Celtic Civilization

[CaiusDrewart]

There was some discussion of this in the Polynesia/Hawai'i thread, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own.

So the Civ 5 Celts, like Civ 5 Polynesia and Civ 4 Native America, have drawn criticism for being a "blob civ." They've got an Iceni queen as a leader, but the city names and uniques invoke Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. There are some linguistic ties uniting all this, but not much else.

What would be the best way to make the Celts a more focused and compelling civilization in Civ 6? Should they keep the name Celts or adopt something more specific like Gauls or Picts (or something really specific like Arverni or Iceni)? And whatever form they take, how should they play? Should they keep the religious focus of the Civ V Celts?

 

[SJSerio]

Maybe blob civs would be ideal for multiple leaders where each "leader" of the civ is from a different sect. The Celts, Polynesia, Native America (in this case, Iroquois, Great Plains, South West could each be a civilization separately) would have a unique trait that binds them, but maybe UI, UU, and city list will ask be dependant on the leader of the particular Civ. For example, when Boudica leads the Celts, they have a city list that reflects her and the uniques will reflect her, but replace her with V-guy (forgive me, I don't have his name in front of me... The leader of Gaul who was defeated by Caesar) would bring a Gaul flare to them. But, regardless, they would have a trait to bind them.

If they can't separate the UUs and UIs between leaders, the leader ability as the city list should be enough to give them variety.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Zaarin]

Picts may or may not have been Celtic; in fact, they may or may not have been Indo-European. Choosing the Picts would be rather like choosing the Iberians or Etiocretans: we know next to nothing about them.

I'm in full favor of never seeing the Celts again and never seeing dreadlocked Welsh-speaking Boudicca again; replace them with the Gauls led by Vercingetorix. The Gauls should have a focus on iron-based metallurgy and warefare with minor religious bonuses, IMO. Something like this:

GAUL
Leader: Vercingetorix
Unique Ability: Deep Lore: Holy sites gain bonus faith from adjacency to woods and fresh water.
Leader Unique Ability: King of Great Warriors: Some sort of military bonus; +1 to all iron resources
Unique Unit: Factiones: Gain bonus gold and culture from pillaging
Unique District: Oppidum: Replaces encampment, must be built on a hill, grants gold and culture

Agenda: Defy the Universe: Vercingetorix dislikes civs who settle near him.

 

[altayrneto]

I think that Civ6 should have a Celtic civilization, and I think that if they wouldn't do diferent civs for each celtic people, because it would be seen as a waste of variety and material. Why would the average gamer buy the Gallatian or the Iceni civ, if we already have the Gauls? I think would be better if they make a really generic Celtic civ (with Druid as a unic unit replacing apostle, for exemple), and adds variety in multiple leaders, with each one, as Thorburne said, with a Leader Unique Ability, a city list, and a UU that represent his/her people.
And for the leader, I would like to see Boudica, Brennus, Vercingetorix and maybe some medieval celtic king. And please, adds Druidism as a religion. In Civ V I became tired to see a pagan queen using a pagan bonus to found Catholicism before everyone, while the historically catolic ones (like Poland and Spain) were forced to create other religions...

 

[Zaarin]

I think that Civ6 should have a Celtic civilization, and I think that if they wouldn't do diferent civs for each celtic people, because it would be seen as a waste of variety and material. Why would the average gamer buy the Gallatian or the Iceni civ, if we already have the Gauls? I think would be better if they make a really generic Celtic civ (with Druid as a unic unit replacing apostle, for exemple), and adds variety in multiple leaders, with each one, as Thorburne said, with a Leader Unique Ability, a city list, and a UU that represent his/her people.
And for the leader, I would like to see Boudica, Brennus, Vercingetorix and maybe some medieval celtic king. And please, adds Druidism as a religion. In Civ V I became tired to see a pagan queen using a pagan bonus to found Catholicism before everyone, while the historically catolic ones (like Poland and Spain) were forced to create other religions...

Druidism is already in the game: take the River Goddess or God of Healing pantheon belief, and you have "Druidism" (i.e., Celtic polytheism, which placed a strong emphasis on local river gods and goddesses and healing gods).

Also, there are a number of problems with this model you propose: one, the Celts are not so significant that they deserve four different leaders; two, good grief I never want to see Boudicca as a leader again; three, brennus was a title, not a person; four, Medieval Scotland and Ireland have virtually no relation to the iron age Gauls and Britons. Also, the Gauls already cover the Galatians, Lepontians, Cisalpine Gauls, etc.--they all spoke Gaulish. We know too little of the Celtiberians to give them any kind of representation; the iron age Britons had few serious accomplishments and were swiftly Romanized (and no, the Britons did not make Stonehenge); of the ancient Celts only the Gauls achieved anything really civ-worthy. As for the Medieval period, one could make a case for Ireland, but it really only had a few hundred years of importance before becoming a provincial backwater dominated successively by the Danes, Normans, and English.

This isn't meant as a slight to anyone. I enjoy both Celtic and Irish history, but I think the Gauls are the only Celtic faction with serious civ credentials without falling prey to pop culture stereotypes.

 

[Guandao]

Druidism is already in the game: take the River Goddess or God of Healing pantheon belief, and you have "Druidism" (i.e., Celtic polytheism, which placed a strong emphasis on local river gods and goddesses and healing gods).

Also, there are a number of problems with this model you propose: one, the Celts are not so significant that they deserve four different leaders; two, good grief I never want to see Boudicca as a leader again; three, brennus was a title, not a person; four, Medieval Scotland and Ireland have virtually no relation to the iron age Gauls and Britons. Also, the Gauls already cover the Galatians, Lepontians, Cisalpine Gauls, etc.--they all spoke Gaulish. We know too little of the Celtiberians to give them any kind of representation; the iron age Britons had few serious accomplishments and were swiftly Romanized (and no, the Britons did not make Stonehenge); of the ancient Celts only the Gauls achieved anything really civ-worthy. As for the Medieval period, one could make a case for Ireland, but it really only had a few hundred years of importance before becoming a provincial backwater dominated successively by the Danes, Normans, and English.

This isn't meant as a slight to anyone. I enjoy both Celtic and Irish history, but I think the Gauls are the only Celtic faction with serious civ credentials without falling prey to pop culture stereotypes.

One can use this argument to not allow Native North American civs in the game, or sub saharan Africans civs. Just saying.

Thing about the Gauls is that their language is not well documented enough. The Brythonic and Gaelic languages are. So it's more likely for their leaders to make the game. Vercingetorix speaking Welsh or Breton is worst than Boudicca speaking Welsh.

 

[Gwydden]

Druidism is already in the game: take the River Goddess or God of Healing pantheon belief, and you have "Druidism" (i.e., Celtic polytheism, which placed a strong emphasis on local river gods and goddesses and healing gods).

That is a rather simplistic oversimplification, however; it is sort of like saying that Christianity is basically just a sun god/savior cult and therefore indistinguishable from other similar religions, such as the worship of Horus or Mitra... or even the Celtic Lugh/Lugus/Llew or the Norse Baldr.

I agree it does not have to be in the game, but I do not think it would take much to make civilizations found more appropriate religions now that the only difference between them is an icon.

Also, there are a number of problems with this model you propose: one, the Celts are not so significant that they deserve four different leaders; two, good grief I never want to see Boudicca as a leader again; three, brennus was a title, not a person; four, Medieval Scotland and Ireland have virtually no relation to the iron age Gauls and Britons.

1. True.
2. Out of curiosity, why?
3. Curious. I was not aware of that. I will have to look into it later. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting you just yet; rather I'm thanking you for the interesting factoid.
4. Also true. However, and I'm not saying this is likely to happen, I would not mind a 'Gael' civilization with a medieval focus covering both Ireland and Scotland.

This isn't meant as a slight to anyone. I enjoy both Celtic and Irish history, but I think the Gauls are the only Celtic faction with serious civ credentials without falling prey to pop culture stereotypes.

It would probably be a better representation of the Celts to just make Gaul a civilization, but I'm wondering whether the development team will agree with that. My only gripe, or it might be more accurate to call it a concern, is that by the time of Vercingetorix many tribes in Gaul were heavily romanized/hellenized.

I definitely want a Celtic civilization of some sort, both because they interest me personally (my nick should be a dead giveaway) and because of TSL concerns, that being the mode I play almost to the exclusion of all others. Older civs from Northern Europe help fill up a Classical Era themed map, which in turn is ideal if you don't want Europe to be crammed in these types of scenarios.

 

[Zaarin]

One can use this argument to not allow Native North American civs in the game, or sub saharan Africans civs. Just saying.

Thing about the Gauls is that their language is not well documented enough. The Brythonic and Gaelic languages are. So it's more likely for their leaders to make the game. Vercingetorix speaking Welsh or Breton is worst than Boudicca speaking Welsh.

1. Maybe, but there are different arguments in play for Native American and Subsaharan African civs. Europe is already overflowing with civs.

2. Not really. Gaulish is reasonably well attested. Sure, a Gaulish language revival movement would be impossible without a considerable degree of...inventiveness, but there's certainly enough attested to write leader dialogue, and probably better written leader dialogue than what we've seen for Cleopatra and Qin Shi Huang.

1. True.
2. Out of curiosity, why?
3. Curious. I was not aware of that. I will have to look into it later. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting you just yet; rather I'm thanking you for the interesting factoid.
4. Also true. However, and I'm not saying this is likely to happen, I would not mind a 'Gael' civilization with a medieval focus covering both Ireland and Scotland.

2. Because the devs can't seem to portray her without stripping her half naked, covering her in blue paint, and giving her dreadlocks. Her Civ4 and Civ5 portrayals were both egregious ahistoric monstrosities. Were she depicted more as she was described--torc, long red hair, green tunic, no paint or dreads (she was Romanized, remember)--I'd be less opposed, though in the long run her rebellion still wasn't that significant, certainly not compared to Vercingetorix.
3. Yeah, there were actually too noteworthy brennoi: the one who invaded the Balkans, and the one who sacked Rome. I presume the brennus who sacked Rome was the one depicted in Civ3 (4?).
4. I wouldn't entirely be opposed to an Irish or even Gaelic civ--Irish monasteries were critical in preserving knowledge in the early Middle Ages, they introduced literacy to the Saxons and Franks, and they had a distinctive art style. But I'd classify them as "low priority."

It would probably be a better representation of the Celts to just make Gaul a civilization, but I'm wondering whether the development team will agree with that. My only gripe, or it might be more accurate to call it a concern, is that by the time of Vercingetorix many tribes in Gaul were heavily romanized/hellenized.

I definitely want a Celtic civilization of some sort, both because they interest me personally (my nick should be a dead giveaway) and because of TSL concerns, that being the mode I play almost to the exclusion of all others. Older civs from Northern Europe help fill up a Classical Era themed map, which in turn is ideal if you don't want Europe to be crammed in these types of scenarios.

The entire European world was pretty Hellenized by the time much of it is attested. Nevertheless, I'd say Continental Celtic culture was still very distinctive: they'd learned literacy from the Greeks (and probably Etruscans or Romans), but their social structure was very different (fluid social mobility, aversion to kings, polities based on raids and distribution of wealth--much more akin to the Germanic tribes, but also much more "civilized"), their language was completely different (and may have survived in remote locations almost until the Middle Ages), and their religious customs were completely different (far less centralized--only a handful of Celtic gods were widespread, most were local deities associated with sacred waters--hence my suggestion of "River Goddess" as a decent representation of Celtic paganism). Unfortunately, thanks to interpretatio romana we only know the Celtic names of a handful of them.

I too want a Celtic civ of some sort. When I was younger I had a very keen interest in the Celts, and though that interest has waned a little I still have a strong and considerably less romanticized interest in the Gauls. What I don't want is a mess like we got with Civ5 that's stereotyped, ahistorical, and a mishmash of a thousand years of different and farflung cultures.

 

[Gwydden]

That, yes. Boudicca looked like a female version of Mel Gibson in Braveheart. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a conscious influence, either. As for the Gaels being "low priority," indeed they are, but so are the Gauls. I don't think there's any first tier Celtic civilization, which is why more than one would be too much.

I actually quite like the concept you proposed for Gaul, and feel inclined to root for that option. For the fill in the blanks military bonus, the first thing that comes to mind is something experience related i.e. infantry units level up faster up and/or get two promotions per level until after the Classical Era. If too overpowered, it could be balanced by giving their infantry a penalty when adjacent to other infantry (the opposite of the Greek hoplite bonus). Alternatively, all or some of this could be exclusive to their unique unit.

This would be a reference to their warrior culture, which favored individual glory over coordinated action: a perfect contrast to Roman military discipline.

 

[Zaarin]

That, yes. Boudicca looked like a female version of Mel Gibson in Braveheart. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a conscious influence, either. As for the Gaels being "low priority," indeed they are, but so are the Gauls. I don't think there's any first tier Celtic civilization, which is why more than one would be too much.

I actually quite like the concept you proposed for Gaul, and feel inclined to root for that option. For the fill in the blanks military bonus, the first thing that comes to mind is something experience related i.e. infantry units level up faster up and/or get two promotions per level until after the Classical Era. If too overpowered, it could be balanced by giving their infantry a penalty when adjacent to other infantry (the opposite of the Greek hoplite bonus). Alternatively, all or some of this could be exclusive to their unique unit.

This would be a reference to their warrior culture, which favored individual glory over coordinated action: a perfect contrast to Roman military discipline.

That sounds like a pretty good idea. Alternately, Factiones could be made Vercingetorix's Leader Ability (he did come to power by playing factions against each other) and an alternate unique unit could be found. (Honestly, coming up with unique units for the Celts is somewhat difficult. Even though they were skilled warriors, their warriors don't really stand out as unique compared to other "barbarian" peoples; druids stand out as distinctive, but I'm not sure how to best represent their gameplay--even though they were warrior-priests, neither combat units nor apostles really makes sense for them. Though they were warriors, their chief role was civic/religious, but the Celts weren't really into spreading their religion nor were they particularly hostile to the spread of other religions that would make even a religious combat/inquisition bonus make sense. Only other thing I can think of would be the vergobret--strictly speaking an Aedui "king," but they were elected from the most elite warriors. They could get bonuses from attacking alone as you suggested, and perhaps get gold for defeating enemies [as the Celts gained prestige from raiding]. And given the trend of other uniques, maybe they don't cost iron, even though that makes no sense whatsoever...)

EDIT: With that in mind, updated:

GAUL
Leader: Vercingetorix
Unique Ability: Deep Lore: Holy sites gain bonus faith from adjacency to woods and fresh water. +1 to all iron resources.
Leader Unique Ability: Factiones: Vercingetorix's units gain bonus gold and culture from pillaging in the Classical Era.
Leader Agenda: Defy the Universe: Vercingetorix dislikes civs who settle near him.
Unique Unit: Vergobret (or Gaulish Warrior): Gains bonus to attack from attacking alone; gains a small amount of gold upon defeating an enemy.
Unique District: Oppidum: Replaces encampment, must be built on a hill, grants gold and culture

 

[CaiusDrewart]

(Honestly, coming up with unique units for the Celts is somewhat difficult. Even though they were skilled warriors, their warriors don't really stand out as unique compared to other "barbarian" peoples; druids stand out as distinctive, but I'm not sure how to best represent their gameplay--even though they were warrior-priests, neither combat units nor apostles really makes sense for them. Though they were warriors, their chief role was civic/religious, but the Celts weren't really into spreading their religion nor were they particularly hostile to the spread of other religions that would make even a religious combat/inquisition bonus make sense. Only other thing I can think of would be the vergobret--strictly speaking an Aedui "king," but they were elected from the most elite warriors. They could get bonuses from attacking alone as you suggested, and perhaps get gold for defeating enemies [as the Celts gained prestige from raiding]. And given the trend of other uniques, maybe they don't cost iron, even though that makes no sense whatsoever...)

Maybe these fellows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaesatae

Of course, a completely faithful representation might alter the game's rating a little bit.

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe these fellows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaesatae

Of course, a completely faithful representation might alter the game's rating a little bit.

That could be...interesting. Go The Sims route and give them some pixelation?

 

[Loaf Warden]

Apart from the fact that "Vercingetorix" is fun to say, is there any compelling reason to use him specifically? Personally, as fascinated as I have always been with the Romans, I am getting tired of seeing civs included whose representation in-game is primarily as "peoples conquered by the Romans". My desire to see Carthage included as a great civilization in its own right is part of the reason I didn't mind seeing Hannibal get replaced by Dido in Civ V (despite the unfortunate detail that she's semi-mythical and possibly entirely mythical)--at least she was a pre-Punic Wars leader. And one of the laundry list of reasons I was annoyed at Cleopatra's return in VI is that her historical legacy is that she left Egypt a Roman province. Whatever form the Celts may take in Civ VI, whether they used Vercingetorix or Boudicca, the main thing to know about either of them is that the Romans conquered them.

Are there no Gallic leaders from before Caesar's time that could stand for the greatness of the Gallic civilization itself, rather than representing Gaul as yet another "fierce-but-futile resistance to the Roman legions" civ? If not, then I suppose Vercingetorix is fair enough. I think it's high time they replaced "The Celts" with something more specific, and from the admittedly little I know about them, the Gauls themselves were interesting enough to include, and I would like to see them represented separately from (or in lieu of) the Insular Celts.

 

[Gwydden]

Are there no Gallic leaders from before Caesar's time that could stand for the greatness of the Gallic civilization itself, rather than representing Gaul as yet another "fierce-but-futile resistance to the Roman legions" civ? If not, then I suppose Vercingetorix is fair enough. I think it's high time they replaced "The Celts" with something more specific, and from the admittedly little I know about them, the Gauls themselves were interesting enough to include, and I would like to see them represented separately from (or in lieu of) the Insular Celts.

I see your point, but there are several good reasons to choose Vercingetorix. He's not only relatively well-known as Gallic leaders go, but also the closest Gaul ever came to having a unified ruler. There is also the problem that almost everything we know about the Gauls comes from the Romans or the Greeks, so it is difficult to find a leader that did not interact with them. The best alternative would be one of the Brennuses. Even if those weren't their real names, they are the best we have and should be serviceable.

The Celts as a faction are desperately blobby, and this showed in CIV5, where you had city names from modern Celtic nations and ceilidh halls along with Pictish warriors and an Iceni queen straight out of Braveheart. Something more specific would be welcome, but the only real candidates would be either the Gauls or the Gaels (Ireland and Scotland either separately or together). The problem with the Celtiberians, the Britons and the Picts (assuming they were even Celts) is we know next to nothing about them and what little we know paints them as rather inconsequential for the scale of CIV. The latter problem remains with Wales, Cornwall and Brittany.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Apart from the fact that "Vercingetorix" is fun to say, is there any compelling reason to use him specifically? Personally, as fascinated as I have always been with the Romans, I am getting tired of seeing civs included whose representation in-game is primarily as "peoples conquered by the Romans". My desire to see Carthage included as a great civilization in its own right is part of the reason I didn't mind seeing Hannibal get replaced by Dido in Civ V (despite the unfortunate detail that she's semi-mythical and possibly entirely mythical)--at least she was a pre-Punic Wars leader. And one of the laundry list of reasons I was annoyed at Cleopatra's return in VI is that her historical legacy is that she left Egypt a Roman province. Whatever form the Celts may take in Civ VI, whether they used Vercingetorix or Boudicca, the main thing to know about either of them is that the Romans conquered them.

Are there no Gallic leaders from before Caesar's time that could stand for the greatness of the Gallic civilization itself, rather than representing Gaul as yet another "fierce-but-futile resistance to the Roman legions" civ? If not, then I suppose Vercingetorix is fair enough. I think it's high time they replaced "The Celts" with something more specific, and from the admittedly little I know about them, the Gauls themselves were interesting enough to include, and I would like to see them represented separately from (or in lieu of) the Insular Celts.

For the Gauls or Celts--at least if you mean the ancient Celts--honestly, the answer is no.

Although the Celts and Carthaginians did have writing systems (it is occasionally inaccurately asserted that the Celts did not), pretty much none of their writings survive. We're at the mercy of what Romans and Greeks wrote about these peoples, and they tended not to be too interested in the history of these peoples prior to Roman conquest. (Although the future Emperor Claudius did write a history of Carthage in his younger days, which unfortunately does not survive).

Anyway, for the Celts, there really isn't a better choice. We know the names or titles of lots of kings and chiefs who fought for or against Romans and Greeks, and that's about it. Vercingetorix isn't a bad choice--he united numerous Gallic tribes under his banner in addition to his native Arverni, he was clearly a charismatic and intelligent leader, and he pretty soundly thumped Julius Caesar at the Battle of Gergovia, even if he ended up losing the war. His resistance was more effective than that of Caratacus or Boudica up in Britain.

 

[Zaarin]

For the Gauls or Celts--at least if you mean the ancient Celts--honestly, the answer is no.

Although the Celts and Carthaginians did have writing systems (it is occasionally inaccurately asserted that the Celts did not), pretty much none of their writings survive. We're at the mercy of what Romans and Greeks wrote about these peoples, and they tended not to be too interested in the history of these peoples prior to Roman conquest. (Although the future Emperor Claudius did write a history of Carthage in his younger days, which unfortunately does not survive).

Anyway, for the Celts, there really isn't a better choice. We know the names or titles of lots of kings and chiefs who fought for or against Romans and Greeks, and that's about it. Vercingetorix isn't a bad choice--he united numerous Gallic tribes under his banner in addition to his native Arverni, he was clearly a charismatic and intelligent leader, and he pretty soundly thumped Julius Caesar at the Battle of Gergovia, even if he ended up losing the war. His resistance was more effective than that of Caratacus or Boudica up in Britain.

This. For the Gauls, we have a choice between a bunch of local chieftains who we know next to nothing about, or Vercingetorix, who history demonstrates was a charismatic and effective leader who came to power by cunning and who held out against a far superior force far longer than could be reasonably expected. For Celts other than the Gauls, we either know too little about them (Celtiberians) or their accomplishments were just considerably less significant (Britons, later Insular Celtic peoples). I really can't think of a better leader for the Celts--from any faction--than Vercingetorix.

 

[SMcM]

How about Ambiorix of the Eburones as leader of a Gaul Civ? Being from modern day Belgium that would prevent his Civ getting so much in the way of unification of France on a TSL map (Obviosuly this is only a very minor thing though).

 

[Zaarin]

How about Ambiorix of the Eburones as leader of a Gaul Civ? Being from modern day Belgium that would prevent his Civ getting so much in the way of unification of France on a TSL map (Obviosuly this is only a very minor thing though).

The Eburones were Belgae, not Gauls. The Belgae were a Celtic superstrate over a Germanic population, rather like the Mitanni, an Iranian superstrate over a Hurrian population. So the fact that Ambiorix not only never united any large portion of Gaul but also was not, strictly speaking, Gaulish would make him a dubious choice, rather akin to choosing Mary Queen of Scots to lead England.

 

[SMcM]

The Eburones were Belgae, not Gauls. The Belgae were a Celtic superstrate over a Germanic population, rather like the Mitanni, an Iranian superstrate over a Hurrian population. So the fact that Ambiorix not only never united any large portion of Gaul but also was not, strictly speaking, Gaulish would make him a dubious choice, rather akin to choosing Mary Queen of Scots to lead England.

Oh, right, so he was a Belgic (did not realise these were distinct from Gauls) leader of a part of Gaul, not a Gaulish leader.

Would Ambiorix leader a Belgic Civ make sense, or is he not really major enough to warrant being in the game, even in comparison to Boudica or Vercingoterix? He would tick the 'celt' box, and I'm sure the Belgians would appreciate some sort of representation.

 

[Zaarin]

Oh, right, so he was a Belgic (did not realise these were distinct from Gauls) leader of a part of Gaul, not a Gaulish leader.

Would Ambiorix leader a Belgic Civ make sense, or is he not really major enough to warrant being in the game, even in comparison to Boudica or Vercingoterix? He would tick the 'celt' box, and I'm sure the Belgians would appreciate some sort of representation.

Well, the Belgae were a tiny corner of Gaul where Celtic and Germanic peoples had blended together (some linguists suggest there may have been a distinct "Belgic" branch of Indo-European, but to my knowledge it has very little support). Gallia Belgica wasn't entirely insignificant economically (two of its major cities, Trier and Reims, are still major population centers in the region), but it wouldn't really represent the Gauls proper and it wouldn't really be worth making a civ of on its own. As for Ambiorix leading Belgium...That would probably make about as much sense as Vercingetorix leading France or Boudicca leading England*.

*Actually, both Vercingetorix and Ambiorix probably represent a greater degree of continuity with modern France and Belgium than Boudicca does England. France and Belgium were Romanized then Germanicized; England was Romanized, Saxonized, Danified, Normanized, then sort of became its own thing even beyond all that.