View Full Version : Possible Britain Map
I'm wondering if anyone would mind if I start throwing ideas out for new British provinces. Dead Moroz plans to have the map include all of Scotland, I will include that in the map, as well as Hibernia.
Firstly, I think an Iceni province would be proper, as well as Dumnonii (the lower peninsula of the current Tribus Siluri province, since it's so large). I only know the Latin name for the Iceni capitol, Venta Icenorum. The Dumnonii province could be cut in half, if it's still too big, or more British provinces are possible, with the west half as Dumnonia, and the east half as Durotriges. Once again, only know Latin capitols, Durotrigas was Duronavaria, Dumnonia's was Isca Dumnoniorum. In the west of north Wales, the very west, would be the Ordovices, with a capitol at Caernarfon. They're a notable possible add due to the unique Ordovicii hammer warriors, who would surely make an interesting addition to the Britons.
Hibernia should be divided into half, the north belonged to the Gaelic king Heremon, the south, to his brother Eber. In the north east and south west, respectively, were Ir's and Lughaid's lands, but they were both subject to either Heremon or Eber, and were more local lesser kings, so those divisions are unnecessary.
At 270 AD, Gauls from Armorica began to 'invade' Ireland, though it was fairly peaceful, compared to the invasions into Britain. This is largely because Gauls, along with Celts from Iberia, are who took the land from the Tuatha Da Danaan; also called the Cruithin, or Picts. The two halves would be called 'Connachta' (the northern), and Eoganachta (the southern). Their capitols would be at Tara, in the north, and Milidhi (named after Milidh, or Milesius, the 'father of the Gaelic race') in the south. These two halves, however, are speculation from Irish legends. The first comfirmable halves are the north as 'Leath Cuinn', Con's Half, and the south as 'Leath Mogha', Mogha's half. Tara remains the capitol in the north, but Diseanach, then, is the capitol of the south, near modern day Cork.
Scotland, I'd divide into three. Cat, the land of the north Picts, encompassing a little less than 50% of the upper portion of Scotland, Athfotla, the land of the south Picts, taking up most of the southern section, and Caledonia, the Britanno-Pict lands, taking up the remainder, as well as a portion of northern Britain. While the Romans called the whole of the lands Caledonia, Dark Age records from various monastic sources insist that Pictland was once three or four kingdoms, a north and south Pict kingdom, and an indepedent Briton kingdom, called Caledonia, which was overrun by the Scotti Gaels, founding the kingdom of Dal Riata. The capitol of Cat would likely be Argyll, but the Pict name would be different, possibly Arust, or Arst, and the capitol of the south Picts would likely be at Dumbarton (the later capitol, in the south of Monmouth), or possibly the earlier capitol of Kilna in Fibb, but that city is a legend, as, if it were real, then it was burned to the ground by the army of Kenneth Mac Alpin to suppress a rebellion.
I do not know a good capitol for a province of Caledonia, and any suggestions would be good.
The_Emperor
11-09-2004, 13:06
The Iceni themselves controlled most of East Anglia at around this time. I would also be tempted to put in some region specific units. Such as Caledonii or Pictish Warbands, or basic celtic Cavalry in the Southern Briton provinces (to reflect trade of horses with Gaul)...
Some Iceni specific units would also be great.
I think we should definitely see at least a single Pict mercenary or rebel unit. And sorry I forgot to mention the placement of the Iceni, only in retrospect do I realize I've overlooked it.
And while I do agree some region specific units would be great (Gaelic Fianna!), I think it'd be asking a bit much at the time, with the current constraints of how many units we can have, though, it would be fun to dream, though I'm not certain what Iceni uniques you may have in mind. But either way, a Pict unit, at least one, is a necessity, I think, to properly convey the Pictish people, as they were of no resemblance to their Celtic neighbors. Also, as mentioned, I'd like to see hammer warriors for the Ordovices.
eadingas
11-09-2004, 13:47
This is similar to how I modded Britain... I think 6 provinces is maximum for Britain, otherwise the Britons will be too overpowered.
I added Dumnonii in Cornwall, and Caledonia. I was thinking about adding Icens in the east, but I'm not sure if that's not too many. And were Icens that important a tribe in the 200s BC, before Trinovantes were annihilated by Romans?
I'm not too keen on dividing Caledonia and Ireland. They're real outskirts of civilization at the time, and not that important. It would be too much small provinces - if we divide Caledonia in two, how many provinces we'd have to give to Galia and Germany - 20 each?
BTW Britain - should Silurii be Ordovicii instead? Ordovicii were more important in Wales at the time, Silurii came to power in post-Roman times...
Dead Moroz
11-09-2004, 13:52
Pictures, please!
eadingas
11-09-2004, 14:14
It looks like this:
http://img95.exs.cx/img95/1672/barbarianmap1.th.jpg (http://img95.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img95&image=barbarianmap1.jpg)
Although don't pay too much attention to placing of settlements, it's not very historical at the moment... and my latin grammar is VERY rusty :embarassed:
The_Emperor
11-09-2004, 14:17
Ok from what I know of the Iceni, their territory comprised of all of Norfolk and about half of Suffolk.
As for a unique unit, I am not entirely sure what would be best for them. Maybe a unique swordsman unit... While the caledonii get a fanatic/raider unit. (the fighting between the northern tribes was considered to be a lot fiercer, as they had fewer resources and raided each other a lot more).
eadingas
11-09-2004, 14:27
Check this page for a good resource:
http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes/tribes.htm
But! This is a map for post-roman invasion times, with Catuvellauni powerful in the middle because of their cooperation with Romans, and Trinovantes all but removed. Best to click and read descriptions for each tribe to learn what was their starting position.
eadingas
11-09-2004, 14:33
Eh...okay, scratch that, it was the Trinovantes who cooperated with Romans. Something's happened to my reading skills :)
The_Emperor
11-09-2004, 14:47
Ok from what i have found, the Iceni Capital is roughly where Norwich is today (near where I live) ~;), they also had settlements near modern-day Caistor (Great Yarmouth), Thetford, and Camebridge.
Keep in mind that all these tribal names are not historically correct for a starting time period of early C3rd bc. It's only around 100bc that we really start to see these areas coalescing into regional units - even later in the case of the Caledones.
Essentially, the names are not going to be historically correct and the areas are not going to delineate actual political units for 270bc. Can’t really be helped though J So I suppose most of what is suggested above is as good as its going to get. If you get a chance Barry Cunliffe’s ‘Iron Age Communities in Britain’ has a good breakdown of the different areas and settlements of Britain. But to find a ‘capital’ for an area like modern Scotland is obviously a bit of a joke!
As for the post at the top regarding the division of Scotland, I’m sorry but that is not really based upon any historical or archaeological evidence. There are a number of rather strange statements – eg ‘’The capitol of Cat would likely be Argyll’? I’m sure you know that the first mention of Picts is 297ad. It is making a mockery of Scottish iron age archaeology to use our 1st mill ad early historic evidence in a 3rdC bc context. Sorry Ranika if I sound like a bit of a dick, as i know this is only a starting point for discussion :embarassed:
‘’I think, to properly convey the Pictish people, as they were of no resemblance to their Celtic neighbours’’ – please explain this?
‘’I'm not too keen on dividing Caledonia and Ireland. They're real outskirts of civilization at the time, and not that important.’’ I thought the point of this mod was to get away from a romano-centric view of civilisation? Maybe not though? Is this not like the Romanophiles who say that the Germans and Gauls are on the outskirts of civilisation and are not that important?
‘the fighting between the northern tribes was considered to be a lot fiercer, as they had fewer resources and raided each other a lot more’ interested to know what your evidence is?
Sorry if I sound a bit narky by the way. I wish you luck
eadingas
11-09-2004, 15:58
‘’I'm not too keen on dividing Caledonia and Ireland. They're real outskirts of civilization at the time, and not that important.’’ I thought the point of this mod was to get away from a romano-centric view of civilisation? Maybe not though? Is this not like the Romanophiles who say that the Germans and Gauls are on the outskirts of civilisation and are not that important?
Don't get overzealous with all that anti-Roman phobia... Let's be frank, you don't get much more peripheral than Ireland and Scotland in ancient Europe. For the continental Gauls and Germans they were also far away lands. Do you want to divide them into several provinces just to get more 'barbaro-centric'? I see no point in that. I'm not the member of the team, so I can only give my wishes on how this mod should be developed, but the way I see it, continental Germany and Galia should be the key factions in the North, with Britons only slightly more diversed than they already are... The 'barbarians' were divided into many small tribes, to try to represent all of them as separate provinces makes little sense for a game that spans in scope from Spain to, hopefully, Indus. The british peripheria weren't that important not only for the Romans, but also compared to the rest of the continent...
And as for the romano-centric view...we only have all this info on Gaulish and Briton tribes because of the Roman chronicles. I, for one, would love to see more diversity in the north-east part of the map, but because Romans weren't interested in those regions, we don't have enough information to reconstruct these lands. So if you will concentrate on diversing Britons and Gauls, while leaving the north-east for 'big empty steppe provinces', you _will_ introduce romano-centric view of Europe no matter what.
eadingas, i actually meant to say that i'm not too bothered about keeping them as single provinces, but somehow forgot to put that in :dizzy2: .
Roman-phobic - i'm not sure how you got that? i just don't like the idea of Romans = civilisation Rest = Barbarians . The game is Rome:Total War, so i'm not bothered about the stress being on Romans. you get what it says on the tin!
I pretty much agree with most of what you say - in historical terms i disagree with the view of britain as on the outskirts of civilisations - but for rtw in terms of empire-building gameplay, the regional conglomerations of iron age britain can't really be considered in the same league as Rome
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-09-2004, 19:37
...for a game that spans in scope from Spain to, hopefully, Indus.
Sorry. Not Spain, Iberia. :wink:
The_Emperor
11-09-2004, 20:51
‘the fighting between the northern tribes was considered to be a lot fiercer, as they had fewer resources and raided each other a lot more’ interested to know what your evidence is?
I did find a site for this a while back that quoted a Roman source. I can't remember if it is Caesar or tacitus, but the Southern tribes of Britons were described as being more "like the Gauls" than their northern counterparts, who were always in a constant state of war with each other.
In addition Scotland is known for its unique Iron Age defences... Such as Brochs and Crannogs. (a Crannog being a settlement that was literally built in the middle of a Loch, a broch is a round almost tower-like structure made of stone suspected to be used as a store and defensive structure to prevent raids) Also some areas of Scotland had far less wood and Celtic hillforts were also made of Stone when that resource was nearby... But we do not have much information about the Northern Celtic tribes other than what Tacitus tells us about the Battle of Mons Graupius, and given he was related to Agricola the General who commanded the battle his account is bound to be exaggerated and flawed.
At any rate the Romans declared that all of Britannia was subdued after victory at Mons Graupius, in reality the surviving Caledonni and the Picts melted away into the countryside after their defeat while the Romans chose to pull back south rather than hold on to the North... Presumably there was no resource of value to keep them interested in maintaing a garisson that far North.
When Hadrian's wall was built later, Pictish raids on the wall were commonplace, and the Romans often engaged in strikes north of the wall and has some success in limiting the raids. But the Pictish problem remained a constant threat until the year the Romans left.
I say the Picts are not like their Celtic neighbors, as, physically, they are described as quite different. They were shorter, with black hair.
I'm aware of the anachronism of using the later capitols of the Pict areas (and it's Cat, not Cait, Cait is a later spelling and has a different pronunciation). However, they are minor anachronisms, as the later Picts in Athfotla, Cat, and Fibb, all claimed their kingdoms to be at least a thousand years old, and based on old tribal regions.
As for Hibernia, it IS important to the Gauls, Iberian Celts, and the Britons, enough to be split in half, if you're not going to do anything to Scotland, as all of them had some legend about it being some kind of promised land (it's why they were so adamant about killing, not conquering, all of the natives). Hibernia itself was rich in silver and iron in the north, and cattle and farming in the south, as well as the mytho-religiosity intents of the Celtic invaders make Hibernia, at least Hibernia, very important.
And if you're going to not divide up Scotland a lot, at least divide it in half. The Caledonii were of Celtic extraction, but the Picts were simply not. They were a completely different race of people, and lumping them all together is a bad inaccuracy. While the Romans would sometime say they were the same people, every description of the Picts, including the Roman ones, is that they were a short, black haired people, while the Britons were tall and fair-headed.
eadingas
11-09-2004, 23:05
What exactly is known about Picts at the time of the game? Shouldn't they just be included as 'rebels', instead of having a province all of their own? They may claim to be there for centuries, but frankly, so do all invaders after a couple generations...
Okay, I'm almost convinced about splitting Hibernia in two by now, it's big enough, but I'm still against splitting Scotland.
Alright, I'll concede splitting Scotland, if Hibernia is split. And yes, they should be rebels, at the time, as they didn't really form into anything remotely akin to a kingdom until the middle of the Dark Ages (the Dal Riatans reported that they were still almost totally nomadic for nearly 200 years after invading Caledonia, with only a few established cities, which were more like weigh stations for the nomadic tribes, who'd come in, rest and barter for what they might need, then left). Only when they percieved a real heavy threat from the Dal Riatans did they coalesce heavily into effective kingdoms, but they were, even before that, divided in north and south tribes, that fought one another.
My main wish to at least divide Scotland in half is so there can be a Pict rebel province (using a Pict mercenary unit, possibly, or a unique Pict rebel unit) in it, with a British Caledonian province.
But, then again, the main wish to divide up Britain is so the British can be confined to it, and have to fight to control ALL of Britain, so I'd like 6-7 or so divisions in Britain.
As for Hibernia, I reiterate, then, that it WAS very important to Gauls, Britons AND Iberians. The north of Britain I'll concede, as, I admit it was not that important to any of the main factions, I only wish the Picts to be present in some respect, and, if not divided, I would content myself to a Pict mercenary or rebel unit. Hibernia, however, was a focal point of Celtic religious and myth culture, especially for the Gauls. While little can be confirmed about the earliest divisions, it is accepted as history due to numerous confirmable sources, like what the Britons had to say about the Gaels, and what is taught as history in modern day Ireland (it's what I was taught, in and out of school). In any event, it is known to have been split, originally, into a northern and southern half, then in three parts, then four. However, by 270 BC, it'd only be the two halves, with sub-states in the northeast and southwest, so just splitting it along the middle horizontally would accomplish a proper divide fine.
Dead Moroz
11-10-2004, 11:03
Sorry. Not Spain, Iberia. :wink:
In Caucasus. ~;)
eadingas
11-10-2004, 11:06
We can, IIRC, quite easily manipulate how often and how strong the rebel forces appear in the province. So we could simply make the Picts appear in Caledonia very often and very strong. This would give them a strong, constant presence on the map, and make them a constant threat to anyone who controls Caledonia (they could even succeed in sacking its capital, if we make them strong enough), but not having permanent province. How's that?
(BTW, I'm planning to check out the 'founded in:' in descr_strat later today, - or has anyone checked if it's worth the bother? It would be fun to make Caledonia unconquerable for a while because of no cities to conquer...)
I like that idea, it'd give the Picts a presence, but not take up a province. That sounds very good. I think, however, then, Caledonia should start rebel, and the Briton provinces should be around Wales/Cornwall. Anyone want to take a stab at dividing up Britain into some logical regions? I know I asked for an Iceni province, and know it's not correct to the period, just saying it should be one due to the importance to the Romans, but I'm not adverse to more proper divisions either. However, Tribus Siluri should definitely be divided between the Dumnonii and Ordovicii, possibly the Silurii in the very south of Wales, but they took up a TINY area, it'd have to be a bit of an exaggerated area of control (but then, all of the British provinces will be)
eadingas
11-10-2004, 11:30
Oh, Caledonia definitely Rebel, no doubt about it... As you can see several posts above, I did pretty much what you ask for: Dumnonum and Ordovicii instead of Silurii. Now it's only a matter of cleaning up the details. Do you agree that the capital of Ordovicii should be in Mona? And what about the capital of the Dumnons: according to his: http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes/dumnonii.htm , we have at least two possible places, either Isca Dumnonum (Colchester, but it's later period) or Ictis...
The northern province of England in my map is Brigantes... is this ok? Or should it be Coritani with Brigantes as rebels?
BTW, if we consider the Iceni (although I think Trinovantes are enough for the period, they were more important in the earlier years and had similarly significant role in Boadica's uprising) what about Catuvellauni, in their original settlement north of Thames?
Oh, and another thing. There is simple possibility to mark the presence of Belgae on southern shores of Britain (as reported by Caesar). Just use the same RGB color as Belgian province to mark some area on the island. This has no significant effect on gameplay, I think, but would be a nice historical touch...
I'd say the Brigantes are fine as is, then. Trinovantes is fine, would serve the same purpose as Iceni, really, in my mind, I'd just like to see the large province divided a bit more, because, if we want Britons to be more confined, realistically, we'll need to have a number of provinces, with strong rebels. Not saying all the tribes, mind you, but some key areas from Celtic Britain in multiple periods would give the Britons some room to fight before needing to invade the mainland.
And I think that marking for the Belgae is a good idea, as they did have a presence in Britain, and that'd be a nice touch. Not of huge importance, clearly, but, a nice touch all the same. Ordovicii and Mona, I have no complaints there at all. I had some other cities rolling around in my head, but Mona, I think, would be best. For the Dumnonii, I'd have no objections if Ictis is chosen, nor if Isca would be chosen, either would be a fine, believable settlement. I'd opt for the earliest settlement though, if it's closest to 270 BC.
Is this set up acceptable for Dead Moroz, as well? A solid concensus between any mappers is a definite necessity.
eadingas
11-10-2004, 12:35
Looking at the map again, I think we can squeeze one more province in this setup: Catuvellauni or Coritani (depending on which one is more historical for our period) taking up the middle part of England - cut a northern bit off Trinovantes and southern bit off Brigantes. This would make Trinovantes in the south, Catuvellauni/Coritani in the middle and Brigantes in the north. With Caledonia, Ordovicii and Dumnones this makes 6 provinces for Britain, plus two for Hibernia and one small 'quasi-province' area for Belgae.
Actually, we can make 7th province out of Belgian area: south of Thames and west of Cornwall. There were several tribes there that called themselves 'Belgiae'... and if we learn how to add new factions we could give this province to Belgians.
Perhaps make Brigantes also into a rebel province? They were warlike and independent...
Ideally, the map would look something like this:
http://img127.exs.cx/img127/2286/britain1.jpg
But perhaps this is too divided...
If that won't cramp it too much, I think that'll be a fine set up, compared to the campaign map, that shouldn't look too small, it'd be akin to the Greek provinces, small, but, enough space to manuever. It's not like the Gauls, who had a few united kingdoms, so concievably could control a large spaces, and allow us to overlook some of the major Gallic cities and provinces, as the Gauls will have plenty. The Britons, on the other hand, are not unified in any major way, and so using the largest or most important tribes as regions would serve us well for giving the divided sense of being a Briton tribe at the beginning of the game, and building a unified Britannia.
Having the Britons start cramped onto the island will give a more realistic (stressing more, very realistic would be giving them only a single province, but that'd be TOO difficult, I think) sense of the British struggle. The rebel British provinces should be fairly strong and difficult to conquer, occupying the Britons for some time.
I do think the Brigantes should definitely be rebel, their strong indepedent streak should leave them a strong, difficult to conquer rebel province. If you think that their is enough space for a Belgian division, I'd say go for it, but seeing it in my head, that would be a tight squeeze, but not impossible. However, we can't add too many provinces, either, as others need go elsewhere, especially in the new east, but we do have, I think, a little under 100 new provinces open to us.
The early Irish city in the south is supposed to be, supposedly, Milidh, which is supposed to be in the west, around modern day Galway. A good port would be at Tain, which would be around modern day Waterford, I believe. Like the British rebels, I think these should be hard to conquer rebel provinces, occupied by Tuatha Da Danaan Rebels, not Hibernian Rebels. I am aware of Irish legends speaking of the Tuatha Da Danaan as giants or magic beings, I am Irish. However, the historical chronicles of the Irish were fairly seperate, and give an imagine of the Tuatha Da Danaan as likely being Pict-related, a black haired, short warrior race.
eadingas
11-10-2004, 12:50
Well, the belgian province is optional, but I think this area should be distinguished from the rest if only by making it part of Belgiae province using the same color, the way I described above. The more research I'm making the more I see how people living in this area considered themselves 'different' from the rest of the Britons...
With separate Belgians it's 4 new provinces, without - 3 new provinces. So it's not that much, I think we'd manage below the limit.
Right. I understand, just worry about being overzealous in the creation of the British provinces, maybe making too many, or that we may end up strapped for provinces, or that we simply cramp Britain too much. However, if the room is present, and their is enough historical basis for this Belgians, in your assessment, to be apart from the Britons, then I'd say definitely go for it. I'll likely continue throwing ideas out until we get an agreed upon concensus, though I do think I like this map, and think it will work well.
Also, please note the edits to my previous posts, I've added a few addendums.
If we went with the map displayed most recently, or even with the Belgians added, what would the Briton provinces be? I assume Ordovicii, Dumnonii, and Coritani, and maybe Trinovantes (giving them their original number of provinces)? I recommend three provinces for starting if we go with a 6 province Britain, or 4 if we go with a 7 province Britain.
I have no idea why I didn't just edit my former post.
eadingas
11-10-2004, 13:44
I think four would be good. Coritani would be easy to control anyway, they were a peaceful tribe, according to the records, so even as rebels they should be weak and possible to capture within two turns. Trinovantes should have the Briton capital, I think, and Ordovicii and Dumnonii provide important resources and trade income (definitely give the Dumnonii a port from the start, there was a port there even in Homer's times), so we get a fairly balanced but not too powerful faction with three possible expansion directions (north, west into Hibernia or east into Belgia).
Sorry for the upcoming long post - i know some of it is a bit off-topic!
Essentially alot of this is 1) anal bitching 2) putting Picts in is historically incorrect 3) Traprain Law would be a good scottish capital. Incidentally, while there were close links between Belgium and SE England in the iron age, these days archaeologists tend to think that they are separate groups, so it's supported by current research to have Belgium as a separate province. (the migration theory is only based upon a population movement in the 1stC BC, so there's no reason to have it as part of Britain in 270BC). So ...
Thank you very much for the replies. I hope I didn’t sound too rude in what I said earlier. I am an archaeologist by trade, have excavated on sites in Scotland, England (a little!) and Ireland, and specialised my archaeology degree in iron age and early historic Scotland (and the British Isles). I still work in a related field and try my best to keep up with current academic thinking.
As far as I’m concerned with something like rtw it is impossible to get historically correct. We can say a lot about the people who inhabited iron age Britain, but are still left with massive gaps in our knowledge. Iron age studies, particularly in Atlantic Scotland, have been at the fore-front of the discipline in this country since the early 1980s, and we are learning a lot all the time. But even for the whole of Britain our only contemporary written texts are politically-motivated fragments from a foreign power. If we are to take them at their face value, we’re closing ourselves to a rich regional diversity and the constantly changing society we see in the archaeological record.
Many of the comments I read in threads and on different sites about rtw, clash dramatically with what academics in the field think about the period - People using outdated theories and backing them up with out of date sources. A lack of knowledge of the basic chronological and geographical framework. An over-reliance of single classical quotations to prove something was or wasn’t true. CA is often blamed are being inaccurate, but I see similar mistakes and fallacies written on the boards. Often the only sources that are quoted are internet sites, and there has been very little basic reading of the key text-books and articles.
I did find a site for this a while back that quoted a Roman source. I can't remember if it is Caesar or tacitus, but the Southern tribes of Britons were described as being more "like the Gauls" than their northern counterparts, who were always in a constant state of war with each other.
Sounds like Tacitus. Can’t for sure remember him saying that they are always at war. But Tacitus would be fairly suspect in any case, since he is promoting Agricola’s acitivities against someone he wants to portray as a fierce enemy
In addition Scotland is known for its unique Iron Age defences.
Certainly not more so than Wessex
... such as Brochs and Crannogs. (a Crannog being a settlement that was literally built in the middle of a Loch, a broch is a round almost tower-like structure made of stone suspected to be used as a store and defensive structure to prevent raids)
Most people view brochs today as a regional variant of the round-house, built in areas where (as you say) there was a lack of stone. They clearly have some defensive qualities, but militarily are rather vulnerable. They were certainly inhabited permanently though, rather than being a temporarily inhabited structure. (incidentally my first ever excavation was on a broch site – wonderful dig!)
Also some areas of Scotland had far less wood and Celtic hillforts were also made of Stone when that resource was nearby
Occasionally, but more usually earth and rubble core with a wooden palisade
But we do not have much information about the Northern Celtic tribes other than what Tacitus tells us about the Battle of Mons Graupius …
I’m not sure if you mean the actual tribe and place names or not? If so I agree. If not, we do know a hell of a lot about the people, their landscape and their lives from archaeological digs.
… and given he was related to Agricola the General who commanded the battle his account is bound to be exaggerated and flawed.
True
At any rate the Romans declared that all of Britannia was subdued after victory at Mons Graupius, in reality the surviving Caledonni and the Picts melted away into the countryside …
Picts in late ad1stC ?
after their defeat while the Romans chose to pull back south rather than hold on to the North... Presumably there was no resource of value to keep them interested in maintaing a garisson that far North.
Many, many reasons for it – I would recomment David Breeze’s ‘The Northern Frontiers of Britain – for a good synopsis of them. The wider situation throughout the Roman empire is particularly important at this point – the romans needed to shift some troops around the empire at that moment and Scotland was low priority. From the archaeology though, it seems that they were initially planning to stay permanently, but they changed their mind.
The Picts
I really disagree with having a Pictish unit in a game that runs from 270BC to AD14. It is just completely historically wrong. It’s almost the same kind of mistake as having the Egyptians with Pharonic headdresses. I mean come on! This is the kind of thing that people would be modding out if CA had done it.
The first mention of the Picts in history was only in 297ad – that’s 283 years after AD14 - almost the whole length of RTW!
Unfortunately until the Roman commentaries we have no knowledge of the named socio-geographical units in Scotland. The most detailed reference is the mid 2ndC AD Ptolemy map, which is of course mentioned elsewhere on the forum. It referred to the people living in Scotland by tribal names – eg. Venicones, Votadini, Cornavii. etc, etc
In the 1stC AD Tactitus refers to the people Agricola fought against as the inhabitants of Caledonia – this can be seen as either a single tribe or the conglomeration of tribes in a loose alliance, triggered by the southern presence of the Romans
In c.200ad Cassius Dio wrote about the Severan campaigns and to quote him:
There are two principal nations of the Britons, the Caledonians and the Maeatae, and the names of the others have been merged in these. The Maeatae live by the wall which the island in half and the Caledonians beyond them …’
Note that in none of these cases, do the Romans refer to the people north of H Wall as by the nickname ‘picti’ or ‘painted people’. Surely we can’t dismiss the above names and instead skip forward in history to the term ‘picti’
The ‘picti’ or ‘painted people’ are first mentioned in 297 by eumenius. The ongoing conglomeration of tribes which Cassius Dio refered to probably formed into the close alliance/league/? of the picts. Over the next 600 years, this group (refered to by some outsiders as picts) had a variety of forms – regional groups (which would later become be ruled by ‘mormaers’ and then ‘earls’ in medieval Scotland), a south/north division, and the eventual merging with the Scots of Dal Riada to form the kingdom of Alba.
I say the Picts are not like their Celtic neighbors, as, physically, they are described as quite different. They were shorter, with black hair.
what source are you using for this?
I'm aware of the anachronism of using the later capitols of the Pict areas (and it's Cat, not Cait, Cait is a later spelling and has a different pronunciation).
I know that they’re spelt differently at times. What’s your source for 'Cat' being the earliest spelling? And since we don’t know the pronunciations the Picts used how do you know that they were both pronounced differently? The earliest I can think of is the famous one about the seven sons of Cruithne, including ‘Cait’. Most quotes seem to say 'Cait', but I haven’t been able to find the original untranslated version anywhere? You know where there is an original version?
However, they are minor anachronisms, as the later Picts in Athfotla, Cat, and Fibb, all claimed their kingdoms to be at least a thousand years old, and based on old tribal regions.
Yes, and the medieval Scots claimed they were descended from an Egyptian princess called Scota. The king lists only go back accurately (-ish!) to c.400ad. all nations and peoples claim to go back far into the past and have their foundation myths. It doesn’t mean it’s true though
And if you're going to not divide up Scotland a lot, at least divide it in half. The Caledonii were of Celtic extraction, but the Picts were simply not. They were a completely different race of people, and lumping them all together is a bad inaccuracy.
I’m sorry!!! The picts were a different race? Please back this up with some decent sources. I have studied the picts a lot and this is simply wrong. I can’t think of a single reputable academic who considers the picts a different ‘race’? yes in the past there were some bizarre theories linking the picts to Finno-Ugritic peoples, the Basques or a pre-Celtic people, but there's really no evidence for any of these
To quote Martin Carver, one of the leading Pict experts
‘’… for most modern scholars, the Picts were Britons, just like the Britons of Wales. In this view, there is nothing particularly strange about their customs: they were not matrilinear, they just fell back on female heirs when necessary like the rest of early medieval Europe. Their weapons, forts, social organisation, marriage customs and clothing were not radically different from those of the other communities who occupied Britain and Ireland then…. The Picts were not a race, although they may have been briefly a nation’’
While the Romans would sometime say they were the same people, every description of the Picts, including the Roman ones, is that they were a short, black haired people, while the Britons were tall and fair-headed.
Can you quote me these? We have very only occasional Roman sources for people in Scotland’s appearances. It is similar to someone going to Greece today and saying that everyone has black hair. Could you give me Roman sources that say the Picts were short and black haired, while the Britons were tall and fair-headed
In addition to quote Tacitus, Agricola, 11
‘’Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is as usual among barbarians, little known. Their physical characteristics are various, and from these conclusions may be drawn. The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin. The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts. Those who are nearest to the Gauls are also like them, either from the permanent influence of original descent, or, because in countries which run out so far to meet each other, climate has produced similar physical qualities. But a general survey inclines me to believe that the Gauls established themselves in an island so near to them … The Britons, however, exhibit more spirit, as being a people whom a long peace has not yet enervated. Indeed we have understood that even the Gauls were once renowned in war; but, after a while, sloth following on ease crept over them, and they lost their courage along with their freedom. This too has happened to the long-conquered tribes of Britain; the rest are still what the Gauls once were.’’
Actually possibly that was the quote you were referring to Emperor?
But, then again, the main wish to divide up Britain is so the British can be confined to it, and have to fight to control ALL of Britain, so I'd like 6-7 or so divisions in Britain.
And to finish on a positive, i couldn't agree more! I would love this. I’m not sure if it could be done in this mod, but I really would loved to have CA do this in the game. The struggle for the Britons should have been to start as a single province and fight to unite them all, rather than start as a superpower. Sadly, for gameplay and practical reasons it wasn’t done
Capital
As for a capital of the Caledones – I think Traprain Law is probably the best bet for the period involved – it is about 15 miles east of Edinburgh. As for a original name who knows?
Some sources
David Breeze – The Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain
Martin Carver – Surviving in Symbols
Richard Hingley – Settlement and Sacrifice
Ian Armit – Towers in the North: The Brochs of Scotland
Smith and Banks – In the Shadow of the Brochs
Sally Foster – Picts, Gaels and Scots
Thank you very much and sorry for going on so much!
eadingas
11-10-2004, 13:48
PS: If we make the middle province a Catuvellauni one instead of Coritani, then they should be rebel too. This is one thing to decide
(when will I finally be able to edit my posts? :( )
Picts by the name of Pict may be historically incorrect, but they are clearly a seperate people. The Romans DO state they were shorter, and while I'll need to find the exact qoutes, Michael Lynch, a very prominent Scottish historian (his finest composition is the Oxford Companion to Scottish History, an excellent source), states so, and the Irish and the Dal Riatans, in later periods, describe the Pict people as not being of the Gaelic race. However, they called the various Welsh, the Strathclyders, the people they called Caledonians, and most of the southern British tribes of Celts Gaels, but they likened the Picts to the Cruithe. It is an accepted fact in Irish history, that the Tuatha Da Danann were Cruithe, and they were also short black haired people, they were described by Saint Patrick, who dealt with the last Irish Cruithe in the north of Ireland as "a people totally unlike the Gaels, but claiming of proper rights to the island, stating they were before the Gaels". The Irish didn't argue that they weren't, either. Rather, the idea that these people were there first is a key note in the earliest of Irish history.
Saint Donan, who went on mission to the Picts, called them Celts, but said of them "They are shorter than the Gaels, but have longer heads, and whiter skin" in his letter to the monastary at Iona (shortly before he and his 52 missionaries were slaughtered at Eigg). The letter also includes references to their religion (worship of rocks, trees, rivers, and sometimes, bastardized versions of British gods, though the former, animism, was generally more popular). Donan, like Patrick (a Cumbrian), declared himself a member of the race he was trying to convert, but was of Gaelic extraction (Donan was from Dal Riata), and, even if the Picts were Celts, was not of the same race (as if the Picts were Celts, they were Brythonic, not Goedelic). Supposedely, Saint Columba would not be anamchara (soul-friend) with Saint Donan, because he was 'of the Pict race', who Columba thought of as irredeemably pagan, and actually likened them to monsters, and used their PHYSICAL APPEARANCE (notably, their size, their gait, as well as non-natural things, such as hair styles and tattoos) to spread propaganda that they were in fact the children of demons during his early missions, before changing his mind after Donan's martyrdom. only after Donan's marytrdom did Columba speak with Brude, the Pict king, who he'd originally called 'a little bile spat up from hell'.
A common theme in all of the statements of the interactors with the Pict regions is that they were a shorter people (not necessarily SHORT, but compared to their neighbors, they were generally shorter). The Gaelic races all say they (the Cruithe) were there before them, and that they weren't related to them remotely (until the assimilations of the Picts into the people of the kingdom of Dal Riata, then Alba).
The sources I'm using, I know, are post Roman, but they talk a lot about pre-Roman eras for the Picts, and provide a clear description of the northernmost as being a different people. The southern Picts would surely be interbred heavily with actual Britons, but I think it would be foolish to assume that the Picts are purely Celtic, based only on Roman sources, when the Romans did not interact that heavily with them. They fought them, and saw them, but they did not engage in long diplomacy with them, nor study them as Saint Donan did. Unless you're willing to believe a massive invasion of totally unrelated people flooded into Scotland without anyone, British or otherwise noticing, or that by some genetic anomaly, the northernmost Britons looked totally different than their southern cousins, there is no way the Picts can be of the same race.
eadingas, need to have member status before editting posts. I'd use Coritani, just to give the Britons a province. It'd be nice to include the really indepedent tribes, but that'd leave the Britons with few 'united' provinces.
Also, I'm aware I think Hibernian rebels should be the Tuatha Da Danaan, and I know the Gaels saw them as the Cruithe race, but they called them the Tuatha Da Danaan. It's like...rebels in Athens would be like Athenian rebels, not Greek rebels.
Further, I'm aware using Dark Ages sources is working backwards, but we'd have to work backwards, cause no one actually knows what was present in the far north during 270 BC, but the general concensus by Dark Ages researchers, who were a lot closer to that point than we are, is that the Picts were there, and were not the same people. To further hammer that point, Kenneth Mac Alpin, called the Picts 'The wretched race of cruithe'. He didn't call the Irish or Welsh 'a wretched race', he called them 'wretched lands' (Kenneth wasn't a very nice guy, he didn't like many people).
eadingas
11-10-2004, 14:24
BTW, the guys at Medieval Mod have divided Britain into six provinces (of course in a completely different way, because they're doing different time period) and it looks OK - not cramped or squeezed at all:
http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=845
That's a good info on Picts. I don't know what other name should we use for them, Picts are at least easily identifiable by anyone, we could perhaps note in the troop description that it's a later name.
Were the lands of Caledones and Picts separated, or were they mixed in the same area?
PS: Yeah, I know about the need to be a member, I just can't find how many posts it takes. I hope it's 50 :)
eadingas
11-10-2004, 14:27
Cruithni seems to be a celtic name for Picts. We could use that, maybe.
PROMETHEUS
11-10-2004, 14:31
I think that Caledonia should be divided in superior and inferior , since there are two valla build there and separated the two regions.....
Well, it is true we can't know exactly what the Picts were. In such a case, I think a generic 'Caledonian' unit would be best, if that's agreeable, but I ask, at least, that they have black hair (some Celts did, so that'd be fine for a Celtic unit anyway). It seems, at least to me, a reasonable compromise. And the area of the Picts and Caledones is, as such, a twisted bag. Can't really say where they had 'borders', or if they had them at all (the Picts were likely largely nomadic, or very loosely tribal). Any borders or cities I've suggested for them are all based on later sources when they coalesced into defined kingdoms, but in 270 BC, they'd probably not be nearly as developed.
As for that map, then it seems good enough, can put a fair number of provinces in, it seems, enough, anyway, to make Britain feesably realistic. I'm glad we all agree on that, the CA version of a 'unified' Great Britain was a bit upsetting, and just plain stupid. However, the map in your link if of France (Gaul).
And Cruithni is the 'new' Irish spelling, after 1100 AD, prior to that, it is Cruithe. Cruithni is after some Latin influences got into Gaeligh. If we use the name the Gaels called them, the earliest known name would be Cruithe (Croo-da), not Cruithni (Croo-nee, in An Mhumain, Crot-nee in the Connacht, not sure of the other dialects, my Ulster is just terrible). Cruithe, I think, would be an okay compromise, if we don't wish to apply the later Roman title (and they were likely called Cruithe or a similar name before Picti anyway). However, I've shyed from it for the same reason I didn't want to use it for Hibernian rebels, but if we do use it, then using it in Hibernia would work too.
As for dividing Caledonia, I think we've come to a compromise of some sort to not divide it.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 16:30
In Caucasus. ~;)
AH! Our distant cousins!! :grin:
Some more comments
The Romans DO state they were shorter, and while I'll need to find the exact quotes …
Fair enough, I’d be interested
Michael Lynch, a very prominent Scottish historian (his finest composition is the Oxford Companion to Scottish History, an excellent source), states so ...
If you say so, though Michael is an excellent historian, but he is not a Pictish expert or prehistorian. While he is a great all-round historian (I’ve attended his lectures a couple of times), he specialises in 16th and 17th century Scottish history
But, since you brought him up, here is a passage from him.
Some quotes from Michael Lynch -
‘’The first mention of the Picts was made by a Roman observer in ad 297 … Its occurrence at that point when the main periods of both Roman invasion and occupation of a southern pale were already over, may suggest that the name implied a new power grouping in the north rather than indicating a tribe newly arrived from elsewhere. A hundred years before the name Picti appeared the eleven or twelve northern tribes which Ptolemy had earlier described were already being subsumed into two great peoples, the Caledonni and the Maeatae bound together in an alliance against the Romans. The Maeatae explained Dio Cassius c310 ‘live close to the wall that divides the island into two parts’ but the Caledonni are ‘beyond them’. The dividing line between Roman and hostile territory would have been the Antonine Wall and the likely border between these two cognate peoples was the natural barrier of the Mounth. From this point until the sixth century, it is noticeable that there are consistently said to be two main groups of peoples north of the Forth/Clyde line: in 310 there is a reference to the ‘Caledones and other Picts’; by 368 Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Dicaydones (obviously related to the Caledones) and the Verturiones’ and Bede, in dealing with the 6th century distinguishes between ‘northern Picts’ a pagan people first touched by Columba in this mission in the Great Glen, and the southern Picts who, he asserted, had been converted to Christianity much earlier by Ninian’’ [incidentally he mixes up some of his authors here ~:) ]
‘’the rediscovery of the Picts as a Celtic people has encouraged closer comparison with practices in contemporary Ireland’’
Some quotations by some Pict experts
Sally Foster (Historic Scotland)
Re: Picti ‘it seems to be a generic term for peoples living north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus who raided the Roman empire’
[B]‘’The appearance of the term Picti cannot be used to infer that the Picts were a ‘nation’ or uniform people prior to the end of the 3rd century, nor that the people to whom this term was applied had suddenly changed in any way’’
‘’… we can be confident that all these people were simply the descendents of the native Iron Age tribes of Scotland’’
‘’Current learned opinion largely favours Leslie Alcock’s 1987 view that the Picts were ‘a typical northwest European barbarian society, with wide connections and parallels’ and that they were thought of as such by their neighbours’’
Martin Carver (Professor of Archaeology at York Uni)
‘’The people beyond the walls were known at first by typical British tribal names – Venicones, Decantae, Cornavii – but by the 300s they had acquired a nickname: the Picts or ‘the Painted People’
Ranika
the Irish and the Dal Riatans, in later periods, describe the Pict people as not being of the Gaelic race. However, they called the various Welsh, the Strathclyders, the people they called Caledonians, and most of the southern British tribes of Celts Gaels
I’d be interested in seeing the Irish and Dal Riatan sources where they describe the Welsh, Strathclyders and Caledonians as Gaels
It is an accepted fact in Irish history, that the Tuatha Da Danann were Cruithe, and they were also short black haired people, they were described by Saint Patrick, who dealt with the last Irish Cruithe in the north of Ireland as "a people totally unlike the Gaels, but claiming of proper rights to the island, stating they were before the Gaels".
I’ve studied some Irish prehistory and early history, and I’ve worked there as an archaeologist. I would not say that this is an accepted fact all. I don’t want to start another discussion about this, but for the moment I’ll just dispute that it is an accepted fact.
Donan, like Patrick (a Cumbrian), declared himself a member of the race he was trying to convert, but was of Gaelic extraction (Donan was from Dal Riata), and, even if the Picts were Celts, was not of the same race (as if the Picts were Celts, they were Brythonic, not Goedelic).
I don’t think anyone was arguing they were Goedelic. Most people think there spoke a P Celtic tongue
based only on Roman sources, when the Romans did not interact that heavily with them. They fought them, and saw them, but they did not engage in long diplomacy with them, nor study them as Saint Donan did.
I agree. I don’t like the use of Roman literature without being backed up by other evidence
Unless you're willing to believe a massive invasion of totally unrelated people flooded into Scotland without anyone, British or otherwise noticing, or that by some genetic anomaly, the northernmost Britons looked totally different than their southern cousins, there is no way the Picts can be of the same race.
IMO The Picts and Strathclyde Britons were simply the descendents of the same people who lived there during the early Roman period and during in the Iron Age. Yep with interbreeding from all their neighbours, but they were not 2 different races. The iron age was regionally very diverse, and the development in the 3rd to 6th centuries of several regional proto-states which had their own identities is not surprising. It doesn't have to imply that because there were two proto-nations that there were two different races
Regarding their different looks, plenty of people at the time failed to mention significant differences. Flicking through the books I have on Pictish and Iron Age period here at the moment, it is barely even considered for more than a paragraph or 2 that the Picts could have been a different race from the Caledonians
‘the general concensus by Dark Ages researchers, who were a lot closer to that point than we are, is that the Picts were there, and were not the same people.’’
Who do you mean by this? Are you honestly saying that rather than modern historical scholarship we should just go with what Gildas, the Pictish king lists and Bede say?
Kenneth Mac Alpin, called the Picts 'The wretched race of cruithe'. He didn't call the Irish or Welsh 'a wretched race', he called them 'wretched lands'
What is your source for this quotation? I’d be interested as there are very few historical sources for MacAlpin.
Were the lands of Caledones and Picts separated, or were they mixed in the same area?
The Caledones were around the great glen in Ptolemy's map. Tacitus talks about Caledonia mainly when he's north of the Forth-Clyde. Cassius Dio says that the same thing - beyond the Antonine Wall. As for the Picts - the northern grouping was north of the Mounth - sort of Buchan - Moray - Ross - Caithness, while the southern Picts were south of the Mounth - including Mar - Angus - Atholl - Fife - Strathearn. Pretty much the same although Ptolemy's map is very dodgy about exact places adn locations.
Anyway, a lot of this discussion comes down to a later period.
But, since the term Caledones is used closer in time to the RTW period, I think it is far better to use the term 'Caledones' or 'Caldonii' ??, (or for some units - – the names of the tribes in Ptolemy maps - eg Votadini, etc ) for the mod.
If it was to be divided - Caledonia Inferior./ Superior would probably be best with a split on the Forth/Clyde - Traprain Law southern capital - Tap o Nort in Aberdeenshire probably best for the north?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 18:04
Sorry for the upcoming long post - i know some of it is a bit off-topic!
Essentially alot of this is 1) anal bitching 2) putting Picts in is historically incorrect 3) Traprain Law would be a good scottish capital...
Extremelly good post. Some very good points. I totally agree on the Picts question. If they weren't mentioned before 297AD, why include them in an Historical correct MOD? No logic in that.
But, then again, the main wish to divide up Britain is so the British can be confined to it, and have to fight to control ALL of Britain, so I'd like 6-7 or so divisions in Britain.
And to finish on a positive, i couldn't agree more! I would love this. I’m not sure if it could be done in this mod, but I really would loved to have CA do this in the game. The struggle for the Britons should have been to start as a single province and fight to unite them all, rather than start as a superpower. Sadly, for gameplay and practical reasons it wasn’t done.
Yes. The map of the British Isles can be subdivided up 8-9 provinces. We have a maximum of 200 and there are currently a little more than 100. It shouldn't be a problem if kept to that number.
Thank you very much and sorry for going on so much!
No problem. Keep these posts coming.
BTW, interested in cooperating in historical information or too busy to do it? :grin2:
eadingas
11-10-2004, 18:15
Yes. The map of the British Isles can be subdivided up 8-9 provinces. We have a maximum of 200 and there are currently a little more than 100. It shouldn't be a problem if kept to that number.
You mean 8-9 provs for _both_ Britain and Hibernia? Then it's what we already got working on here... The provinces proposed are - north Hibernia and south Hibernia, Caledonia, Brigantes, Coritani, Trinovantes, Ordovices, Dumnoni, british Belgians... that's 9 already, without dividing Caledonia. Alternatively, we could get rid of Belgians and split Caledonia, but I think it would be more fun to have 'Belgian foothold on British soil' in the beginning...
Zakalwe, care to share your opinion on this proposed division? I've been using only online sources for this so far, maybe there's something wrong with it...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 18:19
That's a good info on Picts. I don't know what other name should we use for them, Picts are at least easily identifiable by anyone, we could perhaps note in the troop description that it's a later name.
Were the lands of Caledones and Picts separated, or were they mixed in the same area?
If they weren't known as Picts until the 2th century AD, they aren't going to be called that in the MOD. They will be called what they were called in that specific age - 3rd century BC.
PS: Yeah, I know about the need to be a member, I just can't find how many posts it takes. I hope it's 50 :)
Nope. It has nothing to do with post count. Only with a certain amount of time and contribution to the forum. It can be sooner or later, but generally it doesn't take too long. Maybe less than a month.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 18:30
You mean 8-9 provs for _both_ Britain and Hibernia? Then it's what we already got working on here...
Yes. Up to 8-9 for the entire British Isles - Britain and Hibernia.
The provinces proposed are - north Hibernia and south Hibernia, Caledonia, Brigantes, Coritani, Trinovantes, Ordovices, Dumnoni, british Belgians... that's 9 already, without dividing Caledonia. Alternatively, we could get rid of Belgians and split Caledonia, but I think it would be more fun to have 'Belgian foothold on British soil' in the beginning...
That is up to your groups to decide (Briton Factions research group and Campaign Map group).
Just remember that we need names for provinces, cities and for the tribes ocuppying them. Not just name the provinces by tribe's names.
eadingas
11-10-2004, 18:32
If they weren't known as Picts until the 2th century AD, they aren't going to be called that in the MOD. They will be called what they were called in that specific age - 3rd century BC.
Okay, okay, I get it all ready, no need to get all caps-locky on me :)
The problem here is we don't know for certain how they were called in 3rd century BC...but the Picts didn't appear out of nowhere in 2nd century AD, they must've been there before? Not including them just because we don't know the proper name for them doesn't seem to fair... But we've moved from using the name of 'Picts' later on, as you can see if you read the thread carefully.
How about 'Pretani'?
Nope. It has nothing to do with post count. Only with a certain amount of time and contribution to the forum. It can be sooner or later, but generally it doesn't take too long. Maybe less than a month.
A month?? Good gods.
eadingas
11-10-2004, 18:36
Just remember that we need names for provinces, cities and for the tribes ocuppying them. Not just name the provinces by tribe's names.
I don't get it... the province can't be called the same as the tribe? Why? What names should we use then, geographic regions? But the names of regions are modern inventions... Surely not 'Britannia Superior' or 'Caledonia Inferior'...
The settlements names won't be a problem, there's plenty of info available, except maybe for Caledonia but even here we have some options already.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 18:47
I don't get it... the province can't be called the same as the tribe? Why? What names should we use then, geographic regions? But the names of regions are modern inventions... Surely not 'Britannia Superior' or 'Caledonia Inferior'...
Ok, ok. Try your best. We'll sort out any remaining designation problem later.
The settlements names won't be a problem, there's plenty of info available, except maybe for Caledonia but even here we have some options already.
Good. I like that. :cool:
Cheers Aymar, I’ve lurked on the EB threads for the past 6 months, but couldn’t seem to get an account working here at the org until now :embarassed: . I’ve had discussions over at .com, usually around people arguing about the lack of ‘civilisation’ of those north of the Mediterranean, and took part in a rather long thread with Pyscho about the bearded Britain leader
I’ll keep hanging about, but I’m afraid I’m rather sceptical about getting things historically accurate for this time period in Britain. In my job I often work with illustrators doing historical reconstructions and there is only so much you can say for sure without getting into speculation. Then you really just have to go with instinct. I think that while CA have made some screw-ups, that they are faced with a near impossible job portraying iron age Britain and Ireland. In archaeological papers, reconstructions and exhibition text, you can qualify things and say things like ‘this is an example of …’ , ‘some people may have worn …’ and ‘Archaeologists think that people may have …’ . You can also show the artefacts and say that ‘We found this at … , but no other … have ever been found, so was it rare or did no others survive?’
For CA developers and modders though, you have to take one find and give it to entire units. The object may have been a unique object or it may have been one of many, but you can’t qualify this. A single quotation like the German phalanx one becomes a huge argument, because it really affects the way the whole faction’s gameplay. But if I was writing an exhibition about the same thing, I could simply present the quote and translation, show some German spear- heads and say something along the lines of ‘Some people think that this method of fighting shows that the German tribes had a sophisticated method of warfare. Others disagree and … ‘
So I find it very difficult to comment on a lot of this, because a computer game can never accurately represent RL, and we do not have enough information to provide for iron age Britain
At the same time, that’s not to say that you can’t do some things correctly or show the most likely way things were done. Unfortunately, I usually end up saying ‘yeah, but …’ or ‘we can’t say for sure’ or ‘either way would be correct’ or ‘we only know that for a certain place at a certain time’ or 'it doesn't matter as it's incorrect either way'. So I’m unlikely to really be much help except for bitching at other people.
But I’ll certainly be interested to see what you guys do. It’s all very interesting and enjoy discussing these issues with people who are both enthusiastic and knowledgeable :book: .
Provinces for Britain is very difficult. :help: I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least. Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Commuities might be able to help but even then you'd be left with regions just showing distributions of settlement types - no names and no personality. It is incorrect, but i think it's best to go for tribal names. Sadly you can't get them all, but at least you can get in some of the big names.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 18:59
Okay, okay, I get it all ready, no need to get all caps-locky on me :)
I didn't. ~:)
The problem here is we don't know for certain how they were called in 3rd century BC...but the Picts didn't appear out of nowhere in 2nd century AD, they must've been there before? Not including them just because we don't know the proper name for them doesn't seem to fair... But we've moved from using the name of 'Picts' later on, as you can see if you read the thread carefully. How about 'Pretani'?
That is not up to me to decide. That is for the Briton research group to decide.
eadingas
11-10-2004, 19:10
Provinces for Britain is very difficult. :help: I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least. Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Commuities might be able to help but even then you'd be left with regions just showing distributions of settlement types - no names and no personality. It is incorrect, but i think it's best to go for tribal names. Sadly you can't get them all, but at least you can get in some of the big names.
Well, the same is problem for most of northern Europe... we only have evidences of 'cultures', not of 'tribes' for the period we want to talk about... I don't think it would be a good idea to name a faction or province 'Striped Urns' or 'Thin-necked cups' or something like that :) So we'll have to go with later evidence, I think, where we can't find anything proper for the time period...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 19:12
Cheers Aymar, I’ve lurked on the EB threads for the past 6 months, but couldn’t seem to get an account working here at the org until now :embarassed: . I’ve had discussions over at .com, usually around people arguing about the lack of ‘civilisation’ of those north of the Mediterranean, and took part in a rather long thread with Pyscho about the bearded Britain leader
I’ll keep hanging about, but I’m afraid I’m rather sceptical about getting things historically accurate for this time period in Britain. In my job I often work with illustrators doing historical reconstructions and there is only so much you can say for sure without getting into speculation. Then you really just have to go with instinct. I think that while CA have made some screw-ups, that they are faced with a near impossible job portraying iron age Britain and Ireland. In archaeological papers, reconstructions and exhibition text, you can qualify things and say things like ‘this is an example of …’ , ‘some people may have worn …’ and ‘Archaeologists think that people may have …’ . You can also show the artefacts and say that ‘We found this at … , but no other … have ever been found, so was it rare or did no others survive?’
For CA developers and modders though, you have to take one find and give it to entire units. The object may have been a unique object or it may have been one of many, but you can’t qualify this. A single quotation like the German phalanx one becomes a huge argument, because it really affects the way the whole faction’s gameplay. But if I was writing an exhibition about the same thing, I could simply present the quote and translation, show some German spear- heads and say something along the lines of ‘Some people think that this method of fighting shows that the German tribes had a sophisticated method of warfare. Others disagree and … ‘
So I find it very difficult to comment on a lot of this, because a computer game can never accurately represent RL, and we do not have enough information to provide for iron age Britain
At the same time, that’s not to say that you can’t do some things correctly or show the most likely way things were done. Unfortunately, I usually end up saying ‘yeah, but …’ or ‘we can’t say for sure’ or ‘either way would be correct’ or ‘we only know that for a certain place at a certain time’ or 'it doesn't matter as it's incorrect either way'. So I’m unlikely to really be much help except for bitching at other people.
That is no problem for us. You're not making a doctoral thesis. Just helping out with your knowledge. Call it a fail-safe net. Like trapeze artists in the circus. Your contribution will avoid or reduce the possiblity of Historical mistakes.
But I’ll certainly be interested to see what you guys do. It’s all very interesting and enjoy discussing these issues with people who are both enthusiastic and knowledgeable :book: .
Good. Then keep reading and posting. And checking the MOD development.
Provinces for Britain is very difficult. :help: I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least. Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Commuities might be able to help but even then you'd be left with regions just showing distributions of settlement types - no names and no personality. It is incorrect, but i think it's best to go for tribal names. Sadly you can't get them all, but at least you can get in some of the big names.
Preciselly. This phrase says it all:
I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least.
That is preciselly what we're trying to achieve. In a MOD for a game, there will always exist certain aproximations that don't correspond to real life and Historical fact, but we intend to reduce them to an almost invisible minimum. And we will prevail...
Okay, okay, I get it all ready, no need to get all caps-locky on me :)
Don't worry, I thought that Aymar was yelling at me all the time until I realized he just says MOD instead of mod, whenever talking about EB. :)
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-10-2004, 20:04
Don't worry, I thought that Aymar was yelling at me all the time until I realized he just says MOD instead of mod, whenever talking about EB. :)
Did you? :sad: I only use that to distiguish it from mod (moderator)... :cry: :bigcry:
eadingas
11-10-2004, 21:50
I thought he emphasizes that this MOD is better and more important than other mods :)
I thought he emphasizes that this MOD is better and more important than other mods :)
but it is, isn't it? ~;)
eadingas
11-10-2004, 23:40
Okay, back to topic... we need to decide names for settlements for new provinces.
My propositions:
Dumnones ("Belerion" for province name? ->Pytheas) - Ictis
Trinovantes - Camulodunum (I know it's a late Roman name but I don't think we have any better)
Ordovices - Mona
Coritani - Ratae? (same as Camulodunum - only a Roman name for older place)
Brigantes - ?? I could only find Roman settlements. :help: Even Eburacum is not old enough...
Caledones - ?? Traprain Law ?
Northern Hibernia (any better names for that province?) - Tara
Southern Hibernia (ditto) - ??
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-11-2004, 01:13
I thought he emphasizes that this MOD is better and more important than other mods :)
Well... ... it does that too. :grin2:
I'll concede on the Picts. The qoute about Mac Alpin is from a nun who supposedly knew him, Da Ui Manna, but she was short lived, and accused him of some rather wild things. However, she did live among Picts at one point and called them Cruithe. I'm not so much basing my belief upon scholarship, but upon my trust in the people who dealt with them so much, namely Donan and Columba. Modern research can do a lot, but it isn't the same as standing in front of some one and noting their physicality. But I digress, as my sources are based out of period, and I'll concede that then.
As for Hibernia, there a few schools of thought. The earliest divisions are supposedly Leath Heremon, the north, and Leath Eber, the south. However, those are based upon oral tradition, and are the oldest possible divisions of Ireland by Celtic kings. However, their existence comes to serious question. Later, there were Leath Cuinn and Leath Mogha, again, there is no certainty they ever existed, but they are generally believed more than Heremon and Eber. However, those divisions also occured around 125 AD. Heremon and Eber would've been BC. However, the original kingdom names are possibly Cuinnacht (Connacht), in the north (as Ulster was quite possibly a sub-kingdom of Connacht at a time, and the kings of Ulster are believed to trace to subordinates of the king of Connacht), and the southern half would be Erainn, which was less of a kingdom name and more of a designation of the people who lived there (Erainn is the preamble to Aran). However, Cuinnacht is the same thing (Cuinn Men, which, whether Cuinn of a Hundred Battles lived or not, was the name of the people there). At this time, Laigin, Leinster, is part of Erainn, which will eventually become Munster.
The 'capitol' of Erainn would be fairly enigmatic. The various kings would change the position of it commonly, based on tribal ties, usually. There is a city on the west coast, from which modern day Galway is supposed to come, called Regia Alterior, but there was also a port on the west coast in the same place as modern day Wexford called Menapia. I recommend one of those for the city, and use the other for the port.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-11-2004, 01:14
but it is, isn't it? ~;)
Definitelly!!! :yes: :cool:
Also important to point out is that the subkingdoms of Ulster and Laigin, while existing, didn't have those names. Ulster was likely called Voluntii, after a British tribe that had settled it, and Laigin was Menapii, a large Gallic originated tribe (Menapia was their main town).
Tazmanius
11-11-2004, 04:02
with regard to Britain....or Wales to be more specific...
I,personally ,think there should be a North/South divide(Some things never change!)...Ordovices in the North and Silures in the South...
Caratacus was a leader of the Silures who fled to the Ordovices during his war against Rome.Both tribes actively pursued an anti-Roman policy...To say one is more relevant in history or power would be wrong!
They were equally pre-eminent in Wales and both resisted Rome into the 70s AD...hence the need for Legionnary Fortresses at Chester and Caerleon.....
Surely a testimony to the trouble they both caused Rome?
I believe during 270 BC though, the Siluri were a fairly small tribe, that only control a tiny portion of Wales, around what would later be the kingdom of Gwent. Anyone know just how much land the Siluri occupied during this period?
If they are relatively small and ineffectual during the period of Rome: Total War (270 BC-14 AD), it'd be almost like the addition of the Iceni province, but that was agreed against.
eadingas
11-11-2004, 10:15
I was thinking of putting Siluri, Iceni and Catuvellauni as rebels in respective provinces of Ordovices, Trinovantes and Coritani. This should be fair for the period, I think
I could the Siluri as rebels more easily than as a seperate province, as if they were, they'd be tiny. The Catuvellauni should be included in some respect, and I think that works. Would opt for them to have a province instead of the Coritani, but can't see the Catuvellauni being 'allied' in the manner that the Briton faction would represent, in its earliest stages.
Tazmanius
11-11-2004, 13:59
Actually...In history...The Siluri were considered to be more powerful than the Ordovices.....and controlled most of South Wales,not just Gwent!
By the way...got a map of Ancient Britain(You've probably sourced it already?But not sure how I attach it to my post?
eadingas
11-11-2004, 14:53
We can't divide Wales, it's too much. Ordovices controlled much more of Wales than Silures, and they owned Mona, which is too important to miss on the map.
"The Siluri were considered to be more powerful than the Ordovices" - by whom, and in what context? They have resisted Romans a bit longer, but that's all I could find...
Perhaps this province should simply have the name of 'Wales' in some ancient tongue, if we can find source that there was a common name for the area used in 200-300 BC.
BTW, does anybody have more on Pytheas travels than what can be found on the web?
The Silures, on the only maps I can find, controlled the area of Gwent, and a small portion east of it, and spread into the west. By the Roman era in Britain, they controlled a reasonable area of land, but if we're trying to go off of the sizes of the tribes at the time of 270 BC, the Silures only controlled the area of Gwent, and a little to the east. If we did include a Silure province, it'd have to have the size anachronized to include the later western expansion, which absorbed lands from the Demetae, who were probably larger than the Silures around 270 BC (as, by the period of Roman British conquest, they still controlled all of Dyfydd and parts of Gwynydd).
Do you have a map outlining an area that you would wish to be Silure during the opening period? Perhaps the full area after their westward expansion, but that would be akin to including Iceni again, though, that area would be present before the end of the game, so more valid.
Edit: Sorry, didn't see the reply to that. And for a provincial name, Wales is actually a bastardization of the Saxon word 'Wealas', meaning foreigner. The Welsh call Wales "Cymru", but also gwrymiau and ngwrymiau.
Tazmanius
11-11-2004, 15:41
Most references to Wales come to us from Tacitus....outside our timeline but the major source on this subject...as there is little or no historical record re:Wales(Cambria/Cambrensis/Cymru)prior to him.....
Silures lands extended from Wye to South-Western peninsula...which the Demetae occupied(other group Octapitae is also from this area...St.David's head named after them...apparently).
Ordovices controlled most opf Mid-Wales...and may have had land in Snowdonia/North-West.
Other Northern tribes were...Gangani,Decanti and Deceangli!
Demetae...do not appear in Tacitus record...and there are no certain forts in their territory...possibly they co-operated with the Romans.
Silures and Ordovices were opposed to Rome and not subjugated until the campaigns of 74-78 AD.Deceangli fought against Rome in 48...but had probably been brought to heel by Anglesey campaign of 60AD.
Silures were a major thorn in Romans side...as Tacitus relates the wars with Caratacus....easily as important in British History/Folklore as Boudicca!
Above referenced from The Roman frontier in Wales...V.E.Nash-Williams.
A quote from...Britannia by Sheppard Frere..
"The Silures in South-East Wales,guided at first by Caratacus' brilliant leadership,were to prove themselves the toughest and most successful opponents which the Roman army was to encounter in these islands,and herein they were assisted by the character of the terrain."
When implementing Anglesey(Mon,Ynys Mon,Mona)please make sure to have a good grain and copper resource....also copper at Gt.Ormes head,mid coast....and lead mines in NE wales.
Maybe Mon should have a druid unit?even if like TR you have them as not buildable.
from Britannia again...."They were by far the most famous people in Wales" referencing the Silures and Frontinus campaign against them.
Also a suggestion that the Silures were more hispanic in nature than their neighbours....as they were darker skinned and had probably been Celticized fairly late...referenced Culture and Enviroment in Prehistoric Wales...ed.J.A.Taylor
As a footnote...worked as a guide/Archaeologist asst. at Gt.Orme Copper Mine...while at Bangor University(History,Welsh History,Archaeology....in first year....dropped out 2nd year due to family problems.
eadingas
11-11-2004, 15:48
I have druids as unique unit buildable in Mona in my own version of the game, but I'm afraid it would be frowned upon around here as 'fantasy'...
Well, the druids, inasmuch as what is currently in R:TW aren't...realistic. Like, in Gaul, the most realistic thing would be the Carnute Cingetos, and the current druids aren't REMOTELY similar. Likewise, while I don't see it unlikely that druids would've fought in Britain (though I'd imagine it'd be more pressed to fight, rather than seeking a fight, as British druids were more used in a command and advice position than warriors), the CA depiction is still highly fantastic, I'm sure. I mean, given their position, and the general unlikelyhood of them engaging in combat, who in noin ifrion is going to go through the trouble of making their 'special' shields and weapons, rather than giving them more practical shields, and more readily available weapons, like swords or spears? I would like to see a druidic combat unit of some type, maybe, if enough of a historical source can be found for them, but they'd need redesigned from the floor up.
The_Emperor
11-11-2004, 16:11
I have druids as unique unit buildable in Mona in my own version of the game, but I'm afraid it would be frowned upon around here as 'fantasy'...
I found a reference to Caesar's accounts of the Gallic Wars where he describes the Druids as being "above military service". So their portrayal as warriors is not really right for this mod. They were the Judges, Scholars, Historians and Priests of Celtic society and tribal leaders themselves had to respect their counsel and judgement.
By all means keep them in as retinue members though.
It would be nice to have something that reflects the importance of Ynys Mon. Perhaps it could simply be a unique structure that gives a happiness or law/order bonus or something along those lines? Sort of like an awesome temple? Or a +1 morale bonus to all units trained there?
I'm a bit ambivalent either way about druids. As they portrayed in the game, they're pretty dodgy :joker: , although i can understand why ca put them in. Perhaps it would be nice to have a unit which had a druid with them rather like the standard-bearer Roman dudes (forgotten their name?) ?
I suppose these come under a different thread from this map one though?
Personally, not really knowing much about IA wales, i'm happy either way for the tribe names. We dont know how many tribes lived in the area in 270Bc or what their names were, although they were probably smaller in size than there 1stCAd equivalents. We could just call the area by another name, but that sort of takes away the personality a bit.
For dividing the area, archaeologically the south coast had more in common with Cornwall, north Devon and Somerset than the north of wales. but in many ways since we have to divide the island into only a couple of provinces, this really can't be helped.
Always wanted to go Great Orme. It looks great.
eadingas
11-11-2004, 16:32
This is, I think, the source of CA's rendition of Druids:
"[The Druids at Mona Island]
On the opposite shore stood the Britons, close embodied, and prepared for action. Women were seen running through the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel funeral; their hair loose to the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearance resembling the frantic rage of the Furies. The Druids were ranged in order, with hands uplifted, invoking the gods, and pouring forth horrible imprecations. The novelty of the fight struck the Romans with awe and terror. They stood in stupid amazement, as if their limbs were benumbed, riveted to one spot, a mark for the enemy. The exhortations of the general diffused new vigour through the ranks, and the men, by mutual reproaches, inflamed each other to deeds of valour. They felt the disgrace of yielding to a troop of women, and a band of fanatic priests; they advanced their standards, and rushed on to the attack with impetuous fury."
Tacitus, Annals, Book XIV, Chapter 30
The druid model is used as second officer for briton units in RTR. We can have up to 3 officers per unit, so we can add some more colour to the units this way. I have tried to add a dog as one of the officers, but it crashes the game :)
And I'm all for giving something special to Mona.
Tazmanius
11-11-2004, 16:34
Just a thought....Why are we just going for Coritanii in midlands?Weren't Cornovii quite strong....held much of west/NW midlands and some of mid/NE wales!
Wasn't it down to them that Viriconium was established?
eadingas
11-11-2004, 16:48
I get the impression Coritani had more land, and they had Lindum and Ratae... They were more developed, had their own coins, chronicled rulers names... Cornovii look to me like a buffer frontier between Wales, Brigantes and cental England...they could be rebels in Coritani province...
Of course, I'm saying all this sitting at the computer thousand miles from England, not as someone who's actually been digging up stuff, so I may be wrong :)
Of course, I'm saying all this sitting at the computer thousand miles from England
Well we're all sitting at our computers 2000 years in the future :computer:
The druid model is used as second officer for briton units in RTR
Hey that's pretty cool
Women were seen running through the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel funeral; their hair loose to the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearance resembling the frantic rage of the Furies
Perhaps we need a 'Frantic women' unit for the Britons :kiss2:
The Cornovii could be a good inclusion, but how much land would they have to take up? While your Britain map may not be cramped now, they would be in an area already thick with provinces, and it may very quickly become cramped.
eadingas
11-11-2004, 17:46
We can't really add any more provinces. It's already quite crowded with the 8-9 for both islands we agreed upon. We can only decide if it's better to change their names/borders from one to another.
All this info will be more useful once we decide to do Britain: TW mod :)
Do you have a picture of the current set up then? With cities where possible?
eadingas
11-11-2004, 18:57
Here's what I sent to Dead Moroz for consideration (colors messed up by conversion):
http://img63.exs.cx/img63/1764/britain.jpg
The provinces, from north to south:
Caledonia:
Traprain Law
britons
Pretani
Brigantes:
Isurium
britons
Carvetii or Cornovii
Coritani:
Ratae
britons
Catavellauni
Trinovantes:
Camulodunum
britons
Iceni
Dumnones:
Ictis
britons
Belgae
Ordovices:
Mona
britons
Silurii
And for Hibernia:
Cunnacht:
Tara
britons
Hibernians
Erain:
Menapia
britons
Hibernians
BTW, we'll have to start thinking of resources for each province, too.
Could the base culture of Erain be changed to Gaul? The south was generally more heavily affected by the Gauls, while the Briton tribes generally settled the north more heavily (though both had tribes in both places, such as Brigantes in the south, and Uillii in the north). It's not important, too much really, but it would affect, I think, the temples that would possibly be built there, and it just seems more likely to me, in the south, a temple at Menapia (the Menapii were mainly Gallic) would be to a Gallic god, not a British one.
Resources, perhaps silver in Cunnacht, as there were silver mines there, Patrick notes them. While this would be hundreds of years after the setting, it's still notable that silver deposits were present, and they should have the chance to mine them. Also, there is green marble in the west (the hills of Connemara), but don't know if any resource would represent that.
In Erain, the most notable feature was really the abundant farmlands, as Erain controlled more of the fertile center of the island, but also had the larger iron reserves, and had more available hunting lands, so perhaps furs or something similar? Or maybe linens, though the south grew famous for linens a bit later, I believe.
In Caledonia, is wool a resource? If so, I'd have that in Caledonia, and with the Dumnones and Ordovices. I'm not sure about the rest, to be honest. I'm not really sure about the wool 100% either, and Erain's up in the air for me too. Cunnacht though, I'd give silver, and marble if there is a resource for it.
PSYCHO V
11-12-2004, 00:49
First time I've read through this thread. I like!!
You guys have done some great work here! Well done fellas! Can't wait to see this in game.
~:cheers:
For dividing the area, archaeologically the south coast had more in common with Cornwall, north Devon and Somerset than the north of wales. but in many ways since we have to divide the island into only a couple of provinces, this really can't be helped.
Perhaps just do a little something like give the Dumnones some area in south Wales, like how the Belgians have some land in Kent and such? While not perfect in conveying the tribal presences, it'd at least be a hat tip to the difference of the tribes present in the south, without having to cram another province on the island.
PSYCHO V
11-12-2004, 02:24
If I can add a bit
Well, the druids, inasmuch as what is currently in R:TW aren't...realistic. Like, in Gaul, the most realistic thing would be the Carnute Cingetos, and the current druids aren't REMOTELY similar. ..I mean, given their position,…who in noin ifrion is going to go through the trouble of making their 'special' shields and weapons, rather than giving them more practical shields, and more readily available weapons, like swords or spears? I would like to see a druidic combat unit of some type, maybe, if enough of a historical source can be found for them, but they'd need redesigned from the floor up.
Yup, the current guys suck big time. Both Druid units need a total rework imho. We especially need to get rid of the SICKLE and THRACIAN SHIELD.
Yes, I believe the Gallic Druids should be the 'Carnute Cingetos' and called such..as mentioned / described previously. And they should be only buildable in Carnute lands.
The Briton Druids should be much less warlike, called Druidae or some such and only buildable on Mona. They should wear white and wield either a war hammer (as in Ordovice folk law) or double-handed sword (as in Irish folk law). You could make the Briton Druids an officer unit but I think you’ll loose some of that great chanting effect, which incidentally, is historical
I found a reference to Caesar's accounts of the Gallic Wars where he describes the Druids as being "above military service". So their portrayal as warriors is not really right for this mod. They were the Judges, Scholars, Historians and Priests of Celtic society and tribal leaders themselves had to respect their counsel and judgement.
The reference referred to states that they were “exempt” from military service. The exemption was from what amounted to conscripted military service that all Celts of fighting age were forced to undertake at the behest of their overlord. It doesn’t mean they didn’t fight, rather they only fought as volunteers.
I've posted many a thread over the past few years on the evidence that Druids fought in battle. I even found cases where they were referred to as an elite type of 'unit' (eg. Brittany / Ireland).
My2bob
(P.S Tried to do a search to find those posts but seems they may have been deleted)
The Irish 'druids' were more warlike than the British ones, as they trained specifically for war, but not near as much as the Carnutes. The Irish druids were Brehain (the preceding word of Brehon, the judges in Féineachas). I'd base the British druids upon the Ordovice legends, as the Irish druids, while related in tradition, were also related to the Carnutes, as they largely adopted their training techniques according to Irish tradition. The Irish Brehain used large two-handed swords that were the precept to the dark age Lewing Sword. When talking about British druids, we, at the time, probably would've tried to relate them to Brehain, as they were of similar origin, and served the same purpose in many ways, as religious leaders and judges, but Brehains also organized as a fighting force in the event of an invasion, and were 'officers' to the Fianna, the legendary protectors of Iron Age Gaelic Ireland.
Anyway, ranting about Irish things there, anyway, yes, the Ordovicii legends would be more accurate, I'd imagine, so giving them hammers would be more proper, as the Gaelic legends of British druids are more than likely attempts to make the British ones seem more familiar.
In the war between Mogha and Cuinn, supposedly, the reason Cuinn agreed to split the island in half with Mogha so quickly was because Mogha had one hundred Brehains present at Firbos (the field of the Firbolg, in reality probably a British tribe that was slaughtered en masse, with the remnants fleeing north to the more British related tribes, and integrating there). The presence of so many of them terrified Cuinn, and he very hastily agreed to split the island. Notable about the earliest writing about this (though happening near 450 years after the incident would've occured, but is supposed to be a very good account of the oral tradition's story), is the word 'milidh' being used to describe their status. Milidh, from the name of the supposed father of the Gaels, came to mean a champion or great warrior.
Tazmanius
11-12-2004, 02:44
In reply to queries about resources....Have a few books about pre-historic Britain....Including one specifically referring to Wales, culture and enviroment...
In these there are details,and in some cases...a lot of detail...on local resources,fortifications,size of settlements etc.
I'll try and put together a few notes,based on the regional info supplied...Provinces etc. and post over weekend!
If you have any specific areas of research then let me know or post here and I'll try to pore through my books!
PSYCHO V
11-12-2004, 02:54
The Irish 'druids' ...
Another Celtofile amongst us I see. Been reading all the same text, books etc it seems. ~D
Great to have you around Ranika
~:cheers:
If there were space left for them, the Brehain may be an interesting unit in Hibernia, but, they would've been a later development (in the later BCs, probably not present during the early colonization of Hibernia, but they would be present before 14 AD). However, Fianna likely preceded them, as the need for a unified protectorate force was necessary to keeping the Gaelic parts Gaelic, and could be like Celtic Spartans, but also an afterthought. The Fianna didn't fight against Gaels under any circumstance (unless the Gaels joined with an invader, but in that case, they were probably no longer considered Gaels, and outcast). The Fianna could be a unit available to any Celtic faction in Hibernia. But that isn't really on the subject of the map.
However, if Brehains were used, there'd be another two-handed weapon unit, and could use the groovy looking falx animations (though the actual Irish two-handed sword martial arts, specifically anabh, literally 'two hand', would look TOTALLY different).
As far as the map is concerned, I really like how the British map has developed recently, I think we've accomplished a lot with it. However, there was some talk of dividing Caledonia again, but in any event, southern Britain and Hibernia are about finished, in as much as territory divisions, and I think Caledonia too, maybe.
Oh, and good point about 'exemption'. The druid class was valued for their knowledge, but with Celtic custom and religion, being largely based around warfare and the glory earned from it, such an esteemed individual wouldn't be disallowed from engaging in such a practice, as it was the main way to earn prestige. While many druids (used as a catchall here for Carnute Cingetos, Druidae, and Brehain) did operate in warfare from a command position, there were those who did seek glory from a more direct interaction with fighting, especially in Gaul and iron age Ireland, but they did so voluntarily, and it'd not be held against them if they didn't wish to fight, as they had numerous other high value skills.
It would be nice to have something that reflects the importance of Ynys Mon. Perhaps it could simply be a unique structure that gives a happiness or law/order bonus or something along those lines? Sort of like an awesome temple? Or a +1 morale bonus to all units trained there?
This has been talked about in a few places (not specifically for Mona, but, indestructible unique 'structures' for some settlements to offer some bonuses to them). I'd really like to see something like this added to some of the key or capitol settlements. Some that I'd like to see:
One at Mona, like mentioned here by zakalwe, representing the center of the Druidae.
One in Egypt, as described in the private forum, some type of large river irrigation structure, representing the Nile irrigation
One at Tara, the large domed structure found in northern Ireland, composed of large wood pylons, with a completely thatched roof. The structure was MASSIVE, considering what it was made from. It was partly burned, shortly post construction, possibly in some ritual manner, and was likely the earliest seat of an actual Gaelic 'high king' of Ireland. Perhaps could convey an economic bonus or experience bonus to soldiers of some kind (or, alternatively, could be the basis for a new structure allowing for 'large' barbarian cities).
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-12-2004, 16:46
Of course, I'm saying all this sitting at the computer thousand miles from England
Well we're all sitting at our computers 2000 years in the future :computer:
The druid model is used as second officer for briton units in RTR
Hey that's pretty cool
Women were seen running through the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel funeral; their hair loose to the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearance resembling the frantic rage of the Furies
Perhaps we need a 'Frantic women' unit for the Britons :kiss2:
Do i need to :whip: someone?
This is an HISTORICAL REALISM MOD!!!
NO FANTASY IS ALLOWED!!!
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-12-2004, 16:55
In reply to queries about resources....Have a few books about pre-historic Britain....Including one specifically referring to Wales, culture and enviroment...
In these there are details,and in some cases...a lot of detail...on local resources,fortifications,size of settlements etc.
I'll try and put together a few notes,based on the regional info supplied...Provinces etc. and post over weekend!
If you have any specific areas of research then let me know or post here and I'll try to pore through my books!
Go right ahead. Good information is always apreciated.
eadingas
11-12-2004, 17:03
"This is an HISTORICAL REALISM MOD!!!
NO FANTASY IS ALLOWED!!!"
Hey, this is Tacitus you're calling fantasy! ;)
I believe Aymar's complaint is with the idea of a 'frentic women' unit. The Gallic and Gaelic 'druids' fought more than Druidae, but Druidae did engage in combat, but were from a small area. Confining the creation of a more realistic Druidae, with the Ordovicii hammers, would be more acceptable, as the current druids, as stated, are simply incorrect, without question. A druid unit isn't bad, necessarily, it is that CA's druids are horrendous charicatures of druids, seemingly heavily inspired by fantasy depictions of them.
Far more acceptable are Carnute Cingetos, which did engage, far more often, in actual combat actions. The Druidae tended to be more pushed to it. If they were maybe, a slave or rebel unit that were present in Mona (so they wouldn't have Druidae rampaging through Africa), I think that'd be interesting, but then, Mona, I think, will be a Briton faction city, yes?
Editted; actually, could they be a rebel unit? As in, if the city of Mona rebelled, could Druidae be part of the rebel army that takes the city?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-12-2004, 17:48
"This is an HISTORICAL REALISM MOD!!!
NO FANTASY IS ALLOWED!!!"
Hey, this is Tacitus you're calling fantasy! ;)
This is precisely the kind of quotation that was used by CA to justify the inclusion of Screeching Women or the Briton Warrior Druids which was a very unique and special circumstance and not by ANY means the norm. Therefore, Tacitus IS Fantasy when we're trying to find historical evidence in those akward and surreal situations, where there is NONE.
As for Tacitus, Aymar has a point. There are many accounts in history of very bizarre or out-of-the-normal 'units' being implemented in warfare. While some may be interesting, or sound fun, in a historical accuracy mod, it does have to be weighed against the likliehood of a professional army regularly employing such a thing, and the actual viability of it. I would not be fiercely opposed to a Druidae unit, but I would take caution with how it'd be implemented, as even if limited to Mona in construction, unless they had something like an inordinately high cost, or long build time that made them VERY rarely used, they could easily be a highly unrealistic unit, in that they'd be showing up in every high-end army the Britons had, rather than a remarkably rare exception.
eadingas
11-12-2004, 18:56
This is precisely the kind of quotation that was used by CA to justify the inclusion of ]Briton Warrior Druids
Not 'the kind of'. I'm pretty sure it was THE quotation they used.
:bow:
PROMETHEUS
11-12-2004, 21:46
He he searching around I found this....
http://www.slitherine.co.uk/Legion/Images/Map_SouthBritannia.jpg
and that one....
http://www.slitherine.co.uk/Legion/Images/Map_NorthBritannia.gif
eadingas
11-12-2004, 22:47
Variations of these maps can be found in various places...I used a similar map to divide the provinces. But this one for a later period, I think - since there are 'Romans' marked on the map... (and in a rather weird fashion, too...) Although it's useful that it has the settlements marked clearly. I've been having some trouble finding those.
PROMETHEUS
11-12-2004, 22:57
the two maps are about the first the invasion of the britannia and start of the campaign for its conquest , the second is a possible scenary for upcoming invasion of upper caledonia that should be divided in superior and inferior I remember......
PSYCHO V
11-13-2004, 05:55
As for Tacitus, Aymar has a point. There are many accounts in history of very bizarre or out-of-the-normal 'units' being implemented in warfare. While some may be interesting, or sound fun, in a historical accuracy mod, it does have to be weighed against the likliehood of a professional army regularly employing such a thing, and the actual viability of it. I would not be fiercely opposed to a Druidae unit, but I would take caution with how it'd be implemented, as even if limited to Mona in construction, unless they had something like an inordinately high cost, or long build time that made them VERY rarely used, they could easily be a highly unrealistic unit, in that they'd be showing up in every high-end army the Britons had, rather than a remarkably rare exception.
Completely agree with Ranika. Spot on mate.
Expense and build times are easy to do. The Gallic Arverni for example ain't going to be cheap ~;) , nor some of the other elite type units. The end goal for gameplay is to have the "oh shit the enemy have a XXX unit in their army" experience rather than "Hear we go, another horde of elite XXX".
If there was a way to confine the Druidae to Mona, and still be a player unit, I'd more readily endorse them as a unit for factions to train, but to be totally realistic as a faction unit, they would need a VERY long train period (which would make sense anyway, Druidae trained for a good chunk of their lives, having a flawless memory isn't something you'll master in six months, let alone the decades and decades worth of information you'd need to memorize). Right now, I'd see them more likely as a rebel unit that could appear in Mona, and maybe, if we can come to a good consensus on how they could be implemented as a faction unit (determining just how long to build and how costly they'd be), then maybe implement them for the Britons, but still only buildable in Mona.
However, this is by no means my opinion of Carnute Cingetos, those should be a unit quite more readily available to the Gauls, than Druidae to the Britons, as a military unit. The Carnute Cingetos were specifically trained to fight, and were far more often organized into a fighting force, as such, but even then, they should be a rarity, not comprising whole armies. PYSCHO V states it very well. You shouldn't have to be preparing for an assault by a horde of druid-warriors, because it just shouldn't happen, and if it does, it should be a VERY slow process for that army to coalesce.
If we can edit events, we could may enable specific events that may cause Druidae to appear, perhaps, thus strongly limiting their viability.
Also, a bit more off topic, on the Gauls, can Chosen Swordsmen be changed to Kaúaros or Cavarillix, either is a Gallic word for 'champion' (actually learned this when learning Manx, etymology rules). Kaúaros is related to the Greek word kúrios, both have the rootword Keva, meaning 'mighty' or 'strong'.
Cunnacht:
Tara
britons
Hibernians
Erain:
Menapia
britons
Hibernians
I JUST noticed this, but it should not be Cunnacht, it should be Cùinnacht (but doesn't necessarily need the accent if that simplifies things). It would later be called Cunnaght, which would eventually become the name Connacht, but that was until around the 4th century. Cuinnacht is so named as 'Cùinn Men' lived there. Cùinn itself means 'Coin'. This is possibly a reference to silver coins they produced, though currency was more for trading with outsiders, as cattle were preferrable within Hibernia for trading, but sometimes búarfiach (cattle worth) was used as well, in silver coins. The men of Erain, the Eoghanacht, didn't use coins as often, but did use, sometimes, similar stone tokens, but they were more of an 'IOU' than actual currency.
The later names for Cùinnacht all meant something different, literally, but most of them would relate their origin to the hero Cuinn (no accent, meaning Hound Faced in the very early Gaelic, though it possibly meant Hound Fighter or Hound Eyed at the time), who was a legendary king of Cùinnacht, when it was the whole of the north.
I'm aware they did not write, but in early Irish, Cun and Cùin have different pronunciations and meanings (Cun, like it looks, and Cwoin), Cun being a short form of Cunnart, meaning 'Dangerous' or 'Danger' (implying 'Dangerous Men'), and Cùin, as stated, meaning Coin.
Is there a list of the proposed British troops anywhere ?
Also, a Briton- Total war mod would be something I'd love to help out with, though I may be a little biased towards the 'Welsh' tribes ~;)
We have just begun the process of deciding what troops will be available to the Britons. They will have a unique mix, it won't be rehashes of Gallic units (which would be a huge inaccuracy). Expect some tribal or region based units. There aren't, yet, any 'definite' units, I don't believe, but sometime soon, a unit list should be ready.
Great news ~;)
I've being playing a campaign as the Britons using the Total Realism mod and have gotten rather bored.
They just seem to be a poor version of the Gauls- poor being the operative word as I am mostly skint.
I look foward to any updates ~:cheers:
There are numerous members of this mod who take a bit of issue with Total Realism, as Realism doesn't really seem to come into it for numerous issues, including the barbarian factions, like the poor Britons. Our Britons you can expect to be based upon actual warriors employed by the Britons. The Gauls and Britons had quite different warriors, due to concerns of each. Gaul's kingdoms would've been more interesting in organizing units capable of defense and offense in equal amounts, and some raiding. The Britons were far more interested in raiding and mobility, as that is conducive to inter-tribal warfare. However, the Britons will have some 'heavy' units, such as corrected chariots, they'll have far less swords than the Gauls (the Britons had swords, but not near as many as the Gauls, who had a great abundance of them). The Britons will likely have some greatly varied units, representing tribal differences, with many different weapons, slings, spears, swords, and possibly hammers and the like. We'll see though, there will be a lot of discussion, I hope, so we ensure we have the best, accurate, and interesting variety of British units. In any event, I'm sure you'll be pleased with our conclusions, and I will do my best to keep you updated.
Yes, maybe it should be called Rome- A little bit more realistic
~;)
I'm only playing it because it uses nicer skins and removes some of the fantasy units.
I look foward to playing your version ~:cheers:
Any chance of having a certain Celtic king called Slaine' with a rather large axe ? ~D
We'll have to see, whatever our best sources can turn up. I'm aware of the discovery of some large ancient British axes in portions of modern Wales, so there could maybe be a unit that employs them, or perhaps an officer that employs one, but it's really up to what we can confirm, to the best of our knowledge, how many units we plan to give the Britons, etc. If you have any sources that would help, that's always good. We're doing our best for historical accuracy. I'm personally looking forward to a British greatsword unit, because the Britons used actual greatswords quite early compared to most cultures, and they'd make an interesting 'elite' unit, or possibly an officer unit.
I'd be happy to abuse my employess internet connection to help out ~:)
We're looking at 240BC onwards yes ?
The Celtic king thing was just a joke really, Slaine was a fave comic character of mine ~;)
Nice to know he was based on some facts though.
http://www.com-x2.com/rubriky/comics/slaine-thg/art/big1a.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-24-2004, 00:36
Do I need to release my pitbull on you, Monkian? :wink: I like BD and Comics, but it doesn't belong in this thread... :no:
The Britons did use numerous 'big' weapons, for their nobles and greatest warriors. They did not have the iron reserves available to Gauls or Iberians or Romans, because they did not, individually, control much land. They would sometimes make BIG weapons, like greatswords and big axes (which were essentially modified wood axes, but a heavy axehead is a heavy axehead). There are also some evidences of falcata-type swords, but those are fachoira, and probably brought over by Gaelic raiders, who, in their early periods, employed these weapons. The Britons were bigger on spears, slings, javelins, that manner of thing, lots of wooden weapons, including proto-maces that were essentially glorified clubs, wrapped with leather strips, or with bronze or sometimes iron fixtures in them. The Britons are going to be, I think, based largely on their actual historical strengths. That's mobility and raiding abilities, so units that can hide well in forests/tall grass/anywhere, will probably be a bit more prevalent with the Britons than other armies, more 'fast' units. I'm thinking greatswords and big axes for officers now, as while the evidences exist, they were quite rare. Unless units employing them were small, I don't think I could see them as being too realistic. But an officer accompanying his men with well-made, modified wood axe, or a big two-handed sword, that'd make sense. Two-handed swords were more popular with the Gaels, who imported a lot of iron, and had fair enough iron reserves at the time, and have many more examples of the large two-handed swords from the BCs, but they're clearly based on earlier British greatswords.
Do I need to release my pitbull on you, Monkian? :wink: I like BD and Comics, but it doesn't belong in this thread... :no:
Kiss my axe ! :devilish:
Duly noted ~;)
Sounds good Ranika
~:)
I was getting pretty good at ambushing the Gauls with my sneaking warbands.
Ok - heres a list of British Gods- pre Roman Invasion. Thought it might be andy as it also mentions several sites of interest.
Antenociticus The name of this Celtic god is known from three inscriptions found in a small shrine at Benwell near Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Brigantia "The High One," was patron deity of the Brigantes tribe in northern Britain. Associated with water and springs, she was also a goddess of poetry, learning, prophecy, and divination. Links with Minerva include a spear and globe. Another equivalent is the Irish goddess Brigit, namesake of St. Brigit.
Deae Matres ("Mother Goddesses") Usually seen as a trinity, these fertility goddesses are often shown holding baskets of fruit, bread, or fish. The Deae Matres were also associated with water and sacred springs, and sometimes fused with local water deities such as Bath. Sculptures of the Matres also occur at Cirencester, Lincoln, and London.
Dea Nutrix Another form of Mother Goddess is "nursing mother" (Dea Nutrix). Clay statuettes of this goddess, mass-produced in Gaul and exported to Britain, show the young goddess seated in a high-backed wicker chair nursing one or two infants.
Epona The Celtic horse goddess, popular in Gaul and Germany, spread to a lesser extent to Britain via Roman cavalry troops. She is invoked in a small altar at Carvoran on Hadrian's Wall. While always depicted with horses, Epona is sometimes also shown with grain and a patera (offering bowl), which tie her to fertility and prosperity rituals.
Mogons Dedications to this god, whom the Romans identified with Apollo, occur at several fort sites around Hadrian's Wall, including Netherby, Vindolanda, Risingham, and Old Penrith. Mogons was probably a Germanic import, since the Latin name for Mainz is Mogontiacum.
Rosmerta A Celtic goddess usually found as a companion of the Celtic Mercury in Britain, Germany, and Gaul. She appears on a relief in the Gloucester Museum holding a patera over an altar.
Sulis The patron deity of Bath (Aquae Sulis), she was associated with water, hot springs, and healing. The temple at Bath was dedicated to a composite goddess, Sulis Minerva.
Taranis God of thunder and lightning (taren is Welsh for "thunder"), symbolized by a wheel. Known archaeologically in Gaul and Germany, and mentioned by the Roman poet Lucan in his play Pharsalia, he is linked to Jupiter in an altar from Chester.
Veteris A warrior god, may represent a group of deities. At least seven versions of the same name are recorded in 54 inscriptions, most from the eastern half of Hadrian's Wall between Carvoran and Benwell. Based on the modest quality of these monuments, Veteris seems to represent a lower class cult. While linked at Netherby to the god Mogons, he is not identified with any Roman gods.
"Horned God" This unnamed god was widely dispersed in Britain, especially in the south, where he was frequently linked with the Roman god Mercury. He often appears with two short horns in uninscribed reliefs. Variants in Gaul have stag antlers, with one inscription from Roman Paris identifying him with Cemunnos ("the honed one").
A very, very preliminary unit list, originally put up in the private forums, but maybe some public opinions, bearing in mind this is very very early stuff;
Briton Units - I think these are largely self explanatory, so only described are appearances, and special ability recommendations. Of course, expecting trunications and removals, these are just some initial ideas, please tell me what you think. I know a lot of these units have 'hide in tall grass' or 'hide anywhere' traits, trying to impress the idea of tribal combatants, who rely largely on mobility and stealth to engage their enemies, and numerous 'skirmisher' type fighters, many have javelins or darts. However, included is the purely melee heavy infantry Calwr Chlaiddyfwir, a greatswordsmen unit, and three entries on chariots. They're based upon remains found, reports of their equipment, etc. Non-English names presented are based upon what they would've possibly been called, using an early version of Cornish and Welsh, and what parts of the early Briton tongue known.
Officers/Generals
Lesser General/Impromptu Commander - A chainmaille or bronze armor clad foot warrior with a well-made helmet, with a horse hair plume (that's the word I was looking for! Tadh is plume!) possibly, equipped with a two-handed axe, with some ornate etchings on the blade, possibly, with a longsleeve shirt, possibly woad on the face. Pants should have small checks on them, in several colors.
Standard Bearer - Not sure for this, not a banner though, as banners were not widely used by most of the Britons, if I recall. Perhaps not even have a standard bearer, but instead another type of 'officer' warrior, akin to the Lesser General, but more poorly armored? If we could have as many officers as we wanted, and they don't count toward unit limits, maybe have, instead of a Standard Bearer, a special officer for different units, so the Southern type soldiers have a proper commander/the Caledonians are being overseen by a Caledonian/etc.
Family Member General - Not sure for this either, maybe an elaborate 'Heavy Chariot' type unit, but different from the original, corrected skins and models for the crew. Heavy Chariots are described below, consider those maybe.
Infantry
Tribal Militia - Like Gallic tribal militia, maybe the same unit, with new shield designs/no mow? If different, perhaps they could use bronze daggers or the like, representing the 'low tech' weapons that were still employed in some places, though they were actually more of utensil and tools than they were weapons, but they'd be readily available for a militia if necessary. Maybe just have them still utilizing bronze spear heads?
Southern Tribal Warband - A spear, with javelins, an oval shield, brown linen shirt (or bare-chested?), limed, spiked hair, plaid or checkered pants in vibrant colors, and exposed skin painted with woad. Should be able to hide in tall grass.
Slingers - A leather sling, no shield/small round shield, bare chested or in brown linen shirt, hair either limed and spiked, or long brown hair, with plaid pants in earth tones, and any exposed body woaded. In melee, they should draw a knife or shortsword (think like the dagger on the two-handed sword using British warrior figurine in this thread), and possibly a small round shield. Should be able to hide in tall grass.
Southern/Midland Swordsmen - A Halstatt-style short sword, woaded body/bare chested, a round or rectangular shield, limed, spiked hair, or, if Midland, long, brown hair. Maybe have some javelins thrown before a charge, emphasizing the 'skirmish' capacities of the Britons. Possibly include a short, plaid or checkered cloak. Possibly be able to hide in tall grass.
Brycalawre - 'Great Champions', with a bronze 'horned' helmet maybe, an elaborate oval or round shield, a longsword, bronze armor or chainmaille, a checkered cloak, and a mustache, goattee, or beard. Alternatively, same armor, but instead have them with a large axe, and no shield (I'd opt toward the formerly mentioned though). Another variation, perhaps using a spear, instead, as the spear was, while cheaper, a highly valued weapon in Celtic culture, and a champion employing a spear would hardly be out of the order. Possibly able to hide in tall grass.
Calwr Chlaiddyfwir - Similar to the model of the British greatswordsmen presented here (private forum only, isn't shown here), except change the hair color to brown maybe, and instead of a full beard, perhaps just a goatee. Have the AP 'armor piercing' trait for their attack, and a high attack. Should have a long build time and high expense, likely be the heaviest infantry available to the Britons.
Caledonian Swordsmen - Should be the only sword using soldiers available in Caledonia, red, spiked hair, beards, wearing a shirt lined with fur possibly, spiralled tattoos, Hallstat-style short swords (perhaps even bronze swords?), small square shields, plaid, earth tone pants, possibly a similar cloak. Maybe give them a javelin or dart thrown before the charge. Should be expensive and slow to build, in any event, to keep their numbers low, since swords were signficantly more rare in north Britain than they were in the south, or require an advanced barracks structure before they can be built, but otherwise be statistically similar to other low-tier Briton swordsmen, not the higher level swordsmen. Improved hide in forest, possibly hide anywhere?
Caledonian Warband - Like southern tribal warbands, but with red spiked hair, small round or square shields, with javelins or darts, and a spear for melee, and spiral tattoos, and earth tone colors instead of vibrant colors. Improved hide in forest, possibly hide anywhere?
Silures Warband - Available only in the Ordovices province (what is it named now? Has it been decided?), a bare chested, woaded sword warband, with well-made Hallstat-style short swords, square shields, and dark hair, with tan skin.
Hammer Warriors - Available only in the Ordovices province (what is it named now? Has it been decided?), warriors employing hammers, with a small square shield, short cloak, shirt, checkered pants. They should definitely have the AP trait, as their hammer will smash through armor. Maybe require a Temple to Sucellus to build them, instead of confine them to a single province, since their patron was Sucellus?
Calawre Tars Ordovices (Champions Of The Ordovices) - Like Hammer Warriors (similar requirements and the like), confined definitely to the Ordovices province though, but wear bronze or chain armor, helmets, cloaks, checkered trews, and use a slightly larger, square shield, with a hammer.
Netarlach Ta Ynys Manaw ("Bravemen from the Isle of Man", just a little something to give the early early Celtic Manx some presence, as they did 'hire out' some warriors to British tribes) - Black or brown haired swordsmen, with elaborately braided hair, dressed in brown shirts, with checkered cloaks and pants, 'white' body paint (it is actually a very light version of 'woad', possibly) smeared, not styled, on their faces, and over their beards, which should be relatively full, and forked and braided at the end. They should have small oval shields, with shortswords, and short distance javelins. Hide in tall grass, possibly hide anywhere. Only available in whichever province the Isle of Man is part of, or possibly as mercenaries in the British Isles (Hibernia and Britain)
Druidae - Not as a buildable unit, or, if it were a buildable unit, it should have a VERY long build time, and extremely high expense. However, they should appear as rebels in Mona if the province is rebel, or start the Britons with a single unit of them, but not allow them to train more. They should use a hammer, a small square shield, a cloak, and still maintain their chant ability.
Chariots
Southern Chariots - A chariot with two riders, bronze fittings and hubs, a shirtless driver in checkered or plaid pants in vibrant tones, with elaborate woad designs on his body, and limed, spiked hair, with a rider with a sword, and javelins, dressed in an iron helmet, with chain armor, a long sleeve shirt under it, and with chain or leather leggings, and an oval shield.
Midland Chariots - Similar to the Southern type, but no bronze fittings, earth tone colors instead of vibrant colors, brown hair for the driver, and the rider wearing bronze, not chain armor, a bit lighter armored, but perhaps a longer range attack than a southern version would have, both driver and rider have woad on them. Similar chariots were found in northern Ireland, and should be buildable there as well.
Heavy Chariots - Similar to the Southern Chariot, but add bronze fittings and hubs on the wheels, and have both driver and rider dressed similarly in armor, with the rider, once more, outfitted with javelins, and a sword, but perhaps a smaller shield. Maybe these could be the 'Family Member' style of chariots?
Looking good ~:)
How about changing the Briton Diplomat map model to that of a Druid as they were often used in advisory roles rather than on the battlefield itself ?
Rather than having a sperate 'fanatic' unit is it possible to just have the front rank of a unit 'naked' ? The bravest and most battle hungry Celts would be at the forefront of the ranks screaming challenges and generally looking threatening.
The following is kind off topic but I like his style
'Raiding Celtic tribes under the leadership of Brennus ravage Rome and occupy the city for three months. Offended by the dirty conditions of the city (they were country boys at heart) they demand a ransom to leave the Romans alone. Brennus demands his weight in gold and when the Romans complain he throws his sword on the scales to be weighed as well with the cry "VAE VICTUS" - (Woe to the Vanquished).'
It's impossible, as far as I know, to have additional models in a unit, except as 'officer' types, or as 'animal' types (like dogs). However, by 270 BC, the Britons and Gauls were largely not using naked warriors anymore (the Gaesatae being a notable exception, but they acted as mercenaries). If it is possible for the factions to have varying models for agents, I'd not at all object to a 'Druid' diplomat for them, that'd typify the Druidae quite better, though they did fight the Romans at Ynys Mon, but were equipped with the arms of Ordovices, likely due to the rather impromptu usage as combatants.
As for Brennus, yes, off topic, as he was a Gaul, but a truly interesting figure. Also a bit of a testament to the disdain the Gauls had for Romans. CA's depiction of Gauls as filthy barbarians forgets that Gauls, in fact, found Romans to be so filthy that some reportedly would grow angry merely because they were 'dirty'.
Taliferno
11-25-2004, 12:52
I love the list!
Maybe the Calwr Chlaiddyfwir should have a high charge instead of a high attack, something like attack 10 but charge 10? Although i've never used a greatswords myself, I assume that after the initial momentum of the charge they wouldnt be as useful as a faster, lighter weapon (Its up to your testers, I guess).
Although I would like to see troops able to dismount from chariots, I am aware of the restrictions RTW has. The only way I could think of doing it would be for the chariots to have a 'warhound' kind of function. To the best of my (limited) knowlege though, there were no 'beserker' type of Briton unit, they would always retreat back to their chariots. A man can dream though
Oh, and I hope you get round to including fianna ~:)
I have a short list of some possible Gaelic units that'd be open to any Celtic faction in control of the Hibernian provinces, I may post it a little while later. Fianna didn't quite exist yet, but their predescessors did, I simply used Fianna as a name in this thread because it's more commonly known. The actual Fianna didn't exist until the 1st century AD, to the 3rd century AD.
As for greatswords, I've got experience with them, there is a great initial shock, but there is also great damage to be dealt in the din itself. Their high weight, focused largely in the upper 1/3rd of the blade, allows them to crush through armor, and essentially tear through a target. However, perhaps they could have a fair attack, and decent charge, though I'd still personally give the edge to attack. In any event, if used, they would be a very good unit, but very expensive to counterbalance that (and to ensure their rarity, their weren't hordes of these men).
As for chariots, I too would like to see that, but it's surely impossible. And the Britons had something akin to berserkers, that's probably actually the role a Calwr Chlaiddyfwir or Brycalawre would take, as they would be a champions, and expected to lay into the enemy as long as they could, however, I'd not give them the 'berserker' trait, simply high morale, and possibly the ability to raise morale of nearby units, like First Cohorts.
As for possible 'Gael' units (copied and pasted, so some of this may not make sense, as it may reference things not present here);
Hibernian Gael Units; maybe one or two of these could be available to Gauls and Britons, perhaps Iberians, in Hibernia? Only if there is room, of course, these are an afterthought, but mainly to show the distinction of the Gaels, and give the Celts who made them up something special for controlling it, and, if units are confined to areas, will allow them to quite adequately defend it with indigenous Gaelic warriors. The names, where they appear not in English, are using very early Irish, to the best of how I could find to describe some of them. Also, considering that Hibernia was seen as a 'holy land' by many of the Celtic religious (in fact, the name Eireann, Erain, or Eire, quite possibly stems from an ancient phrase meaning 'The Holiest Land' or 'The Most Promised Fields'), and should have something worth them fighting over it. These are more heavily based on carbon dated objects dug up in Ireland, and Irish oral traditions about how they equipped and fought, though some is also from the Irish raids into Roman Britain, during the Roman decline in the isles.
Gaelic Warband - Spearmen looking similar to the Caledonian Warband, but with a long, knee-length shirt, and a shoulder cloak, fastered at the right shoulder, plaid, in vibrant colors, with a Gallic mow, and long red hair. Should use shorter range, smaller darts, instead of javelins, at range, and use, if possible, a two-handed spear, or a long spear (not quite a pike, in length), with a round, wood shield with no designs on it.
Gaelic Swordsmen - Use an iron longsword, with a long shirt, a shoulder cloak fastened at the right shoulder, plaid, with vibrant colors, a javelin thrown before a charge, and an oval shield or an unpainted wooden shield. Mid length red hair, braided elaboratey (almost like thick dreadlocks), and a Gallic mow, or a goattee.
Fachoira Warband (the weapons employed by these iron age swordsmen are some of the only real, solid proof that the Iron Age Gaels had Iberian relations) - A swordsman using a sword similar to a falcata (the fachoira), wearing a long shirt, and a shoulder cloak, plaid, vibrant colors, fastened at the right shoulder, with a round wooden shield, undecorated, and long, braided red hair.
Fionn Gaelladha (Free Gaels, supposedly the genesis for the 1st-3rd century AD 'Fianna', though they claimed their name was 'Sons of Fionn', as in a man, they probably meant they were then 'sons' of the Fionn Gaelladha, meaning, in essence 'Sons of Freedom', warriors in Gaelic Ireland who fought to defend it from outsiders) - Chainmaille wearing spearmen or swordsmen, with darts, and a shield and spear or sword, possibly mounted on a small horse. If on foot, should be able to hide anywhere, and operate in small numbers. Braided, long red hair, and no facial hair at all.
Milidha (Champions, named after Milidh, 'Father of the Gaels', Milidh is the earliest word for 'Champion' in Gaelic, as Milidh was said to be the greatest of all warriors, Milidha is simply the early plural) - Similar to Calwr Chlaiddyfwir, but no helmet, long red hair instead, and no facial hair, except maybe a Gallic-style mow, with a slightly larger sword, and smaller checkered pants, and a checkered/plaid cloak. Maybe ditch the AP trait on their attack, but give more armor (the Gaelic chainmaille from this period is bizarrely complex, and seems to have totally dropped out of favor by the Dark Ages for no known reason, as the earlier shirts would've been significantly more effective). Possibly, instead, have these men as an 'officer' unit, as champions marched with Gaelic armies to the battle.
Breahain (This is as confirmable as possible, the name of Irish 'druids', they were warrior-religious leaders, their name is the precept to 'Brehon', as in 'Brehon Law', the law of the Gaels, several legends and history based myths point to these men as being organized into units for warfare, and their name is often written as 'Breahain Milidha', 'Judge Champions' {as in Warrior champions}) - Dressed in a well made chain shirt, with a two-handed sword like the Milidha, and an elaborate headdress (they did reportedly fight with these, and Saint Patrick even recounts the presence of such headdresses on the later Breahain's, even when they went to fight, though they were actually meant to give the Breahain magical insight or strength). The headdress can be any number of things, a deer or elk head, with antlers, a wolf's head worn as a hat, or a cloth and leather cap with short horns carved off a bull affixed to it. Their clothing is all either very dark, or very bright. It includes a cloak (checkered if bright), trews (checkered pants, or dark brown linen pants), and a long sleeve shirt. Their hair should probably be white (the Breahain's were old men, they trained their whole lives), and they should have a number of medals or other trinkets somewhere on their bodies, as they tended to carry charms (even human heads, one worn at the right side, Patrick reported). If implemented, they should not require any specific temple, just a fully upgraded one, so the Britons, Gauls, or Iberians could all get them, but they did notably favor some gods, such as Morrigan, Mauden (the god of the waters), and Vortiax, a god of tattoos and metalwork, but all of those, except Morrigan, are Gaelic, though Mauden could be one of the 'Briton' temples (there are a few figurines of him found in Britain).
eadingas
11-25-2004, 13:09
(BTW, it seems RTR 4.0 will have Hibernia split in two)
Should split it in three, just to be irksome. ...But then, that'd not make much sense, so nuts to it. But I will be put out a bit if they have the same names and positions for settlements and the like as we do. Don't know why, really. But I know I will be. Any thoughts on those units? If you have any suggestions and the like, post them in the private forum, I've posted these in the public one largely because they're so vague, and not definite yet, but later lists I wish to keep private until they're completed.
That reminds me, did you see my addendums in this thread on Hibernia? About the province spellings/cultures?
Oh, and back on the thread's topic, sort of... What is the map decided upon so far? Not just for Britain, but the whole map? Any pictures? Will the next build be including the new British provinces?
Dead Moroz
11-25-2004, 15:25
Will the next build be including the new British provinces?
It depends on when next build will be released. ~:)
I'm still working on new expanded map. I have some serious problems I cannot solve now. So the only thing I can promise is that all changes will be made within vanilla map.
There are rumors that patch 1.2 will be out soon. I think we shouldn't make our build 0.3 before this patch. Let's wait and see how much it change the game. So I hope our next build will be in post-patch era and I'll try to make all necessary changes for this version.
eadingas
11-25-2004, 15:55
Do you still have problems with mountains?
I really suggest you cut down on height difference. Check the Alps and Babylonia: it's the whole area that's elevated, not only mountain areas. And go easy on white - I think white pixels are what causes spikes... The difference in height between base level and mountain tops should not be more than in Alps region, it's just the base ground level that should be higher.
We don't need to have the map 100% geographically accurate - the mountains in the east don't need to be twice as high as the Alps, it's enough if they're just high...
Dead Moroz
11-25-2004, 16:23
Certainly, the problem is in "mountains" ground types. I tested different ways of depicting mountains in map_heights and map_roughness tga's, I even recreated the whole area in Campaign Map Editor by MrHide, and these spikes are still remains. Only when I change "mountains" ground type to something else everything looks ok in battle. But this way mountains disappears from strategy map. ~:angry:
eadingas
11-25-2004, 16:32
But on the 'old' part of map there is no problem with mountains, is there? So it must be combination of mountain ground type and something wrong you're doing... my vote goes for height difference. What you see as spikey formations on the horizon, are splotches of white seen from the dark area where the battle is... and if you zoom on the old map, I think the greatest spikes appear where there are brightest pixels (255, 255, 255) on the height map... at least it seems so to me...
How about cheating out of it by copy&paste parts of the old map to the new areas? Copy parts of Alps and Caucasus and arrange them in various ways?
Dead Moroz
11-25-2004, 23:54
How about cheating out of it by copy&paste parts of the old map to the new areas? Copy parts of Alps and Caucasus and arrange them in various ways?
Just did it - in vain... Even big copied parts of old map doesn't work in new regions.
eadingas
11-26-2004, 09:05
Weirder and weirder... then maybe it's the 'desert' texture on mountains that's the other factor... hmm, I can't test anything right now, I got some weird bugs with adding buildings to work out, but I'll have to see this for myself later :)
I don't quite follow. Will the next build, on the vanilla map, include the British provinces here that would show up then? That is, everything but Caledonia, I think? Unless, of course, the problem is solved by the time the build is ready, but I'll be patient curious though, would like to see Britain divided up in the next build, at least as much as we can for now.
Redone list, just a few touch ups, added most descriptions, names done from Old Welsh/Cornish, and some early early Manx, and added, for this map thread, regions for recruitment;
Briton Units All wear neck torcs except Tribal Militia The Britons are organized so as to have light and light-to-medium type units, mostly, but their true 'heavy' units are very good quality, but extremely expensive. However, they should have relatively low costs for their other units, at least for maintanence, as they individually cared for their weapons and armor, and were not paid great deals of treasure unless they were champions of some kind. Their lower, cheaper units should not be as overall good quality as other units, possibly lower morale unless otherwise noted, but their expense should make them able to be trained in good numbers.
Peasants
Tribal Militia (same unit as Gaul, already being made for Gaul)
Infantry
Brycalawre Heavy Infantry, all of Britain Longsword or spear, possibly a javelin as well, large, decorated oval shield, bronze 'horned' helmet, bronze cuirass or chain armor, tartan cloaks, possibly mustache or goattee, plaid or checkered pants, long shirt Very good morale, raises morale of nearby units, very good attack, good armor, very hardy, very high cost, high maintanence and train times -
Descriptions => The British tribes best warriors are not so much trained, as they are proven. Young men are trained to fight, but the older warriors grow through real experience in battle. The Brycalawre (Great Champions) are near fearless, and even more hungry for glory than younger men. They have already felt the rewards of victory, and have many heads to their credit. Their original training has been augmented by years of warfare, often leaving their bodies heavily scarred. The Brycalawre are wealthy, powerful men, but they were not necessarily born as such. When a young warrior begins to attract prestige to himself, often by having a mound of heads to his name, he also begins attracting favors and gifts from his chief. These favors, like armor, weapons, jewelry, and slaves, allow him to be outfitted in superior equipment to lesser men, as well as having beautiful ornate equipment, such as elaborate bronze 'horned' helmets, giving them a near mythic appearance on the field. Any who survived a battle with Brycalawre present, would surely never forget them.
Historically, Brycalawre would have been individual warriors from tribes that grew to prominence through having numerous victories and kills to their credit. While individually desiring glory, the Brycalawre would organize into groups, possibly to appear more fearsome (since a group of horned warriors is more frightening than an isolated one). Their elaborate, ornate clothing, weapons, and armor would help encouraged the other men, and surely appeared fearsome to their enemies. Their presence would also encourage their fellows, as they were built up in stories about them as being nearly indestructible, and their own fearlessness would serve as a good example.
Calwr Chlaiddyfwir (with axeman for officer) Elite Heavy Infantry, all of Britain except Caledonia Large two-handed sword, chain armor, ornate iron helmet, loose checked pants, a mustache, goattee, or beard, with identical 'officer' using a large axe instead Very good morale, raises morale of nearby units, very good attack, good armor, hardy, attack good versus armor, very high cost, high maintanence, very high train times -
Descriptions => Calwr Chlaiddyfwir (Glorious Giant Blade Men) are champions in the same vein as Brycalawre, but they employ very specialized weapons, and tend to be even more advanced. Their weapons, giant axes or swords, with especially heavy heads made to crush armor, require years of practice to master. Able to afford such weapons, they can also afford high quality armor; chainmaille shirts and iron helmets. Like Brycalawre, they are marched to battle to inspire their fellow tribesmen, but their special weapons also give them a tactical purpose; annihilate enemy armor. Their great swings split helmets, smash shields, and collapse breast plate. The heads they collect will surely be from grotesquely mangled bodies, obliterated by the force of their blows.
Historically, Calwr Chlaiddyfwir were rare but fearsome champions, generally open only to the most wealthy of tribes who could afford to import the chain, axes, or swords, often made in Gaul or Hibernia. However, the greatswords were made specially with more weight in the final portion of the blade to ensure it would have the ability to crack into armor. They were likely introduced originally as a method of killing other champions, or enemy chieftans, who would be well armored. However, their weapons possibly could be employed akin to the Hibernian equivalents, as wide swinging weapons intended to cut down multiple, lighter armored targets as once, but such wide swings would be awkward due to the weight of the furthest portion of the weapon.
Clyddailauddynion Medium Infantry, Trinovantes, Dumnones Gallic-style longsword, oval shield, lyed spiked hair, woaded skin, mustache, short sleeve shirt, tartan trews Good attack and shield defense, very poor armor, slightly good morale, slightly high expense, medium maintanence -
Descriptions => The Clyddailauddynion (Swordsmen) of the southern Britons are generally the greater or wealthier warriors of a tribe. Swords are not plentiful, due to the expense and iron needed for a longsword, and highly valued. The sword is a light, fast weapon, and good for raiding warfare, which largely comprises the Britons concepts of combat. However, they are capable of being involved in larger engagements, and their tenacity and will to fight makes them formidable. With their hair dyed and spiked with lye, and elaborately painted designs decorating the whole of their bodies, they present a fearsome visage. They believe their designs offer them special protection against their enemies, and despite a lack of evidence to this, such beliefs grant them a very real surplus of bravery. Ever willing to prove themselves the greatest of their tribes' warriors, they are prone to madly dashing their enemies, to be the first to claim heads.
Historically speaking, the Clyddailauddynion of the Britons would've been slightly older warriors by comparison to lesser warbands, but still mostly young men. While wealthy or experienced enough to own swords, they were still too poor to afford much in the way of armor. Their swords were, though, good quality longswords, akin or even identical to northern Gallic and Belgae swords. The Britons had strong beliefs in magic and rituals, and that special designs would provide them with special defense against arrows or swords. While the protection actually provided was erroneous, it did do much to boost their spirits, along with the promises of glory and riches, and a poorly armored, motivated warrior, is still greater than a well armored, apathetic warrior.
Eginynauddynion Light-to-Medium Infantry, Ordovices, Coritani, Brigantes Iron short sword, small round or square shield, woaded skin, long brown hair, goattee, long sleeve shirt with a thin leather 'vest', loose earth tone tartan pants Good attack, poor shield and armor, poor morale, low expense and maintenance -
Descriptions => Eginynauddynion (Blademen) hail from the middle lands of Britain. All of them paint their bodies in blue, with the same belief as their more southern brethern, that the designs provide them with special protections against the weapons of their enemies. However, unlike southern Clyddailauddynion, they do not spike and lye their hair, their swords are shorter, in the manner of Halstatt style weapons, and they use smaller shields, but this also reduces their expense to their warlord. Their swords use less iron, their shields less wood, making them all around easier to maintain, but the addition of a light leather vest gives them a little more protection than some other early swords. The Eginynauddynion lay somewhere between being light and medium infantry. They are still young, but they have by this point experienced some combat, and are hungry for more. Their chiefs must be mindful of the impetuous nature of youthful warriors, and realize that they will be a bit difficult to control, but if given the chance to prove themselves, they can become truly great warriors.
The Eginynauddynion of the midland regions used shorter swords than the southern Clyddailauddynion, maintaining much influence from the Halstatt period, but they were not untouched by La Tene influences, which largely shaped the art they would decorate themselves with. Their tribal loyalties encourage them to fierce behavior, and their religion and myths fill them with desires for glory. For them, death was only a small event, a passing moment, but glory in battle, if from slaying an enemy or dying bravely like a true warrior of his people, would echo into eternity.
Ffonaflauddynion (possibly in the midland style? This description is for midland-type slingers) Light-to-Medium Ranged Infantry, Ordovices, Coritani, Brigantes Leather sling, short bronze dagger in melee, short sleeved earth tones shirt and pants, long brown hair, possibly a small round or square shield, goattee Good ranged attack, long range, very poor morale, defense, and attack, very low expense and maintanence -
Descriptions => Ffonaflauddynion (Slingmen) are among the youngest of the warriors of the Britons. However, they're quite skilled with their slings, which are truly a deceptively simple weapon. A sling bullet, when slung by a skilled man, will bury itself inside of its target, or break bones. Either way, the one hit is incapacitated or dead. Impressive for what amounts to a leather strip and a rock. The sling is also inexpensive, and with an impressive range. This allows Ffonaflauddynion to be both effective and affordable. However, when the distance between them and the enemy is closed, their low expense is quickly made up for in the ease of their breaking and fleeing, as, armed with only short knives, they are not intended to fight hand-to-hand. They are painted like other Britons, with complex designs, and like other midland warriors, they wear their hair to their shoulders, and wear a thin goattee.
The Ffonaflauddynion would have been inexperienced young warriors, still learning the trade of warfare. Few older men continued to use the sling, it would generally be replaced by a spear. However, it never fell out of favor with younger men, who could use it for war, games, and hunting. However, their youthfulness, and lack of experience with the grimmer face of combat, makes them prone to run, because, after all, a man fifty meters away with a sword looks a lot different two meters away, especially when your only defense is a small bronze knife better suited to cutting soft foods than fighting. Making matters worse for them, their youth and inexperience means they probably aren't as hardy as elder warriors, with more experience fighting in long engagements.
Fionn Gaelladha (Shared with Gauls, possibly Iberians, Breahain as officer) Elite Heavy Infantry/Skirmishers, Errain and Cuinnacht Javelins and iron longsword, with a large, round wooden shield, chainmaille shirt with leather belt, long braided red hair, no facial hair, powdered nearly white and woaded skin, tartan shoulder cloak fastened at the right shoulder, long shirt under chainshirt that goes to the knee, no pants, leather shoes Very good attack, armor, shield, good ranged attack, very hardy, very high morale, frighten foot, very high expense, maintenance, and train time -
Descriptions => The Fionn Gaelladha (Free Gaels) are the greatest trained champions of Hibernia. They fight to defend their lands from non-Celtic invaders, and combat outsiders willingly for their patron. They, like all Gaelic youth, are endoctrinated with a sense of xenophobia, but only of non-Celtic races, and strongly differentiate between brethern peoples, and non-Celts. They are told their freedoms are threatened always by outsiders, and encouraged to fight. The truly zealous abandon tribal ties, and join into a single group of warriors, the Fionn Gaelladha. They have no other purpose in their lives but to fight, and if necessary, die for their people. This provides a sense of utter fearlessness, believing, if they fail, their lands will fall into bondage under a foreign enemy. They wore extremely well made chain shirts, and used a combination of long range javelins and iron longswords, and thick, round wood shields.
The Fionn Gaelladha are the forebears to the better known 'Fianna'. The Fianna called themselves 'the Sons of Fionn', often thought of as a mythical man, but Fionn represents the original Fionn Gaelladha. This was not an uncommon form of Gaelic poeticism, where organizations, nations, and tribes, become a single warrior or hero, who represents the aspects of that people. The Fionn Gaelladha left their tribes, but not in shame relegated for Firdors (Outcasts). They were often showered with gifts by their tuath (family), and they worked closely with the Breahains, religious philosopher-warriors of the Gaels. Their organization was gifted by many kings in Hibernia, with horses, weapons, armor, jewelery, and foreign slaves.
Laoch (Shared with Gauls, possibly Iberians, Milidha officer, possibly have phalanx, but I think not, to allow them to use warcry, and their 'phalanx' would've been fairly disoriented. Is it possible to use regular spears and then swords, or does it need to work like a phalanx unit? Maybe change the name to just 'Laoch') Light-to-Medium Infantry, Errain and Cuinnacht Mid-length spears and iron mid-length/longswords, tartan shoulder cloak fastened at the right shoulder, long shirt that goes to the knee, no pants, leather shoes Good attack, good shield, fairly good morale, very poor armor, slightly high expense, low maintanence (due to self sufficiency) -
Descriptions => The Laoch (Warriors) are the backbone of the early Gaelic warrior society. They are well trained, fairly organized, and willing to fight for their patrons always. Using fair-length spears, shields, and an iron longsword, the Laoch are able melee combatants, prepared to engage cavalry and other infantry at need. They are reflective of Gaelic warrior society itself. They are organized, but individuals, they are fierce and dangerous melee fighters, with skills on par with heavier infantry, but still swift and mobile. Their scaith (shield) is well taken care of, it is never taken to a fight in disrepair if there is time to fix it. Their weapons are sacred, and a warrior's respect for his weapons shows his respect for his tribe, because it is the weapons in his hands that will defend his people, and he cannot properly defend them if his weapons are rusted, dented, or broken.
The Gaelic Laoch were the basic line infantry of the Gaels, well into the early Dark Ages. They were of varied origins, as the Gaels themselves were not a single group of Celts, but intermingled blood of numerous Celts. They were outfitted well, and trained regularly. Each man was taught to be self sufficient, with skills like cooking, hunting, and fishing. Each Laoch was intended to be an individual warrior on the field, able to fight on his own if he was needed to. Mock duels were often a game for young Gaels, to improve their skill with their spears and swords, and with their scaith, the shield they would use to deflect enemy blows.
Maliwyr Charde Light Infantry/Skirmishers, Dumnones, Trinovantes Long wood spear, with javelins, oval shield, short sleeve shirt, tartan or checkered pants with vibrant colors, hair spiked and lyed, woaded skin, mustache Good shield, fairly poor morale, low cost, low maintanence -
Descriptions => Maliwyr Charde (Soldiers of the South) are the file warriors of the southern tribes. Their hair is lyed and spiked, and skin painted blue, giving them a truly fearsome appearance. The Maliwyr Charde all utilize well-made spears, and a few decent javelins, making them both fair melee warriors and impromptu skirmishers. Their versatility, and low relative expense, mean they are a fine warrior band for enterprising warlords looking to expand their lands. They have some experience with combat, but are not yet hardened to battle. While unarmored, they have large oval shields like the Gauls, which provides them a good amount of protection.
Maliwyr Charde in Britain would have been the young to middle-age warriors, who had not risen greatly in prestige, or who had chosen to continue to fight as a lower warrior, in the southern most tribes. They would use well-made, but not truly exceptional spears, and javelins for skirmishing. This allowed their most basic warriors to perform two duties, and allocate other soldiers to more specialized positions. Their equipment would be self maintained, and they would be expected to keep their weapons and shield in good condition. They likely paid for their own equipment, but spears and javelins are relatively cheap, the most expensive part of their equipment was likely the shield. This would keep their expense low, making them highly viable for warchiefs who couldn't afford to bring in many swords or other weapons for his tribe.
Rhyfelwyr (Caledonian warriors with Caledonian swordsman for officer) Medium Infantry/Skirmishers, Caledonia Spears, fur-lined shirts, square shields, javelins or possibly slings for ranged attacking, spiral tattoos on exposed skin, full beards, earth tone colors for shirt and pants Good attack, high morale, very hardy, hide in tall grass, high cost, low maintanence -
Descriptions => The Caledonians are a fierce people on the edge of the world. Beyond Caledonia stretches a great, empty ocean, and Caledonia itself is home to a rather isolated people. They are seemingly relics of a former era of Celtic history, they do not have great deals of iron, and so do not produce many swords. They instead fight with more practical weapons, spears, javelins, and slings. Rhyfelwyr (Warriors) are a vast number of men, of many ages and varying levels of experience. Seemingly fearless, and wild, their bodies are tattooed in esoteric spiral designs, their hair is spiked and red, and they are remarkably fearsome. They are very hardy and brave; their lifestyle demands it.
The Caledonians were never conquered by the Romans, despite Romans successfully defeating them in numerous engagements. The small amount of iron available to them left swords only for the most wealthy or greatest of champions. Even bronze armor was a luxury. The Caledonians did not have cavalry or chariots, they only had their own fierce nature as their greatest weapon.
Chariots
Breniylnysa Drwmcerbydau General's Unit Heavy chariot with many bronze fixtures and hubs, drawn by two horses, with a heavily armored driver (armored the same as the rider), wearing tartan pants, and a rider with a chain shirt, with helmet, checkered pants, javelins, oval shield, and an iron longsword, and general dressed similarly, but with a horse hair plume to his helmet, and longer chain hauberk -
Descriptions => British chiefs ride upon heavy, elaborate chariots, with much in the way of bronze decoration, and the chariot crews, as well as the chief himself, are armed and armored heavily, with complex chain shirts, weighty javelins, swords, and shields. Their guards are selected from the greatest of all the tribe's champions, and the greatest chariot drivers. The Breniylnysa Drwmcerbydau (Chieftan's Heavy Chariots) are constructed of the finest materials, and are drawn by the strongest, best trained horses, often imported from Gaul.
The Breniyln, the kings or nobles, often rode upon heavy, elaborate chariots, with specially selected crews. They would ride before their army before battle, giving uplifting speeches, and encouraging their men. Britons led by example. When the battle began, the Breniyln's own chariots would go forth and fight among their own men, throwing javelins, and leaping from the chariots to fight on foot. A chief was expected to be fierce and fearless, inspiring his men by way of personally slaying the tribe's enemies. Cowardly leaders were often abandonned in favor of more charismatic and brave warriors, so a leader must himself be charismatic and brave. Promises of treasure, land, and glory would spurn on his men, but he must also believe those promises, and fight for them.
La Tene Cerbydau (Probably shared with Gauls, 'rebel' version would be the less bronze midlands variety possibly?) Light Chariots, Dumnones, Trinovantes, Ordovices, Coritani, Brigantes Light chariot with bronze fixtures and hubs, drawn by two horses, with a shirtless driver, skin woaded, wearing tartan pants, with spiked and lyed hair, and a rider with a bronze cuirass, with bronze helmet, checkered pants, javelins, oval shield, and an iron sword -
Drwmcerbydau Heavy Chariots, Dumnones, Trinovantes, Ordovices, Coritani, Brigantes Heavy chariot with many bronze fixtures and hubs, drawn by two horses, with an armored driver (armored the same as the rider), wearing tartan pants, and a rider with a bronze cuirass, with bronze helmet, checkered pants, javelins, oval shield, and sword -
This whole list is going to get a big revision, probably, chariots redone, infantry reworked, may ditch and rewrite some stuff. But it's nearer to done. I want to ditch Fionn Gaelladha, the historic evidence is poor, at best, with some transcribed oral tradition, replace them maybe with Belgae of some kind.
PROMETHEUS
12-09-2004, 15:02
chariots redone, infantry reworked
The Chariots shouldn't have the swords on the weel right?but how this will be modded in the unit stats , even if I take them out of the model , will the units around the chariot still be hitted by an immaginary sword on the weels?
Also Do we have room for all those units? I saw a lot and even good units for Cartage , Gauls , Britons , Greeks but none for the others yet especially the new factions that will be added this will lead to unit space shortage???
We need to plan all the units to do befoure I continue to mod new ones and then discover that some will be discarder for lack of space for them..... ~:handball:
British chariots don't have blades on the wheel in the vanilla, if I recall, but if they do, of course, they need to be dropped.
I'm thinking of Fionn Gaelladha getting a Belgae unit in place of it, something that can sap, since the Britons themselves lack any sappers. Besides that, I was told we have space for 12 unique units for each faction, so yes, we should. Tribal Militia are from the Gaul list, and shared, so the Britons would have 13 units total.
There are no new factions right now, we don't know when or if we'll be able to do them, so that shouldn't be a huge concern. As I was told though, 12 uniques IS taking into mind potential new factions in the future, so we should be fine.
The 'new' Briton unit list is in the private unit list thread, though I've not yet written in a good replacement unit for Fionns, give me time to think of one.
eadingas
12-09-2004, 15:26
No, there are definitely two types of chariots in vanilla, scythed and non-scythed. Besides, I don't really think the scythes have any impact in the game... the scythed chariots are as crap in killing routes as the ordinary ones
The midland chariots should have a rather wide wood axle though, that would protrude out of the sides a bit far, because they lacked hubs and needed a way to keep the wheels from sliding off.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-09-2004, 17:26
The Chariots shouldn't have the swords on the weel right?but how this will be modded in the unit stats , even if I take them out of the model , will the units around the chariot still be hitted by an immaginary sword on the weels?
No problem with that. I can modify that easily.
Also Do we have room for all those units? I saw a lot and even good units for Cartage , Gauls , Britons , Greeks but none for the others yet especially the new factions that will be added this will lead to unit space shortage???
Not if all factions have 12 units max. And since some will be shared, I see no problem.
We need to plan all the units to do befoure I continue to mod new ones and then discover that some will be discarder for lack of space for them..... ~:handball:
I will post a list of completed units today. I will also mention the most urgent ones needing work.
PROMETHEUS
12-09-2004, 21:37
Good!!! ... Polishing my hands looking forward..... ~D
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.