Conflictus Antiquarum Culturarum (CAC) a major overhaul mod of Rome 2 focused on History and Realism

**il Pitta** · February 11, 2014, 05:18 AM

Next are coming the other Germanic rosters: Eastern Germans (Guthiuda-Gutones and Rygir-Rugi) and Celtogermans (Bastijanthai-Bastarnae and Lougoi-Lugi) ;-)

**Ariovist** · February 11, 2014, 05:24 AM

Sadly, i see you made the Marcomanni a single tribe and not part of the Suebi faction. In this case the Suebi make no sense at all., because you have to include the Semnoni, the Langobardi and other prominent suebian tribes as single faction.
Among the Western germanic tribes you as CA surely missed the Chatti.

Also, i sense the typical problems with the display of germanic warriors.
Over many years they pushed the Celts out of their homelands and only because Tacitus told us so, they were so dumb to not use the pillaged weapons of better quality of their former enemies?
And still their warbands only use wooden stocks?

Also "Raseneisen" was not so uncommon in those days as i think you aware of.

Nonetheless your art is wonderful, but i had hoped for a better display and one not based purely on roman writings, because we all know that alone the numbers given by the Romans were just impossible among other facts.

About the celtic names of the chieftains and war leaders of the Ambrones, Cimbri and Teutones - they were given by celtic translators to the Romans, so naturally the used celtic names.

**il Pitta** · February 11, 2014, 06:06 AM

Thank you for the feedback Ariovist!

I agree with the fact that the Marcomanni were part of the Suebi federation, but also in the roman records appeared sometimes as quite a distinct element, quite independant and capable of forming different federation of tribes time to time.

In a context as Iron Age Mitteleurope is quite difficult to identify clearly tribal appartenance, being federations (even of different ethnic groups) forming and falling apart constantly... you'll laugh if you'd know how much complicated try to define ethnically the rosters of Bastarnae and Lugii (coming soon).

However, actually we can't implement "New" factions without cancelling "Vanilla" ones... there are A LOT of Germanic entities (and Gaulish, and Briton...) worthing being present (Batavi, Chatti -as you said-, ecc.) but the faction and region numbers are quite binding.

-However, if you think that another group would fit better instead of the Marcomanni for their starting region, I think that a simply name change could be done, as we replaced Cessetani with the more representative Ilergetes-

Actually we didn't base our work only on romans account, but also aon archaological findings... about the "poor" equipment, I remind that nevertheless iron wasn't so common among Germans... we have clear example of maintenance of bone weapons (one of the wood helmets of Denmark has been found with a bone arrow stuck in it, and bone spearheads are among the findings of Hjortspring -surely along with chainmails-), and far more indicative is the reutilization of "excedence parts" on which almost all the Roman iron helmets pillaged undergo... removing sistematically the frontal brim, the neckguard and the cheek-guards from the helmets surely meant something... if it happened with roman equipment in I-II A.D., probably it happened also (not always, sure) with celtic pillaged equipment before.

Futhermore, wooden javelins were used not only by the Germans, but even by poorer Celts (cfr. Strabo)... iron was, actually, always a bit expensive ;-)

Nevertheless, we have depicted some units with heavy celtic armors and weapons, as stated by the historians.... as for Celtogermanic Noble Riders, Germanic Heavy Cavalry is equipped with longswords (and actually in batavian I A.D. graves you can find La Tene D3 swords -an ANCIENT tipology for the period, as ANCIENT/POORLY CRAFTED appear the tipology of batavian axes).

I would not dismiss Tacitus records... normally Romans tend to inflate the image of their enemies, so their victory among them would sound greater... normally, if they depicted them poorly equipped, they were quite right... and however, the archaeological evidence of Jastorf/Ripdorf/Seedorf findings gave us the vision of an enviroment that was evidently poorer in weaponry context than the celtic one.

About Cimbri and Teutones, surely they were Germans, but I wouldn't dismiss the huge presence of celtic human elements that joined them in their migrations: we know for example that the whole celtic tribe of the Tigurini were among them, and also that Sertorius went to their encampment disguised as a Gaul, meaning that gaulish presence was far common.

P.S.
The Longobardi/Lombards/Winnili weren't at all related to Suebi... they are classified (by language) among the Eastern Germans, along with the Goths.

**Caracala** · February 11, 2014, 06:07 PM

I've noticed some problems with the standard bearers for most of the units you've shown us.
They are holding their hand as if there was a shield, but there isnt a shield present. Im not sure if this was intentional, but the only work-around I know exists is by giving them a shield.

**Blitzkrieg80** · February 12, 2014, 02:21 AM

Hi - great idea for a mod btw

It's just 'scholarly fact' that Tacitus was purposely using Germans to make a 'Noble Savage' image and its proven through archaeology and language they were not at all as pastoral or communistic as described by Tacitus- remember, it's very easy to take Greco-Roman sources at their word, because we have immense cultural bias, esp to literary peoples who don't nec. know anything about which they speak. Thus Scythian/Gothic/Hunnic references which can refute anything about accuracy you want to say ;o) so no worries... this is just FACT

___

The Marcomanni occupied general Thuringia which was also occupied by Hermunduri before them. Hermunduri pass away from reference but Thuringii take their place and many can't help but note the similarity between -duri and thuri, which is related to High Ger,am Consonant shift (probably a reflex - did you its tech. called Second German Consonant Shift. bcause Grimm's Law is the first and they're also related to each other).

The original Thuringians were one of the few challengers in Europe left around to give any trouble to the early Franks - nonetheless whatever long history it has as Thuringian Färberwaid (woad / dye + textiles) trading hub as seen in important later medieval towns and states in the same area.

BTW I remember clearly doing work in Europa Barbarorum to add a special Province and Region for this underestimated but immensely important region of Germany.... there is a mention by Ptolemy, if interested. Arctaunon perhaps? [near Franfurt, Hesse] (Thought to be a combination of 'Bear'+Taunus(mtn) from/or Keltic *-dun) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taunus

BUT ALSO these were all 'Suebic' which meant 'Germanic' but in a more specific socio-political context (perhaps the only time there ever WAS a common term they chose to call themselves until 'Deut'-ish later)... so i dont think its appropriate

____

Lombardic is not considered East Germanic (curious what makes you think that). Although there are 2 distinct sets of 'Longbeards' and the later set of people was an amalgamation of Elbe Germanics with nearby Przeworsk (associated with Vandals/East Germanics for sure, but altogether Przeworsk has much older history in Lusatian/Urnfield culture and was most likely an unknown Indo-European (but possibly non-IE) people, which some might accurately call 'Venetic' after the Vistula Veneti and could have ties to Thraco-Dacian-Illyrian culture (which can also be considered pan-Illyrian in some contexts). The same thing goes for the Nordwestbock as well as countless other European cultures, such as the Etruscans and Ligurians (who AS FACT, have association with Halstatt/Urnfield culture and who probably did NOT speak Celtic but a similar language developed from very close / similar sources.

Later acculturation of the Lombards happened by means of extended contact with Gothic/Sarmatian elements (military/politics)... so they might seem similar to Goths, but that does not make them so. Similar to the Quadi who were to become known for steppe influence despite being more straightforward Germanic at first also (and probably similar to the Heruli/Gepids although they identified more-so with Nordics | they are also thought to be perhaps Sarmatian/Iranic | besides fake Nordic histories et al, but that's the usu trend of the Hunnic Germania... historically-speaking, there was no overly-Nordic Germanic-speakers vs continental Germanic-speakers as some odd people out there feel a need to distinguish... nor did Halland, Skane and Jutland produce 'ALL' of the possible 'hordes' described born from the womb of Germania)

I'm not citing this as a reference but check out what wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombardic_language

"In the absence of Lombardic texts, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the language's morphology and syntax. The genetic classification is necessarily based entirely on phonology. Since there is evidence that Lombardic participated in, and indeed shows some of the earliest evidence for, the High German consonant shift, it is classified as an Elbe Germanic or Upper German dialect. The Historia Langobardorum of Paulus Diaconus mentions a duke Zaban of 574, showing /t/ shifted to /ts/."

Certainly East and Northwest Germanic had much in common, so it's not an off-base comment. But Gothic defines East Germanic and Gothic has specific features which give it definition separate from other Germanic languages/dialects.

**Blitzkrieg80** · February 12, 2014, 02:32 AM

Marcomanni are also only distinctive/important because of the political context with Marbod... before that, they were not at all worth mentioning to Greco-Roman audiences and so were not other than with various lists. A case can be made for a special relationship with these Southern Elbe Germanics, and their interaction with Rome. Hermunduri and Marcomanni specifically are more politically flexible (nonetheless described as -relatively- peaceful traders like the Hermunduri)

**Biggus Splenus** · February 12, 2014, 05:04 AM

^
Listen to this guy, he's deiwos of cultural and linguistic history

**il Pitta** · February 12, 2014, 06:08 AM

Hi to all! XD
Thank you Caracala, we'll fix the shield-thing ;-)

Hi Blitzkrieg!
Thank you for the feedback.

You'll excuse me... English isn't my native language, so I don't understand completely your first statement.

By the way, I'm quite aware of the propagandistic issues in Tacitus' "De Origine et situ Germanorum"... but as always, I think that literary evidence had to be analized deeply before discarding as a whole.
If the intent to depict a simple society of "good savages" to be confronted with the corruption of Rome is evident, I don't think that social aspects described (and partly extremized and invented) by Tacitus have something in common with the meticulous analysis of Framea as an ethnic weapon (worth even of a name), or the description of how Germans were equipped in a specific battle on the "Annales" (that actually aren't "De Origine et situ Germanorum", being another work with quite different purpose).

Being in a close contact with germanic auxiliaries, had folowing Agricola in all his campaign in Scotland, I think that Tacitus know surely more than other Romans the subject he is writing on, and if there are some inaccuracies in his texts are or regarding people very far away (like the Aesti), or because he intend to invent something (but again, in "De Origine et situ Germanorum", speaking of social context in general and in particular about moral characteristics, not about the specific structure of a spear/javelin)

I think that sometimes we modern people tend to discard historical writing a little bit to easily, maybe on personal feelings... for example I remember that in a conference I took at Wien university a student that was very upset because I stated that a big percentage of celtic sword were prone to bend, because it was "Roman propaganda", probably ignoring that Fabius Pictor was an ocular witness and there was no honor is writing "yes, we kicked them in the *ss, but because their swords were poorly crafted" XD ...fortunately, we have the archaeological reference in the work of Radomir Pleiner that also demonstrate that in that case roman statement was probably quite real (R. Pleiner, The Celtic Sword, 1993, pp.159-168).

As I already said, in this case too we have plenty archaological evidence that shows that Jasdorf/Seedorf/Ripdorf cultures, and other germanics koinè actually develop a context that was quite poor and in need of iron (maybe there are others, but actually I can't think of other Mittel European archaeological context that gave us so much evidence of the use of bone weapons and wooden armors so in advanced Iron Age, and the systematical dismanteling and reutilization of iron parts of iron objects obtained from other cultures ).

I'm sorry as I wrote before, but don't understanding perfecty English I quite don't catch what you wrote about Scythian/Gothic/Hunnic references XD

About the Lombards, the question is very complicated, and still debated. If some historians and athropologists thinks that Lombard language had for too much time suffered from a misconcepted accomunation with Gothic language, as a matter of fact the most part of Lombard words (quite a few) that came to us are o Eastern Germanic origin, even if isn't clear if they were taken after the contact with other people (S. Rovagnati, "I Longobardi").
Frankly being no definitive assumption and being the matter still debated, I prefer, for now, on the few linguistic bases we have, to keep the "old misconcept" of an Eastern Germanic people, especially due to the relations they had with the Goths ;-) .
However, happily we haven't included Lombards in the MOD, so we are safe XDDD

Also, I think that this can link good with your statement about the fact that "nor did Halland, Skane and Jutland produce 'ALL' of the possible 'hordes' described born from the womb of Germania"... I agree, but actually we had always a "starting engine", that in his movements and continuous wandering "took up" and trail behind different peoples (sometimes even of different cultural stock)... so we have Lombards with the Saxons and vice-versa, or Celts that joined Germans (e.d. Tigurini with Cimbrians and Teutons).
As I said before, in a context as Iron Age mitteleurope, with confederate realities forming and falling apart constantly, is very difficult to trace a trail, BUT, nevertheless, I think that some distinction between Western Germans and Eastern Germans should be used, mainly on linguistic bases but also following the cultural influences they did undergo (not a rule, but Western Germans were more influenced by La Tène Celts and Eastern Germans, in a second time, by steppe cultures).

And then about Vistula Veneti, Przeworsk Culture and all that damn complicated context that was north-eastern baltic Europe... I don't want to say you're biased, because the matter is VEEEERY complicated and there are A LOT of different theories about, but as far as I know according the most accepted theory (not the only one at all, however) the Przeworsk Culture, identified with the Lugians, had an early celtic (Hallstatt and even la Téne) matrix, had both daco-thracian and scythian influences, and gradually became Germanic, with the fisical arrival of Eastern Germanic peoples, while historians are more prone to identify the Visutla Veneti with the Baltic Barrow Culture, different from Przeworsk Culture, and actually proto-Baltic.

Again, about association of Etruscans and Ligurians with Hallstatt-Urnfield Culture... is again very complicated... the Urnfield Culture is a macro-entity that gave birth to many different context... Hallstatt (itself divided in Western [Celtic] and Eastern [Venetic/Ventkens]) is one of them... but actually Etruscan culture was born from the probable overlapping of oriental elements (the Teresh "Sea People" of wich Egyptians wrote of) with the Villanova Culture, this last one again one of the multiple "daughters" of Urnield Culture.

As i said... is very complicated XD

P.S.
"Pan-Illyrian" theories, as ultimatley all the archaological theories with a "Pan-" before a culture-people name, are better to be looked quite suspisciously, being quite semplicistic and often, if non always, the result of nationalistic pride XD

However, tank you for the opportunity to discuss such interesting matters... maybe you'll find of interest to have a look to this texts, that analize the problem of some Germanic contexts, even the most complicated like the Lugian and Bastarnae:

Carl Waldman e Catherine Mason, Encyclopedia of European People
Helwig Wolfram, The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples
Mircea Babes, Die Poienesti-Lukasevka-Kultur
Mircea Babes, Bastarnii in rasaritul Daciei, in Istoria Romaniei
Mircea Babes, Dacii si Bastarnii, in Memoria Antiquitatis, II,
Kazimierz Godłowski , Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica
Armin E. Hepp, Völker und Stämme in Deutschland

Cheers!

IMPORTANT: as I asked to Ariovist, in your opinion, what would be a suitable substitute for the Marcomanni (in that region of the game), if you think it would be a good idea to substitute them?

**Biggus Splenus** · February 12, 2014, 07:27 AM

Hey again il Patta

I've given this lengthy piece of work to Magnar and his team, it's on the Makedonian army of the late 3rd C BCE... perhaps you'd be interested in it?

ww.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?641144

**Blitzkrieg80** · February 12, 2014, 07:00 PM

il Pitta,

no worries on your English. in concern to these posts, any confusion, you can safely place as my fault / my style of posting atm ;o)

I agree on Tacitus - very well worded and impressive - certainly better articulated and thoughtful than my own statement.

it's funny you mention the Aesti and nearby peoples because that's exactly where Tacitus starts conflating stories... but you can assume all Eastern Europe including anything past Germania INCLUDING the Lugi. I find most scholarship pretty 'fuzzy' past S. Germany... I don't personally find Tacitus too accurate on the Suebi because of this and W. Germania is pretty much what he depicts IMO. For example, the Suebi and Lugi (as well as Boii) are not mentioned as the very horse-centric people they are... so obviously Tacitus didn't know about them, because he has no problem mentioning West Germanic cavalry. Where am I coming from on this statement? Elbe Germanic graves associated with early Suebi in the East have SPURS - quite a few, and in comparison to W. Germany.

It's true that the Vistula Veneti had nothing to do specifically with Przeworsk and yet their similar origin / identity DOES. I only mentioned it because of that, not because its typically associated- i know you don't need me to tell you what other people already said. But concerning, Veneti, do you understand what i'm saying when I say Veneti are Indo-Europeans who are very Celt-like, derived from the same Urnfield Culture, yet they are certainly not Celtic-language speakers. My statement wasn't on external influences (such as La Tene) - it was a comment on internal origin. Thus, Celts and Germanics did play a part and yet Lugi are definitely NOT Celts and definitely NOT Germans (nor pan-Balts lol [EB2 inside joke sorry] for that matter).

i can TOTALLY agree with your statement on almost all cases of 'pan' hehe, but it's not my fault it has that association... thus why i don't call it that myself ;o) The idea is that we don't know what we don't know... and we should know something about what we don't know about in concern to some things (if we follow Socrates at all) and at least attempt to adjust for it. So I think there is some faulty foundation in scholarship in concern to early Celtic attribution. Such as saying stuff is 'Celtic' all this time, simply because we started with the idea, despite the fact that 'Celtic' covers such diverse and different cultures its almost meaningless now and the assumption ALSO of language tied to it is just preposterous compounded onto that. When Celtic language shows 'Lentition,' signs of being related directly from / influenced by Germanic 'Grimm's Law' reflex, this discrepenecy is obvious, or when Tartessian language seems to be the first known, thus 'original' Celtic and it happens to be found completely removed from core Halstatt/La Tene culture, COMBINED with the fact that Bell-Beaker / Atlantic Bronze Age culture better corresponds in coverage to traditional 'Celtic'-speakers than Urnfield culture... Do you at least see the implications / where this goes? They're aren't Celts, so they're IE. Same situation in Venetic Italy and indeed Halstatt/La Tene CORE territory. I also agree though that it is incredibly more complicated than what i'm saying and that i'm choosing to ignore the Old European / non-IE elements which are really important also but have no evidence to help us further at this point. BACK TO Thracian-Dacian-Illyrian, their cultures are identified almost completely the same in so many different contexts (from military style- heavy skirmishers of 'peltast' variety, besides love of 'sica'-like weapons), the Naue II sword associated with the Bronze Age collapse, was imported into Italy and the Aegean from the Balkans/Thrace, and this metallurgical culture influenced Halstatt before Halstatt re-influenced it back. Herodotus also mentions Thracians as 2nd most populous people in the world after INDIA hehe this tells me something, even if Greco-Romans cared so little about Illyria to not write about it and when they did they barely did, right before they conquered them and made them change... Finally, I'll just point to Bryges - Phrygians... and their very old and deep history and association with Thracians and Illyrians (both had this tribal name), despite Luwian / Anatolian connections... this stuff is important and interrelated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryges
Teresh, aka 'Tyrrhenians' in English scholarship can *possibly* (i admit its theory) be connected to Phrygians through Lemnian connections, but I'm not even trying to make a point with this lol other than there is unknown IE all over of greater importance than let on.
Raetia and its unique historical place presents a helpful picture also, specifically, if Celts (Gauls) had to conquer / influence Raetia/Noricum, they OBVIOUSLY were not Celtic... same for Ligurians and Lepontics / Golasecca although I'm referring to the conquered people falsely associated with the later Celtic dialect])

Side note - pan-Illyrian theories suffer much less from Nationalism (in fact, look at the proponents, they have no ties to the region - they're interested in really investigating the culture/language/people) because there is NO 'Illyrian' ethnos, especially thanks to annihilation by Roman culture... so it's really not comparable to anything else, since these other theories have German / Slav language, nonetheless modern nations tied to it. For instance, Croatians might KNOW they're Slavic speakers and/or choose to be ex-Romans by self-identification for example.

i was referring to Halland/Skane/Jutland (i only left out danish islands for berevity, rugen i discluded on purpose lol) because these regions are not known for high fertility of land / great conditions for farming comparably to other places in Europe. So, to assume high populations of NON-urban people to come from regions that barely support high population during the Industrial Revolution - is quite the romantic fantasy. ;o)

I TOTALLY agree that these tribes became suptra-tribal in nature many times, just as you describe, to the point they embrace other cultures/languages... thus, 'Romans' living in Greece, and 'Franks' living in Franconia ;o) not the best examples but ones I find funny atm. better examples would be Goths who call themslves 'Huns' and have Gothic names.... this partly connects to my Scythian/Goth/Hun statement... and that is, Greco-Romans have no system nor accuracy when writing about Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, and Huns... using various literary traditions and passed on names rather than anything to do with history. BUT they do have other statements they make besides their identity which are helpful... similarly, you really can't trust Western tribal names as much either, including the BS conflated with "Celt" (I mean in particular, that Gauls called themselves 'Kelt'... this was invented... the first Kelt reference was to a people East of Massilia... Volcae/Boii are E of Massila aren't they? yet somehow we think that he meant all Gauls are Kelt... silly... but preference of 'Gal' as self-term vs 'Kelt' and the cultural implications are a whole other discussion).

The almost universal nature of a tribe's ability to gain new members (with some rare historical exceptions around the world) by observing practice of same culture and self-identification with those people, shows us that they didn't care much about 'genes' aka 'race.' I've many times used this argument recently to explain how 'race' didn't ever exist as a concept outside scientific racism from the Enlightenment and that almost in all cases its actually Cultural Ethnocentrism we're referring to and not racism, when we observe this stuff - which because of Greco-Roman cultural traditions - we are taught to EMBRACE this bias... i just say this generally about my own culture (American).

___

Concerning Marcomanni - they simply were not important until 50BC or even much later, which would probably indicate that they were not present in S. Germany yet. Hermunduri / Thuringians are some of the first Germans mentioned as 'Hermiones' and they would be based in E. Hessen / Thuringen (see post above), possibly refered to by Ptolemy as Arctaunon (possibly abadoned quite early by Celtic-speakers and/or early adopters/integrators of Germanic-speakers (no known conflict) but they are Suebic... i don't think it's a problem if they are independent, with similar reasoning for why Marcomanni could be as well- but more specifically, Pliny the Elder lists Hermunduri equally beside the Suebi as 'Hermiones' - which gives credibility to a seaprate identity at first, even if later they are associated with the Suebic confederation. Also, MAYBE it would be more interesting ANYWAYS if NONE of the Suebi were confederated and the Suebi faction had to go acquire them through diplomacy / conquest... i admit its not very possibly because it is limited by starting provinces ect, but it might be possible to roleplay or atleast put in foundation / appearance of this idea.

I would really like to see Chatti and Gutones as playable factions :O) and will settle for just SEEING a Chatti nation too... sounds like you don't need anything that far West, but wanted to chime in on subject... [edit] JUST TO BE CLEAR I want to see Gutones, not Goths. Gutones and Goths are 2 different peoples, possibly from the same origin... but Gutones were ALWAYS on the mainland from first reference, just saying... they might develop on similar lines

for my Proto-Germanic mod i already did names and guess what? Got cool names for Germanic units, like Battle-Beards for Chatti as old Bloodsworn (literary reference to Chatti, but also Heathobards was tribe at one point too - so the name is not a 'tribal name' yet refers to them in game) and Long-Beards for guess who lol but that replaces Wodanaz Spears (cool thing is Langobards were specificaly tied to Woden)... even have 'Long-Hairs' for nobles a reference to Gothic and Vandal royal family... Hasdingi... working with Splenyi on language actually... going to have some nice Celtic next, including Kladios (origin of Gladius) ;o) and gablakko (origin of javelin) as well as other awesomely Celtic-related terms like Markado 'knight' and such.. here's a link to the steam mod i have up atm for just the Germanic if curious:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=205268514

This is how i chose to handle the sub-tribe nature of the Suebi... although obviously only the Langobards were a sub-tribe lol

**Blitzkrieg80** · February 12, 2014, 08:07 PM

Rugi are not good imo... Rugen was unimportant archaeologically, nonetheless historically, for most of time... maybe ALL TIME? edit- sorry im wrong, Rugen was slightly import during Hanseatic League ;o) At their height - the Rugi were a city-state level faction lol... it just feels like if one made Ibiza a faction - 'get yo club on' (Balearic faction actually sounds cool forget i said that) but i was trying to refer to a resort location like that... sorry just had to get that in there... I think they can be considered just yet 1 more tribe amongst many other more deserving tribes... like Heruli and even Varini. If Rugi are from Rogaland, yes Rogaland has a rich culturally and politically important history eh? but that's out of the question because its 'theoretical' and Norway isn't in the game... PLEASE REMOVE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE :O) sorry wanted to get attention

PS - I simply replaced Rugi with Warens / Varini (using OE Widsith and other sources like Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, and Procopis - technically more name-dropping than Rugi hehe) in Europa Barbarorum... that works! ALSO the reason I picked them for EB was their proximity to the script which detected where you came from, meaning, if you need a tribe with starting geography like vorpommern-mecklenburg - Varini is a good tribe also

**Blitzkrieg80** · February 12, 2014, 10:30 PM

ok, i don't know if you read this last post but I confused some names - woops - so i apologize. it was not correct information / logic, so i will just remove lolz

**il Pitta** · February 13, 2014, 05:28 AM

WOW!

A lot of interesting infos to reason on! Thank you!

If I've understood well, I can say I totally agree with your statement about cultural entities that were not Celtic nor Germanic, but still Indoeuropean, and that sometimes a Celtic attribution to some cultural enviroment has been assigned far too easily (we have actually the example of Lusitanian in Portugal, finally identified with an IE people, both related to Celts and Italic but with quite an autonomous origin).

Actually I think that such kind of aptitude is partially generated by the fact that normally historians, following a very human instinct WANT to classify peoples/cultures in regualr schemes.
Besides, at least in the field of archaeology (And quite often Archaeologists simply HATE Historians/Phililogists and vice versa, belive me XD), in the last twenty years we have assisted actually to a completely opposite attitude, and cautiousness have been transformed in carelessness.

"We have digged funny houses, so it's Funny House Culture !"
"Ok, but at which people in historical texts does it correspond?"
"I said it's Funny House Culture, you moron!" XDDD

This approach actually "saves" archaeologists from difficult contexts... as far as I know Golasecca is definetively proved Celtic by analisys of language (Lepontic), but the previous cultures in the same zone, Canegrate and Scamozzina ? Boh! Ligurians? And WHAT actually means "Ligurian", besides the historical Ligurian people that confronted later the Romans? For them, as for Rhaetians, a cultural attribution is very difficult, and still debated.

However, another problem in trying to classify ancient cultures is that if you haven't any written language evidence (or scarce, or difficultly to interpret), simply you haven't any base at all (more or less) on which set down your statements... moreover because language should be MAINLY the characteristic to use when wanting to define cultural appartenance.

We have ZOUNDS of contexts in Europe, for example, that widely display La Téne objects (expecially in weaponry) and actually aren't celtic at all, but just adopted widely stuff from La Téne Culture because it was simply more functional.

On the other hand we have context that ethnically appeared quite authentical (e.d. the Silures in Wales), but being clarely celtic-speaking (making simply example with Celts), are rightly classified as Celts 100%.

As you said

"...they didn't care much about 'genes' aka 'race.' I've many times used this argument recently to explain how 'race' didn't ever exist as a concept outside scientific racism from the Enlightenment and that almost in all cases its actually Cultural Ethnocentrism we're referring to and not racism, when we observe this stuff"

(btw, applause for this statement of yours. I really appreciate when I found open-minded people that have surpassed all that 'racial' and 'Hyborian Era like' XD approach to history)

However, expecially under all this statements, we must assume that some of the "Cultures" of Bronze-Age and Early Iron Age are more to be identify as macro-groups displaying similar (or even identical) material culture, which actually didn't imply a real common cultural (language, folklore, customs) heritage at all.
It would otherwise difficult to explain how Hallstatt Culture is both "Celtic" in the West and Venetic (and Venetic/Venetkens spoke a language far more similar to Latin than to Celtic) in the East, or beliving that the "Urnfield Culture" really correspond to ONE cultural heritage, being so widespread and actually being the "mother" of so different language-speaking cultures... we don't want to fall in historical-archaeological monstrosities like Marija Gimbutas' "Old Europe", don't we? XDDD

On the other hand, I think that when we have crossed information from different ancient historians, they shouldn't be easily dismissed, and examined under and added to the archaeological infos we had... so I think that maybe asserting that the fact that the Gauls call themselves "Celts" is "invented" is a little bit a hazard... Caesar wrote "ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur", he is an ocular witness and actually I don't find any reason for which he had to lie on such thing.

About the Lugians... their context is complicated as hell, and lack of linguistic infos caused a claire definition almost impossible... the name should suggest however some celtic origin (actually as far as I know the "proto-Slav" Polish theory has been discarded long ago), as well as their strict cultural relation with the Bastarnae (they too being an apparently "mixed" context of difficult attribution... in front of different yheories about their cultural attribuition, Shchukin simply states that "the Bastarnae were Bastarnae" XD)... however as we said before, we are in front to a very variegated federate model, with Germanic and Daco-Thracian elements popping in it time to time XD, and giving an unmistakable cultural mark is simply impossible ad semplicistic.

Nevertheless, from Przeworsk Culture at some time of Roman age come out the Vandali, and in that case we have clarely a Germanic speaking people... I think that the *supposed* iter of Lugians/Przeworsk Culture (and btw the strictly related Bastarnae/Poienesti-Lukasevka Culture too) is the best example of what you written about the lacking of interest for ancient people of ethnical appartenance, and in the "unstable" ethnogenesis process that occured in Mittle-Eastern Europe during Iron Age.

By the way... less history and more nerdy gaming XD : do you suggest to change the vanilla Markamanniz with Hermunduri? (what would be their correct proto-germanic name, by the way?)

I found interesting your work on authentical unit names, but actually I follow a different approach: if we have an historical evidence for troop/social class (e.d. "Ambacti" or "Trimarcisia" or "Gaesatae" for Gauls) I use it, otherwise, even if we have a language evidence (or reconstructed) for some terms, but not attested clearly as a name in military context, I prefer not to (e.d. in Gaulish: "Kladios/Kladeimos" for "Sword", "Viros" for "Men"... Maybe "Swordman" could be something like "Kladioviros" or "Kladeimoviros", but I prefer a simpler "Swordman")

P.S
About the Pan-Illyrian theory and nationalism... belive me... you've never encoutered some kind of Albanian archaeologists, for which all unclear cultures of mitteleurope were Illyrians, Achaeans were Illyrians, Etruscans were Illyrians, Venetkens were Illyrians, and probably the guys that invented fire, ironworking and pasta were all Illyrians too XD

Cheers!

**Blitzkrieg80** · February 13, 2014, 06:44 AM

yes - ambakht is going to be my word for Noble / Legionary can't remember which (I was going to mention, since you mentioned a taste for Gothic which borrowed it quite easily ^^) so I agree, sometimes word choice is the only matter, dependent on style / preference, but usually there isn't that much selection, so one should choose also by most common / the highest amount of cognates imo. I think military context and meaning is important - good methodology. For instance, I use Gothic Dreuga 'to war' / 'endure' (not sure on form off the top of my head lol) which has extended meaning 'campaign' for Mercenary, thus literally 'Campaigner' - a superp choice among quite a few options for war in Germanic, but less so with such specific meaning so early.

Also - i DO have Gaesatae - for Naked Warriors atm, but was thinking of using Gaes- term for spear... not sure exactly if i am going to change spear word like Europa Barbarorum. it's kind of a hard decision... i should start a thread (had been meaning to but been doing other modding - like i just released an Expanded Auxilia Recruitment mod lol took some time adding 65+ units to every faction... cool thing is lots was in-game already but i added Thracians and Dacians and Iberians since you cannot play anyways and I wanted to try their sexy Nobles [Do i seem biased yet? LOL bias is natural - we should embrace honesty]

BTW - cool info on Lusitania you mention. I also find them interesting and am interested in their distinction from Celt-iberian which was clearly also influential. I especially appreciate how the Lusitani were able to continually fight Rome. I always say that Iberia made Rome... sure, Samnites inspired their innovation a great deal (I feel Italics should always be mentioned since they're underestimated on par for quite a contribution), but after 3 Iberian wars, Rome was pretty fit! Nonetheless, the various equipment that was adopted, although I've found that the Gladius as well as the Pilum were Gallic-transferred well before Iberian conflicts... but there's not a lot of information.

I think we agree on a lot of this, I by no means am black / white about what i'm saying - if anything I feel the need to argue the extreme since people do not think so far on their own. You seem very open-minded, which is very much appreciated - especially because it sounds like you're the Archaeologist camp in the Archaeology / Philology 'thing' I can't even think of a word to describe - I find funny your accurate comments on the situation in Academia between them. Usually we're at odds for no reason... You also seem to have instantly understood which side I lean to hehe... I think the future of academic study like this is indeed a synthesis of different disciplines / fields, which can only be done by keeping an open mind and yet also by applying a scientific method.

On Celt, I say the widespread term aspect is 'invented'- so it is truly a tribal name, sure. But not a supra-tribal, Celtic ethnicity self-describer... as Caesar implied. He was also using the tradition handed down from whoever made the first comment about the guys East of Massilia. Normally, I would not always refute these Classical writers who are sometimes accurate, but I do so in concern to the specific contexts of the first references made and the subsequent references that match the 'authority' that came before it, in the case of 'Celt' as 'Gaul.' Its very similar to the Germans as 'Germane' reference which some still claim laughably.

Yes, simple replacement for Markomanni in-game, as well as Varini for the Rugi too (although maybe you have more against it, since they have some decent conflict in the East similar to other East Germanics, whereas Varini perhaps less so.

PLEASE NOTE how I have purposely not included Bastarnae in the discussion ;o) that's something I don't want to touch hehe half-joking

what I really wonder about the Bastarnae / Sciri is how they know so well that they're Germanic... sometimes I doubt the authenticity of that aspect by actual reference, and yet doesn't the archaeology actually imply that?

**il Pitta** · February 13, 2014, 07:30 AM

About "Gaesum" I think that it was quite a specific term.

It comes from IE root "*ghei", "Imprime movement, throwing", related also in Lombard "gaida" (arrowhead), but at least in celtic and roman context i appears to define specificly an all iron javelin (Julius Pollux, Onomastikon, VII, 156), otherwise called in Latin "soliferreum" .

The celtic word for spear I belive is Lankia (Diodorus Siculus, Historic Library, V, 30).

Are you sure pilum and gladius being gallic-transferred?

As far as I know the pilum actually is a roman adaptation and enhacement of the saunion, an Umbro-Sabellic long-socketed javelin actually attested in Italy in quite ancient times (cfr. Virgilius, Aeneides, VIII, 665, and also Paul Deacon, Historia Longobardorum, II, 20, and moreover G. Cascarino, L’Esercito Romano, armamento e organizzazione, Vol. I, 2007, p. 136).

As far as i know long socketed pilum-like javelins are attested in the IV B.C. only within Cisalpine Celts (cfr, the findings at the Boii necropolis in Monterenzio and also Appian, Hitory of Rome, IV, Epitome 1), and start to appear in Transalpine context only in III B.C. (cfr. R. e V. Megaw, Celtic Art, 1989, p. 266, tav. 4).

About the Gladius, as far as I know it was implemeted by the Romans from the Celtiberians... "proper" gallic La Téne swords were quite thinner, and in other celtic areas outside of Spain they don't undergo to the changes that gave birth to the Gladius... actually, when Celtiberians, starting from La Tène swords model, craft slightly broader swords and with strong central ridge, Gauls develop their swords in longer and longer models, that often had lenticular section and lack central ridge (cfr. F. Quesada Sanz. El armamento ibérico. Estudio tipológico, geográfico, funcional, social y simbólico de las armas en la Cultura Ibérica (siglos VI-I a.C.), 1997).

Nevertheless, Is true that "normal" La Téne swords are attested casually in Italic and even early Roman context: comically, the most ancient attested inscription of the word "Roma" has been founded on a CELTIC sword with MACEDONIAN symbols on it, founded in S. Vittore (Rome district) and dated IV B.C.

About the name "Celts" use by Gauls do define themselves, I still prefer to give credit to Caesar... as I said he was ocular witness, had no reason at all to lie about that fact... and actually I think is a different matter than the "Germani" thing... I don't think anyone ever wrote that German tribes used that term to define themselves.

P.S.
No, as far as we undergo, you don't seem biased, and actually I'm enjoying and finding very useful our exchange of infos and opinions ;-)

About Bastarnae, I think that the classification is mainly based on crossed information from classical authors (not only Tacitus, but Pliny and Strabo too), that assert Bastarnae were Germanic.
Actually the material culture is quite a mishmash of various elements, and Babes states (and I'm quite in line with him) that we have in this case a confederate model that had absorbed various elements from different cultures (like the Costobocii, that actually are ascribed to Dacians).

However, you'll never find an ARCHAEOLOGIST speaking of Bastarnae as Germans, Celts or whatsoever... Historians would debate about that, Archaeologist would happily (wisely or cowardly?) hide beside "Poienesti-Lukasevka Culture" and "Lipiţa Culture/ Poiana-Răcătău-Tinosul Culture" for the Costoboci fraction XD

**il Pitta** · February 14, 2014, 10:26 AM

About Hermunduri I found two possible versions of the proto-Germanic name:

*Ermun-duriz
or
*Ermun-durôz

The first one actually meaning "Great Door[keepers]", in reference on the commercial role and control on trading routes,

the second one, "[People of] Great Power" quite debated, with -durôz linked to Sanskrit -tura ("swift, powerful")... but apparently the change from a PIE *tur- to a PG *dur- is unlikely with the known phonetic rules of PIE, while is more common PIE *tur- into PG *þur- ... so I guess *Ermun-thurôz.

So I'm quite lost XD

Blitzkrieg... in you opinion what is the more probable? Ermunduriz, Ermundurôz or Ermunthurôz ?

Thanks in advance!

**Blitzkrieg80** · February 14, 2014, 05:19 PM

Well, I had to install the Europa Barbarorum mod for RTW1 just to look up what I translated for Ermunthurôz(ez), since there are so many similar word forms on that word... I feel silly, anyways...

I translated "Great in 'Riches'" - literally 'Greatly Dear' - with similar reasoning on their placement in concern to Trade and historical note of it... *deurjoz in my dictionary (I suppose I was using an Ablaut grade /u/ from /eu/ as a derived noun) Related to Sanskrit dhurâ 'violently' and Greek 'play' > *dheu 'to weave'

But upon reinvestigation with your suggestions, I see 'Door' fits really well phonologically/etymologically (not sure on word here, prob both inappropriate) - but semantically, it doesn't sit right with me. I'm not into 'Great Door' people, but I suppose I could have a strange bias I'm not aware of and/or subjective preference. I see though, that other Germanic forms of the same word are more common / widespread and they have a predicted /o/ instead of /u/ which is some of why I can more safely point to a eu/u ablaut. BUT that is not much of an arguement since various Germanic cognates show u on 'door' also. I'm just making a quick assessment - this isn't supposed to be scientific at this point.

I like the idea of Sanskrit -tura but for the moment, a Germanic cognate is missing me... oh wait I just remembered - this is actually the meaning I WANTED to go with originally but I think I had thought previously best not to because of its peculiar spelling / meaning in Germanic thurs 'Giant' - Grendel-like even hehe... the consistent prescence of /s/ on the name form and the lack of other forms / cognates from the same root make me think this is not it, although i wish it was... Great Giants attack!

FYI - I am leaving the Fricatives because of Grimm's Law which tells us this process happened (þ, ð, kh, bh, gh - although orthographically i don't always show them /h/ - esp because English sucks for anything but simplistic English sounds lol) BUT the subsequent changes, such as that of Voiced Obstruents to Stops (=> b, d, g) has not necessarily happened yet. This reflects the RTW2 timeline better IMO. The lack of Germanic /â/ => /ô/, /o/ => /a/ from Indo-European is also for the same reason. Using Caesar as reference, silva Bâcensis 'Beech Wood' is recorded rather than the later Germanic bôk, so the dating is obviously after Caesar.

Ermunþurôz (if 'dear')

Ermunðurôz (if 'door')

Dear or Door, Dear or Door, Dear Door, Dear Door, Dear Door, what's it gonna be? ;o)

PS - Vernier's law applies to the Genitive I believe (if using Indo-European word stress - which is what defines pre-Gothic Germanic), which is why I had a d in EB1 for the 'trait' which was literally Of the Hermunduri... NOT that you need to put anything but a Nominative / Name form, but thought i'd add that to be helpful lol

BTW I didn't think of how the island of Rugen is a region isn't it? So I suppose it would be weird for anybody else there... oh well hehe

Sorry if i didn't respond to other comments, will get to eventually.

**il Pitta** · February 14, 2014, 05:31 PM

Thank you very much!

Ach! ... I have read the post when it wasn't complete... -.- sorry.

Actually I'm not an expert in Linguistics, so I'm groping to understand all the infos you gave me... however I believe I understood that you find more probable Ermunþurôz, right?
Would the transcription in current alphabeth (not IPA) be Ermunthuroz?

Finding quite a good idea to substitute Markamanniz, I'm simply trying to find what's the correct PG name for Hermunduri to put in the MOD :-)

**Biggus Splenus** · February 14, 2014, 10:19 PM

Both the eth (ð) and thorn (þ) are written as "th" in the Latin alphabet, which is unfortunate because there's no way to tell l the difference when reading, except by just "knowing"... Like" that" and "thing". So yeah, that's the way it's spelt

**il Pitta** · February 16, 2014, 08:04 AM

THE EASTERN GERMANS
(Guthiuda, Rygir)

«Beyond the Lugians, live the Gothones, ruled by a king.

They are more strictly ruled by other Germanic peoples, but not so strict to infringe upon their freedom.
Immediately next to them are the Rugi and the Lemovi, along the ocean shore, and all this peoples share the round shield, the short sword and a monarchic rule»

(Tacitus, De Origine et situ Germanorum, XLIV)

With Eastern Germans we can define all the Germanic tribes that migrated from Norway and Sweden between IV and III B.C., settled on the Baltic shores and from there, during a long period of time, moved into Poland and Ucraina, even reaching the shores of the Black Sea.
A little known people in the first period of their history, they will grow in importance in the III A.D., when they became gradually the main European enemies of the Roman Empire.

Germanic Hunters