Instead of Technology, per se, we have Culture

[SirGrotius]

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.

I'm wholly ignorant of this thriving Gaullic community of philosophers or at least proto-philosophes. Do you have a link where one could be thusly edified?

 

[unmerged(15561)]

Id advocate a similar system to that of CK in that technology was discovered rather than sought!

Discoveries should also be gained through conquest but limited to those factions open to such enlightment.

Just my 2 aureus or 2 denarius!

 

[Archaalen]

I thought we had just gotten through discussing the fact that the Gallic prohibition against religious writings makes it difficult to determine what sorts of philosophies the Gauls had. AnthonyL's statement was that the Pythagoreans SUGGEST that there were philosophical movements in Gaul which influenced Pythagoras.

 

[lvdogma]

Implying that "barbaric" cultures had no technology or civilization is antithesis to what I would portray in the game. Each of the cultures needs to be portrayed in its own light with its own advancements and culture. Many of the gallic and germanic tribes were extremely advanced and have a very developed civilization, for instance, and hopefully Paradox realizes this and portrays it at such. We dont want another RTW here.

I agree and I hope as well that each culture had it's own technological knowledge that in some cases surpassed that of their more civilized neighbors. The determination of success and failure was strongly influenced by culture as well as technology.

Rome had knowledge of all the (known) worlds technology. The Roman culture and religious system determined which of those technologies were adopted or rejected, often disregarding the pure technological value of the knowledge.

A migratory Germanic people may have advanced knowledge of linked chain armor and use a very deadly combination of thrown melee and long blade swords which provide them with a large casualty to success ratio.

However their nomadic culture and xenophobic opinion of neighboring religions limit their trade and they lack food stores for harsh winers. So in the end their superior technology is counterbalanced by a poor culture. ETC.

 

[unmerged(51039)]

Aren't we giving the Romans too much credit still?

Both for game play to avoid one overwhelming superpower or just one organized entity against disorganized tribes, city-states, etc., and for historical accuracy from more than just a Roman self-serving perspective, it seems like there's a real opportunity for the kind of mix that Hearts of Iron does so well (USA, GB, Germany, France, Japan, USSR, China):

China's better organized and bigger than the Romans with a considerable technological, cultural, military lead at this point...or are we just limited to the Meditteranean?

India's got several advanced cultures at this point.

Egypt is still the really organized and sophisticated culture...it's where the famous Greeks study first or come from. Wouldn't you rather have the Library of Alexandria and it's research labs than the Tuscan olive groves, Macedonian barley fields, or the sardine fisheries to build a world-beating empire from?

Phoenicia/Carthage/Libya/Syria is also at least as sophisticated and runs sort of a merchant democracy like the Italian cities of the Renaissance. It's just not focused on farmland and land conquest so it gets short shrift but it's cross-fertilized by more ideas and technologies than anyone because of it's vast maritime empire as well as giving it better access to most raw materials and with the biggest navy, "uncuttable" supply lines. Let's not forget Spain in this era too, with a strong Carthaginian impact along all of it's coasts like the Port of Cadiz/Tartessos. If you add up all of the land and resources under the Phoenician/Carthaginian trade network at this point it leaves the Romans looking puny.) There's a lot of reasons why the land-focused Romans were so threatened by the Phoenicians.

Don't know much at all about the Persians, Parthians, etc at this time but they also would be considerably more than barbarian clans after 4,000 years of civilizations at that point.

Same with the Ethiopians who are a significant land and sea power at this time without anywhere near the technology gap as when Mussolini's New Romans invade in the 1930's.

Of course the communities to the North sound a lot more advanced than I was aware of, funny how archeology keeps confounding the surviving written records...like trying to figure out Maine from a few surviving Stephen King novels.

But if we look at the balancing players like HOI does, that also suggests tech trees, tech teams, etc. that fit the different cultures, i.e.

Phoenicia-dominated techs & tech trees: Naval Architecture, Naval Doctrine, Long-range and ocean-going ships, long-distance logistics, navigation, colonization, trading stations, glassmaking, currency...

Egypt: libraries and archives, higher education, astronomy, construction management, canal-building, architecture, masonry, quarrying, metallurgy

Persians: horse archers, cavalry, lancers, caravan trade, medicine, horse-breeding,

Each would be interesting to play and building on any of their strengths and geographic positions would change Rome's opportunities considerably for everything from bronze feedstocks to lucrative new colonies.

An interesting twist would be a mechanism for recruiting or forming tech teams from foreigners to catch up in lagging areas of knowledge, as really happened more often than not. Peter Hall in "Cities & Civilizations" after pointing out how many key figures in cities' Golden Ages weren't locals but were attracted to the creative, exciting opportunities of that city during a few decade-long window, i.e. Pericle's Athens, DeMedici's Florence, Silicon Valley, Hollywood...

 

[unmerged(7537)]

A migratory Germanic people may have advanced knowledge of linked chain armor and use a very deadly combination of thrown melee and long blade swords which provide them with a large casualty to success ratio.

However their nomadic culture and xenophobic opinion of neighboring religions limit their trade and they lack food stores for harsh winers. So in the end their superior technology is counterbalanced by a poor culture. ETC.

Nitpick: The Germans weren't a "nomadic culture" (being mostly subsistence farmers), and they weren't exactly xenophobic about foreign religions (most of the larger tribes converted to Arianism during the migration era).

As for technology in the game, the developer diary suggests that technology will progress linearly like in EU3.

 

[Archaalen]

Yes, it would be great to have Alexandria's library at your disposal.
The thing was, by the start of the 1st Punic War, the Ptolemaic kingdom was engaged in lavish overspending on public festivals and the like, not to mention plagued with an inbred, squabbling ruling dynasty that lacked the necessary competence to spread their rule very far outside of Egypt's traditional sphere of influence (ie, the Levant and parts of Syria).
I think a game as the Ptolemies would be a challenge, but a fun one.

 

[SirGrotius]

This thread has been a real eye-opener to me. I had no idea that "barbarian" cultures possessed such copious amounts of technology, civilization. I had tended to consider that what of the prerequisites for technological advancement on a large scale would be larger governments or societies, rather than tribes, where not only would you have a smaller n experimenting, but you'd have less means to disseminate inventions, ideas.

At this point, I'm looking forward to however the Paradox crew will model things but I hope the romanticists if I can be pejorative for just a moment won't be too wrathful should Rome hold at least a nominal technological advantage in gameplay terms.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

I would simply prefer a very important slider that takes long time to change where one end is advanced government bureaucracy while the other is a complete absence of government bureaucracy. The position on this track will then in a major way affect the game. An advanced bureaucracy will overall be much more efficient but also more vulnerable to warfare and where every position will have both pros and cons.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

Nitpick: The Germans weren't a "nomadic culture" (being mostly subsistence farmers), and they weren't exactly xenophobic about foreign religions (most of the larger tribes converted to Arianism during the migration era).

As for technology in the game, the developer diary suggests that technology will progress linearly like in EU3.

Please spare us the EU3 technological system, it would be even more ridiculous in Rome

 

[unmerged(85264)]

This thread has been a real eye-opener to me. I had no idea that "barbarian" cultures possessed such copious amounts of technology, civilization. I had tended to consider that what of the prerequisites for technological advancement on a large scale would be larger governments or societies, rather than tribes, where not only would you have a smaller n experimenting, but you'd have less means to disseminate inventions, ideas.

At this point, I'm looking forward to however the Paradox crew will model things but I hope the romanticists if I can be pejorative for just a moment won't be too wrathful should Rome hold at least a nominal technological advantage in gameplay terms.

Part of the problem inherent is assuming tribes were 'small' or disunited. By the time Rome really got involved in Transalpine Gaul, it was divided between two tribes; the Aedui controlled the north, and the Arverni, then Sequani (after the Arverni army was crushed late in the 2nd century BC, the power center shifted to the Sequani) controlled the south. Also Gauls, and most Celtic type people in general we've found possessed what could probably be termed an organized religion. It was very strict, it was tied to all the temples, regardless of the tribal lands in which they existed, it determined the laws, and maintained, and enforced them, and they held regular councils between many druids from different tribes which also sent representatives. One of the early sticking points that caused the Aedui and Arverni contention was religious; the Arverni believed they could control the druids, rather than druids issuing mandates to them. Worship of the patron of the Gallic druidic god Cernunnos was banned, and more emphasis was placed on worship of the god Sucellos and the Arverni tribal god Arvernos. This was compounded by economic and military issues; the Arverni attacked Aedui and Aedui-dependant's merchants and traders indiscriminately. The whole reason they broke off from Aedui's control of Gaul was a perception of weakness in the Aedui rule; they had been attacked by the Belgae and only barely turned them back. Prior to that, the Aedui ruled Gaul, having become overlords after the capitulation of the Biturges, who had controlled it before them.

Anyway, back to the matter of their religion. The druids were not just their priests. They were lawyers, musicians, poets, scientists, philosophers, best smiths, etc. They got together to meet and discuss all of these things regularly. That would allow dissemination of new developments and ideas even between tribes that didn't like eachother.

 

[SirGrotius]

Part of the problem inherent is assuming tribes were 'small' or disunited. By the time Rome really got involved in Transalpine Gaul, it was divided between two tribes; the Aedui controlled the north, and the Arverni, then Sequani (after the Arverni army was crushed late in the 2nd century BC, the power center shifted to the Sequani) controlled the south. Also Gauls, and most Celtic type people in general we've found possessed what could probably be termed an organized religion. It was very strict, it was tied to all the temples, regardless of the tribal lands in which they existed, it determined the laws, and maintained, and enforced them, and they held regular councils between many druids from different tribes which also sent representatives. One of the early sticking points that caused the Aedui and Arverni contention was religious; the Arverni believed they could control the druids, rather than druids issuing mandates to them. Worship of the patron of the Gallic druidic god Cernunnos was banned, and more emphasis was placed on worship of the god Sucellos and the Arverni tribal god Arvernos. This was compounded by economic and military issues; the Arverni attacked Aedui and Aedui-dependant's merchants and traders indiscriminately. The whole reason they broke off from Aedui's control of Gaul was a perception of weakness in the Aedui rule; they had been attacked by the Belgae and only barely turned them back. Prior to that, the Aedui ruled Gaul, having become overlords after the capitulation of the Biturges, who had controlled it before them.

Anyway, back to the matter of their religion. The druids were not just their priests. They were lawyers, musicians, poets, scientists, philosophers, best smiths, etc. They got together to meet and discuss all of these things regularly. That would allow dissemination of new developments and ideas even between tribes that didn't like eachother.

It seems one could draw an association between druids and culture and/or civilization if the terms in themselves aren't too plagued with Roman-esque biases.

 

[Vacceo]

The best comparision in indoeuropean world with druids are the ancient (now they have changed) brahmin from India.

What AnthonyL added to celts may be applied to Gaul but for Iberia, it´s quite useless: celtic influence is there but not druids and all the "secret society" system attached to them.
Seems like religion was common to some exent as rituals were but considering the terrible iberian fragmentation, I wouldn´t bet for that.

 

[Archaalen]

The Celts were indo-european, and thus part of the "indoeuropean" world.
Are you sure there were no druids in Iberia? Even in the regions under the strongest Celtic cultural influcence such as Numantia? Why wouldn't the Gauls bring their intellectual class with them into a new country?

Also, some very interesting parallels have been drawn between the Celts and the Aryan people of northern India, including the existence of a separate upper class of intellectuals (brahmins/druids) distinct from the warriors and commoners.

 

[Vacceo]

The Celts were indo-european, and thus part of the "indoeuropean" world.
Are you sure there were no druids in Iberia? Even in the regions under the strongest Celtic cultural influcence such as Numantia? Why wouldn't the Gauls bring their intellectual class with them into a new country?

Also, some very interesting parallels have been drawn between the Celts and the Aryan people of northern India, including the existence of a separate upper class of intellectuals (brahmins/druids) distinct from the warriors and commoners.

Because celts didn´t inmigrate massively to Iberian Peninsula as archeology shows. And Numantia shows... what?

How strange no roman/greek text about ancient Iberia even mentions druids?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Also, some very interesting parallels have been drawn between the Celts and the Aryan people of northern India, including the existence of a separate upper class of intellectuals (brahmins/druids) distinct from the warriors and commoners.

Indeed...why you could even say that for the various Chinese dynasties which would base their system of governence of Confuscianism had such tendancies....

Maybe Celts reached there and influenced them???

Or maybe, just maybe (i know this might sound radical to some)...that kind of idea is more common than just being borne out of Celtic ideals of heirarchy?

 

[Vacceo]

Taking a look back at my words, I think I should elaborate my answer to Archaleen a bit more since it sounded quite radical.

Druids and druidism means a religious system with a strict set of rules and a special social class made up with perfectly identifiable individuals with various social roles: sages, bards, healers, priests...

The mythological and ritual base supporting that chaste is; if not the same, at least, quite similar in Gaul and certain parts of Iberia (we´ll call that area "Celtiberia") but, does that mean that druids existed in both parts?

Seems like celtiberian "priesthood", taking for granted it existed (which is not clear), didn´t reach the sophistication it did in Gaul.
Why? Well, maybe celtiberians didn´t want a short of "clerical caste" at all, maybe religious specialists were not really different from other social elites or maybe they even thought of a social differenciation like the one in Gaul.

So all in all? Well, I think the term "druidic" is too specific and only propperly usable in the Gaul area, so if we want to represent the religious system more or less common in the area of Swizeland, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Northern Italy and so on, Paradox may use the term "celtic" instead of "druidic".

 

[Archaalen]

Alright, I will also admit that the Iberian's priesthood was not so developed as that in Gaul.
As for wishful thinking, Confucianism has little place for warriors at all, they had no official status in comparison with the caste system of India. The example I gave was one of several, including the presence of a sun-wheel in their worshiping practices and the linguistic connections between Sanskrit and Gallic are remarkably close, even considering that they were both Indo-European. It may be coincidence, but it is not as far-fetched a theory as you make it out to be.

 

[unmerged(85264)]

Just a minor thing. The Celts didn't have 'castes', so much as 'classes'. There was a great deal of social fluidity. Anyone could become a druid, so long as you could past tests on the ability to retain memories, using mnemonics most likely (poetry was very important for both the religious and noble in Celtic society). A druid probably had what would amount to the contents of a reasonably small library in his head that he could recall swiftly through mnemonics, until it was second nature. It was an arduous study, but probably very formalized given its extent, and that prayers on votive objects are the same in southern Britain as they are in Galatia, sometimes having been first written down hundreds of years apart. If they lacked common writing, they were certainly making up for it with systematic, complex mnemonics and memory work.

Celts could move through societal classes based on wealth. Blood had its importance, but it did not exclude or guarantee anything. One could be ousted from nobility for too many extensive fines that weren't paid, for example. One could buy a noble title, or be hired to it, in a higher noble's court, from an ignoble position. Even second-generation slaves could advance assuming they worked hard enough to pay off their life price (thus becoming a freeman, though the lowest ranking grade, essentially a serf; no longer able to be bought and sold though), and from there build their family up. 'Caste' implies something a bit more immutable and difficult to change. Not impossible, but much harder. Castes are also, by definition, hereditary. A druid's children weren't necessarily going to be druids at all; neither common practice or law enforced it, so it, itself, would not be a caste, but a class.

Celts had many, many grades to society, based on personal wealth, prestige, land, and divided these grades into three groups. Those would be;

Slaves - Slaves were divided between lifetime slaves, slaves paying off their life price (like those slaves born into slavery), who will one day be free, and those working as temporary slaves to pay a fine.

Freemen - A HUGE class. Most Celts would be freemen. Ignoble, non-priestly men and women, who are also not slaves. This is everything ranging from a 'serf' up to a professional soldier, and on up more to a wealthy ignoble landowner or crafter.

Sacred - Nobles of every grade, priests, doctors, 'high' crafts (blacksmiths and such), poets, and other 'druidic' professions. These people were legally FORBIDDEN manual labor. They could not do it even if they wanted to, or they'd be fined. The exception is labor for war (fighting and such), but only nobles were required to do that. The druids could choose not to go to fight, and no one could force them. They were too valuable to be forced to fight, since they held all knowledge of the sciences, the arts, history, religion; these weren't people Celts were willing to risk. There is a minor thing though; Irish druids WERE expected to fight. In fact, even Christian Irish clergy was. They were given the option to opt out only in 950. Till then, their station required it, as clergy were equated to nobility in Ireland. However, poets, craftsmen, doctors, etc., were already given the chance to not fight. Though, many did anyway. Likewise for iron age Celts. Druids didn't have to fight, but damn if some of them did anyway. I suppose it was simply the cultural moor they were attached to; bravery in battle was one of the finest things, but it was on the same level, not a higher or lower, than music or poetry or religious knowledge.

The trick with sacred classes is, one could JOIN those. One could gain a noble title by bravery in combat, or creating good poetry or music, or by performing some other talent, or by becoming a druid, itself a feat. But, that's an awful lot of fluidity.

 

[Archaalen]

Considering how little is known about the early Aryan invaders in India, perhaps their social classes were also fluid.