Celts

[Tuberski]

I don't know if anybody already knew this but the Celts will be Mil/Rel.

[monkspider]

Those two fit the Celts perfectly, IMO.

[Iron Chancellor]

The only thing to make is perfect would be William Wallace for a leader...Maybe too Medieval, but who is this Brennus guy?

Also, with the new upgrade path for swordsmen (Swordsmen->Medieval Inf.->Guerilla Inf.) the Celts will be a force to be reckoned with.

[Sean]

William Wallace is an obscure celtish leader, from a time when they were well past their "hayday".

He is not a good choice.

[Iron Chancellor]

Be that as it may, he has recognizability, one may as well ask why Xerxes is king of the Persians, when in fact he blew the Greek wars and with them the Persian Treasury and Fleet. A much better choice for Persia would have been Cyrus the Great or Darius I.

Besides, I really am curious. Who is Brennus?

Plus, I just want to be him, and release my inner Scot upon Elizabeth (hmm, maybe edit Elizabeth to Edward Longshanks? )

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
Be that as it may, he has recognizability, one may as well ask why Xerxes is king of the Persians, when in fact he blew the Greek wars and with them the Persian Treasury and Fleet. A much better choice for Persia would have been Cyrus the Great or Darius I.

That's what I was already thinking always.

Originally posted by Tuberski
I don't know if anybody already knew this but the Celts will be Mil/Rel.

Well, that would be historically excellent correct.

As far as the Who Is Brennus-question goes, here's my answer. Maybe you've ever heard of several Celtic attacks on Greece. The majorest attack of them was in 278 BC. The leader of that attack was King Brennus.

[History Guy]

The Brennus who is in the game is a superb choice, actually. This guy, in the early 300sBC, led the Celtic army from northern Italy that actually sacked Rome and inflicted upon Rome it's greatest military embarrassment in it's long history. Brennus was the fellow who tossed his sword onto the scales with 'Vae Victis', and the second Brennus, as noted above, led the invasion of Greece, but fared far worse off than his elderly predecessor, the fellow who leads the Celts in the game. Brennus the Elder, the guy in the game, thus did something that even the much more famous Hannibal never could, he destroyed Rome (or at least a hefty chunk of it), and inflicted upon them a defeat which they were still upset about in the times of Vespasian four hundred years later.

[Tassadar500]

This may seem a bit stupid but wat kind of celts is it. like the ones who had druids or the ruthless ones. Sorry for the bad words here i didnt know what to say.

[Palaiologos]

Brennus the elder was the one who said the infamous " Vae Victis" (Woe to the defeated) frase, when he added his huge Gaulic sword to the scale that measured the gold the Romans were giving him to leave Rome.

Brennus Jr leading the invasion of Greece defeated the Greek allies at Thermopylae but was repelled at Delphi. His 60.000 man army was slain to a man by the Aetolian peltasts who harrassed his retreat.

I too think Darius should be the Persian Leader.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
This may seem a bit stupid but wat kind of celts is it. like the ones who had druids or the ruthless ones. Sorry for the bad words here i didnt know what to say.

Well, you're thinking there are two types of Celts, hay? Well, there one! Look to the CivAbilities: Militaristic (Ruthless Celts) and Religious (Druids).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by monkspider
Those two fit the Celts perfectly, IMO.

Nope, I'm sorry to disagree with you here.
Let's consider what we consider to be militaristic traits- the Celts had no regular, or standing army, no military caste, and had no concerted campaigns of conquest.

Compare their 'militarism' with that of the cultures/societies we normally associate with militarism: Sparta, the Teutonic Knights, Ancient Rome, Prussia, the Ottoman Turks, Cromwell's Republican Commonwealth, and in all cases you have either a professional standing army, a warrior caste, or a society founded on an expansionist militaristic base.

What distinguishes the Celts for the other societies is their love of wine, extensive trading links and their lack of a written language. The Celts rise to pan-European prominence through two main routes- control and trade of salt (and there is a plethora of European place names that are derived from words meaning salt along the Celtic trade routes) and the use of iron implements.
The ordinary Celtic warrior on horseback may have presented a fearsome and daunting prospect to the 'civilized' peoples of the Mediterranean, but it doesn't transform him into a spahi, Junker or Spartan free warrior.

Secondly- the supposedly religious Celts did indeed have a priestly caste, in the Druids, but their religion seems to have been a fairly nebulous affair, with local deities (as well as pan-European deities), and is more centred on 'holy' places in the surrounding geography, such as wells, fords, stretches of river, trees and hills. If we don't consider the Greeks or Romans to be particularly or significantly, religious, and they erected temples to their gods and had priestly castes and sacred groves and grottoes, then I think the Celts who as far as we know erected no temples or oracles, should not be deemed religious either.

I'd rather play them as commercial/mercantile expansionists- if they are meant to be represented by their heyday.

http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/cultural/oldworld/europe/halstatt.html

http://cynthia.spindler.fr/builth/History/Celts.htm

[monkspider]

molly - I think religious/expansionist may have been a good fit as well, but to the Celtic layperson such as myself, they are most famous for their pagan religion and their military accomplishments against Rome.
You make some interesting points though.

As far as Brennus goes, he is a pretty good choice, but I would have much rather seen Vercingetorix though.

[Iron Chancellor]

Wasn't Vercingetorix a Gaul, rather than a Celt? While I'm thinking about this, why is the Celtic UU the "Gallic Swordsman?" That like, the UU of of China being the Samurai, non?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
Wasn't Vercingetorix a Gaul, rather than a Celt? While I'm thinking about this, why is the Celtic UU the "Gallic Swordsman?" That like, the UU of of China being the Samurai, non?

Not quite. The Gauls were Celts- place names in France (such as Rhone) and several words relating to agriculture in French come from the Celtic tongue. There is a fairly obvious link between (French) Gaul, (Irish) Gael (Turkish) Galatia, for instance- showing if anything that what the Celts called themselves would have been reasonably consistent over an area as widespread as the Atlantic shores of Western Europe to modern day Turkey.

Personally I think Firaxis's U.U. is as wacky as its choice of culture traits- the most significant Celtic units were either the chariot riders that Caesar remarked upon (and as a mode of battle, chariot combat lasted longer in the islands of Britain and Ireland than it did on the continental mainland) or the horse riding swordsman with iron blades mentioned by early Greek writers.
'Gallic swordsman' unfortunately brings to my mind's eye the image of Richard Lester's effete comic take on the Four Musketeers.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
Wasn't Vercingetorix a Gaul, rather than a Celt? While I'm thinking about this, why is the Celtic UU the "Gallic Swordsman?" That like, the UU of of China being the Samurai, non?

First, Gauls and Celts are the same. Second, the Gallic Swordsman is not a wrong CSU because it is called Gallic, but indeed the Chariot would be much more realistic.

Originally posted by molly bloom


Nope, I'm sorry to disagree with you here.
Let's consider what we consider to be militaristic traits- the Celts had no regular, or standing army, no military caste, and had no concerted campaigns of conquest.

Compare their 'militarism' with that of the cultures/societies we normally associate with militarism: Sparta, the Teutonic Knights, Ancient Rome, Prussia, the Ottoman Turks, Cromwell's Republican Commonwealth, and in all cases you have either a professional standing army, a warrior caste, or a society founded on an expansionist militaristic base.

What distinguishes the Celts for the other societies is their love of wine, extensive trading links and their lack of a written language. The Celts rise to pan-European prominence through two main routes- control and trade of salt (and there is a plethora of European place names that are derived from words meaning salt along the Celtic trade routes) and the use of iron implements.
The ordinary Celtic warrior on horseback may have presented a fearsome and daunting prospect to the 'civilized' peoples of the Mediterranean, but it doesn't transform him into a spahi, Junker or Spartan free warrior.

Secondly- the supposedly religious Celts did indeed have a priestly caste, in the Druids, but their religion seems to have been a fairly nebulous affair, with local deities (as well as pan-European deities), and is more centred on 'holy' places in the surrounding geography, such as wells, fords, stretches of river, trees and hills. If we don't consider the Greeks or Romans to be particularly or significantly, religious, and they erected temples to their gods and had priestly castes and sacred groves and grottoes, then I think the Celts who as far as we know erected no temples or oracles, should not be deemed religious either.

I'd rather play them as commercial/mercantile expansionists- if they are meant to be represented by their heyday.

http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/cultural/oldworld/europe/halstatt.html

http://cynthia.spindler.fr/builth/History/Celts.htm

Good points, I think you're right. The should be expansionist, since they were constantly expanding their borders. And it were great merchants too, indeed. They exported a lot. Industrious is a less good choice, but it would can also, since they were great mine builders.