Casse

[lobf]

Will they be back in EB2?

[Taliferno]

EB team has said all factions in EB1 will be in EB2-so yes.

[blacksnail]

With chariots that fire wardogs from mounted cannon.

[pantsukki]

With chariots that fire wardogs from mounted cannon.

And those chariots are pulled by Indian cataphract elephants..?

[blacksnail]

No, don't be silly! It's purely for technical reasons. The chariots launch the wardog units across the Channel, which is how the Casse AI is alerted to the existence of regions beyond the isles. It kickstarts the AI into seaborne invasions.

[eggthief]

And those chariots are pulled by Indian cataphract elephants..?

U forget the flaming berserker pigs that are equiped with LS, who are used as mounts for the arcani.

[mlc82]

And those chariots are pulled by Indian cataphract elephants..?

The chariots in turn will be fired from the rocket launchers on the backs of elephants that were included in vanilla MTW2. Thank CA for this historical travesty.

[lobf]

Based on blacksnail's reply I assume the faction is "under review?"

[Xtiaan72]

Wow some of the ideas in this thread have the makings of a killer mod:2thumbsup:

[Cartaphilus]

Don't forget to include some berserk uruk-hai in the mod.

[Krusader]

Based on blacksnail's reply I assume the faction is "under review?"

You can't see a joke now can you?

We have stated all EB1 factions will be in EB2 as well.

If you feel Casse should not be in EB2 then say it straight out and please, come with solid arguments for why they should not be in.

[Cartaphilus]

And what about another faction in the British Islands?
Do you have news to report?

[Krusader]

And what about another faction in the British Islands?
Do you have news to report?

Maybe there will be a faction there.
Maybe not.

We could tell you our selected factions (we havent selected all of them). But we'd rather wait and use them as previews later on.

[General Appo]

We could tell you our selected factions (we havent selected all of them). But we'd rather wait and use them as previews later on.

9 out of 10 if the EB team is to be believed. So more likely about 2 out of 10.

[lobf]

You can't see a joke now can you?

We have stated all EB1 factions will be in EB2 as well.

If you feel Casse should not be in EB2 then say it straight out and please, come with solid arguments for why they should not be in.

Well, I searched the forums for Casse Historical Info, and the best I came up with is this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61557&highlight=casse+evidence), which contains no sources, only un-cited speculation by Ranika.

Someone on Wikipedia recently tried to change the Cassi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassi) page to be more like EB, but the people there wouldn't allow it in, as it was all speculation, no sources.

It seems to me like maybe there isn't enough verifiable info on these people to warrant a faction. Don't bite my head off, I'm just throwing it out there.

[Irishmafia2020]

Uh oh... I see where this is going... I am going to warm up my popcorn! Maybe we could get a promoter to bring in Elmeticos (sp) and have one final blowout, winner-take-all, championship of the world, battle royale, cage match of the Celtic "experts" to decide once and for all if the EB team is above criticism in their endeavors on this topic (I myself have no opinion, in spite of my forum name). Or this topic could be closed.... or this Celtic interpretation insurgency could continue for months, years, perhaps even decades! The popcorn is ready...

[blitzkrieg80]

Well, I searched the forums for Casse Historical Info, and the best I came up with is this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61557&highlight=casse+evidence), which contains no sources, only un-cited speculation by Ranika.

Someone on Wikipedia recently tried to change the Cassi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassi) page to be more like EB, but the people there wouldn't allow it in, as it was all speculation, no sources.

It seems to me like maybe there isn't enough verifiable info on these people to warrant a faction. Don't bite my head off, I'm just throwing it out there.

Well if I typed Sweboz i wouldn't find much either- because much information does not have the tribe(s) we're looking for as a topic, or have a different form of the name so it doesnt search, or sometimes the information is just plain buried in things that were researched by people who had no interest in them but happened to write on them

our stance on some of this has never been that we're 'above criticism' that is insulting if you ask me, where we take the time to read this spam that has no value than 'weeee!' - 'popcorn'. if you want to have a discussion on evidence [not lack of evidence], we're happy enough to participate if we have time. if you just complain, what do you expect? make a case of who is better than the Casse as a faction on the British mainland or why the Casse have been misportrayed... we DO want to hear it, because we admit we're not perfect. Criticism is much different than trolling and complaining. Give us constructive criticism if you expect people to listen. Use evidence, as is required of us. We cant just say 'oh we changed the Cassi because someone on the forum told us it is x y z'

[Meneldil]

It seems to me like maybe there isn't enough verifiable info on these people to warrant a faction. Don't bite my head off, I'm just throwing it out there.

Obviously, the EB team will be glad to know you decided there's not enough informations available to justify having the Casse as a faction.

[lobf]

Well if I typed Sweboz i wouldn't find much either- because much information does not have the tribe(s) we're looking for as a topic, or have a different form of the name so it doesnt search, or sometimes the information is just plain buried in things that were researched by people who had no interest in them but happened to write on them

The Sweboz are the Suebi, right?


if you want to have a discussion on evidence [not lack of evidence], we're happy enough to participate if we have time. if you just complain, what do you expect?

I'm definitely not complaining. As for evidence on the Casse, it looks like there's little of it, and that's the point I'm making. Forgive me for using Wikipedia, but this article has gone back and forth recently and based on the fact that it now cites book sources (albeit ones I don't have, thus can't verify) I think it reasonable to rust it's validity.


The Cassi are one of five tribes encountered by Julius Caesar during his second expedition to Britain in 55 BC when he crossed the Thames at Kew.[1] and who became became his allies after the Trinovantes joined him. The archaeologists Graham Webster and Barry Cunliffe both agree that nothing more is known about them.[2][3] but it has been suggested that between Caesar's second invasion and the invasion of Claudius in AD 43 that the Cassi along with other tribes such as the Ancilite and Briboci merged to form the Catuvellauni, and that Cassivellaunus may have been a member of the Cassi tribe.[4][5]

The earliest info from them apparently comes from Ceasar's invasion, which is itself way off from the start of the game.


make a case of who is better than the Casse as a faction on the British mainland or why the Casse have been misportrayed... we DO want to hear it, because we admit we're not perfect.

Maybe the Isles should be filled with Eleutheroi stacks? As for how they have been misportrayed, the main site has a whole history on them that, as it seems, is not supported by evidence.


Criticism is much different than trolling and complaining. Give us constructive criticism if you expect people to listen. Use evidence, as is required of us. We cant just say 'oh we changed the Cassi because someone on the forum told us it is x y z'

Is this directed at me? I'm sincerely not trolling or complaining. I think every point I have raised has been reasonable and respectful.

[Hax]

Try looking for Catuvellauni, I believe it gives better results.

[lobf]

The article I posted references them. It seems they formed between the invasions of Caesar and Claudius.

[Elmetiacos]

Uh oh... I see where this is going... I am going to warm up my popcorn! Maybe we could get a promoter to bring in Elmeticos (sp) and have one final blowout, winner-take-all, championship of the world, battle royale, cage match of the Celtic "experts" to decide once and for all if the EB team is above criticism in their endeavors on this topic (I myself have no opinion, in spite of my forum name). Or this topic could be closed.... or this Celtic interpretation insurgency could continue for months, years, perhaps even decades! The popcorn is ready...
It doesn't involve having to wear luminous shorts and weird padded gloves does it?

Bearing in mind that we basically know zip about the British political map in 272 BC, there's nothing wrong with using the Cassi, although calling them "Casse" probably is wrong; -e is not a legitimate plural for any stem, at least as far as I know. I just wish that the people who created the faction, which seems to be PsychoV and Ranika, had said that, instead of pretending to have all these kewl Celtic scholar powerz. All we know about the Cassi is their name and that they were on the side of Caesar and the Trinovantes against Cassivellaunus and (probably) the Catuvellauni - and that's two centuries after EB starts.

I'm sorry, this is going to get long now...

On the discussion lobf links to, PsychoV provides a big long list of books. That's great, but apart from Cunliffe, most of them are very general, introductory, almost "pop" books, dare I say it. Peter Berresford Ellis is always dodgy because he's such an extreme nationalist, with all that that implies (he thinks Catullus was a Celt) It seems that at some point, as is being discussed on Wikipedia, they both decided to take Daithi Ó hÓgain's speculation on the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses one step further and include the Cassi... that would be fine if they'd admitted that it was pure conjecture (as apparently Ó hÓgain himself does) but they don't. Instead we're told "We aslo know the Casse had strongs ties to the mainland. It is believed they intermarried with continental tribes and enjoyed extensive trade with the Gallic Venellii, Lexovii, Veneti, and the Belgae (Menapi, both on the continent and later in Ireland by early 1st C BC and Morini, by early 2nd C BC). It appears they also crossed the channel to give support to the Belgic confederacy eg againt Rome (Caesar 1st C BC) and Veneti alliance eg against the Tarbelii and Lemovicii (late 3rd C BC) and against Rome (Caesar 1st C BC)." We don't. We know nothing at all about the Cassi before they join Caesar. We don't even know where they lived, except that it was somewhere in South East England - therefore, even if any archaeology were to support any of this, there is no way to link it to the Cassi.

Ranika then says "the Casse were a Gallic, and then Belgic influenced tribe. We don't know them by name till a little later, and they're called the Casse/Cassae/Cassi. They're later refered to as the Catuvellauni, but that appears to be more due to the name of one of their old rulers (Vellaunus). The name is known actually from this figure, the ruler Vellaunus, who was called 'Cassivellaunus' (Vellaunus of the Cassi), mentioned by Caesar. The Casse either developed into the Catuvellauni or were displaced by more Belgic Celts in terms of rulership, but the area of influence remains the same, so any such displacement was political, and likely non-military; either way, the faction developed into the Catuvellauni; in fact, one possible meaning of 'Catu' is 'Smiters' (a euphemism for soldiers), so it'd be 'Soldiers of Vellaunus', so this figure would then have been heroic or important to the point of renaming the tribe after him" No. They get one mention in Caesar as Cassi (which suggests Brythonic *Cassi or *Cassoi) and they're not "later" referred to as the Catuvellauni; there's nothing but guesswork to make the link. They were never ruled by a Vellaunus - there's a Vellaunus recorded in an inscription in Latin, but he's a Roman Auxilliary cavalryman on the German frontier (read the inscription at L'Arbre Celtique). Catu- does not mean smiters or soldiers; it means "battle" - something almost universally agreed on because of modern Irish cath and Welsh câd. Catuvellauni means something like "Lords of Battle", "Masters of Battle" or "Best in Battle".

The main Casse page is terrible. It's just about all fiction, but I won't go into even more lengthy detail except to say that here the meaning of catu- has been changed again so now "Catuvallanorix" is supposed to mean "King of the Islanders" which it clearly doesn't; it means "Powerful Battle King"

Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with picking the Cassi as a faction, given that there's to be a faction in Britain - we know more or less as much about them as any other British tribe in 272 BC (i.e. nothing) but the material used to validate their inclusion is bogus.

[lobf]

But seeing as we know next to nothing, wouldn't it be more accurate to not include a faction there, but rather some unique units in big stacks? It could be a prize for later-game gauls/germans perhaps.

[Irishmafia2020]

Well, that was less exciting than some of the Celtic discussions have been, but I would tend to support the idea (as an EB player mind you) that there should be a faction in Britain. In fact I would prefer a hidden land bridge as well so that the faction has to interact with Gaul to survive... I am actually surprised that there is not more archaeological information about exactly who was in Britain in 272 BC.

[Elmetiacos]

There's plenty of archaeology in the form of large forts and so on, but the problem is we have no way of knowing what faction they belonged to at the time. If you wanted to be meticulous, we do know from the Romans which tribe lived where and what their capitals were, so if one that had had 300 years of continuous occupation on the same kind of scale were found, it would be a fair bet that the tribe in question had been around since 272 BC. Camulodunon apparently wouldn't be one of them, though; it was inhabited for a long time but only became a capital when Addedomaros started minting coins there at the very end of the EB period.

[azzbaz]

I got a question, whats the history behind the Cassis capital, Camulosadae? I can find nothing on it anywhere. Elmatiacus any answers

[Elmetiacos]

Camulodunum (modern Colchester) was the capital of the Trinovantes. For a while it seems to have been captured by the Catuvellauni. The Celtic form of the name would have been *Camulodunon. Whether Camulosadae is meant to be an alternative Celtic form of it (it seems to be in the right place) or whether it's supposed to be another capital I can't say. I don't know what Camulosadae is supposed to mean... there was thread here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46675&highlight=camulosadae but no explanation of the name. Can't find any sad- roots on proto-Celtic pdf and the online proto-Celtic database is down just now :no: but EDIL (www.dil.ie) has Old Irish or Middle Irish sadbae which it says is a poetic term for a dwelling and adba which means a dwelling place. Maybe this is the origin, but I don't know why a piece of mediaeval Irish was bolted onto an Iron Age British placename. Can't find a Welsh equivalent in Y Geiriadur Newydd.

Colchester, although famous, isn't a good choice for anyone's capital in 272 BC. Although it was in use and some high status burials have turned up from the EB period (e.g. Philip Crummy, Stephen Benfield, Nina Crummy, Valery Rigby and Donald Shimmin Stanway: an Elite Burial Site at Camulodunum) Romans-in-Britain.org reckon, presumably on the basis of coin finds (http://www.serendippy.me.uk/academic/sherdnerd/coins_ia.html) that the Trinovantes' capital was probably at Braughing until Addedomaros moved it at the end of the EB period. Of course, what the team were likely really after was the capital of the Catuvellauni which was probably either at St Albans (Verulamium), Wheathamstead (Celtic and Roman names not known), Water Newton (Durobrivae) or Dropshort (Magiovinium)

[lobf]

the only problem I see with a British faction is who are they? I mean, yes, it's fun and exciting to play that part of the map, but how can you create a historical experience when there's so little info on these folks?

[The Persian Cataphract]

I see a nasty slippery slope in this discussion of discarding factions on the basis of "early obscurity". I do not claim myself to know anything about the Celtic peoples. I only have some modest knowledge on the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures, which I acquired from a boring Mickey Mouse course on early European history. That's it. No pretensions, no nothing. The rest is just Asterix and Obelix.

But your rationale may verily be applied to Parthians, or indeed, the dominant Pârnîg/Parnioi/Sparnii tribe, because we have no data whatsoever about their whereabouts or how their geo-political situation looked like in 272 BCE; In fact, we know much more about the post-Alexandrian Medes and the Atropatid dynasty, as a Persianate culture, in symbiosis with the Orontids in Armenia, the Perseids of Pontus and the Ariarathids of Cappadocia. The Parthians in 272 BCE? They didn't exist. Back then they were some obscure tribe, a part of some larger confederacy which dominated Caspian affairs. The same pretty much goes for the Sacaeraucae or Saka-Rauka. The earliest information about the Parthians, starts with Arsaces I and some obscure passages of him being the son of Arsaces, who was a son of a Phriapatius. That's it. Nisa? Chorasmia? Forget it. Nisaya was probably a Seleucid dependency and the Kat/Khiva was a city belonging to the Chorasmians, among about dozen others. Influenced by the Parthians, and perhaps even scourged by them, but not under Parthian rule. The same goes for the Sacaeraucae who were mysteriously pitted in Wusun lands, in some fictional abode called "Chighu". But they are there, and putting them elsewhere without fore-thought would be a foolish move.

All we know is that omitting two of the world's upcoming super-powers because information about the earliest possible data is lacking, would be a fatal flaw. Therefore, what we did was to pick the strongest of tribes, and simply give them enough guide-lines to direct them into becoming their historical name-sake. The Pârnî therefore becomes the same Parthians lead by the great Arsacid monarchs, and the Sacaeraucae thus becomes the same "Sakas" lead to an illustrious campaign into Bactria, and India by Maues and the subsequent Indo-Scythian kings.

I imagine, more or less, that it would apply to the British Isles as well; Some dominant tribe takes enough action to lead the development of a more unified Briton state. You may dispute historical links between tribes and future nations, but I do not buy into the argument of "insufficient early data"; By the time the Parthians had annexed Medea, they had found that the Medean and Atropatene military, especially the heavy cavalry was similar to their own. The Atropatids and Arsacids later merged into a single house by political marriage, a fate which would later seal Artaxiad Armenia and the Arsacids, into the formation of the cadet Arsacid branch in Armenia.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I think thats just right!

Maybe their exact situation in 272 b.C. is unknown, and how they developed into the major future briton societies is unsure, but the impact of a british faction on the world would get completely lost if they were omitted.

[Elmetiacos]

I think lobf's point is that the Britons had absolutely no impact on the rest of the world until the Romans conquered Britain. I wouldn't argue for their removal, though - how much impact did the Sarmatians or Lusitanians have, after all? EB is a game of "what if".

Evidence from burning down and building new hill forts (Almondbury, Sutton Bank/Roulston Scar) by the way, suggest that the Brigantes and Parisi may have been around since c.400 BC. In the South of England, things seem to have been in more of a state of flux.

[The Persian Cataphract]

The Sarmatians? If you want to discuss their influence in this particular era of antiquity, we are speaking of an entity which not only replaced their historical precursors, the Scythians, but had a lasting worldly influence across Eurasia, and should some controversial theories be heard, some have posited that they provided the historical basis for the Arthurian legend. Whatever the case, the later so-called nomadic and barbarian invasion, well into the dissolution of the Western Roman empire, saw a tremendous influx of Alans in migration with Vandals, Goths and Huns, across the entire known world. I'm sure you've seen this map before:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Alani_map.jpg

EB is about re-creating the past from a single moment of reference (In this case during the early Hellenistic period) and to provide the parameters of this huge universe (Which extends for almost three centuries, a huge span of time, and a span implying a ton of socio-political change for the Pahlava and Saka-Rauka); The player may choose to recreate the Parthian empire, during its Golden age, several decades if not a whole century before it was established proper as a super-power, or the player may choose to do something entirely different. EB is in such terms indeed a game of "what-if", and subsequently not a game aiming to control historical outcome. The raw material is there, hopefully sufficient enough to make a house out of it: It is up to the player to build the house.

[Elmetiacos]

With all due respect, using that map to say "Keep the Sauromatae" is like arguing for the Sabyn with a map of the Abbasid Caliphate...

[Tellos Athenaios]

With all due respect but that kite won't take off as we say over here.

[Elmetiacos]

I'm not saying I think any factions should be abolished, just taking issue with a big map of the Barbarian invasions of the 4th-5th Centuries AD being given as a reason for the importance of the Sauromatae 272-14 BC.

[MeinPanzer]

With all due respect, using that map to say "Keep the Sauromatae" is like arguing for the Sabyn with a map of the Abbasid Caliphate...

That may be, but to argue that the Sarmatians had little impact on the world during the EB timeframe is flat-out wrong. The timeframe of EB was actually the time when the Sauromatae/Sarmatians (I don't want to debate about when one became the other here) probably had the largest effect on the ancient world (note that I don't include the Alans in this statement).They had a huge influence in and around the Black Sea region in the third and second centuries BC, effectively destroying the Royal Scythians and numerous other minor peoples, putting immense pressure on the Bosporan kingdom and the Greek cities in the region, and effecting the creation of the so-called 'Late Scythian' kingdom. They affected the northern Pontic littoral as drastically, if not moreso, than the Galatians affected Asia Minor.

[Jolt]

Maybe there will be a faction there.
Maybe not.

We could tell you our selected factions (we havent selected all of them). But we'd rather wait and use them as previews later on.

I'd rather make up Bartix in the game that add another faction in Britain, basically due to the fact (Though I must say my knowledge is very dim) of their great isolation in the pre-Roman period, limiting to some trade with the Carthaginians, relations with their Belgae counterparts and relations with the Irish island. I'm sure that faction could be put to a better use. The British Isles would be full of the said exotic British units, bonus to a Gaul/German/Iberian player, like someone suggested.

[The Persian Cataphract]

With all due respect, using that map to say "Keep the Sauromatae" is like arguing for the Sabyn with a map of the Abbasid Caliphate...

Comparing apples with oranges now are we? I used the map as a reference of later Alannic migrations, way beyond the time-frame relevant to EB; Prior to the migrations the Sarmatians as a loosely defined entity practically ruled the Eurasian steppes before the arrival of the so-called Black Huns. It marks a huge transition where Central Asia was becoming dominated by Altaic tribes, effectively supplaunting the Iranian tribes around both sides of the Caspian steppes. To merely dismiss this, it is indeed folly. The Sarmatians had an enormous influence on the affairs of the Parthian empire, the Caucasus, Asia Minor, the Bosphorus and Dacia, effectively interacting with other Scythic peoples, Iranians settled to the south, Armenians, Caucasian Iberians, Greeks, Thracians and eventually the Romans. They succeeded the Scythians, expressed in abstracted terms, as the Scythians succeeded the Cimmerians before them.

Should we even split the Sarmatian tribes to their territories, all of them encompass a respectably large area, confined only by the great rivers; Siracae and Legae to the north of the Caucasus, the Aorsi to the very north of the Caspian steppes, and two the west the Iazyges, the proposed ancestors of today's Jassic Hungarians, traced to Ossetian ancestry, and finally the aggressive Roxolani/Raukhsh-Alanna. The Scythians before them were equally divided accordingly to Old Persian naming convention. The Sarmatians had a tremendous influence on the peoples they came in contact with. Especially in Eastern Europe, their lasting legacy gave way to certain "Sarmatianisms" in Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, including "Sarmatian-style" armour.

[Elmetiacos]

The Poles didn't actually come into contact with the Sarmatians, it's just that the Polish nobility, out of snobbery, wanted a story that would make them a different race from the peasants. But okay, delete "the Sarmatians" and insert "the Sabaeans"... it doesn't really matter. Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Clearly.

[Spendios]

Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

:laugh4:

I nominate you for the dumbest quote of the year award.

[Foot]

The Poles didn't actually come into contact with the Sarmatians, it's just that the Polish nobility, out of snobbery, wanted a story that would make them a different race from the peasants. But okay, delete "the Sarmatians" and insert "the Sabaeans"... it doesn't really matter. Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

Indeed. I would say at least 74% if not 74.5% of all our factions achieved nothing at all in our timeframe. We explicity chose those factions that did not have any achievement instead of those factions that did.

Foot

[Elmetiacos]

:laugh4:

I nominate you for the dumbest quote of the year award.
The mighty Casse Empire! How the King of the Sabaeans must have hoped, like Alexander, that there were new Worlds to conquer, when he had marched his armies to the edge of the known world! The Armenian king Tigranes almost sacked Rome... if only he hadn't thrown away his entire empire to a single legion. Clearly, some of the factions achieved very little, others built mighty empires. The list is not simply a "power list". Or do you think it is for some reason?

[beatoangelico]

lol, what's the logic here? there are 20 slots, if you wanted only the ones that 200 years later had "achieved" something than you would have a game with, like, 4-5 factions? wow.

[Geoffrey S]

Elmetiacos isn't claiming that, at all. Members of the EB team themselves have admitted that after a certain number of sure-fire factions have been included (Rome, Carthage, Seleucids) who arguably achieved a lot or could have achieved more, the rest has to be included on other criteria such as regional cultural impact, trade impact, or in the end how interesting they could be. Casse probably is one of them - the fact that other mods don't even choose to include them is probably an indication of this.

There is no argument for removing a faction. He is merely confirming that which any responsible historian should know: that our sources of knowledge for the situation in 272, let alone the sharp exact features the way they have to be depicted inside a computer game, simply aren't available.

Elmetiacos is saying exactly what has been said before in defense of the Casse, even by EB team members, and to me still sounds reasonable. When confronted with this, why all the defensive reactions?

[Ludens]

The problem is not that he is arguing for or against certain factions, but that his posts suggest that the team isn't living up to their claim of historical accuracy. That is debatable. You can indeed argue that the faction chosen do not represent the 20 greatest powers on the map. However, the original objective of the mod was to educate about those parts of the Classical world that receive little attention in popular history. Therefor, the team decided to spread out the factions over the map a bit. The Casse and Sweboz obviously weren't world-power material, and one could argue that, for example, Pergamon, Syracuse and the Spartocid kingdom stood a far better chance of establishing a major empire. However, the Greek culture is already very well represented, and these were some of the lesser players in it. On the other hand, northern Europe would be entirely empty without Briton and Germanic factions. What is more accurate: focus on the well-known nations and make the rest of Europe a mass of uninteresting rebels, or spread out factions to do other areas justice as well?

[The Persian Cataphract]

The Poles didn't actually come into contact with the Sarmatians, it's just that the Polish nobility, out of snobbery, wanted a story that would make them a different race from the peasants. But okay, delete "the Sarmatians" and insert "the Sabaeans"... it doesn't really matter. Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

Abandoning the sinking ship so soon? I thought you had a reason when you mentioned the Sarmatians (I'll get to the Sabaeans soon enough, and clarify why we choosed it for instance over Qataban), and I think you are still infatuated with your own perception of the matters, especially when you say "It doesn't really matter", in no uncertain terms. Clearly, it matters. The Sarmatians are a chief reason for the persistence and perseverance of Eastern Iranian languages in Central Asia, and especially the Eurasian steppes. With origins as far back as the 6th-5th centuries BCE to the 4th century CE, when they were driven out of the steppes by various Altaic (Hunnic) tribes. During that span, the Achaemenid, Arsacid and Sassanian empires, right to their south, saw their rise. The Alannic migrations south to Caucasian Albania forever changed "Ardhan" or "Aghvank" and saw the rise of another clan, which would have a say in Partho-Sassanian policies, the "Ard-Alan". To this day, in countries where Ossetians have prevailed, they still call themselves "Iron", a small tribute to a vast conglomerate who spoke a language similar to Old Persian.

As for the Poles, I implied lasting historical influence, not direct contact. Again, if you'd like to indulge in building straw-men, you are only wasting your own time. The Sarmatians have been a key propaganda tool for various Pan-Slavic institutions, and the Polish, or the aforementioned historical commonwealth, as well as Russians have not only used Sarmatians in their propaganda machines, but also the Scythians. They are a recurring motif in even modern art. It partly explains the intensity of the Soviet archaeological exploits, and though much bogus scholarship exists, they have also unveiled the Iranian connection, which has tremendously contributed in tracing when the Turco-Altaic migrations took place. The previously mentioned "Sarmatianism" is a product of inspiration, and the Poles, who relied by large on a strong force of cavalry, found their perfect role-model; In fact, it has been a key in bolstering Polish-Iranian relations into the modern age, especially during and after World War II. It's the same when the last Shah named his elite d'elite, and his household cavalry "Gârd-î Jâvîdân" meaning "The Guard of the Immortals", a homage to the past military splendour of Iran.

As for Saba, we found the choice in southern Arabia to be quite obvious; It has traces from 2000 BCE, and persevered until the first century BCE, when they were conquered by the Himyarites; Sabaeans still retained influence well into the 3rd century CE. Mar'ib itself was still a metropolis until its famed dams collapsed, 570 CE. From there, and during those centuries of decline when Himyar and Axum squabbled over the area, the Sassanians finally conquered the area, which remained a province until the 630's, at the eve of the Islamic invasions. Saba was no light-weight; They had a significant possession over parts of Ethiopia (D'mt) as far as the 8th century BCE, and finally, they were clearly a literate and urban civilization, who mastered the art of irrigations.

Unlike Islamic propaganda which constantly seeks to downplay pre-Islamic Arabian history as an age of "barbarousness" and "utter poverty", applying the rationale of Hejazi warlordism elsewhere without consideration in all corners of Arabia (When we on the contrary have plenty of evidence of advanced, urban civilizations in Oman, the western coasts of the Persian Gulf, and Yemen), we know better. What Mohammed declared to be the "lost city of Ubar" turned out to be utter bull, as it was already recorded by Ptolemy's cartography (Iobaritae), and today's site of Shisar/Shisur as found by Juris Zarins proves that the Iobaritae were learned in fortifications, and agriculture. In fact, he established Parthian influences (In no uncertain terms, he declared the Iobaritae as a Parthian client) on the basis of encountered pottery. The Nabatene Arabs competed with the Sabaeans and the Aspasines of Characene (The Parthians, that is) for the mercantile opportunities in India. I could go on forever like this.

Armenia? I simply don't have the energy, their history does more than justice for their inclusion, and over the span of the Persianized Orontids, the Hellenized Artaxiads, the junior Arsacid branch, the advent of the Mamikonaeans and the medieval Marzpanate period, and the countless of battles between Iranians and Graeco-Romans over this remarkable land... Without Hayasdan, the Near East of EB would neither feel complete or genuine. This bulwark, often dubbed a client nation of either Graeco-Romans or Iranians, had tremendous worldly influence, and to this day, their alphabet as established by Mashtots, still prevails to this day. Iranology is blessed by the fact that there are ancient and medieval writings still available, describing in significant breadth the charactersitics of Partho-Sassanian society, as a contrast to Graeco-Roman writings. They have also been pivotal in describing the turmoil of the 3rd Perso-Turkic wars which took place in the Caucasus, bringing more turmoil to the Sassanian empire. Tigranes? Tigranes did the unthinkable. Without Tigranes, there would never have been an emboldened Mithridates VI in Pontus, and without Tigranes, Parthia could potentially have ended her first civil war with much more speed.

Pick someone else while you are at it. C'mon, pick the Sacaeraucae. Or pick the Graeco-Bactrians. "Insert them" instead. While you make your pick, you'd do yourself a favour and think of your own responsibilities, as the claimant. With a claim comes a burden.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Elmetiacos isn't claiming that, at all. Members of the EB team themselves have admitted that after a certain number of sure-fire factions have been included (Rome, Carthage, Seleucids) who arguably achieved a lot or could have achieved more, the rest has to be included on other criteria such as regional cultural impact, trade impact, or in the end how interesting they could be. Casse probably is one of them - the fact that other mods don't even choose to include them is probably an indication of this.I am absolutely certain that no faction has been included (first of all) with that as their primary or final reason (as your "in the end" states) or that (secondly) that factor was even mentioned in any substantive way as a determinent in our actual selection process. It would be embarassing to have made that a factor and it certainly was not. If an EB team member said it, I have not seen it, and if it was implied that they are "interesting" or that a by-product is that an interesting faction resulted, then that is besides the point.

edit: I have recently given about as detailed a summary of the faction selection process as anyone outside EB internal forums will get: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1907811&postcount=531 And by "gameplay" I am referring to things like ability to keep other factions' expansion in check, ability to become allies (where rebels cannot), ability to provide cultural variation in a region that did not have it, etc. It does not mean how much fun or how interesting it can be to play as.

[Elmetiacos]

The problem is not that he is arguing for or against certain factions, but that his posts suggest that the team isn't living up to their claim of historical accuracy. That is debatable.
Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:

[Foot]

Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:



Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.


Its the little things that matter.

Foot

[Elmetiacos]

Abandoning the sinking ship so soon? I was never on the ship in the first place. lobf asked if there was any reason to have the Cassi in the game, since the British tribes hadn't had any influence in the affairs of the classical world. I said that a faction didn't have to be huge and influential to be included.

[Ludens]

Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:
So your comments about the inclusion of factions do not apply to EB1?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:

Earlier in this thread it was stated by EB team members that we have no current plans to remove any EB1 factions from EB2.

[Elmetiacos]

...and I don't have a problem with that, other than the faction being called "Casse" rather than "Cassi" or "Cassoi". My criticism of EB1 is about the realism of Celtic names and certain military units.

[Elmetiacos]

So your comments about the inclusion of factions do not apply to EB1?
What comments about the inclusion of factions?
EDIT: Oh, I see, because I said that team aren't inlcuding only mighty, empire building factions, that counts as a comment on faction inclusion. Yes, very clever.

[Cartaphilus]

My criticism of EB1 is about the realism of Celtic names and certain military units.

Please, proceed.
:smash:

[paullus]

May I attempt to clarify what is at issue? here goes:

Elmetiacos, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing, I think along the lines of what Geoffrey and Ludens said, that regional variety is frequently a more important factor in EB factions than their level of expansion. I think that's true: as TA pointed out, in addition to wanting to bring little-known factions to life out of the great swirling morass of "eleutheroi" outside the Mediterranean basin, picking factions as the strongest/most developed in a particular region can allow us to more accurately depict local culture, alliances, trade, expansion, etc.

I think, Elmetiacos, that while your issue is on Celtic language and some Celtic units, your choice of words here has raised some conflict. "actual acheivements" implied either/both that we've selected a bunch of factions who sat around in circles trying to keep their campfires alive, or/and that we've concocted imagined acheivements to buttress tenuous factions. I am not certain, but I don't think that's what you were really saying. I think what you were really saying is what Geoffrey implied, that if we went strictly by power scale/military expansion, we'd quite likely have a rather different set of factions. Not hugely different, I think, but there'd be some key changes. Pergamon and the Bosporans have already been mentioned, and we could add a number of other, powerful or significant factions which we did not choose either to bring diversity to the map or because we weren't comfortable enough with the situation in 272 for the faction.

EDIT: Cartaphilus, Elmetiacos' comments are on...I think two...threads in the main EB forum. I think they have probably descended onto page 2 by now, and you have to wade through digressions about axe-heads and various linguistic discussions, but it raises valuable points.

[Elmetiacos]

Correct. Ironically, I'm not really arguing at all, just stating the obvious - EB is more about diversity and not about having 3 or 4 big Mediterranean empires surrounding by annoying barbarians waiting to be crushed. Some people have interpreted my saying "size doesn't matter" for inclusion as somehow insulting someone's national honour or something.

My comments on EB1's Celts and suggestions for improvement are mostly in a thread called "Materia Celtica".

I'm currently thinking, though, that the whole idea of how Celts organised themselves for war is too Roman-like and needs a re-think.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you mean: recruit units and off you go; or similarly recruit an army and off you go -- then obviously yes. But the RTW enigne itself was designed to cope with such recruitment only, you cannot dynamically change availabiltiy (most importantly you cannot lower it!) of units.

With M2TW however, such things are possible, and indeed are being looked into (emulating different styles of conscription based on faction). And there's more but I've revealed enough for today already.

==================================

On the subject of careless remarks being offensive: I wish to express that neither the statement about Tigranes nor the poor choice of the word actual (as it implies a sarcastic tone) help to contribute to whatever point you want to make. IIRC you are from England, so surely you must've caught that yourself too. :juggle:

[Elmetiacos]

I was thinking more that because we all (obviously) live in a post Marian, post Gustavian world, units tend to be designated according to what weapons they're using, so there are Gaulish units of swordsmen, spearmen, axemen, etc. I'm thinking they would be more akin to a mediaeval feudal army with units differentiated according to social class and therefore what equipment they could bring with them, from chariots and chainmail at the top to hunting spears and billhooks at the bottom...

[The Persian Cataphract]

I think lobf's point is that the Britons had absolutely no impact on the rest of the world until the Romans conquered Britain. I wouldn't argue for their removal, though - how much impact did the Sarmatians or Lusitanians have, after all? EB is a game of "what if".


With all due respect, using that map to say "Keep the Sauromatae" is like arguing for the Sabyn with a map of the Abbasid Caliphate...


The mighty Casse Empire! How the King of the Sabaeans must have hoped, like Alexander, that there were new Worlds to conquer, when he had marched his armies to the edge of the known world! The Armenian king Tigranes almost sacked Rome... if only he hadn't thrown away his entire empire to a single legion. Clearly, some of the factions achieved very little, others built mighty empires. The list is not simply a "power list". Or do you think it is for some reason?

Careless phrasing and invalid examples won't get you anywhere, regardless of how well-founded your main point at hand may be.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes that is a point *but* I am unsure of wether even the M2TW engine allows for different weapons used within the same units.

However if not the option to note their social class (as is the practice with current units anyways) within their description fits them well enough, especially if the player takes care to mix & match his deployment of soldiers.

Unless you want to explicitly have this distinction (making a couple of names up as I go: freemen, nobles, mercs) appear in their names... (As it partially does in the Greek unit roster, e.g.: Pezhetairoi, Argyraspides, Hypaspistai, Hetairoi.) But then again there's Solduros, as well as Cingetos and Neitos. From what I heard the latter two would simply refer to being a professional soldier?

[paullus]

aren't most of them divided by social class already? chainmail and swords and horses at the top, some armor and swords and spears/javelins in the "upper-middle class," some swords and mainly spears in the middle class, and lower-quality spears and javelins in the lower classes. (edit: units of axemen would seem to be the main exception here).

so is the question you're raising more a question of naming, or more a question of class? I think to some extent that question is moot: men of a social class sometimes have their social class identified by their military service. Thus the differentiation between Celtic levy units and Celtic "spear-guy" units is actually more of a social distinction than an equipment distinction, because they both carry spears, but from different social groups.

[Elmetiacos]

Careless phrasing and invalid examples won't get you anywhere, regardless of how well-founded your main point at hand may be.
Those are meant to be invalid examples!

[Elmetiacos]

I'm not arguing for mixes within units; I don't think it can be done. I mean that there shouldn't be units with all swords or all axes. Everyone should have spears as their main weapons (in line with sword development through the La Tene period) and be differentiated according to how good their equipment is which would also be reflected in morale and discipline. I think this really needs a new thread to be discussed in detail.

[Foot]

I'm not arguing for mixes within units; I don't think it can be done. I mean that there shouldn't be units with all swords or all axes. Everyone should have spears as their main weapons (in line with sword development through the La Tene period) and be differentiated according to how good their equipment is which would also be reflected in morale and discipline. I think this really needs a new thread to be discussed in detail.

That is how we stat our units. You won't find units equipped with chainmail and the like having stats more suitable for a militia unit (well in most cases).

As for all units having spears, this is not really possible due to the limit of two weapons for each soldier. As one of these slots is generally taken up by some sort of throwing spear or javelins, a spear as a main weapon will be a soldiers only weapon - unfairly limiting a celtic army to spear only units.

Foot

[paullus]

that's quite true, Foot. Many of the professional/elite soldiers, and many other warriors in general, in our period carried 3 types of weapons, and its just an unfortunate limitation of the platform that we can't represent that.

[Ludens]

What comments about the inclusion of factions?
EDIT: Oh, I see, because I said that team aren't inlcuding only mighty, empire building factions, that counts as a comment on faction inclusion. Yes, very clever.
Together with the sarcastic comments on the importance of the Saba, Armenians and Sarmatians those were construed as critisism, yes. Forgive me if I misunderstood you.


Yes that is a point *but* I am unsure of wether even the M2TW engine allows for different weapons used within the same units.
The question came up on the TWC a couple of times. Foot or another team member answered that there will be some variation within a weapon type, but because they want to stat the units accuratly there won't be both short and longswords in a single unit.

Anyway, I've always taken those units to grouped based on battlefield role rather than equipment. Say, Gaeroas as the main battle line and Botroas/Bataroas as the heavy hitters. The names suggest differently, though, but do we know any Celtic word for battlefield roles?

[Elmetiacos]

But Celtic armies do seem to have used spears only in hand to hand combat. Wealthier troops often had swords, but one interesting fact is the way they developed. In the Hallstatt Period, late Bronze and early Iron Age, swords are longer and have points - this is the leaf bladed variety people visualise when they think of a "Celtic longsword". This type is abandoned in the La Tene Period, and swords become generally shorter and with blunt ends. We also find more finely decorated scabbards. Doesn't this suggest that the sword is more of a status symbol and less of a primary battlefield weapon? In the EB time frame, I think Celtic nobles would have used spears and javelins, only resorting to swords if the spear was lost or broken, or to cut the heads off the dead.

[paullus]

that's just not true. many la tene swords are still quite long, though generally not as long as the bronze age swords, and many of them are quite vicious swords. its true that there are also blunter or shorter swords, but those are actually different from one another: most long swords develop blunt ends, while mid-length to shorter swords almost always maintain a sharp end of some sort. we might also bear in mind the importance of swords in representations or descriptions of Celts in the Greco-Roman world, which arise entirely from encounters with La Tene Celts.

[Elmetiacos]

The only example I can find is the famous "Dying Gaul" who has been given an obviously Greek sword anyway... all the warriors on the Gundestrup Cauldron have spears... can you supply any examples of swordbearing Celts in ancient art?

[blitzkrieg80]

This website is hardly the best on the subject, but I EASILY found information useful enough to make your statement meaningless concerning Casse.

http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/indo-european.htm


"NOTE. Later evolution of Celtic languages: ē >/ī/; Thematic genitive *ōd/*ī; Aspirated Voiced > Voiced; Specialized Passive in -r.

Italo-Celtic refers to the hypothesis that Italic and Celtic dialects are descended from a common ancestor, Proto-Italo-Celtic, at a stage post-dating Proto-Indo-European. Since both Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic date to the early Iron Age (say, the centuries on either side of 1000 BC), a probable time frame for the assumed period of language contact would be the late Bronze Age, the early to mid 2nd millennium BC. Such grouping is supported among others by Meillet (1890), and Kortlandt (2007).

One argument for Italo-Celtic was the thematic Genitive in i (dominus, domini). Both in Italic (Popliosio Valesiosio, Lapis Satricanus) and in Celtic (Lepontic, Celtiberian -o), however, traces of the -osyo Genitive of Proto-Indo-European have been discovered, so that the spread of the i-Genitive could have occurred in the two groups independently, or by areal diffusion. The community of -ī in Italic and Celtic may be then attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity. The i-Genitive has been compared to the so-called Cvi formation in Sanskrit, but that too is probably a comparatively late development. The phenomenon is probably related to the Indo-European feminine long i stems and the Luwian i-mutation.

Elmetiacos, did you even do research into true Celtic linguistics beyond internet fandom? What is your method for reconstruction from IE or are you seriously trying to say that Late Celtic language resembles the language of 272BC? I could be wrong, suredly, since I have barely spent time on it, but already I have found information contradicting your own. Is there some rule I should know of that has been dated to have taken place concerning e > i or IE genitive or some other Celtic language rule in effect? If not, I really wonder why you seem so certain.

Also, you assume that Casse is supposing to be nominative plural, but how do you know?

[edit]
Actually I have found some evidence in some Germanic loanwords from Celtic - 'wire' which can prove that the monopthongised ei to ē being different between various forms of Celtic, nonetheless important in their date during EB timeline, unlike Elmetiacos' assumption that all Celtic was fully transformed:

"These forms reflect an IE source ueiros meaning 'curved, twisted' but presuppose transmission through Celtic in its varying dialectal forms. Insular Celtic monopthongised ei to ē (cf. Old Ir. fíar, We. gwyr 'crooked') whilst on the continent the same development to ē took place (reflected in Germanic ē2, hence OHG wiara), but also a different monopthongisation to ī (hence OE wīr). To assume direct descent from IE would not account for the variants found in Germanic, which instead reflect dialectal differentiation in Celtic. When this loan is to be dated is more uncertain" (DH Green 155).

Elmetiacos, it is true that a nominative plural makes most sense, but you also do not know why an -e is there. as you say, a locative or whatever is silly... so there is more going on than a simple gloss. and Casse are not Gauls either.

[lobf]

So the Cassi are staying. That's cool. Is anything going to be done with their history section, though?

[blacksnail]

Are you asking if the history section write-up will be copied and pasted from EB1 into EB2?

[Elmetiacos]

This website is hardly the best on the subject, but I EASILY found information useful enough to make your statement meaningless concerning Casse.

(snip)

Also, you assume that Casse is supposing to be nominative plural, but how do you know?
I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make. What you cite here is irrelevant. Long e becoming i in "later Celtic" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is nothing to do with the final -i < -oi in an O-stem noun plural. Unlike with primitive Germanic, the declensions for Gaulish are pretty much of a known quantity, being attested in inscriptions. If you're going to argue against any of them, you really are out on a limb.

"Casse" not being a nominative is bizarre. Why would it not be? If the faction were given a name meaning "Kingdom of the Cassi" or "Tribe of the Cassi" it might make sense as a genitive but it isn't; it's "Casse" on its own. An -e ending would be a vocative or locative singular of an O-stem, which is silly.

[lobf]

Are you asking if the history section write-up will be copied and pasted from EB1 into EB2?

*Shrug* I don't know. Will it be revised?

[paullus]

let's see...the section of Callimachos' Hymn to Delos, written shortly after the Galatian invasion, refers to the sword as the Galatian weapon of choice (in fact, he refers to shield, sword, and belt).

terracotta Galatian soldiers are always shown either grasping the hilts of their swords, or with their swords (longswords) laid across the front of their thureoi. a series of terracotta figurines popular in Asia Minor show a combative, dynamic warrior in the process of drawing his sword from its scabbard.

several of the other Pergamene Gauls are shown with their swords, which are indeed mostly Hellenic types, but also include Celtic types. traditional Celtic swords are also represented on the Altar of Athena Nikephoros in Pergamon.

several Etruscan urns show nude, thureos-wielding warriors with wild hair and blue cloaks...I'd consider them to be Gauls, and they're shown with swords.

dueling Galatians terracotta from Pergamon shows two Galatians dueling with swords.

several Mysian/Bithynian funeral stelae show Galatians in combat, frequently with swords. MP could address that particular subject area far better than I, and might could shed light on the frequency with which Galatians are depicted with swords v spears.

I will however note that the Galatian stelai from Alexandria depict, when it can be seen, a spear, and I don't think any of them clearly depict a sword.

[Irishmafia2020]

See? My first post back on page 1 predicted that this thread would turn into an all out debate in which champions would emerge from their respective corners and throw down historical evidence, opinion, and interpretation in an all out battle royale. I did not make that post simply to spam, or to read my own prose, but rather to point out to a casual observer that this thread had the makings of the most interesting and hot discussion in this forum in weeks. My hat comes off for all participants, and I humbly defer to your comparable mastery of this subject. Oh yes, and keep the Casse...

[blacksnail]

*Shrug* I don't know. Will it be revised?
By the first open beta? I doubt it, the open beta is for gameplay and bug-testing, and the faction description is fluff. By EB2 1.0, the first true "release?" I'd be surprised if by then any of the faction descriptions were word-for-word identical between versions.

[lobf]

By the first open beta? I doubt it, the open beta is for gameplay and bug-testing, and the faction description is fluff. By EB2 1.0, the first true "release?" I'd be surprised if by then any of the faction descriptions were word-for-word identical between versions.

I'm not talking about minor edits, though. I mean, as far as I understand it, the whole page is nonsense or speculation.

[Bellum]

Are you talking about the faction description or the faction history page?

[MeinPanzer]

The only example I can find is the famous "Dying Gaul" who has been given an obviously Greek sword anyway... all the warriors on the Gundestrup Cauldron have spears... can you supply any examples of swordbearing Celts in ancient art?

I only have some examples concerning the Galatians, but they are numerous. We first have the mention in Livy 38.21.5 of Galatians only using swords. Then we have over a dozen terracotta figurines of Galatian soldiers only armed with swords. Finally, we have several representations on funerary stelae of Galatian soldiers again armed with a sword as their only weapon.

[Elmetiacos]

The Faction History is mostly fantasy. It says the Casse established themselves as a power swiftly after they arrived in the 3rd or 4th Century BC (presumably it has to be the 4th, or they'd be getting off their boats as EB starts) but we know nothing of them apart from what they did in Caesar's war against Cassivellaunus. We don't know if they were Gaulish conquerors or if they'd been around for hundreds of years. "transcribed oral histories, copied in later periods by Christian monks, point to stories of a failed attempt at unifying the whole island under their rule" is fiction; apart from (historically useless) mediaeval romance like Geoffery of Monmouth's History, there are no Irish-style transcribed oral traditions of British history, especially none that mention the Cassi. There's no evidence of a plague striking Britain in this period at all, but the page goes on to say that it was regarded as a bad omen and who died from it. "Catuvallarix" could not mean "King of the Islanders" - there are three Celtic roots in that name *katu- "battle" *walla- "powerful" and *rixs "king". Control of the tin trade implies control of Cornwall and South West England, but only South Eastern tribes have been mentioned.

That's just the first paragraph.

[Ludens]

But Celtic armies do seem to have used spears only in hand to hand combat. Wealthier troops often had swords, but one interesting fact is the way they developed. In the Hallstatt Period, late Bronze and early Iron Age, swords are longer and have points - this is the leaf bladed variety people visualise when they think of a "Celtic longsword". This type is abandoned in the La Tene Period, and swords become generally shorter and with blunt ends. We also find more finely decorated scabbards. Doesn't this suggest that the sword is more of a status symbol and less of a primary battlefield weapon? In the EB time frame, I think Celtic nobles would have used spears and javelins, only resorting to swords if the spear was lost or broken, or to cut the heads off the dead.
Are there any theories as to why the Celts felt the need to downgrade their sword design? It seems counterintuitive unless they completely stopped using them, even as a back-up weapon (and that would beg the question: why did they stop using them in the first place).


I'm not talking about minor edits, though. I mean, as far as I understand it, the whole page is nonsense or speculation.
:sigh:

The page was written by Ranika. Elmetiacos disputes Ranika's expertise and input to the mod. However, you cannot say Ranika is wrong without giving him a chance to defend himself. Unfortunately, he is not active anymore and there is no one else on the team with extensive knowledge of ancient Britain, so we cannot have a proper discussion about it. Presumably, the team is also unwilling to discuss it since it sparked a couple of flame wars previously.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I am by no means an expert in the field of ancient celtic grammar, so I will not go into an argument with those giants already at work here.

However, one has to remember that history, no matter how scientific you act in your approach to it, is a science where many facts are forever obscured in the mist of time. Not even those cultures, where the tradition of recording history was indeed strong, can ever manage to produce material that we can percieve as containing "the truth". Merely someone's subjective perspective of it. Then, when there are no written sources, and all we can find is oral tradition, writings from different times, or different parts of the world than the area discussed (like Herodotos description of India), and some archaeological finds, then, all we can do is to try to put all af theese "clues" into a context, and make our own picture from there, although, of course, omitting obvious faults.
Sometimes, like in the case of Casse, there are no 100% reliable sources, and that, what we can find, is often contradictory or incomplete.
Unless you have a time machine, you can never know for sure what the past really looked like; all you can do, is to collect the fragmets that are there, and make the best out of it. As I percieve it, this is what the EB team has done with the Casse faction.

[blacksnail]

I'm not talking about minor edits, though. I mean, as far as I understand it, the whole page is nonsense or speculation.
The dead horse - she is unable to go faster, no matter how much she is beaten. :yes:

[Elmetiacos]

Are there any theories as to why the Celts felt the need to downgrade their sword design? It seems counterintuitive unless they completely stopped using them, even as a back-up weapon (and that would beg the question: why did they stop using them in the first place).
I'd be interested to find out more on this, too.


The page was written by Ranika. Elmetiacos disputes Ranika's expertise and input to the mod. However, you cannot say Ranika is wrong without giving him a chance to defend himself. Unfortunately, he is not active anymore and there is no one else on the team with extensive knowledge of ancient Britain, so we cannot have a proper discussion about it. Presumably, the team is also unwilling to discuss it since it sparked a couple of flame wars previously.
I can only say this: If Ranika had quoted any sources, or even given some hints as to where his information came from, it wouldn't need him to be here to defend his assertions. Almost everything I've said on the forums you can go and cross-check and on one occasion Blitzkrieg and Tiberias Nero did some checking and were able to correct my Gaulish. Ranika didn't do anything like this except on one occasion where he quoted two archaeological sites where he claimed warhammers had been found - one turned out to be Viking and the other to contain nothing but slag. Instead he went into this almost Dan Brown world of secret unpublished Gaelic manuscripts - and surprise, surprise, three years on they're all still unpublished. Once again a mighty "hmm".

[Elmetiacos]

Sometimes, like in the case of Casse, there are no 100% reliable sources, and that, what we can find, is often contradictory or incomplete.
In their case, in fact, we have no sources whatsoever. They are a name in list written by Caesar and that's it.

[paullus]

on the sword changes:

1) thanks for recognizing the sources MP and I posted.

2) the old longswords were from the bronze age and, due to the nature of the bronze age economy, proliferated with only minor variations across a huge stretch of the ancient world. those swords, and most of the other forms of arms and armor of that period--including leaf-bladed shortswords, which were actually the more common blade, went extinct everywhere by the middle of the first millenium BC. they look nicer--beautiful in fact--but bronze is apparently not as good for long blades and killing people as an iron blade. Apparently the bronze longsword was so weak (its length was often pushed to its limit in many samples, and many samples are themselves broken, often at the tang, rather than being ritually destroyed as in later Celtic practice) that it had to have been used primarily for thrusting, rather than for cutting. Thus, even the soft iron longswords attributed to the Celts (overstatement anyone?) would be preferable and more attainable than these high quality bronze stabbing longswords.

[blacksnail]

I can only say this:
The problem is that "you can only say this" constantly - one might say "bordering on trollishly" - despite us repeatedly stating that we are looking into the issue internally. Again, I am amazed at the depth of passion you bring to the table for something of which you are no part and have no stake. It certainly doesn't appear as though you wish to "improve" anything here, which leaves me wondering exactly what your motives are for saying the same thing repeatedly in many places.

[Elmetiacos]

Actually I have found some evidence in some Germanic loanwords from Celtic - 'wire' which can prove that the monopthongised ei to ē being different between various forms of Celtic, nonetheless important in their date during EB timeline, unlike Elmetiacos' assumption that all Celtic was fully transformed:

Which is what I've said all along! If you go back to the Materia Celtica thread, I've posited Proto-Celtic /ei/ becoming /ai/ and then /oi/ in Brythonic, giving Welsh /wy/ whereas /ei/ was reduced to /ê/ in Gaulish, which is why I had Gaisonêdes for Gaulish and Gaisonaites for British spearmen.


Elmetiacos, it is true that a nominative plural makes most sense, but you also do not know why an -e is there. as you say, a locative or whatever is silly... so there is more going on than a simple gloss. and Casse are not Gauls either.
Unfortunately the Casse history page says they are Gauls - they have only just arrived in Britain according to that. As far as I can tell, "Casse" looks very much like the result of a misprint in an edition of Daithi Ó hÓgain's book The Celts: a History being copied.

[Elmetiacos]

The problem is that "you can only say this" constantly - one might say "bordering on trollishly" - despite us repeatedly stating that we are looking into the issue internally. Again, I am amazed at the depth of passion you bring to the table for something of which you are no part and have no stake. It certainly doesn't appear as though you wish to "improve" anything here, which leaves me wondering exactly what your motives are for saying the same thing repeatedly in many places.
I wasn't replying to the team in this case; yet another person came along with the "But you can't criticise Ranika!" thing. Alright, I won't mention him again.

[blacksnail]

Thank you. Sorry for snapping at you.

If it helps, there are three general gradations to work with regarding team responses:
"I don't think this is correct and have brought it up with the team for perusal," such as much of your Materia Celtica thread. That's something the team can at the very least look at to see if it could be used to improve the mod. Nothing guaranteed, but this kind of thing is most likely to help us out and actually get us to produce things in the mod.
"I don't think this is correct and have brought it up with the team, but am bringing it up again," such as this thread. Not very useful, as we already know. This generally gets grumpy responses because it distracts the historians from doing their actual work to repeat the same stuff they said before.
"I am going to directly attack a team member or former team member." This is just not tolerated. "I don't agree with what Ranika wrote" is fine, "Ranika was a big fat fraud" is not. This is most likely to get you annoyed responses, or on a fast-track to bandom if we think you're trolling. Generally included in this category is also "poor deluded EB team, they know not what bitter fruits they reap."
That's about it. If you're in that first category, you're golden and we are actually inclined to listen to what you have to say as something more than noise. The further down you get, less so.

[lobf]

The dead horse - she is unable to go faster, no matter how much she is beaten. :yes:

Heh, I'm not trying to make your life difficult. I'm just getting contradictory responses and trying to clarify the answer. I trust your judgment in this matter, blacksnail.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

"a fast-track to bandom"
Just to note, in case non-members think this is common: there isn't such a thing really. The team has put up with virtually everything outside of direct threats without banning people. I think only two or three people have been banned from posting in the EB fora here in all the years it has been open. I honestly think we may have lost as many team members who got fed up with our "liberality" in this regard than we have banned actual posters, or at least the number is close. Just trying to make sure it wasn't misconstrued.

[Cartaphilus]

I don't think Elmetiacos is trollying.
He's just defending his point of view, and I believed that here open (but polite) discussion was well-admitted.
I think that the team members are fallible mortal men as we are. :sweatdrop:

[blacksnail]

As Teleklos said, I should have stated "deliberate trolling" - ie, spoof accounts or whatnot. As he says, this is a very rare thing. I've been here since early 2006 and I remember it happening once.

[Elmetiacos]

Having been asked for something positive, I'll open a new thread on suggestions for Cassian history.