percent certain. Record keeping, such as the Helvetii did for the preparation for their migration (keeping a record of everyone who was travelling in their group and such, to ensure food and lodging for all), was apparently done to some extent. Almost all of our remaining knowledge of their writing abilities in physical evidence would include the many, many votive objects on which they wrote personal names, prayers, names of deities and places, those kind of things, and the Coligny Calendar, which has the names of months and days (though, given the Celts' propensity to make all the sciences, law, etc., as something of a religious nature, that would itself be a religious object).

 

[HolisticGod]

All,

Roman advantages were but not limited to:

1. Social organization. This seems to be a consensus.
2. Literacy, not among the masses but certainly among the upper classes and the political, military and economic leadership.
3. Militarism. Prior to the Marian Reforms, levies from all classes of Roman society with a vested interest not only in fighting for the state but in respecting its constitutional limits, as their service was temporary. After the Marian Reforms, you have highly organized, highly sophisticated professional armies with regularized terms of service and pay. Different strengths, but clearly superior to the systems (not necessarily the valor) of most Rome's neighbors.
4. Religious and cultural tolerance, although inconsistent, progressive citizenship and a meritocracy, particularly in the army but clearly in all aspects of Roman government and the marketplace.
5. Italy's geography and climate, particularly its position in the center of the Mediterranean and the byway between its eastern and western waters.
6. Engineering. All this stuff about Rome's superior social organization being its only advantage is nonsense-Rome's technical prowess was enormous and well ahead not only of the Northern and Western Europeans but of the decaying Hellenestic and Phoenician civilizations. Roman roads, planned cities, sophisticated and regularized armor and weapons, industry, agriculture, commerce, logistics, water works, on and on, were at least as essential to the Pax Romana as the Senate and the Legion.

Should these things be inviolable? No. In fact, Rome should be at a substantial disadvantage compared to the Successor States and Carthage at game start. And I've said the last thing I want to see is rigid tech groups again. But there were elements of Roman society, government and technology that contributed to its total and long-lasting primacy. There have historically been Empires of Rome's caliber (the British, the Ottoman, the Mughal, the Han, the Persian, the Alexandrian), but no Empire of Rome's caliber has had its longevity, and particularly not over an area of such enormous geographic and cultural diversity.

In a game called Rome, I suspect we may see too much preference given to it, but it does deserve a certain degree of preference.

 

[Divi]

Possibility of a Discordant Voice

All,

Roman advantages were but not limited to:

1. Social organization. This seems to be a consensus.
2. Literacy, not among the masses but certainly among the upper classes and the political, military and economic leadership.

Not really; the political, military and economic leadership in Gaul was also literate to a potentially large degree depending on how it is defined, it just had taboos on whatever was the purview of the clergy

3. Militarism. Prior to the Marian Reforms, levies from all classes of Roman society with a vested interest not only in fighting for the state but in respecting its constitutional limits, as their service was temporary. After the Marian Reforms, you have highly organized, highly sophisticated professional armies with regularized terms of service and pay. Different strengths, but clearly superior to the systems (not necessarily the valor) of most Rome's neighbors.

Prior to the Marian Reforms, soldiers seemingly had to own about 3k sesterces in rents and had to equip themselves. This seems more consistent with a napoleonic baron's majorat than with a commoner's belongings.

4. Religious and cultural tolerance, although inconsistent, progressive citizenship and a meritocracy, particularly in the army but clearly in all aspects of Roman government and the marketplace.
5. Italy's geography and climate, particularly its position in the center of the Mediterranean and the byway between its eastern and western waters.

Both debatable; this was a time when vine would grow in Britain, Rome in this period was hardly a meritocracy, and its cultural tolerance was about just as tribal as the rest of the Med until the middle of the covered period.

6. Engineering. All this stuff about Rome's superior social organization being its only advantage is nonsense-Rome's technical prowess was enormous and well ahead not only of the Northern and Western Europeans but of the decaying Hellenestic and Phoenician civilizations. Roman roads, planned cities, sophisticated and regularized armor and weapons, industry, agriculture, commerce, logistics, water works, on and on, were at least as essential to the Pax Romana as the Senate and the Legion.

Some authors considered gaulish agriculture as more efficient, they also had lesser metalworking for at least a part of the time period covered, and Rome was hardly an example of city planning at the time.

 

[SirGrotius]

To me culture is epitomized by writing, and as already pointed out, the Gauls et. al. didn't have a written language (it doesn't matter that their religion may or may not have prohibitions against the written word). Writing transmits knowledge, culture, and while oral histories does so to a certain extent, those ideas could be lost (how would we know, if they are lost, but common sense tells us so). To say the least, technological development is inhibited by the lack of written records.

As I mentioned before, I have no question that Paradox will fairly represent the "barbarian" tribes or nations, but I still feel "technology" is too fuzzy a measure of achievement for the time, so culture/civilization may be a better indicator of greatness regardless of what revisionist historians are so apt to commute.

 

[hildoceras]

To me culture is epitomized by writing, and as already pointed out, the Gauls et. al. didn't have a written language (it doesn't matter that their religion may or may not have prohibitions against the written word). Writing transmits knowledge, culture, and while oral histories does so to a certain extent, those ideas could be lost (how would we know, if they are lost, but common sense tells us so). To say the least, technological development is inhibited by the lack of written records.

As I mentioned before, I have no question that Paradox will fairly represent the "barbarian" tribes or nations, but I still feel "technology" is too fuzzy a measure of achievement for the time, so culture/civilization may be a better indicator of greatness regardless of what revisionist historians are so apt to commute.

excuse me to be sorry but Gauls had a written language, they wrote their language in greek or latin alphabet but with gaul words o
They had also many knowledges and cultures that they transmitted orally and by experience. We still use some of the objects and technologies they used and that romans before meeting them didn't use. Recent archaeological works show that they had cities as civilized than greek ones, maybe even better if you compare plumbing and wasted waters

But I do agree with you that "technology" is a notion too difficult to represent to distinguish celtic, roman, greek, carthaginian, etc. cultures


edit : AnthonyL expressed earlier most of what I just wrote and better than I did o

 

[Archaalen]

Writing does not equal culture, but writing is what allows us to UNDERSTAND other cultures. This is why the Gauls seem to have no culture, because we cannot comprehend much of it without the (extremely lacking) written documentation.

 

[Vacceo]

Writing does not equal culture, but writing is what allows us to UNDERSTAND other cultures. This is why the Gauls seem to have no culture, because we cannot comprehend much of it without the (extremely lacking) written documentation.

Oral culture is exactly that. And that also why we know so few things about pesants (comparing to clerics or nobles) in the Middle Ages.

 

[hildoceras]

... and archaeology has for one of its goals to replace the texts that are lacking by interpretations through the observation of other objects

 

[unmerged(7537)]

excuse me to be sorry but Gauls had a written language, they wrote their language in greek or latin alphabet but with gaul words

Yes, I believe the main problem historians face is not that they didn't write, but that they wrote on materials that didn't last. Same with the Carthagians, whose rather extensive writings unfortunately didn't survive the Roman conquest.

 

[Vacceo]

... and archaeology has for one of its goals to replace the texts that are lacking by interpretations through the observation of other objects

But you cannot reach some levels; specially "mental images"; just suspect what could happen.

I mean; a tomb can show wealth, position, objects considered valuable and quite possibly, symbols but you cannot break the code of those symbols; just compare to similar known cases (a great example of that is the horse in the indoeuropean world).

 

[hildoceras]

but well, many do ! And it is why there are so many controversial arguments in archeology

 

[unmerged(85264)]

What we have of Gauls, archaeologically, does paint a picture. Not clear, but not too blurry. If one examines Gallic archaeology, including that of southern Britain (composed of mainly more Gauls and Belgae), we find a very sophisticated, advanced society. Regular chronicle writing would be a huge boon, but it is not culture or civilization itself. We find well-ordered, designed, planned cities, built to sustain a thriving, advanced community. They were far from savage 'fantasy'-styled barbarians, based on the archaeology alone, let alone when we take into account critical reading of historical texts that describe them (even those who had an apparent distaste for Gauls let slip some of their better features, and much of what was written was either grains of ignorance or propaganda mixed with grains of the truth; it's a lot of sifting to find who people really were if you base it on those who wrote about them, but weren't part of them).

Gauls had, reiterating, a rather advanced society and sense of technology, given the period. Preserved skulls in northern modern France show evidence of successful cranial surgery (scars healed over near the top of the skull, or sides, where brain surgery would have occured, and then the skull fragment removed replaced with the original piece, apparently santized well-enough to not infect and kill the person, so it grew back together). Mind, this doesn't just tell us these people performed successful brain surgery (itself remarkable), it also says they must've understood anasthesia, if we take into account other scar tissue and such; even with modern surgical method, without anesthetics, people would die from shock from the pain in huge numbers. Do mind, anesthetics were used in the middle ages, but declined in the Renaissance, as they were thought to increase the chance of dying, much as bathing began to drop off then (the idea of a savage, filthy medieval Europe is itself a bit of pop history that doesn't stand to scrutiny of both records and archaeology, but they also gave us much better historical records we still research to these days to find who they were).

The idea of Gauls as savages with no sense of science (as some writers called them in their own day) is smashed by archaeology. We find truly remarkable, Celtic works, of scientific ingenuity. Philosophy, it was widely argued if Pythagoras had given Celts certain ideas about philosophy and math, or if he had adopted from them those ideas, as both occured in Pythagorian thought, and reported Celtic thought. Either way it'd imply a thriving philosophical community; either interested in finding new ideas, or developing and spreading their own, or a bit of both. Defining culture by writing alone (which Gauls had, but we're not certain of extent, as mentioned) cannot account for the truly intricate nature of a society, or how developed it is. We know Gauls, and Celts in general, had a very advanced view of certain forms of mathematics, developed military philosophy (adopted in part by both Greeks and Romans; the Hellenic theuros was brought by Gauls, after all, and some of their soldiers seem to imitate Celtic fighting, and their command structure was, partly, adopted by Romans, who mixed it with Hellenic structure).

Really, I'd view the main Roman advantage, particularly militarily, as a good sense of syncretism. The ability to take ideas, and combine them into something using benefits of both.