True, a fair observation. I just wish to clear out the idea of 'castes' among Celts though. Though, not to say they're egalitarian, they weren't. Just, they were not hard-bound castes either.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Calling it "castes" sounds too straight but there were social levels for sure. Funerary archology is a great tool for that since wealth in different tombs is quite different.
Social levels, definitely. But castes, by their definition, imply a much stricter hierarchy than Celts possessed, which was more fluid than 'castes'.
From my experience I can tell that funerary archeology in the settlement of Pintia (a vaccean oppidum), Numantia (arevacian) or Ulaca (vettonian) shows that there are few terribly poor tombs (only a bowl for the cremated bones) and few incredible rich tombs (horse gear, half dozen of gold-decorated weapons, two dozens and a half of pottery pieces, cups for wine...) being most of the tombs middle-wealth ones.
I had thought that there had been few Celtic burials uncovered from this period at all, the reason suggested being that nearly everyone was cremated and buried in areas that were heavily farmed in the Roman and Medieval periods, and thus the bones were destroyed long ago.
hildoceras said:"Rocky Romans" : poor military manpower, expensive maintenance, excellent military efficiency
"Rest of the world" : better military manpower, cheaper maintenance, good to poor military efficiency
a good summary ?
A poor summary. The Romans had huge manpower advantage over everyone but the Gauls and Pontus. That's how they got prominent - there was lots of them.
EDIT: Read the rest of the thread, I'm days too late. Apologies.
Last edited:
Quite true, but for the settlements I have mentioned, graveyards had never been a farmland because:Archaalen said:
-Soil was quite infertile (Pintia/Ulaca) so it was used to feed sheeps and pigs.
-It´s located in a hillside (Numantia).
It's kind of odd to think that the Celts practiced both cremation and grave goods burial simultaneously. Were the goods burned as well, or deposited with the ashes afterwards?
I don't find complete fault with SirGrotius' suggestion. The Romans' power was not just based on material conditions such as concentrated population, but also in culture.
But it seems a bit heavy-handed to propose that "Barbarous nations would lack access to technologies or the other important sweets of civilization." That would ignore the technologies that the Romans adopted from their neighbors.
I have three thoughts on the subject.
First, in game, we'll have the equivalent of national ideas. This should reflect a bit of it. Whatever you think of the equation, the Romans showed a surprising willingness to absorb. Etruscan religious rites, foreign armor technology, Gallic (or was it Iberian) weaponry... In all areas, they were able to make foreign technologies their own, while building on that progress with their own thought. Surely some part of that could be represented by a cultural idea.
Second, again addressing the game, I suggest you look at some of the diaries--was it the second that concerned religion? Look at the number of states that claim Celtic religion as a national faith. I think it's something like 15. That tells me that Celtic political unity will be lacking in the early game, as it should be. Vercingetorix had to work to unite the tribes. It had been attempted before, but the Gauls' neighbors usually managed to interfere.
Third, a point that is not directly tied to the game--let's be careful not to get at each other's throats. It's not about being PC or unjustifiably revisionist. These are history games, which means that we need to talk about what could have been. Every history game that allows the player a bit of freedom becomes an alternate history game.
I don't believe that the Celts developed powered flight in the 300s BC. But that doesn't mean that Rome should be made into a juggernaut from the very beginning. Their rise was not wholly rooted in technology. It also was earned through careful political maneuver--there were many big powers in the Mediterranean at the time of the First Punic War. And who is to say that the Celts were incapable, with a century or more of work, of doing everything the Romans did?
It should be hard, but possible. I don't want to see history as fantasy, but I can't stomach history as destiny, either.
But it seems a bit heavy-handed to propose that "Barbarous nations would lack access to technologies or the other important sweets of civilization." That would ignore the technologies that the Romans adopted from their neighbors.
I have three thoughts on the subject.
First, in game, we'll have the equivalent of national ideas. This should reflect a bit of it. Whatever you think of the equation, the Romans showed a surprising willingness to absorb. Etruscan religious rites, foreign armor technology, Gallic (or was it Iberian) weaponry... In all areas, they were able to make foreign technologies their own, while building on that progress with their own thought. Surely some part of that could be represented by a cultural idea.
Second, again addressing the game, I suggest you look at some of the diaries--was it the second that concerned religion? Look at the number of states that claim Celtic religion as a national faith. I think it's something like 15. That tells me that Celtic political unity will be lacking in the early game, as it should be. Vercingetorix had to work to unite the tribes. It had been attempted before, but the Gauls' neighbors usually managed to interfere.
Third, a point that is not directly tied to the game--let's be careful not to get at each other's throats. It's not about being PC or unjustifiably revisionist. These are history games, which means that we need to talk about what could have been. Every history game that allows the player a bit of freedom becomes an alternate history game.
I don't believe that the Celts developed powered flight in the 300s BC. But that doesn't mean that Rome should be made into a juggernaut from the very beginning. Their rise was not wholly rooted in technology. It also was earned through careful political maneuver--there were many big powers in the Mediterranean at the time of the First Punic War. And who is to say that the Celts were incapable, with a century or more of work, of doing everything the Romans did?
It should be hard, but possible. I don't want to see history as fantasy, but I can't stomach history as destiny, either.
Vacceo said:
Interesting but can one deduce from this a strong middle class, being that we're looking at three settlements and by finding some tombs doesn't mean we have found all (i.e., there may be a distant location where wealthier people were buried, etc.)
Surgünoglu said:
True. Good points above. I believe I took on too defensive a tone, as I had made an initial suggestion intending to illicit conversation (as in the Taylor mode of using hyperbole to attract interest, e.g., WWI was caused by train schedules), but when everyone and their mother denounced Roman "culture" as grossly overrated and "Barbarian civilization" as a shinning example of achievement I too quickly deduced that populist feelings had gotten in the way of historical literature. It has come to my attention that both sides are well documented, one relying more on archaeology than than the other, but both having relevant points that hopefully will add flavor to the game. My concern, however, is that this divide is a critical one to settle for the direction of this work.
And on your last point, Grotius, you're absolutely right. The matter of balance between Roman and barbarian is a vital balance to strike. But I think the devs have proven themselves skilled at striking that balance before. Ever played as Japan in Victoria? Particularly in the Revolutions add-on, you can make a non-Western power an actor on the world stage.
And so, in Rome, I hope to be able to reform the decadent Carthaginian state and unify the Gallic tribes. Odds are that I will--after all, why else should they make them playable?
And so, in Rome, I hope to be able to reform the decadent Carthaginian state and unify the Gallic tribes. Odds are that I will--after all, why else should they make them playable?
I was not attempting to be populist, or suggesting that the Celts were in any way superior to the Romans, but I admit that I did descend into hyperbole a bit there. This does need to be more settled and less passionate discussion. Sorry.
HolisticGod said:
That is not entirey accurate. Greeks used the word "barbarian" to refer to non Greek speakers, but to Romans the word meant pretty much what it means for us today, uncivilized people. The Romans never used "barbarian" to refer to Greeks, to the best of my knowledge, in fact in Cicero's "de re publica" Scipio (iirc) says that "if we accept the word barbarian in its Greek sense, as any non Greek speaker, I am afraid us Romans are barbarians too".
There were three kinds of burials in vaccean world:Archaalen said:
-Under the fireplace or doors for kids less than 1 year old.
-Cremated first and ashes buried for "natural death".
-Exposed to vultures to be eaten for casualities in wars.
In the celtiberian world in general, the first 2 have allways been found. The last one is quite specific of some tribes.
Arround 700 tombs in Numantia and arround 300 in Pintia and other vaccean oppida are a quite good testimony.SirGrotius said:
Just out of curiosity, did the Romans see non-Greek "civilised" people (such as Persians, or Phoeniceans/Carthagians) as "barbarians", or did they have some other term for them?TovarishChapaev said:
Tambour, their civilization was doubted frequently. To the Romans, the Phoenicians/Punics/Carthaginians were child sacrificing monsters and the Persians were, as they were to many Greeks, sotted Orientals prone to excess of all kinds.
If the Greeks considered both barbarians, I see no reason that the Romans would be more tolerant. Of course, as the Cicero quote implies, the Romans did not always have such a sharp line between civilization and barbarism. As far as terminology, I think the Romans used "Easterner" as well.
If the Greeks considered both barbarians, I see no reason that the Romans would be more tolerant. Of course, as the Cicero quote implies, the Romans did not always have such a sharp line between civilization and barbarism. As far as terminology, I think the Romans used "Easterner" as well.
Easterners for the Romans were effeminate Oriental peoples who were ruled by kings, a thing which no true Roman citizen would ever submit himself to. Thus, even the Greeks could be termed "Easterners" by Roman standards, even though both they and the Persians were still "civilized" as well.