Celts in Civ VI

[Boris Gudenuf]

"oppidum" is a Latin word and "city in the countryside" every new pupil knows that.

Julius Caesar used it to designate the Celtic hilltop settlement. Most of them were refuge. This kind of places exist every were in ancient Europe (also on Crete) and is nothing special for the Celts. They were mainly used in times of war.

Do NOT use a 'Roman' definition for a non-Roman feature! For one thing, the Latin word 'oppidum' is derived from an earlier word meaning 'enclosed/fortified space' -which fits an encampment better than a city. For a second thing, the 100+ Oppida that have been identified in Europe (most in modern France, but also in Germany and as far east as Hungary) are obviously not all the same thing. At one end of the spectrum, there are places like Bibracte, which from both historical and archeological evidence was inhabited, and covered an area equal to about 2/3 that of medieval Paris, indicating a population of 20-30,000: a City by any pre-Industrial terms. On the other hand, almost half the oppida show no signs (archeological) of being inhabited at all (or, they were inhabited by the neatest Celts that ever lived, who left no garbage, middens, graves or house foundations) and some of them are as small as 3 - 5 acres: scarcely big enough for a single farmstead and garden, certainly NOT big enough to be a city or 'refuge'. Encampment is the best single fit, if you include the possibility that they also served some kind of religious/cultural function as well.

QUOTE="Manifold, post: 14745421, member: 124976"]"I remain, military training of any kind, even if they were very warlike, and +1 housing does not fit to the Celts. Military experience was more a tradition and men ritual. They were not particularly good at defense. Technically Caesar just needs two years (58-56 BC): "Veni, vidi, vici".[/QUOTE]

- 2 years and ten legions, which is almost twice the force they needed to conquer Macedonia. Does that mean the Macedonians were lousy at defense, too?

QUOTE="Manifold, post: 14745421, member: 124976"]We know this one over 2000 years old sentence of Brennus, tells us very much.
He was a tough and harsh guy. He was carrying weapons. He united a huge band of robbers. He thought economically and foresighted. He weighed well his chances and the attendant expense. He just want to sack and the gold and then return home nothing more. He knew about weights. He could calculate. He was clever and tricky...[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, he is also not backed up by any physical evidence. There is NO archeological evidence of any sack or destruction at Delphi when he is supposed to have looted it. Again, we have to suppose the neatest bunch of looters in history, who carefully cleaned up after themselves, to believe the story - as related by NON-GAULS much later...

There are a number of Traits that can be associated with the Celtic Gauls that are not in the 'popular' picture, and some that contradict that picture completely:
First, from Caesar's own commentary:
1. The Gauls had good roads with bridges. Otherwise, how to explain that Caesar's legions could march faster in Gaul (average 20 Roman miles a day) than Roman Legions elsewhere (average 15 Roman miles/day) or that Caesar knew the exact distance to each native town or city, or that numerous Celtic/Gaulic place names at rivers end in 'briva' or 'briga' - meaning 'Bridge'? In short, the Gauls had Civil Engineering, bridge-building, and Surveying as good as Rome's. (Parenthetically, almost all the Latin words referring to carts and wagons have Celtic/Gallic roots - the Gallic technology relating to wheeled vehicles was far beyond the Romans when they first contacted each other in northern Italy in the 4th century BC!)
2. The Gauls were NOT illiterate and Unorganized: Caesar actually quotes extensive records and census of a migration and mentions other record-keeping. For religious reasons, the 'Druids' may not have written anything down, but that did not apply to the society as a whole.
3. Gaul had an efficient communications system. Vercingetorix's revolt started in one town with a massacre of Roman merchants, and word of it reached the other end of Gaul by that evening: information traveling between message posts at an average of 26 miles an hour - faster than anything short of a pony express with remount stations like the Persians, Mongols and mid-19th century US had.

Then, from archeological/historical evidence:
1. Gallic religious ceremonies were not held in the deep woods. This, again, is Roman propaganda or, more likely, Romans being taken in by a tale-spinning Celt. Since the 1980s numerous Gallic 'churches' have been excavated, built with a peculiar, possibly unique to them architecture of Pythagorean-like triangles instead of rectangular ground plans.
2. Druids were not merely religious leaders. They are described by Greek and Roman authors as being conversant with astronomical observations, geometry, medicine, diplomacy, law (Gallic), and divination and prophecy. To even try to include them in the game, they would have to have Religious, Cultural, Scientific, and possibly even Envoy features.
3. One Druid was actually a guest in Rome and when questioned about Human Sacrifice his answer was probably exactly accurate: "Maybe in the old days...". Some of the Bog People bodies found in northern Europe do attest to sacrifice or murder (violent death anyway: it could have also been self-sacrifice) but many of them cannot even be identified as Celtic, and most are much earlier than 58 BCE when the Druid was answering Roman questions over wine on the Palatine...

In other words (and possibly too many of them, sorry about that) IF we want to include the Gauls or Celts in Civ, we have to start by taking a hard and skeptical look at the real evidence for the attributes of their Culture/Civilization, not the popular misconceptions of them.

Otherwise, we might as well have a Gallic leader named Asterix and do all the necessary research from the comic books ...

 

[Zaarin]

In other words (and possibly too many of them, sorry about that) IF we want to include the Gauls or Celts in Civ, we have to start by taking a hard and skeptical look at the real evidence for the attributes of their Culture/Civilization, not the popular misconceptions of them.

This. So much so this. Every single previous incarnation of the Celts in Civilization has been based on a mix of Romantic stereotypes and Roman propaganda. For once, I'd like to see a Celtic civ based on genuine history. They were a fascinating civilization; there's no more need to invent crap about them than there was for the Sumerians. *glares at Gilgamesh*

 

[Manifold]

Do NOT use a 'Roman' definition for a non-Roman feature!

My words J. Caesar calls them this way.

"I remain, military training of any kind, even if they were very warlike, and +1 housing does not fit to the Celts. Military experience was more a tradition and men ritual. They were not particularly good at defense. Technically Caesar just needs two years (58-56 BC): "Veni, vidi, vici".

- 2 years and ten legions, which is almost twice the force they needed to conquer Macedonia. Does that mean the Macedonians were lousy at defense, too?

There were ThREE Macedonian Wars from 214-148 BC. Gaul fell quickly, which made Caesar's glory rise steeply.

The climax of the Celts was 300-200 years before that time. I want the successful Celtic Civ, please.

Unfortunately, he is also not backed up by any physical evidence. There is NO archeological evidence of any sack or destruction at Delphi when he is supposed to have looted it. Again, we have to suppose the neatest bunch of looters in history, who carefully cleaned up after themselves, to believe the story - as related by NON-GAULS much later...

No physical evidence...like from the other old bones. Who cares about the others?

Nearly everything we know from the Celts we know from J. Caesar.

Then, from archeological/historical evidence:
...
2. Druids were not merely religious leaders. They are described by Greek and Roman authors as being ....
...

Again the word "Gaul" is Latin. The word "Celts" is Greek.You have the choice, but do not think that you express something with it.

You forgot:
Celts collect the heads of their vanquished enemies, like Obelix the helmets of legionary.. There is a lot to learn from these funny comics

 

[The Kingmaker]

If they actually released a Gaulish civ based on the realities of the culture, I think it could potentially be one of the most interesting new additions to the franchise.

I say "new" because all of their previous efforts to implement a Celtic civ have been absolutely all over the place.

 

[Zaarin]

No physical evidence...like from the other old bones. Who cares about the others?

You realize of course that most of those "old bones" predate the Celts? Many of them even predate the Indo-Europeans. Most of them come from the Bronze Age at the latest. Yes, we have very clear (and often chillingly bizarre) evidence that the Old Europeans practiced human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism on a rather startling scale (so much for Gimbutas' peaceful matriarchy), but these were not the ancestors of the Celts. The archaeological evidence is pretty clear: if the Celts practiced human sacrifice at all, it was extraordinarily rare. Even the handful of bog bodies that are Celtic and can be demonstrated to have suffered violent ends can't be conclusively connected to human sacrifice; they could just as easily have been murdered or executed.

Nearly everything we know from the Celts we know from J. Caesar.

And at least half of it is contradicted by the archaeological record. Don't forget that the purpose of Bello Gallico was neither historical nor ethnographic: it was to cement Caesar's political power by reminding the people how awesome he is for conquering those northern "barbarians."

Again the word "Gaul" is Latin. The word "Celts" is Greek.You have the choice, but do not think that you express something with it.

They both derive from the same Celtic root, so...Also, strictly speaking English Celt comes from Latin Celtae from Greek Keltoi presumably from Proto-Celtic *Keltī~Keltoi; Latin Galli comes from the same root. NB Latin transcriptions are frequently ambivalent about Gaulish voiced stops.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The climax of the Celts was 300-200 years before that time. I want the successful Celtic Civ, please.

Well, you won't get it from quoting Julius Caesar, any more than yo could get an accurate account of the Napoleonic Wars by reading only Napoleon's Bulletins.
Nor, unfortunately, are you likely to get it in Civ games, which with their current system of Leaders and Traits/Attributes/"uniques' give you a 'snapshot' of the civilization only. And it seems, in Civ VI only the snapshot that they can hang on a leader reasonably familiar to people from Wikipedia. What I'd like to avoid is Caesar's version of the Gallic 'Civilization' in any game that isn't utter fantasy...

Nearly everything we know from the Celts we know from J. Caesar.

Well, aside from the archeological evidence, which fills volumes of site reports and articles, you might glean a little from Pytheas who traveled through the Celtic lands from Gaul to Britain several generations before Caesar, and, for a short and incomplete list of other writers among the Greek and Roman world: Polybius, Strabo, Pliny (the Elder), Timogenes, Pomponius Mela, and Plutarch, all of whom have something to say about the subject.

Again the word "Gaul" is Latin. The word "Celts" is Greek.You have the choice, but do not think that you express something with it.

My choice is to try to use 'Gaul' or 'Gallic' to refer to the particular civilization in roughly the same area as modern France, and 'Celt' or 'Kelt' to refer to the similar but not identical in all respects culture that covered parts of Europe stretching from Ireland to the Balkans. I regard the Gauls as being/having a particular form of the La Tene-derived cultural and technological achievements, while I don't think the larger 'Celtic world' is quite as coherent and amenable to being depicted as a single unit.

You forgot:
Celts collect the heads of their vanquished enemies, like Obelix the helmets of legionary.. There is a lot to learn from these funny comics

Didn't forget. Scythians and Pechenegs on the steppes also collected heads and made drinking cups out of them; many militant cultures and groups, if not most, were prone to 'collecting' parts of their vanquished foes as trophies: as late as the Korean War, my father witnessed an American Forward Observer, who had just annihilated an enemy unit with concentrated artillery fire, get presented with a jeep-load of ears cut off the (hopefully already dead) enemy soldiers by the United Nations contingent he was supporting. I won't name the folks involved, because they are still in the news, part of NATO, and considered 'civilized'!
And funny you should mention my favorite comic in the world: among other things, the Asterix comics showed Gauls traveling on paved roads in chariots, with signposts giving the distance to the nearest settlement and the Gallic villagers obtaining and using all kinds of Roman luxuries. Archeology has now confirmed that the Gauls did build straight, paved roads, had chariots wth sprung suspensions and third wheels, and had (stone) posts giving the distance to the nearest settlement - and the distances were so accurately measured and surveyed that the Romans were still using the Gallic 'league' to measure distances in Gaul instead of the Roman Mile for centuries after the conquest!
Of course, they also show them wearing horned helmets, and don't get me started on that piece of Fantasy Armor!

 

[Manifold]

Well, you won't get it from quoting Julius Caesar, any more than yo could get an accurate account of the Napoleonic Wars by reading only Napoleon's Bulletins.
Nor, unfortunately, are you likely to get it in Civ games, which with their current system of Leaders and Traits/Attributes/"uniques' give you a 'snapshot' of the civilization only. And it seems, in Civ VI only the snapshot that they can hang on a leader reasonably familiar to people from Wikipedia. What I'd like to avoid is Caesar's version of the Gallic 'Civilization' in any game that isn't utter fantasy...

It is as I wrote before. There is simply no other source!

My choice is to try to use 'Gaul' or 'Gallic' to refer to the particular civilization in roughly the same area as modern France, and 'Celt' or 'Kelt' to refer to the similar but not identical in all respects culture that covered parts of Europe stretching from Ireland to the Balkans. I regard the Gauls as being/having a particular form of the La Tene-derived cultural and technological achievements, while I don't think the larger 'Celtic world' is quite as coherent and amenable to being depicted as a single unit.

Zaarin was different opinion. IMO a "Gaul" Civ with the same area as modern France is boring. Then give the stuff of the "Gauls" to the France Civ. They want to have it anyway.

The Romans called the "Celts" "Gaul" not only those in France.

Of course, they also show them wearing horned helmets, and don't get me started on that piece of Fantasy Armor!

did you mean this one?

Spoiler :

 

[Zaarin]

The Romans called the "Celts" "Gaul" not only those in France.

This is not correct. They called the Celts in France, Germany, and the Low Countries "Gauls," as well as the colonists in Northern Italy (Cisalpine Gauls); they called the Celts in Asia Minor "Galatae" or "Hellenegalatae"; they referred to those in Spain as Celtiberii or Celtae. (And of course at no time did they ever refer to the Britons as Gauls but as Britanni, which they described as a Celtic [Celtārum] people.) When the Romans wanted a general term, they used the Greek loan Celtae, not Galli.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It is as I wrote before. There is simply no other source!

I sure hope you're being sarcastic, because I just listed 6 other ancient sources plus an ancient eye-witness. I'll add one more: Diodorus Sicilus, who even added the remark that -"the Kelts never say the word they mean but always use another -" indicating that he may have gotten his information direct from one or more Kelts/Celts/Gauls!

IMO a "Gaul" Civ with the same area as modern France is boring. Then give the stuff of the "Gauls" to the France Civ. They want to have it anyway.

Actually, the modern French don't. In the various provincial museums that could display Gallic items, they mostly give pride of place to Roman artifacts. Like some others, they seem to regard the Gauls as 'Losers'...

As for what to model in the game, The problem is, from a game/Civ design perspective, the Celtic cultural area outside 'Gaul' has no sign of any real political structure or urbanization. Within Gaul you find the 'city' oppida: Bibracte, Alesia and others, described and with archeological evidence of major urban concentrations with paved streets (Bibracte) even. Archeologically, though, the urban concentrations all seem to have started just 2 - 3 generations before the Conquest, so we could argue that All the Celts were headed in that direction, just Gaul got there first...
Straight, well-built and well-surveyed roads with bridges have only been found in Gaul and (possibly, buried under later Roman roads) in Britain. Gaul has evidence of extensive agriculture, dense population, and long-distance organized communication network, while the chariots, advanced metalworking, strange-geometried temples, and oppida situated as (possible) astrological/astronomical observatories or religious sanctuaries are all found both in Gaul and elsewhere.

So, I'm all right with a less-Gallic-centered 'Keltic' as long as we realize that most of the attributes are going to come from the Gallic domains, because that's what we known most about and that seems to have been where the Celts were most nearly approaching an 'urban' or 'civilized' state.

As to Named Leaders, if Vercingetorix is too 'French', and 'Brennus' may be a title rather than a name, may I suggest Diviciacus? He was a Druid (sorry, Zaarin) who visited Rome, spoke before the Senate, was a guest among the Roman nobility and impressed them with his eloquence and wide knowledge of everything from medicine to agriculture to diplomacy. Extrapolating from these descriptions (from Roman sources, by the way) he could be a leader with Religious, Cultural, or Diplomatic bent.

Then, if they must, they could use Vercingetorix as an Alternate Leader with a more militant side.

And finally, as for the 'horned helmet' in the British Museum, that is Exactly what I meant. That @%$#&^ helmet has been seen in comics, illustrations, and at least 3 different miniature wargaming figures, and a brief examination will show that it is not a military piece of armor, but a Ceremonial Headgear. It is made of thin metal that wouldn't protect from a swung Pool Cue, let alone a sword, and the 'horns' give your opponent a loverly chance to knock the thing right off your head with his first slash - and if you've strapped it on, probably wrench your whole head sideways, throw you off balance, and end the 'fight' almost immediately. Only a suicidal fool would wear it into battle.

 

[Zaarin]

As long as he doesn't dress in leaves, tartan, and woad, I'm good. Dumnorix, brother of Diviciacus, would also be another plausible choice.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As long as he doesn't dress in leaves, tartan, and woad, I'm good. Dumnorix, brother of Diviciacus, would also be another plausible choice.

How about one out of three? A tartan cloak is a strong possibility, since 'wool cloaks' are described as typical Gallic outdoor wear (to be thrown off before they charged maniacally into battle, if you believe their Roman Enemies) but definitely NOT a kilt: the Romans, after all, described them as 'Trousered Gauls'. None of the Romans commenting on Diviciacus mentions tattoos on him, and they imply that in his cloak (and, presumably, trousers and tunic as depicted on Gauls elsewhere) he appeared every bit as well-turned-out as a Roman in his toga. Heavy metal torcs and other personal jewelry would also be typical for an 'aristocratic' Gaul. Other Romans comment on the extreme cleanliness and neatness of the people of Gaul -"You will never see one dirty or ragged -"
So the depiction of Diviciacus could be Very Elegant: tall, long mustache and hair, gold torc and arm bands, tartan cloak over one shoulder over a belted tunic and trousers, speaking in smooth, mellow tones with a little glint of humor in his eye that says You Should Not Believe Everything I'm Saying...
Dumnorix, especially if Firaxis wants to go for Leaders No One Outside A Classical Curriculum (Or CivFanatics!) Has Ever Heard Of - would be a good alternative to Vercingetorix: a military leader who was also a politician, although I suspect Dumnorix was a little more active in the Internal Gallic Politics than in the Military part of that...
As far as I know, it would also be the first time anywhere that the two alternate leaders for a Civilization were so closely related ...

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, to clarify I have no problem with tartan. Just so long as it's not a great kilt. My specific objection was to the combination of the three as seen on Civ5's Boudicca (okay, she didn't have leaves, but they would totally go there with a druid, I just know it). And your description of Diviciacus is exactly how the Celtic leader ought to look, whomever they choose.

 

[Manifold]

This is not correct. They called the Celts in France, Germany, and the Low Countries "Gauls," as well as the colonists in Northern Italy (Cisalpine Gauls); they called the Celts in Asia Minor "Galatae" or "Hellenegalatae"; they referred to those in Spain as Celtiberii or Celtae. (And of course at no time did they ever refer to the Britons as Gauls but as Britanni, which they described as a Celtic [Celtārum] people.) When the Romans wanted a general term, they used the Greek loan Celtae, not Galli.

Yes thanks, I told you this a few pages ago.

As to Named Leaders, if Vercingetorix is too 'French', and 'Brennus' may be a title rather than a name
, may I suggest Diviciacus? He was a Druid ..

Diviciacus is not proper name for a Celtic leader.

I
As for what to model in the game, The problem is, from a game/Civ design perspective, the Celtic cultural area outside 'Gaul' has no sign of any real political structure or urbanization.

I am sorry. I had to stop this discussion here. It just does not make any sense.

And finally, as for the 'horned helmet' in the British Museum, that is Exactly what I meant. That @%$#&^ helmet has been seen in comics, illustrations, and at least 3 different miniature wargaming figures, and a brief examination will show that it is not a military piece of armor, but a Ceremonial Headgear. It is made of thin metal that wouldn't protect from a swung Pool Cue, let alone a sword, and the 'horns' give your opponent a loverly chance to knock the thing right off your head with his first slash - and if you've strapped it on, probably wrench your whole head sideways, throw you off balance, and end the 'fight' almost immediately. Only a suicidal fool would wear it into battle.

Yes, Brennus should wear this helm in the Diplomatic screen. Of course he wears his best helmet if he makes an offer, one could not reject

I think it is absolutely logical, if they wear helmets with metal horns, they also wear helmets with genuine horns of animals.
That is like 1+1 = 2.

Tartan, of course.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Diviciacus is not proper name for a Celtic leader.

According to Caesar and Cicero it was. It may have meant "Avenger" which would actually make sense considering that his tribe was nearly wiped out by a coalition of other Gauls and hired Germans, and he was in Rome trying to drum up Roman support against them.

Yes, Brennus should wear this helm in the Diplomatic screen.

Actually, the earlier Rome-Sacking Brennus is shown in a famous (much later) painting wearing a helmet with wings on it rather than horns, and that's how he was depicted as the figurehead of a French battleship. Horns, wings, feathers, once you're off the battlefield and wearing for Show anything's possible ...

 

[Guandao]

Is Brennus really that great of a Celtic leader? Which one, also? The guy who invaded Greece or the one who sacked Rome? If anyone can come up with a good Agenda for Brennus, maybe I would agree on putting him in the game.

 

[Manifold]

Is Brennus really that great of a Celtic leader? Which one, also? The guy who invaded Greece or the one who sacked Rome? If anyone can come up with a good Agenda for Brennus, maybe I would agree on putting him in the game.

You said it two times: The sack of Rome and sack of Greece.

So my proposal was:

...
LH: Brennus (speaks and looks Gaulish)
LUA: "Vae victis!": If Brennus conquer a city he can choose not only to conquer or raze it, he can also choose "Vae victis!". Then all buildings, districts and improvements of this city get plundered and Brennus gets a huge sum of gold.
But the city does not change the owner. In addition a forced cease-fire will enter into force for 10 turns (had to be tested or discussed). Or, it will be a forced peace deal and after some turns the victim gets a casus belli for revenge.
(This ability is supposed to represent the recurrent invasions of the Celts. They were not seeking for new places made of stone to live there, they were just seeking for free goods to go.)

Agenda: Barbarian Spirit
Brennus was a tough and harsh guy. He was carrying weapons. He united a huge band of robbers. He thought economically and foresighted. He weighed well his chances and the attendant expense. He just want to sack and the gold and then return home nothing more. He knew about weights. He could calculate. He was clever and tricky...

He is always ready for war.
He always go to war, when he thinks he could do a "Vae victis" smart and quick blow.
He always tries to conclude favorable peace treaties.
He does not like when his offers are rejected.
He did not like those Civs who try to take revenge.
He likes Civs who did not try to take revenge.


Civ name: "Celts"
Symbol: wild boar
City names of the La Tene culture should not be a problem. Ptolemy called enough oppida, so that neither modern names nor names from archaeological sites would have to be resorted to.

UA: Ferrum Noricum: the palace generates two iron resources for free;
all unit which require iron get +3 battle strength;
every iron, copper, resource provides a bonus +1 production and +1 science
every gold, silver resource provides a bonus +1 culture and +1 gold (for human sacrifice, bardic songs and trade system, goldsmith)

UU: Forest Devils: swordsman replacements which are invisible in forests or could only be seen from adjacent tiles.
They can move undisturbed in forests and see through them. They get +3 for fortify on forest hills.
Also they get the "headhunter" promotion if they kill an enemy unit for the first time. With this promotion they deserve faith for kills.

UD: Druid circle: holy district replacements which gets +1 faith from every adjacent forest instead of +1 for every two forests.
AND all apostle (with the look of a Druid) which are formed there starts with the ability to recruit adjacent barbarians (So this could lead the Celts to no longer develop their religion as many have noted here.).
AND all religious units formed there can embark without losing extra movement points AND can heal in forests tiles (Druid power drink).

 

[Zaarin]

You said it two times: The sack of Rome and sack of Greece.

...I have a hard time believing the same person sacked two different cities over a hundred years apart.

 

[Manifold]

...I have a hard time believing the same person sacked two different cities over a hundred years apart.

You guess this was what I meant? I will not repeat myself as others. nevermind

Brennus is a very interesting. High tech rate and less culture rate. It is like the division of the tech tree in two parts one for the invention and one for the development is made just for him.