An Irish protest

[Brennus]

Possibly wasting my time with this one but as it is Saint Patricks day I would like to protest against the decision to reduce EBII Ireland to a single province centred on Tara.

I would like to protest on the grounds that traditionally Ireland was divided into two regions during this period. Secondally the archaeology at Emain Macha/Navan is far more substantial than at Tara Hill. I know the team will not change their minds about Ireland but considering that there has been a longstanding difference between Northern and Southern Ireland (and im talking about a long long standing difference going back to the Mesolithic not just 1920) the decision to treat the island as a single culturally homogenous zone is innaccurate.

I just wanted to voice my thoughts.

[bobbin]

Errr...did you even read the Pritanoi preview?

1. Navan Fort is the capital of the region.
2. Ireland is not one province, the south and west are part of the Eremos province.

[B-Wing]

Well, while I don't really care how many regions they use to represent Ireland (due to its isolated position and lack of playable faction), I really doubt that representing part of it with Eremos, an unconquerable region, will satisfy this guy. :)

[Populus Romanus]

Saint Patrick, in all his holiness, knows that Ireland should be one province.:yes:

[Brennus]

Errr...did you even read the Pritanoi preview?

1. Navan Fort is the capital of the region.
2. Ireland is not one province, the south and west are part of the Eremos province.

Sorry, ive been a tit again.


Saint Patrick, in all his holiness, knows that Ireland should be one province.:yes:

Careful now, it's comments like those that get people into ALOT of trouble here in Belfast.

[bobbin]

Saint Patrick, in all his holiness, knows that Ireland should be one province.:yes:

Like Brennus said be careful about making such comments, there are a lot of people with very strong feelings on the issue.

[Leon the Batavian]

So Ireland the land of heroes is not unified ? Just curious.

Any subject should be and will be discussed. We live in a Democracy (or is the Netherlands the only country where you can do such things ? I am sure not) with freedom of speech even though it will rise some eyebrows.
Medieval times are over! And on top of that its was an Irishman who started this topic.

But what if the Romans decided to have look over there would all the Irish people stand United ?

[Ludens]

Any subject should be and will be discussed. We live in a Democracy (...) with freedom of speech even though it will rise some eyebrows.

Actually, this forum is just there to discuss EB2. If you wish to discuss politics, you can sign up for the .Org Backroom (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?19-Backroom). You need to request access first (via settings > permission groups), but usually this is a formality.

That said: Freedom of Speech means the government is not allowed to limit your right to express yourself. It is not the right to a publisher, or to an audience, and it does not trump the right to private property. If you wish to use the .Org's website and bandwidth to publish your message, you need the .Org's consent. You cannot force us to host your message, because we too are free to publish what we wish.

With that in mind: please drop the subject of contemporary Irish politics. It may be welcome in the Backroom or the Monastery (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?16-Monastery), but it definitely isn't here.

[Maeran]

To revisit a more EB'y point


But what if the Romans decided to have look over there would all the Irish people stand United ?

Most of the time, the Romans (and others) made use of local rivalries and ambitions to divide and conquer. So, I wouldn't expect the Irish tribes to have united against a common threat. Not 100% anyway.

[oudysseos]

Actually, if we had unlimited province slots, I'd put 4 or 5 into Ireland (and at least 12 into Britain) - and say 14 into Iberia, and so on, and so on. It's just the reality of the situation: adding one somewhere means subtracting one from someplace else, and the map is finalized, at least in terms of province allocations: we really have been over every possible option, and aren't going to reopen the debate.



traditionally Ireland was divided into two regions during this period.

Well, not really. Have a look at Raftery's Pagan Celtic Ireland (http://books.google.ca/books?id=ykZ2QgAACAAJ&dq=pagan+celtic+ireland&hl=en&ei=HrWDTeWCLojegQeztcTYCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6wEwAA) or A New History of Ireland (http://books.google.ca/books?id=DgqOOkVrofcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+new+history+of+ireland&hl=en&ei=WrWDTf2KJc_qgQfw_uDVCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). There are a number of ways that you could divide up Ireland in our period, but a straight North/South line is not one of them.


the archaeology at Emain Macha/Navan is far more substantial than at Tara Hill.

Again, not so much, or at least, they're kindof apples and oranges. The Navan site is thought to have been more ritualized, while the Tara site could actually have been used/inhabited as a residence/centre of power, but frankly there is so little real historical information about this period to help us interpret the archaeology that you could probably come up with a plausible scenario for just about anything.

That said, even if we had unlimited provinces, I would not be in favour of an Irish faction: there are just not enough real facts to work with.

[Brennus]

Well, not really. Have a look at Raftery's Pagan Celtic Ireland (http://books.google.ca/books?id=ykZ2QgAACAAJ&dq=pagan+celtic+ireland&hl=en&ei=HrWDTeWCLojegQeztcTYCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6wEwAA)

I intend to as soon as I have finished Cunliffe's "Iron Age" communities in Britain.


That said, even if we had unlimited provinces, I would not be in favour of an Irish faction: there are just not enough real facts to work with.

Neither would I. A Goidelic faction would be akin to a Scandanavian faction in terms of historical accuracy.


So Ireland the land of heroes is not unified ? Just curious.

Any subject should be and will be discussed. We live in a Democracy (or is the Netherlands the only country where you can do such things ? I am sure not) with freedom of speech even though it will rise some eyebrows.
Medieval times are over! And on top of that its was an Irishman who started this topic?

I must confess I am not Irish, I simply live here, I am British (and not in the Orange Order sense of the word, I am Scottish on my fathers side, English on my mothers and I was born and raised in Manchester). If you want to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland and Irish history in general feel free to PM me but as Ludens said no discussing Ireland outside of the timeframe EBII is concerned with.

Personally I don't think the Romans could have held Ireland, like Caledonia it did not posses the socio-political framework that the Roman state could graft its administration onto. Other Celtic area such as central transalpine Gaul, cisalpine Gaul and south eastern Britain did possess the necessary socio-political features to enable the Roman administration to latch on; Oppidum, increasingly complex and centralised governments, an economy based on crop production and trade etc. Ireland's reliance on pastoralism and lack of large settlements meant that, in my opinion, although the Romans would have had no difficulty beating the Irish in combat they would have found it very very difficuly to Romanise the Irish.

[Populus Romanus]

Like Brennus said be careful about making such comments, there are a lot of people with very strong feelings on the issue.

I think you are looking for a hidden meaning that isn't there. I was only only referring to EB.:shrug:

[Olaf The Great]

The comment made me laugh, though I am feeling giggly anyway.

Anyway, I don't really like it being split up personally, but the EB team is a group of very intelligent people who must have replaced that province which is more important to the current local and world powers at the time.

I think of it this way, if you were a Casse leader who became the absolute ruler of Britain you wouldn't take over HALF of Ireland, you'd take over the whole dang thing.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Nah, you would claim that you would control the whole of Ireland. As I understand it, it was nigh impossible to fully control the area.

[Brennus]

Nah, you would claim that you would control the whole of Ireland. As I understand it, it was nigh impossible to fully control the area.

Like Agricola at Mons Graupius.

[HFox]

The irish stood united on Saturday and beat us into the ground......a rugby reference and lame attempt at derailing the thread

[Tyrfingr]

But if you're making Ireland unconquerable because no of the EB-factions held it during the timeline, then why don't we make the Baltics and Scandinavia the same? I'd would prefer giving Ireland some nasty "roving defenders", similar to the ridicolously strong Mrogbonna-guy (Rhesus, right?), making it nigh-impossible to claim Ireland. EB is all about historical accuracy, but the player is at the same time given the possibility to change the course of history.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

But if you're making Ireland unconquerable because no of the EB-factions held it during the timeline, then why don't we make the Baltics and Scandinavia the same? I'd would prefer giving Ireland some nasty "roving defenders", similar to the ridicolously strong Mrogbonna-guy (Rhesus, right?), making it nigh-impossible to claim Ireland. EB is all about historical accuracy, but the player is at the same time given the possibility to change the course of history.

I agree with the idea of making the Baltics and Scandinavia ungovernable - well, certainly Scandinavia, rather than making it 'possible' to govern somewhere like Ireland or Scotland. There just wasn't any central government of any sort in these areas to be able to conquer. I think the idea of the Eremos is a good one - if anything I would have it extended and have it produce (spawn) rebel stacks as an irritant to the faction holding neighbouring areas.

[oudysseos]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

[oudysseos]

Here's a great example from Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/16/roman-road-made-by-britons?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[fightermedic]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

This could very well be the truth i think, as it reminds me very much of the situation in Chile, the natives living in the south had been as good as not conquerable as they were extremley decentralised and only when weapons were MUCH more advanced in the spanish north they were able to conquer the south

[Ca Putt]

for europe that may very well be true(I actually agree with you in that point) but it's certainly untrue for asia.

the other continents are much more mushy in that context.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Here's a great example from Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/16/roman-road-made-by-britons?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Thanks for that link, it re-inforces what I have begun to suspect more and more; that the history Rome has handed down to us (of Rome 'civilising' the Barbarian world) is far from being an accurate portrayal of events. I get a little hot under the collar when I see documentaries just re-hashing that tale. I think that alot more work needs to be undertaken to understand the cultures that existed prior to Roman hegemony - I know that there is a fair bit ongoing (cmaq's great Lugione preview highlights a fair deal, and the discovery and works at the many Boii 'oppida', not to mention such places as Bibracte, Gergovia and Avaricum) but.....more could be done, and it'd be nice to see some of that work hauled together and publicised a little more.

[Kikaz]

Hm, I'm not particularly keen on making part of Ireland (or Scandinavia) unconquerable... If the areas had no government structure, then they should be made part of a nearby province; even so, it's not as though those areas didn't have a unique culture or didn't have people, that alone should make some sort of province justifiable, otherwise you basically have to sit there and look at a place that is, for all non-cartographic intents and purposes, not there. A simplification: A basic, generalized settlement being present, would be more realistic than nothing at all.

[antisocialmunky]

Could you in addition to the Eremos change make a PSF in each of the ungovernable areas and use a garrison script to spawn uber stacks of rebels if the PSF is attacked or held by the player?

[cmacq]

Not to draw too fine a point, yet if anyone here could please explain what the tree-rings of Irish Oaks tell us about the near total absence of any archaeological evidence of human settlement, of any significance in the LpRIA or early RIA, either in Erie or northern Alba, that would be really great.

And, I quote:

D Rumsfelt
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

May I add:

Yours Truely
There are those so-called known knowns we think we know, but all too often what we think are know as known, are in fact total BS.

I hope this may help.

[Brennus]

Not to draw too fine a point, yet if anyone here could please explain what the tree-rings of Irish Oaks tell us about the near total absence of any archaeological evidence of human settlement, of any significance in the LpRIA or early RIA, either in Erie or northern Alba, that would be really great.

And, I quote:


May I add:


I hope this may help.

I live with a Palaeoecology student, I will ask her and see if she can shed any light on it for you.

[cmacq]

I live with a Palaeoecology student, I will ask her and see if she can shed any light on it for you.

That would be for you as, much as for me. Please see your earlier posting titled: The East Anglian and Dutch Coasts ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132743-The-East-Anglian-and-Dutch-coasts ). And please take a look at this. https://img708.imageshack.us/img708/1619/climate1.jpg
This graph provides only a very basic outline as seen from central Greenland. The temporal correlation is based entirely on radiocarbon dating, thus placement of the more remote samples are of course less reliable.

[Cyclops]

I'm sad the province limit has reared its ugly head again, the team is doing an impressive job with work-arounds (like the inspired Sardinia/Corsica split).

I see the point that there's mighty swathes of unsettle-able land in the EB period and this is modelled with the Eremos province. I had imagined it being used on the steppes and I believe I read a post suggesting it would be (although in a different way to what I suggested, I had thought of "island" or "pocket" provinces surrounded by Eremos so there were little settled patches or oases or whatever.

I wonder if the Irish province will have a "nomad camp" or a "city" settlement type at game start. Was semi-nomadic herding pretty common there? My memory is dim and vague on Iron Age Britain. Might be a way to model the more extremely non-urban areas culturally un-aligned to urban development, and needing a real culture shift to allow urbanisation?

[bobbin]

I see the point that there's mighty swathes of unsettle-able land in the EB period and this is modelled with the Eremos province. I had imagined it being used on the steppes and I believe I read a post suggesting it would be (although in a different way to what I suggested, I had thought of "island" or "pocket" provinces surrounded by Eremos so there were little settled patches or oases or whatever.

It's a nice idea but trade would not work at all if each province was surrounded by Eremos, and trade was very important in the steppes.
The most northerly of the steppe provinces have been made into Eremos, I believe that's what you were thinking about.

[B-Wing]

Perhaps this was explained earlier and I missed it, but what exactly is the purpose of designating parts of Ireland and Scotland to the Eremos region? I don't mind it at all, and don't really care, but I just wonder how it is intended to improve EB2's gameplay (as opposed to having the entire island of Ireland as a single province and all of Scotland as a single province).

[Horatius Flaccus]

As I understand it, it's to represent the difficulty of controlling those parts of the map. By making it an unconquerable rebel province you will have (AFAIK) more rebel armies that raid your territories.

[cmacq]

No, we are apparently not getting it at all. The point is there is little to no evidence, of any human occupation of Erie or Alba, for most of the EB II timeframe. If one were to find it, please post.

[Brennus]

No, we are apparently not getting it at all. The point is there is little to no evidence, of any human occupation of Erie or Alba, for most of the EB II timeframe. If one were to find it, please post.

I find that hard to believe, how do you explain the brochs and duns of northwest Scotland and the ritual sites of Ireland such as Tara and Emain Macha? These regions had been inhabitted since the mesolithic.

[Ludens]

I agree. There were stone-age houses all the way up to the Orkneys, if not further. I am quite willing to believe that there was no real settlement (i.e. something that would be worth conquering for an EB faction), but it seems highly unlikely that the area had been completely abandoned by EB's time-frame.

[Taliferno]

Its been a while since I've read up on the subject so a few details may be off.

After the Irish Bronze Age (an Irish "golden age", and probably a bit over populated compared to what it should have been in comparison to its neighbours) there seems to have been a fall in population (to lower than what it should have been in comparison with its neighbours). Pollen analysis shows that less cereal crops were being grown and tress had grown back in areas were they had previously been cleared. The reasons for this population decrease is not known and there is a variety of possibilities ranging from the mundane to the fantastical. The population seems to have recovered around about 100BC (maybe 200 BC at the earliest-again going off pollen diagrams. Differnt pollen diagrams from areas of the country give varying results) and at around about this time Irelands more famous mounuments were constructed ( such as Navan Fort and the Corlea Trackway). There were several major monuments constructed before this date of course (The henges and stuff found at Tara during the recent road excavations date to about 300BC).

Now there is little evidence of how people actually lived in Ireland during the Iron age, there being little Iron age domestic sites (just a few multi-period sites). There are also a few "figure of eight" structures (nicknamed Druid houses) but these are usually found at ritual sites like Navan Fort. This is why it is theorised that the majority of people lived a nomadic existance following their herds of cattle about, which left little impact on the archaeological landscape (largely based on how it is assumed the common folk lived in the medieval period-again no one is sure even about this more recent period. But Boolying (sp?) was the practice of moving from one area to another depending on the season, and they may have been able to transport their houses about on carts). In addition several possible Iron age sites have been built over and we cant get access to them (it is theorised that the modern city of Armagh is built on top of an Iron age hillfort).

After EBs period Irelands population starts following European norms (ie, when there is population boom/plague/famine in europe there is one in Ireland) until the modern era. There is several localised exceptions, such as climate change in the north west coast of Ireland in the 7th-9th centuries causing famine.

[cmacq]

Please, just show us one example of a residential structure, a habitation, even a single house built in Erie between 200/100 BC and AD 300/400. Overall, what the archaeological evidence demonstrates very clearly, is a nearly complete collapse and near abandonment of the very extensive EIA agricultural infrastructure quickly followed by a very significant drop in population, between the EpRIA and LpRIA (La Tene D). From what I understand paleoclimatic reconstructions base on tree-rings, Ice-core studies, and shoreline regress/egress mark a rather sharp shift from a warm/wet climatic regime to a cool/dry one and distinguishes La Tene C2 from D1a (RIA A1). One will also note that the ritual centers were all built prior to the period of system collapse and apparent abandonments.

Faced with this I have the distinct feeling that the Era of Epic Cycles reflect a period before the mid 2nd century BC rather than after it.

As for the ritual center known as the Navan Fort/AKA Emain Macha, it was initially constructed in the LBA. There were major additions that again correspond to period before the La Tene D with the exception of terminal construction at Locus B with a destruction radiocarbon date of about 95 BC. As for the Corlea Trackway I believe they have been dendro-dated to the mid 2nd century BC; this all being consistent with the scenario outlined above. Nevertheless, neither the Corlea Trackway nor Navan Fort complex represent evidence of residential use. Furthermore the late date at Navan seems to represent post-abandonment distruction rather than construction. In fact all this only supports what has been known about the general demography of Erie before La Tene D.

This was why I initially posted this:

D Rumsfelt
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

To which I Added:

Yours Truely
There are those so-called known knowns we think we know, but all too often what we think are know as known, are in fact total BS.

Now, if anyone has any information about a residential settlement of any size, or a typical residential structure that can be dated to this period, please feel free to post it here.

[vartan]

Ah sweet, we're actually stepping up in EBII. Now, we finally get to see those places where few to none major settlements of humans existed during the game's time frame be put together under the Eremos/Desert province! Wonderful...

...wait, how does that affect gameplay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay)? Asking all those familiar with the engine that's being modded here. If it's similar to RTW at all, I can see the use in allowing random, possibly consequential rebel stacks being spawned. But any other significant overt (or even covert) effects on gameplay?

[Tuuvi]

Hasn't historical accuracy always been the core component of EB's gameplay?

[Populus Romanus]

I personally disagree with part of Ireland as the Eremos. Originally, the Eremos was for areas that were absolutely impossible to conquer. Central Arabia and the Sahara were unconquerable because of geography itself. Absolutely no one lived there to be subjugated, because the environment was 100 percent inhospitable. Ireland as well as Scotland and the Northern Steppe are a completely different story. A decrease in population is not tantamount to no population. And although it may have taken an inordinate amount of effort to subjugate these people, making them "not worth conquering", this is absolutely no reason to make them unconquerable. There are plenty of other areas that could be considered not worth conquering, why are they also not cut? All in all, I think the EBII Team has thrown historical accuracy under the bus in order to boost gameplay. Adding these erroneous provinces to the Eremos is a useful expedient to gain new provinces in areas that need them. Now, I am thrilled at having more detail in certain regions, but we also Have to remember that this comes at the loss of other regions.

[moonburn]

I personally disagree with part of Ireland as the Eremos. Originally, the Eremos was for areas that were absolutely impossible to conquer. Central Arabia and the Sahara were unconquerable because of geography itself. Absolutely no one lived there to be subjugated, because the environment was 100 percent inhospitable. Ireland as well as Scotland and the Northern Steppe are a completely different story. A decrease in population is not tantamount to no population. And although it may have taken an inordinate amount of effort to subjugate these people, making them "not worth conquering", this is absolutely no reason to make them unconquerable. There are plenty of other areas that could be considered not worth conquering, why are they also not cut? All in all, I think the EBII Team has thrown historical accuracy under the bus in order to boost gameplay. Adding these erroneous provinces to the Eremos is a useful expedient to gain new provinces in areas that need them. Now, I am thrilled at having more detail in certain regions, but we also Have to remember that this comes at the loss of other regions.

herm you can always recruit a legion or two and set them up in forts in the irish eresmos and scotish eremus you still get no revenue because the population is scarce and the land poor but once every 10 years the natives gather all together and elect you as their main and only enemy swear to the gods they won´t fight amonsgt each other until your forts are destroyed and you can have fun just like the french had in the sahara desert trying to control small wells of inquinated water and trying to scrap a few spices and salt from the ocasional trade caravan that needed to use those wells :\ their contigents where destroyed by large tribal gatherings sick of them and when they called for back ups and tried to find the army it was no longer there the thousands became a few dozen families all over again (for better understanding of what those people do watch lawrence of arabia from armies of 12.000 to only 20 in less then 2 months and thousands again after a few more months)

[vartan]

Hasn't historical accuracy always been the core component of EB's gameplay?
RTW engine is not meant to be a simulation of history or historical regions. You can mod all you want, but you'll never be able to show all the towns and villages and settlements. Also, EB is pre-1800. You wouldn't see imaginary lines called borders. These were invariably blurry and ever-shifting to say the least.

[B-Wing]

A minor point about west Ireland and central Scotland becoming Eremos: if (and only if) there are rebel army spawns in the Eremos region, the units composing them will have to be generic to the Arabian desert, the British Isles, and the Russian wilderness. So I'm guessing "random" rebel spawns will be out for Eremos. Scripted ones would be more likely.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Ah sweet, we're actually stepping up in EBII. Now, we finally get to see those places where few to none major settlements of humans existed during the game's time frame be put together under the Eremos/Desert province! Wonderful...

...wait, how does that affect gameplay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay)? Asking all those familiar with the engine that's being modded here. If it's similar to RTW at all, I can see the use in allowing random, possibly consequential rebel stacks being spawned. But any other significant overt (or even covert) effects on gameplay?

Well, in terms of gameplay, the provinces that would have been taken up by Irish and/or Scots settlements will be able to be used to fill out other areas of the map, improving the gameplay and complexity in those areas that, historically, were more widely populated and governed.

[cmacq]

I'll simply repeat the offer. Its time to stand and deliver, so if anyone has any information about a residential settlement of any size, or a typical residential structure that can be dated to this period, please feel free to post it here. Oddy researched this issue in great detail, and frankly he seems to have covered all the bases. Yet as a challenge, if there is solid evidence that indicates otherwise, as far as Erie and Alba are concerned, other than hearsay or conjecture, its high-time to walk-the-walk and not just talk-the-talk. Again, in other words; belly-up, put-up, manup or if;

'You can’t handle the Truth'

please go find someone who can.

[Olaf The Great]

Like Ivernis and Emain-Macha?

But seriously, why -wouldn't- people live there? If they did live there their houses would be made out of wood and be long gone by today, and if they didn't I could change history and after I conquer it as the Pritanoi I can expand cities. Eremos is for unconquerable not "hard to conquer" areas.

[Populus Romanus]

I'll simply repeat the offer. Its time to stand and deliver, so if anyone has any information about a residential settlement of any size, or a typical residential structure that can be dated to this period, please feel free to post it here. Oddy researched this issue in great detail, and frankly he seems to have covered all the bases. Yet as a challenge, if there is solid evidence that indicates otherwise, as far as Erie and Alba are concerned, other than hearsay or conjecture, its high-time to walk-the-walk and not just talk-the-talk. Again, in other words; belly-up, put-up, manup or if;

'You can’t handle the Truth'

please go find someone who can.

There does not have to be a large settlement to have a province. You do have nomad camps, which are for areas of the map where the people who inhabited these lands either did not settle or whose population density was too small to have a settlement of size (if my interpretation of nomad camps is right). In the steppes, for instance, there was never any settlement at all. The people there flat out did not use settlements becuase they were nomads, always on the move. If your line of arguement for excluding Southwest Ireland is that there were no settlements, then the entire steppe should be excluded as well. The same goes for Numidia and much of Arabia.

Southwest Ireland certainly had no cities and towns at this time. I am not denying that. However, I would honestly be incredulous if there were no people at all living in Southwest Ireland at this time. There must have been the odd farmer every here and there scattered across the countryside at very low densities. People earlier have mentioned a population decrease during this time frame, which seems to necessitate the fact that there was some people living there. After all, if all the inhabitants were gone, I would think they would use different language than "decrease". A lack of cities does not equal a lack of people. If there are people, they can be conquered, which is why I advocate a nomad camp.

In my opinion, if the EBII Team is going to expand the Eremos to Ireland, they should include the entirety of the island as Eremos. Currently it seems they went halfway, but then stopped with just half the island. Or, perhaps they could have the entirety of Ireland as one conquerable province with a city in Northeastern Ireland. After all, if there are so few people in Southwest Ireland, it could just be added to the existant province. It certainly has been done before.

[Tuuvi]

RTW engine is not meant to be a simulation of history or historical regions. You can mod all you want, but you'll never be able to show all the towns and villages and settlements. Also, EB is pre-1800. You wouldn't see imaginary lines called borders. These were invariably blurry and ever-shifting to say the least.

Well yea but the goal of the EB team is to make the game as historically accurate as they can within the limits of the game. Through their research they've found that much of Ireland was sparsely populated and have chosen to represent this by making most of it part of Eremos. I see no problem with it and I don't think it will make the mod any less fun.

[Cyclops]

No trace of any settlement in the landscape or the literature = no province I guess, fair enough. Your Skyths etc leave their burials at least, which is a fair hint there was someone living there.

Hadn't realised the (apparent) demographic catastrophe in SW Ireland was so total. I guess social changes stemming from the move to Iron as well as local climatic events can be sooo unforgiving. I have a sad mental image of some last remnant bronze age person on a cliff edge fort looking over an empty sea.

Interesting point mentioned about trade and IIRC the team has come up with some nice ways to redress the land/sea trade imbalance in the TW system. After all the silk road was as "world-spanning" as anything we know of by sea. I've just read a short history of Carthage that argues the British tin trade by 400 BC was mostly conducted across the channel and overland via Gaul to the Mediteranean rather than the long way round by sea. EB had the amber route too, hope the hugely important riverine and caravan trade can be effectively modelled in EB2.

[Brennus]

No trace of any settlement in the landscape or the literature = no province I guess, fair enough. Your Skyths etc leave their burials at least, which is a fair hint there was someone living there.

Hadn't realised the (apparent) demographic catastrophe in SW Ireland was so total. I guess social changes stemming from the move to Iron as well as local climatic events can be sooo unforgiving. I have a sad mental image of some last remnant bronze age person on a cliff edge fort looking over an empty sea.

Interesting point mentioned about trade and IIRC the team has come up with some nice ways to redress the land/sea trade imbalance in the TW system. After all the silk road was as "world-spanning" as anything we know of by sea. I've just read a short history of Carthage that argues the British tin trade by 400 BC was mostly conducted across the channel and overland via Gaul to the Mediteranean rather than the long way round by sea. EB had the amber route too, hope the hugely important riverine and caravan trade can be effectively modelled in EB2.

Depopulation in Ireland during the Iron Age is most likely the result of climatic factors, as happened in Northern Britain at the same time. There is insufficient evidence to support the notion of a mass migration to Ireland during this period (indeed the same can be said of Britain, the Belgae and Parisi don't appear to have arrived in mass numbers, although as the name evidence shows they arrived in sufficient numbers to remain politically distinct).

[oudysseos]

From A New History of Ireland, Barry Raftery's chapter "Iron Age Ireland".


the social stagnation that seems to have beset Ireland around the middle of
the last pre-Christian millennium contrasts with contemporary developments
in Europe. Around 500 b.c. the late Hallstatt centres of eastern France and
southern Germany had reached their greatest period of power and prosperity.
Luxuries were demanded and could be readily afforded. Wine from the
Mediterranean was traded northwards in enormous quantities and with it
came goblets, flagons, strainers, mixing bowls, and many other exotic consumer
goods to indulge the whims of an aristocratic e´lite, confident and
secure in its wealth and its absolute authority. Influence from the Greek and
Etruscan worlds reached deeply into late Hallstatt society. A wall of sundried
mud bricks at the Heuneburg fort in southern Germany—a Greek
replica, wholly unsuited to the damp middle-European climate—illustrates
well the all-pervasive nature of classical influence.30 So too do the imported
gravegoods in the wagon-graves at Vix in eastern France31 and Eberdingen-
Hochdorf in southern Germany.32 At the latter site in particular the presence
of a unique wheeled settee underlines the almost reckless extravagance of the
nouveau riche rulers.
But the spectacular climax was suddenly over: the Hallstatt strongholds
declined rapidly. In the middle of the fifth century b.c. new foci of power
emerged and a new culture appears in the archaeological record. This culture,
representative of the second major phase of the European iron age, is
referred to as the La Te`ne culture, so named after an important find-spot on
Lake Neuchaˆtel in Switzerland. Now, for the first time, the evidence of
archaeology is supported by the writings of classical authors, and now from
the shadows of prehistory a Celtic-speaking people emerges, described collectively
as Gauls or Galatians. These people, bearers across Europe of the
La Te`ne culture, are those we most frequently term the Celts.
Wide-ranging folk movements from the early fourth century b.c.
onwards—well documented both in history and archaeology—bring the La
Te`ne Celts from their central European heartlands to Italy, Greece, the
Balkans, and Asia Minor. They sacked Rome, burnt Delphi, treated with
Alexander the Great; their impact on the classical world was considerable.
An eloquent picture of them emerges from the contemporary accounts,
stressing their warlike and belligerent personality, their vanity and love of
pomp and ostentation, their head-hunting and feasting, their skilled use of
chariots. There is much more besides and many of the details recur in the
earliest Irish sagas.
Thousands of graves, richly bedecked with weapons, ornaments, and other
paraphernalia, yield much information on the material culture of the Celts
and confirm much of what the Greeks and Romans wrote. Warrior burials
stand out, the dead most often accompanied by a heavy iron slashing sword,
spears, and a long, oval shield. Chieftains in some areas were interred with a
light, two-wheeled chariot. Women, too, were often sumptuously laid to rest
with ornate jewellery, toilet implements, and other objects of personal adornment;
they were in no way inferior to men, either in death or in life.
A major innovation in the material culture of the La Te`ne Celts is the
appearance of an art form utterly divorced from the sterile geometry of the
Hallstatt era. La Te`ne art is a curvilinear art, rooted ultimately in the foliate
patterns of the Mediterranean, but developed from the beginning into abstract
compositions of often astounding virtuosity. Palmettes, lyres, waves,
spirals, S-scrolls, and leafy tendrils are the dominant motifs, writhing and
flowing over the decorated surfaces in themes of great vigour and originality.
This is art, not mere ornament, an art of tension and contrasts, where
symmetry and asymmetry, discipline and indiscipline coexist with ease.
There is mystery and illusion, fantasy and intrigue. Forms move and change,
merging into one another to deceive the eye. Faces or suggested faces peer
from the leafy background, undertones of the Netherworld are never far
away. Poseidonius spoke of the Celtic delight in mystification. ‘They speak
in riddles,’ he observed, ‘hinting at things, leaving much to be understood.’33
This is the essence of Celtic art. Through their art we can peer into the heart
of the Celts, into their very soul.
The military hegemony of the Celts reached its zenith in the early third
century b.c. but before that century had passed the tide had turned irrevocably:
the slumbering Roman colossus was awake. At Telamon, in 225 b.c.,
a great Celtic confederation from both sides of the Alps suffered a disastrous
reverse at the hands of the Romans, and the Celts ceased to be a force
in Italy. From then on, with the inexorable advance of Rome, their world
increasingly shrank. The year 51 b.c., a key date, saw the fall of Alesia to
Caesar, and this signalled the collapse of Celtic independence in Europe.
The initial wave of La Te`ne expansion across Europe may have touched
Britain but seems not to have reached Ireland. The ‘dark age’ continued.
Pytheas, the Massaliote astronomer and geographer, followed the same route
as Himilco up the Irish Sea in 325 b.c. In his later writings he referred to
the ‘Pretannic islands’ and to Ireland by name—Ierne—but it is unlikely that
he landed here.34 He may have been acquainted with the rumours, current
later, which regarded the country as a bleak and inhospitable place where
unmentionable practices were everyday custom.35
But the earliest firm evidence of a continental La Te`ne presence in Ireland
dates to the time of Pytheas. This is provided by the buffer-torc of gold,
discovered in the nineteenth century with a ribbon-torc of the same metal at
Clonmacnoise, not far from the Shannon in County Offaly.36 The buffer-torc
is a distinctive early La Te`ne type, the homeland of which is to be sought in
the middle Rhine area. The accompanying ribbon-torc may, however, be of
native manufacture.37 We do not know how, or in what circumstances, the
Clonmacnoise buffer-torc found its way to Ireland. It is a superbly fashioned
example with fine ornament on the ‘buffers’ and on the nape portion, and
was clearly a valuable object. It could have been a gift, a bribe, or maybe an
offering for a successful voyage, or it might simply be an item of trade. At
any rate it indicates direct contact with La Te`ne Europe around, or shortly
before, 300 b.c. But this isolated find can hardly be taken as demonstrating
immigration to the west of Ireland from the European land-mass, nor indeed
can it be seen as representing the beginnings in Ireland of a La Te`ne iron
age. For this we must look to the north-east of the country, to County
Antrim, the very region where the most extensive deposits of native iron ore
are to be found. There, in the River Bann and in boggy land to the east,
metal objects have been recovered that indicate for the first time in Ireland
an established La Te`ne tradition.
County Antrim has produced the most important assemblage of La Te`ne
artefacts from Ireland ever discovered. This was brought to light in the last
decades of the nineteenth century in the course of turf-cutting activities at
Lisnacrogher, about 16 km north-east of the town of Broughshane. The site
appears once to have been a shallow lake. Unfortunately, though the find
attracted widespread attention from contemporary collectors, there was no
competent authority present to observe the discoveries or to make any firsthand
record of the find contexts or of the structures revealed.
One of the earliest references to Lisnacrogher was by the Rev. William
Greenwall, who published a note in 186938 on the discovery there, a year
earlier, of a decorated scabbard-plate and six spearbutts. He noted that ‘from
the remains of piles and brushwood at the spot, it seems to have been the site
of a crannoge’. The first extensive account of the discoveries was, however,
given by W. F. Wakeman in a lecture at Armagh in August 1884, which he
subsequently published.39 He related that ‘for some time during and preceding
the two lately past summers, a number of men were employed in digging
turf from the peat which had been bared by partial drainage of the loch’. He
went on to note that ‘oaken timbers’, ‘timbers and encircling stakes’, and ‘a
very considerable quantity of rough, basket-like work’ were reported to have
been found. He then described and illustrated ‘the array of antiquities which
were found within and around it’. Further discoveries from Lisnacrogher
were published by Wakeman in two later papers.40
Lisnacrogher gained rapid fame in archaeological and antiquarian circles
and selections of the finds were widely illustrated. As early as 1881, for
instance, Lindenschmit had figured a decorated scabbard from the site (the
one published by Greenwell) in his famous Altertu¨mer, though it is there
wrongly provenanced to England.41 Wood-Martin, too, paid special attention
to Lisnacrogher in his monograph on the Lake dwellings of Ireland, but he
could add nothing to what Wakeman had written.42 Robert Munro, the
Scottish antiquary, visited the site in 1886 and observed ‘irregularly disposed
beams’ and ‘some remnants of oak beams, some showing the usual mortises’.
He also referred to an ‘undisturbed structure of stones just cropping through
the turf ’.43 The final reference to Lisnacrogher is by Knowles, who stated in
1897 that ‘it appears to be exhausted of its treasures now’.44
The exceptional importance of the material from Lisnacrogher is equalled
by our ignorance of the nature of the site. The varying accounts of stakes,
brushwood, and oaken beams are, of course, forcibly reminiscent of the
crannogs which are well known throughout Ireland. Not surprisingly, therefore,
the site is often referred to as a crannog of La Te`ne date. But this is far
from certain. In Switzerland, at Cornaux45 and at La Te`ne itself,46 comparable
metalwork assemblages have been found in association with constructions
of timber, variously interpreted as having served as bridges or jetties.
Such could also have existed at the Irish site. But even if the timbers at
Lisnacrogher are accepted as the remains of a crannog, there is a further
caveat, for the relationship of the La Te`ne artefacts with the timbers has not
been positively established. In fact, Munro makes the specific point that ‘as
to the relics, there is no record of their association with the crannog beyond
the fact of their being found in its vicinity’.47 We do not know, therefore, if
the La Te`ne metalwork complex from Lisnacrogher represents the debris of
a settlement, of a workshop or trading centre, or a place of ritual deposition.
Questions recently asked concerning the true character of La Te`ne—ritual or
secular—apply also to a consideration of the function of the County Antrim
site.48
There are between seventy and eighty surviving objects, mostly metal,
which may reasonably be regarded as deriving from the primary, iron-age
deposits at Lisnacrogher. Not all the artefacts, however, are contemporary,
for the site was evidently in use over a number of generations. Weapons and
decorated bronzes predominate. There are portions of four swords and four
incomplete scabbards. Two iron spearheads were also found, some decorated
cylindrical bronze ferrules and no fewer than twenty-two knobbed bronze
spear-butts,49 two still retaining a length of wooden shaft.50 In one instance
this was 1.80m long. The site also produced two bronze pins, ringheaded
and with gently curving shank, the head of each adorned with pinned-on
studs of red enamel.51 There were also bracelets from Lisnacrogher, mounts
of bronze, and a variety of rings and other miscellaneous items of the same
metal. A number of iron tools are said to have come from the deposits and a
few items of wood are also preserved.
Archaeological attention has focused, to a very large extent, on the swords
and the scabbards, which undoubtedly include the earliest remains from the
site.52 These are all surprisingly short, the blade lengths of the swords being,
in every case, well below 60 cm. This is appreciably shorter than is the case
with contemporary swords outside the country but is typical of all known
Irish swords of the period; on some examples, indeed, the blades are less
than 40 cm long. The organic hilt elements, probably of bone or horn, once
present on the swords from Lisnacrogher have not survived, but the bronze
fittings associated with grip, pommel, and hilt-guard are in several cases
present. A feature that the Lisnacrogher swords share with other La Te`ne
swords in the country is the quillon-plate, a curved bronze mount of
hammered or cast bronze that fitted on to the tang and rested on top of
the blade. Its profile is usually described as either ‘bell-shaped’, ‘cockedhat-
shaped’ or, more technically, ‘campaniform’. Such quillion-plates are a
diagnostic feature of the swords of early and middle La Te`ne Europe, especially
the latter, and the Lisnacrogher specimens are classic examples of this
European form. It is important also to note the finely wrought iron blades of
these County Antrim swords, illustrated by the well-preserved specimen in
the British Museum. Clearly of native fabrication, these blades display full
command of the swordsmith’s craft. Here at least there can be no uncertainty
as to the existence in the country of a mature, developed, and non-experimental
iron industry. But whether this represents a new beginning or a
continuation of older, established traditions remains to be determined.
The scabbards that held the swords were made of two plates of bronze,
bell-shaped at the top and with narrowed, cut-back tip to accommodate a
slender, clinging, openwork chape. The plates were joined to form the scabbard
by folding the edges of one around those of the other. A suspensionloop
was riveted to the back, but this is never preserved in Ireland. Three
of the Lisnacrogher plates are decorated from end to end with engraved
curvilinear ornament.53 The designs share features with those on European
La Te`ne scabbards but, like the swords, they are of undoubtedly local manufacture,
a generation or so removed from their ultimate continental homeland.
The patterns were executed with a hand-held tracer rocked gently from
side to side to give a fine, zigzag line. S-motifs, running-waves, and tight,
hairspring spirals are recurring themes, but a proliferation of micro-, even
macro-designs fills the bodies of the principal decorative units and the spaces
between them. For this dotting, minute spirals, leafy motifs, hatching, basketry,
and other designs are employed; there is a palpable horror vacui.
To the Lisnacrogher swords and scabbards can be added four splendidly
ornamented plates54 and a sword fragment from the River Bann.55 Taken
with the Lisnacrogher objects, these weapons indicate the existence of an
accomplished armoury in the north-east of the country perhaps as early as
the third century b.c. but certainly no later than the early second. With
these we can, for the first time, perceive in the country, however dimly, an
‘iron age’ of rather greater substance than anything hinted at for earlier
periods. That this ‘iron age’ was introduced from outside is beyond question,
but how and from where remains a matter for debate among scholars. Shared
decorative details with some British bronzes have encouraged the view that it
is in England that the origins of the earliest Irish La Te`ne iron age must
lie.56 This is improbable. The Irish scabbard style differs subtly from almost
everything in Britain and there are details that can only be found on the
Continent, in Gaul, in Switzerland, and even in Hungary.57 The Irish openwork
chapes, too, have their closest counterparts not in Britain but on the
Continent in contexts dating to the end of the early La Te`ne and the beginning
of the middle La Te`ne periods.58 Conclusively confirming an early
continental La Te`ne presence at Lisnacrogher are three hollow rings from
the site, each made of two horizontally joined segments, the halves held
together by two or three tiny rivets.59 These rings were related to the belt,
and seem in many cases to have been associated with the scabbard; they can
only be paralleled in the graves of early and middle La Te`ne Europe.60
The number of outsiders who might have been involved in the introduction
of the new metal-working techniques to north-east Ireland is, of course,
speculative. There were probably not many, perhaps a handful of fighting
men with their followers and their craftsmen. But apart from the hollow
rings, which could be imports, the archaeological record can point only to
objects of native manufacture. This illustrates well the recurring conundrum
of Irish prehistory. Here we have something that is totally new in the country,
yet rendered in a form that is different in detail from anything in the
area of presumed origin. The human mechanism by which such a transformation
takes place has yet to be convincingly explained.
the continental background of the earliest Irish La Te`ne tradition, so clearly
evident in the Clonmacnoise find and in the County Antrim scabbards,
becomes less evident in the material of later centuries. That links with the
European mainland continued, however, is shown by a sword from Ballyshannon
Bay, County Donegal, which possesses a typical Gaulish anthropoid
hilt of cast bronze. It was brought up from the seabed in a fishing-net and
dates to about 100 b.c.61 Late La Te`ne beads of continental type from
eastern and north-eastern parts of the country may also represent imported
items from the European land-mass in the last century b.c. 62 Increasingly,
however, especially after the turn of the millennium, the surviving remains
show contact with British craft traditions. In matters of art and technology
there was mutual borrowing between the two islands and it is reasonable to
suppose that small-scale movements between them were commonplace. But
in everything the Irish craftsmen pursued a noticeably independent line, and
everything produced here had the indelible stamp of Irish manufacture.
From the third or second century b.c., therefore, the archaeological evidence
indicates the gradual adoption of La Te`ne forms in various parts of
Ireland, and new types developed, wholly Irish in concept, but bearing local
versions of the La Te`ne art style. But, quite apart from the indigenous aspect
of most of the material, the quantity of objects scattered across the country
that we can describe as ‘La Te`ne’ is small, so that we can scarcely speak of a
great, sweeping change of population. Furthermore, it is not clear to what
extent the La Te`ne artefacts are typical everyday objects or are representative
only of a confined and exclusive section of late prehistoric Irish society. The
material may be socially restricted; it is certainly restricted in area, for extensive
regions of southern and south-western Ireland are virtually empty of La
Te`ne remains. La Te`ne objects are confined in the main to eastern
and central Ulster and to a broad discontinuous band from Meath across the
central plain to Galway and Mayo in the west.
The nature of contemporary society in the south of Ireland is not yet
clearly defined. Recent attempts to fill the southern ‘void’ of the last centuries
b.c. with a ‘ringfort complex’ deriving cultural influence from the Iberian
peninsula are attractive, but suffer from a lack of hard evidence, not least
of which is the absence of a precise chronology.63
The La Te`ne remains, limited though they are in extent, represent the
clearest and most obvious manifestation of iron-age influences in the country.
It is, however, readily apparent that the La Te`ne material constitutes only a
single strand in a complex, many-faceted Irish iron age, but for the period
immediately before the birth of Christ there seems little else of substance to
go on. The picture provided is, of course, incomplete and much is missing.
There are many problems of interpretation, problems compounded by the
paucity of burials and the almost total absence of contemporary, excavated
settlements.
the emphasis on weaponry at Lisnacrogher has been noted, an emphasis in
keeping with the known propensity for fighting and warfare among the La
Te`ne Celts everywhere. But the fine scabbards and excellently wrought
swords should not obscure the fact of their extreme scarcity in the country.
Outside the north-east of Ireland there are only two known scabbard-chapes
and the total number of swords of La Te`ne type for the whole country is
scarcely two dozen. Even allowing for the poor preservative qualities of iron
the lack is striking. Spearheads are even less frequent but in this instance the
dearth is undoubtedly exaggerated by the near impossibility of dating isolated
and unassociated specimens, a point confirmed by the relatively large number
of bronze spearbutts known: of these there are over sixty examples. They are
of various forms, short and knobbed as are common at Lisnacrogher,64 long,
tubular butts, cast or of hammered sheet-bronze,65 or butts, always cast, of
conical shape.66 A few tanged iron butts could belong to the iron age.67 The
bow, unpopular throughout La Te`ne Europe, is not present in the contemporary
archaeological record of Ireland; it is unlikely to have been used. The
sling, on the other hand, equally absent from the surviving material, was
probably widespread. The discovery of archaeological evidence for this
would be entirely fortuitous.
Undoubtedly fortuitous was the finding of a complete shield of La Te`ne
date during mechanical turf-cutting in Littleton Bog at Clonoura, County
Tipperary.68 This is the only example from the country, apart from the
fragmentary bronze fittings from a late, imported shield recovered on Lambay
Island, County Dublin,69 and some possible iron binding-strips from
Navan Fort, County Armagh.
The Clonoura shield, in contrast to the round shields of the bronze age, is
rectangular in shape with rounded corners. It is small, only 55 cm by 35 cm.
It is made of a wooden plank, gently convex to the front, with a sheet-leather
covering on each face, tightly stretched and secured by stitched binding
strips around the edges. A separately made wooden grip fits across a circular
opening at the centre of the shield which is protected at the front by a domed
wooden boss. This is also secured by a sheet-leather covering, stitched to
the surface of the shield. Such light implements would have been effective
and manageable in single combat at close quarters, the very combat that is
suggested by the short, stabbing Irish swords. The Irish shield is quite
different from the large, almost man-sized shields from continental La Te`ne
graves, which would have been necessary against the heavy, slashing swords
of the European Celts. That the Irish implement saw service in battle
is vividly shown by the sword-cuts and probable spear-thrusts that scar
its surface.
The chariot, eloquently described by the classical authors and well represented
in the European archaeological record, is hardly present at all in the
Irish material. The earliest Irish literature refers to ‘chariots’, but linguistic
evidence suggests that these were a far cry from the light, sophisticated, twowheeled
vehicles of the Continent.70 They may have been little more than
simple carts. Indeed, if the heavy, cumbersome block-wheels from Doogarymore,
County Roscommon (for which a date in the fifth or fourth century
b.c. is suggested by radiocarbon age-determination), have any bearing on
the nature of wheeled transport in late prehistoric Ireland71 there can be little
talk of war chariots such as are found on the Celtic coins72 or depicted on a
funeral stela from Padua.73 Timber fragments from under an iron-age road at
Corlea in Longford—if they are, as seems probable, part of a wheeled
vehicle—are more likely to be from a farm cart than from a war chariot.74
A few bronze mounts are, however, preserved that suggest that chariots of
more conventional type might occasionally have existed in the country. Two
hollow bronze mounts from Lough Gur, County Limerick, for example,
could have been chariot yoke mounts, and a British-made bronze terret (a
loop through which the reins passed) from County Antrim is probably also
from a chariot.75 Otherwise, apart from a few wooden horse-yokes,76 we can
infer only indirectly from the evidence of horse-trappings that paired
draught (and not necessarily for chariots) was known. Horse-bits of bronze,
of which there are over 130 in the country, are occasionally found in pairs.
The enigmatic Y-shaped objects of bronze (almost 100 are known) that fulfilled
an unspecified role in the harness are also sometimes found in pairs. As
well as this, asymmetric ornament on bits and on Y-shaped objects seems to
infer original use in paired combinations.
But the preponderance of single, isolated specimens in the country
strongly implies that travel on horseback was common in La Te`ne times. It
is likely that by then a well-defined network of routeways existed and, in
some areas at least, these must have been of some sophistication, especially if
wheeled transport—of whatever kind—was in operation. A great corduroy
trackway of huge riven oaks, crossing a bog at Corlea in County Longford, is
a spectacular example of iron-age road building. Thanks to tree-ring analysis
it has been precisely dated to 148 b.c.77
Celtic vanity and delight in bright colours and glittering ornaments are
reflected, to an extent, in the Irish archaeological record. Of the gaudy
clothing that must have been normal everyday dress, however, there is no
trace. The only surviving textile from iron-age Ireland is a small fragment,
fused to the back of a bronze locket, found on the shoulder of a female
skeleton at Carrowbeg North, County Galway.78 But dress-fasteners are
known, generally of bronze, and these are sometimes finely adorned. They
are, however, few in number. The safety-pin fibula, a basic type-fossil of the
European La Te`ne culture, is represented in Ireland by a mere twenty-five
examples.79 The number is paltry when set against the many thousands of
such objects found in every area of La Te`ne Europe. But some, distinctively
Irish in their treatment, display considerable virtuosity in their manufacture
and decoration. Springs, tightly coiled for effective use, had to be hammered
and annealed. Bows could be hammered or cast to either rod or leaf form.
The foot is sometimes cast in the shape of a tiny bird’s head as on a brooch
from Lecarrow, County Sligo;80 in one case the form represented on the
foot seems to be that of a serpent.81 An especially fine example is the wellpreserved
specimen from Clogher, County Tyrone, which, its arching bow
embellished with thin elegantly curving trumpets and minute lentoids, is a
minor masterpiece of fine casting in bronze.82
Ring-headed pins, an insular type,83 were also worn in iron-age Ireland:
there are about thirty examples known. We do not know if the distinction
between them and the safety-pin fibulae was chronological or cultural. In
some areas at any rate the two types are mutually exclusive in distribution.
Ring-headed pins, following older traditions of dress-fastening, do not have a
spring but are characterised by a straight or curving shank, a ring-head, and
an angular shoulder to gather the cloth. The ring could be of simple, annular
form84 or it could be recessed for the retention of red enamel inlay as on the
two examples from Lisnacrogher, County Antrim. More elaborate pins have
cast ring-heads with raised, snail-shell coils85 and there are also some pins
with the head in the form of a stylised swan’s neck, and often with sharply
curving shank.86
A uniquely Irish type of dress-fastener appeared around the turn of the
millennium, the Navan-type brooch, so called because two of the five known
examples are said to have come from Navan Fort (Emain Macha), County
Armagh.87 These had an elaborately cast, openwork bow embellished with
raised trumpets in profusion, set off, in the finest example (from Navan), by
fine stippling.88 The same Navan brooch had a stud of red enamel originally
on the centre of its bow, while a comparable, but less fine, piece from
Somerset, County Galway, was also adorned with enamel but in this instance
as champleve´ inlay.89 Four of the five Navan-type brooches had the pin
attached to the back by means of a ball-socket mechanism. This appears to
have been an Irish invention at this time and its presence underlines the
originality and ingenuity of the Irish craftsmen.
There were other, less functional forms of personal ornament. Beads of
glass and bone were worn on the neck, the wrists, and the ankles, and
bracelets of a variety of materials were also known. We do not know if glassworking
was carried on in iron-age Ireland but there is no reason why this
should not have been so. There were also finger- and toe-rings, anklets, and,
in one burial, a pair of possible ear-rings.90 Belts are suggested by the three
hollow bronze rings from Lisnacrogher referred to earlier, and the ring pairs
from cremations at Carrowjames, County Mayo,91 and Carbury Hill, County
Kildare,92 may also come from belts. A decorated strap-tag, probably also
from a belt, was found at Rathgall, County Wicklow.93
Implements relating to the toilet are also recorded from Ireland, but
these are infrequent and the majority are imports. Two mirrors are known,
one from Ballymoney, County Antrim,94 the other from the cemetery on
Lambay;95 a single iron-age tweezers comes from the exotic burial at
‘Loughey’, County Down.96 Care for the hair is indicated by the singleedged
bone combs from Lough Crew, County Meath,97 and elsewhere,
and the iron shears from Carbury Hill is likely to have been for trimming
the hair.98
Without doubt, however, it is the neck ornaments of gold that stand apart
as the most spectacular items of personal adornment from iron-age Ireland.
The two torcs from Clonmacnoise, County Offaly, have already been considered.
99 Apart from this find there is only one major hoard of gold objects
from Ireland that is demonstrably iron-age in date, for gold of the period
is rare, in sharp contrast to the astounding wealth of this metal during the
later bronze age. The hoard is that from the townland of Broighter, near
Limavady, County Londonderry, where seven objects were found during
ploughing activities in 1896. These included five neck ornaments, a small
hemispherical hanging bowl, and a model boat.100
There were two wire necklaces, one a single strand, the other composed of
three strands (undoubtedly worn as a ‘choker’), each made by skilfully interlocking
hundreds of tiny gold loops to fashion chains of great strength and
flexibility. The clasp mechanisms, one of which is adorned with granulation,
are simple but ingenious. A little loop, projecting from one end, was inserted
into an opening in the other end; a tiny, vertical bar was dropped through,
thus securing the clasp. Two bar torcs (one fragmentary) also came from the
hoard. These were closed by a simple hook-and-loop method. The final neck
ornament from the collection is the famous buffer-torc, one of the finest
examples of Irish iron-age metalwork.
This object is an elaborate piece,101 far more ornate than the earlier Clonmacnoise
specimen. It is now in two halves, each a hollow, semicircular tube
with a separately made ‘buffer’ terminal at one end of each. Whatever attachment
once existed at the nape portion is now missing. The tubular sections
of the collar are adorned with repousse´ ornament of almost baroque exuberance,
but geometrically planned with rule and compass. Sinuous, foliate
patterns, crisp lentoids, and raised scrolls are the dominant themes, arranged
in deliberate, balanced asymmetry. For added relief a series of individually
made snail-shell scrolls have been fitted into specially prepared openings in
the collar. The relief decoration is set off by a background web of overlapping,
compass-drawn arcs.
The terminals are in each case joined to the tubes by a pair of transverse
gold bars that extend through the collar from one side to the other. One of
the buffers retains the granulation (or simulated granulation) that originally
adorned both. The clasp mechanism is clever. A T-shaped tenon, projecting
from one face, fits into a corresponding rectangular slot in the opposing face;
the junction is secured by a quarter-turn of the tubes.
The torc belongs to a small but widely dispersed family of neck
ornaments, which occur from eastern England as far as Switzerland and
Italy.102 Their date in the latter part of the last pre-Christian century is wellestablished.
The present specimen is, however, of local manufacture, though
a suggestion has been made that the terminals were imported and added in
Ireland.103 This may be so, but is scarcely provable. Other objects in the
hoard are, however, certainly non-Irish. The wire necklaces, for example, are
of Mediterranean, possibly Alexandrian origin.104 The source of the
remaining items in the hoard is less easy to establish.
The Broighter objects may have been placed in the ground for safe keeping,
but it is not unreasonable to interpret the hoard as a votive deposit. The
find-spot is isolated, well away from the main concentrations of La Te`ne
metalwork. It is in a river valley close to the old coast of Lough Foyle. It is
tempting to regard the presence of the boat in the hoard as indicating some
ritual connection with the sea.105
This is, however, mere speculation. But the boat is important for it is the
earliest rendering we have of an ocean-going vessel.106 Elaborately equipped
with mast and yard-arm, miniature oars and rowers’ benches, steering oar,
grappling hook, and other tools, it gives us a unique insight into the nature
of deep-sea travel in the years around the birth of Christ. Eighteen oarsmen
are implied, two more to man the steering oars. There would have been
ample room in such a craft for passengers, provisions, and baggage besides.
One detail escapes us, however, for we cannot say if the model was intended
to represent a boat of hides or of timber.
The Broighter hoard, whether buried for reasons of ritual or of expediency,
is far removed from the everyday needs and activities of the general
populace. This silent majority finds little expression in the surviving archaeological
remains. But the scattered artefacts do give us occasional glimpses
of economy and daily life in La Te`ne Ireland.
A vital aspect of the daily economy was, of course, food production, and
the widespread distribution of rotary querns emphasises this importance. In
the northern two-thirds of the country the beehive variant was known, so
called because the heavy, domed upper stone resembles somewhat a beehive
in shape.107 This stone, centrally perforated to receive the corn, was rotated
by means of a detachable wooden handle on an iron spindle. This was more
efficient and far less tiring to use than was the long-established saddle quern.
The change was revolutionary. But soon the beehive quern itself was improved:
the upper stone was reduced to a flat disc, similar to the lower,
creating the so-called disc quern. This remained in use almost to modern
times, so that individual specimens are not easy to date closely. The absence
of beehive querns in the south of the country suggests that their place was
taken, almost from the start, by the disc quern.
Inspiration from north-east England for the introduction of the beehive
quern to Ireland has been postulated and it has been taken to indicate a folk
movement to the country from that quarter.108 But the appearance of a
technological improvement of such striking and immediate relevance to the
everyday life of the people would spread quickly once the idea was implanted
and the principle understood. It seems hardly necessary to invoke significant
population change to explain the development in the means of grinding corn.
It is not certain when the change took place, as no single beehive quern
has ever been found in Ireland with another object. Decoration on some
examples and the evidence of foreign analogies suggest that it may have been
introduced to Ireland around the birth of Christ or a few centuries later. It
may be, indeed, that the ‘dramatic expansion in agriculture’ evident in the
pollen diagrams for Ireland ‘at about 300 a.d. ’ is related to the appearance of
the new means of grinding corn.109
Apart from the querns there is otherwise little in the surviving remains
linked to agricultural pursuits. The only implement known that is directly
linked to the harvest is an iron sickle from the Lisnacrogher deposit.110
We can assume, however, that with widespread cultivation of the land, field
systems must have evolved to a stage of some complexity and large areas of
the country must have been enclosed. In a mixed economy with wandering
domestic animals and the dangers of incursions by wild fauna, field boundaries
were essential. We cannot point with certainty, however, to any field
systems of demonstrably iron-age date from the country.111
Animal husbandry, which must have been at least equal to agriculture as a
primary means of food production, is even less well represented in the archaeological
remains than is agriculture. It may reasonably be assumed that
cattle were a prime basis for wealth and, in consequence, cattle-rustling was
probably endemic. Indeed, it has been suggested that the great ‘travelling
earthworks’ that ran for kilometres across the country were a response to
large-scale cattle-rieving.112 The bo´aire of the early historic period had his
roots, no doubt, in the pre-Christian iron age, and it should not be forgotten
that the earliest Irish heroic saga, the Ulster cycle, revolves around an elaborate
cattle raid.
Only two published excavations have yielded information on the nature of
the faunal remains recovered: Feerwore, County Galway,113 and Freestone
Hill, County Kilkenny.114 Bones of cattle, sheep/goat, pig, horse, and dog
were present as well as those of red deer and a few smaller wild animals. The
published statistics concerning relative percentages of the different animals
are, however, suspect since they refer only to the relative bulk of the bones of
individual species. Preliminary statements concerning the faunal remains at
Navan Fort indicate a striking preponderance of pig-bones over those of
cattle and sheep or goats.115
Otherwise the evidence is slight. A few sword hilts made of animal bones
have survived (those of deer and sheep have been identified) and rib-bones of
cattle were used for various purposes as at Lough Crew, County Meath,116
and Freestone Hill. Animal bones were also used to make gaming pieces: the
dice from a grave at Knowth117 were made from the bones of a horse. As
already noted, the frequency of horse-trappings underlines the popularity of
the horse in Ireland.
We know virtually nothing of the house-types current in La Te`ne Ireland,
so we can say little about their internal organisation and plenishings or the
domestic activities that took place inside them. Any carvings, tapestries, or
painted walls that might once have existed are lost to us. There are few
domestic tools or implements preserved, apart from a few axeheads, an adze
or two,118 and an occasional knife.119 Spinning and weaving are represented
only by the alleged bone spindle-whorls from the late site on Freestone
Hill.120 There are no known loom-weights, which suggests that the horizontal
rather than the vertical loom was in use. Bone scrapers from Freestone
Hill may have been used in leather-curing,121 and the expertly made Clonoura
shield demonstrates skilled working in leather. The shield also shows
considerable competence in carpentry techniques and the same skills are
evident in several of the carved wooden objects found under the trackway in
Corlea bog, County Longford.122 Domestic pottery was not used, as far as we
can tell, in iron-age Ireland and wooden containers were probably widespread.
Only a few survive, including two handled cups,123 and there is at
least one wooden cauldron, which may belong to an early stage of the Irish
iron age.124 Fragments of stave-built wooden vessels have been found under
the trackway, earlier referred to, at Corlea. Metal containers also existed.
Cauldrons of bronze were used, of globular and ‘thick-bellied’ form, but
there are fewer than ten preserved from the whole country.125 Again we are
struck by the contrast with the situation in the preceding late bronze age,
during which Ireland was a major western European centre of cauldron
production.
Bronze drinking vessels, either bowls or handled cups, also exist. These
are sometimes hammered, sometimes finished on a lathe after initial casting.
They date around the birth of Christ. One particularly fine example, from
Keshcarrigan, County Leitrim,126 has a magnificently cast bird’s-head handle
with elegant, curving neck, upturned beak, and large staring eyes which were
once filled with glass or enamel inlays. A comparable bird’s-head handle was
found with other metal objects at Somerset, County Galway.127 We do
not know what beverages were drunk from these vessels but the stavebuilt,
wooden tankard from Carrickfergus, County Antrim—probably a
first-century import from Wales—could have been for beer.128 A pedestalled
‘tazza’ of sheet bronze from Edenderry, County Offaly (a roughly contemporary
import)129 might also have held the same beverage.
Drinking and feasting appear to have been important aspects of life among
the Celts, which could have taken up much of their leisure time. There is
little else to suggest periods of idleness. Games of chance, however, seem to
be represented by the bone dice that sometimes occur in Irish iron-age
contexts, and other ‘gaming-pieces’,130 and there are also a few alleged ‘counters’
of stone.131 A series of pegged bone objects from a grave at Knowth
appear to indicate the former existence of a board game.132 There is no
evidence in the archaeological record for the vigorous games of hurling
which the young Cu´ Chulainn allegedly played at Emain Macha before pursuing
his heroic and tragic destiny.
Cu´ Chulainn is a figure of legend and myth, but Emain Macha, the setting
for his greatest exploits, is a known hilltop site, now named Navan Fort,
some 6 km west of Armagh city.133 At the foot of this hill, in boggy land,
once a lake, four great bronze trumpets were found in the townland of
Loughnashade in 1798 in apparent association with human remains.134 Only
one survives.135 Deposited in a lake close to a site of contemporary royal and,
it seems, ceremonial importance, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
these four instruments came to their watery resting place in the course of
some votive activity.
Apart from the surviving trumpet from Loughnashade, there are several
other examples known, including a finely preserved specimen from Ardbrin,
County Down. The type is Irish and one was exported in ancient times to
Anglesey in north Wales where a fragment was found, significantly perhaps
in the presumed votive deposit at Llyn Cerrig Bach.136
These objects differ in every way from the cast trumpets of the bronze
age. Each of the two substantially complete iron-age examples is made of two
curved tubes joined to form a large arc which expands in width towards
the bell. The chord-length of the Ardbrin trumpet, the largest and bestpreserved
piece, is no less than 1.42 m.137 The tubes were made of prepared
strips of sheet bronze, hammered around a mandrel and curved to shape.
The junction of the precisely matching edges of each sheet was sealed by
riveting a narrow bronze strip along it on either the outer or inner surface.
On the exceptional Ardbrin trumpet, the internal sealing strip was secured
by no fewer than 1,094 tiny bronze rivets.138 The outstanding technical
excellence of such trumpets was further exanced in the case of the Loughnashade
specimen by the addition of a bronze disc with ornate repousse´ decoration
around the bell.
These instruments, dating perhaps to the last century b.c., might have
sounded on ceremonial occasions or before battles, their deep, bass sounds
intended to intimidate and terrify the enemy. The Ardbrin trumpet, when
found in 1809, was immediately blown by a local bugler, its striking tones
startling the people of the surrounding region. The object can still be blown
today but gives only a limited range of notes.
The trumpets, especially that from Ardbrin, are particularly fine examples
of the skill and accomplishment of the Irish bronzesmith’s craft at this time.
Indeed, repeatedly in the surviving remains it is the craft of the bronzeworker
that stands out. Flourishing centres must have existed, thriving and
well equipped workshops, and there were probably also travelling bronzesmiths
who carried out work akin to that of the tinkers of recent Irish
history. A wide range of specialist tools would have been used and an extensive
network of contacts was also necessary, both immediately local and
distant, to provide the essential raw materials for the successful running of
the industry.
Yet archaeology reveals practically nothing of all this. Not a single metalworking
tool is known, there are no moulds and no crucibles. In all these
things the bronze age tells us more.139 But we can infer something from the
artefacts. There are unfinished objects, fresh from the mould, their casting
accretions not yet rubbed down. There are objects still retaining the marks of
the tools used on them. Thus we can recognise hammers, punches, chisels,
graving tools of various forms, drills, files, saws, compasses. Many others
must have existed: anvils of differing sizes, for instance, and tools of bone,
too, such as punches used in repousse´ work and spatulae for the modelling of
cire perdue wax.
There is one hoard of objects that was clearly the property of a metalworker,
that found in 1959 at Somerset, County Galway.140 Ten objects
survive from the deposit: five bronze mounts, a gold ribbon torc, an openwork
brooch of ‘Navan-type’,141 a cup-handle in case bronze, shaped in the
form of a bird’s head as on the Keshcarrigan cup,142 an ingot, and a cake of
raw bronze. The cake has oblique hammer marks on it; perhaps a bowl
was to be made from it to which the handle was to be attached. There is a
mount too, which has had its original openwork ornament carefully
removed—clearly showing that the bronzesmith was still at work on this
object. The hoard, however, produced no tools, but the iron objects, found
with the bronzes and subsequently lost, may have been such implements. It
is tempting to regard the Somerset assemblage as the stock-in-trade of a
travelling bronzesmith. We do not know, however, if a permanent workshop
existed nearby.
Enamel-working is intimately associated with the bronzesmith’s craft. This
substance, essentially an opaque glass, is always red in colour during the
earlier phases of the iron age. Sometimes it is pinned to the bronze in the
form of preformed studs; sometimes it is applied in molten form to decorative
panels sunk into the surface of the bronze to be adorned. The latter
technique is called champleve´. In Ireland at least, there seems little chronological
discrepancy between the two techniques, though outside the country
the studs are earlier, following on the early La Te`ne custom of decorating
bronzes with studs of coral. Several large blocks of red enamel have been
found on the hill of Tara,143 indicating the former existence of a bronzeworking
centre there. The high lead content of the enamel, as revealed by
analysis, has been taken to suggest that the material was imported in bulk
from the Mediterranean region, possibly Italy.144 The implications of this, if
true, in terms of social organisation at home and the extent of trading contacts
abroad are considerable.
In seeking foci of metalworking in iron-age Ireland the unique assemblage
of material found in the chambers of a neolithic passage grave at Lough
Crew, County Meath, must be taken into account. First dug into in the
1860s,145 later (in 1941) excavated scientifically,146 the site produced a large
collection of objects dating, in all probability, to the first century a.d.147 The
majority of the finds are fragmentary bone flakes, carefully polished and
sometimes with compass-drawn ornament on them. Thirteen bone combs
were also found, two small pins of the same material, beads of amber and
glass, and some rings of amber and iron. A corroded iron object, allegedly
the leg of a compass,148 was found in the nineteenth-century investigations.
This is now lost. Its relationship to the iron-age layer is unknown (it could
be modern), nor is it certainly part of a compass.
Over 5,000 flake fragments were recovered, about 150 of which bear ornament.
They are made from cattle rib-bones, generally ovoid or flattened-oval
in shape, sometimes with one end pointed. Occasionally one end is pierced
by a small, circular hole. Estimated original lengths vary between 5 cm and
about 14 cm. The decoration consists most often of precisely conceived,
compass-drawn compositions of considerable geometrical complexity. There
are also examples, however, where the designs are unfinished, even botched,
and some seem to represent no more than practice curves made without any
intent at ornamentation. Only once is the compass left aside, in the awkward,
crudely scratched stags present on one flake. But even here, the tiny circular
eyes are mechanically produced.149 The decorated flakes are often taken to be
‘trial pieces’ or ‘pattern books’, the work of a bronzesmith developing patterns
in bone before committing them to the more permanent metal. The
Lough Crew site is thus far regarded as a workshop. But the preponderance
of blank flakes, each as carefully shaped and polished as those that are
adorned, seems not to support this view. It should also be noted that none of
the investigations there revealed positive evidence of metalworking. The
presence of these objects within a passage grave, on a remote hilltop, hints
rather at a non-utilitarian role for these enigmatic flakes, for it is evident that
monuments such as Lough Crew were imbued with deep-seated supernatural
undertones in indigenous Celtic mythology.
In terms of the native artistic development, the ornament on the Lough
Crew flakes is important, for it represents a radical departure from the freehand
foliate patterns of the Ulster scabbards. Now there is a rigid dependence
on the compass, and workshop links are not with Europe but with
Britain, its south-west, but above all its north. Some of the Lough Crew
designs, indeed, can otherwise only be matched in the latter area.150 This
Lough Crew school of decoration, along with the broadly contemporary
Somerset, County Galway, material and its stylistic analogies, embodies a
unified artistic tradition that found its way to all areas of La Te`ne influence
in the country. In bronze, bone, stone, even gold, there is repeated overlap
in stylistic emphasis and approach. There is a strong conservatism, an acceptance
of stylistic norms, and an unwillingness to deviate from that which
was held to be artistically appropriate and correct. The art on the flakes had
ready parallels on the Broighter torc, on the so-called bronze ‘spoons’, on a
‘gaming-piece’ from Cush in County Limerick, and on horsebits as
well. Unique bronzes such as the ornamental horns from Cork, the famous
‘Petrie crown’, the large repousse´ discs of ‘Monasterevin-type’, and the
finely ornamented disc from Loughan Island on the Bann may all overlap
in time with this Lough Crew school of craftsmanship. Most striking
analogy of all for the art on the flakes is the ornament on a stone from
Derrykeighan, County Antrim, which is so close to that on one of the flakes
as almost to suggest that the sculptor had a decorated flake before him as he
worked.151
The Derrykeighan stone is one of five decorated iron-age stones from
Ireland, to which can probably be added a few undecorated monoliths, especially
that known as the Lia Fa´il at Tara. These are generally regarded as
having had some cult significance. They vary considerably in their form and
in their ornament. Some, such as Derrykeighan, are rectangular in section;
others vary from a squat rounded profile (Castlestrange, County Roscommon)
152 to cylindrical shape with domed top (Turoe, County Galway).153
The Turoe example is the finest. Made of granite and standing just over a
metre above ground level (its total length is 1.68 m), the stone is lavishly
ornamented with overall curvilinear designs, raised in false relief from the
surface of the stone by chiselling the background voids. The design, not an
‘asymmetric jungle’ as one commentator suggested, has been carefully laid
out in a quadripartite arrangement suggesting a four-faced prototype.
Around the base there is a band of ‘step’ or ‘maeandroid’ ornament, incised
in a manner noticeably less sophisticated than the ornament on the rest of the
stone. Fragments of a similar monolith also stood in Killycluggin, County
Cavan.154
The Turoe stone, like the others, is a native rendering and it dates to the
last century b.c. Other stones could be slightly earlier or slightly later;
one from Mullaghmast, County Kildare, dates around the middle of the first
millennum a.d.155 Stones of this type are unknown in Britain and find
their best parallels in the Breton peninsula of France.156 It is possible that
impulses from there inspired native craftsmen to erect local versions. The
Irish stones would thus reflect a widespread Celtic religious custom
extending to the Rhineland and ultimately to Etruria. The carved stone
heads in Ireland,157 along with the fine wooden carving from Ralaghan,
County Cavan,158 similarly reflect a pan-Celtic set of religious beliefs.
the foregoing section represents a consideration of scattered material within
the country described loosely as ‘La Te`ne’ because of the form of the objects
concerned and because of their ornamentation. In Ireland the term has a
rather different meaning from elsewhere because of the insularity and longevity
of La Te`ne traditions in this country. Thus the cultural and chronological
subdivisions of the La Te`ne that have been worked out for the
Continent have only the most generalised validity for Ireland. For this country
chronology is very imprecise: the objects involved belong to the centuries
between 300 b.c. and a.d. 300.
The picture presented by the La Te`ne material is disjointed and incomplete
and much remains uncertain, much eludes us. As already noted, the
extent to which the surviving La Te`ne remains are representative of the
ordinary people is unclear. Undoubtedly a significant part reflects the trappings
of an aristocratic e´lite and, indeed, the very paucity of objects itself
suggests that large sections of the contemporary population are unrepresented.
But at least it can be said that the material of La Te`ne aspect, scarce
though it is in the country, is indicative of a recognisable, innovative iron-age
tradition in Ireland in the last centuries b.c., a tradition that continued for
a time into the early centuries of the Christian era. In those southern areas of
the country that lack a La Te`ne horizon, the task of recognising the nature of
contemporary innovating iron-age influences remains problematical.
In all of this it is readily apparent that the key to our understanding of the
full iron age in Ireland lies in the recognition and investigation of settlement
sites of the period. For the La Te`ne horizon at least, our ignorance is almost
total. Only at Feerwore, County Galway, can we point to a small, domestic
settlement which produced material of clearly La Te`ne type.159 There were
no houses preserved, the debris consisting merely of broken scraps left
behind after the settlement was abandoned. We do not know if the site was
defended or not. Whatever may have existed was removed by the bank-andditch
construction of the later ringfort there.
Strictly on the basis of morphology, hillforts in Ireland have been divided
into three main types.164 The first are those characterised by a single line of
defence, which can cover an area of from under two hectares to about nine
hectares. Brusselstown Ring, near Baltinglass, County Wicklow,165 and Carn
Tigherna, near Fermoy, County Cork,166 are good examples. Hillforts with
two or three ramparts widely spaced from one another form the second Irish
category. Sites as large as 20 hectares in area are known.167 These have a
slight emphasis in their distribution to the south-west and west of Ireland.
The great 12.5 hectare site at Mooghaun, near Newmarket-on-Fergus in
County Clare, is the finest example of this hillfort-type in the country.168
Cashel Fort, at Upton, County Cork, is another.169 The third hillfort type,
numerically limited, is the inland promontory fort. As the name implies,
these occupy promontory situations where the natural slopes are sufficiently
precipitous to necessitate the construction of artificial defences only across
one end of the promontory. A feature of two of the finest examples, Lurigethen
170 and Knockdhu,171 both not far from the coast in north Antrim, is
the presence of a series of bank-and-ditch defences with no space between
successive lines, i.e. closely spaced multivallation. This is a defensive concept
fundamentally distinct from that implied by the widely spaced multivallation
of Class 2 forts. Not all the inland promontory forts, however, are defended
in this way. The site of Caherconree, situated some 630m above sea level on
Slieve Mish in County Kerry, has but a single line of defence.172 The area
defended at Caherconree is scarcely a hectare. The wall, well built of sandstone
blocks, has internal terracing and still stands to a height in places of
more than two metres. Also on the Dingle peninsula, on the eastern side of
Mount Brandon in Benagh townland, is an even more extraordinary inland
promontory fort.173 Here two stone walls, about 100m apart, cut off a
narrow promontory some 762m above sea level. We can only wonder as to
the function, and indeed the date, of such spectacular fortresses.

Attempts, on the basis of structural evidence alone, to seek an external
source for the Irish forts are less than satisfactory. Vague analogies for the
widely spaced plan of some of the Irish sites exist in south-west England and
in parts of Iberia,179 but such analogies are unbuttressed by firm archaeological
evidence. The possibility of an Iberian ingredient as one strand at
least in the genesis of the Irish hillfort may well reward further consideration,
for the use of chevaux de frise as at Du´n Aengus and other western sites
is an Iberian technique par excellence. Suggestions that the chevaux de frise in
Ireland and Iberia are unrelated, deriving from a common timber prototype
which reached Ireland through Britain, remain unsubstantiated.180 We lack
the evidence of excavation. A single, fragmentary bronze fibula of native La
Te`ne type, allegedly from the inner enclosure at Du´n Aengus,181 tells us
nothing of the fort’s foundation.
Equally speculative is the dating of the promontory forts. These sites,
distinct from the contour sites not merely in their situation but also by the
not infrequent use of closely spaced multivallation, may well belong to a
cultural horizon totally different from that of the contour hillforts. It is
tempting to relate the coastal sites to closely similar forts in south-west
England and north-west France, where they have been identified with a
Gaulish tribe, the seafaring Veneti.182 We may also recall the presence in
Ireland of low, rounded monoliths of iron-age date,183 a form especially
concentrated in the territory of the Veneti.184 Again, however, firm evidence
to support the interesting possibilities raised by these analogies is lacking,
and it must be accepted that promontory forts in Ireland and those outside
could result from no more than a common response to a common defensive
situation. It must also be borne in mind that promontory forts in Ireland had
a long life, possibly into medieval times, so that the attempted dating of
individual sites without excavation is futile.
Outside Ireland there is clear evidence to show that many hillforts were
densely occupied and in use the year round. Equally, it is evident that some
forts did serve merely as refuges. Either or both interpretations could apply
to Ireland but it seems likely that the primary function was defensive, not
ceremonial. Excavation to date has been insufficient to allow firm conclusions
either way. It is, however, difficult to envisage lofty and exposed sites such as
Caherconree and Benagh in County Kerry as in occupation during the winter
months.
One thing seems certain. The effort involved in constructing the defences
of a hillfort was considerable and involved significant numbers of people over
an extended period of time. This, as well as the large areas enclosed, implies
use by a large number of people. Whatever their precise function, it seems
not unreasonable to see the hillforts as important focal points within the
tribal area.
But not all the great hilltop enclosures of Ireland are so compellingly
defensive in the appearance of their enclosing ramparts. There is in the
country a small group of imposing sites that occupy commanding positions
and are characterised by a rampart-and-ditch enclosure of substantial proportions,
but may still have served a primary function other than the protection
of the inhabitants. Distinguishing these, apart from their size and location, is
the presence of a deep ditch running inside, rather than outside, the earthwork
enclosure. Three major sites are included in this group: Navan Fort
(Emain Macha), County Armagh; Du´n Ailinne, County Kildare; and Ra´th na
Rı´ogh, Tara, County Meath.185 A fourth site, at Carrowmably, near Dromore,
County Sligo, spectacularly sited on a cliff edge overlooking the sea,
also possesses a deep ditch around the inner perimeter of its well-preserved
bank. In this instance, however, neither history nor archaeology provide the
slightest clue as to its function or date.
The three enclosures initially listed above are all recognised royal centres
prominent in the traditions and mythology of early Celtic Ireland.186 Each is
alleged to have been a provincial centre, important for inaugurations, ceremonies,
and assemblies, and possibly even the seat of a royal household.
These were clearly exceptional sites and this is given strong support by the
evidence of excavation at Navan Fort and Du´n Ailinne. Oddly, a comparable
earthwork enclosure is absent at Cruachan, the presumed contemporary capital
of the ancient kingdom of Connacht.187
Tara, above all, figures prominently in the early literature.188 Ra´th na
Rı´ogh, the 7-hectare internally ditched enclosure, dominates the ridge-top,
but this monument is only one of an extensive complex of tumuli, ringbarrows,
enclosures, and the enigmatic parallel ramparts known as the ‘banqueting
hall’. Additional sites have been revealed by aerial photography.189
Few of these earthworks have been excavated. Each has a fanciful name
deriving, for the most part, from the early medieval Dindshenchas,190 but
these are of no value in determining either the purpose or the date of any of
the structures on the hill. Excavation has revealed activity from neolithic
times191 to the early centuries a.d.,192 and individual unexcavated sites
could belong anywhere within this extensive time-span. Some, such as the
ringforts on the hilltop, could even be later. The majority of monuments at
Tara are, however, likely to be of iron-age date.
Occupation on the summit of Navan Fort (Emain Macha) began, as noted
earlier, in the seventh century b.c. during the later phase of the Irish bronze
age.193 At that time there is no evidence that the site was out of the ordinary,
for there was only a single house which stood within a wooden stockade.
Over many generations the plan of the settlement changed little, but the
house was replaced on no fewer than eight occasions. A second house, twice
rebuilt, was later erected on another site within the same palisaded enclosure.
A third phase then followed, when the function changed radically and the
hilltop may have acquired its ceremonial importance. It is possible that it was
during this phase that the large, enclosing bank was raised, but this has not
been demonstrated by excavation. Phase 3 involved the construction of a
circular wall of horizontal timber planking, enclosing an area 40m in diameter,
within which were the five concentric rings of posts, 3m apart, the
posts of each ring 1.20m to 1.80m distant from one another. A single posthole
2.30m deep was found at the centre, within which was preserved the
stump of an oak post 55 cm in diameter. Its original height could have been
as much as 13 m. From an entrance in the west there was an arrangement of
postholes, interpreted by the excavator as an ambulatory, which led to the
centre. After some restructuring the site seems to have been partially burnt,
perhaps deliberately, before finally being sealed by a cairn some 46m in
diameter and 4.50 to 5m high. Tree-ring analysis of the central post indicates
a date just before 100 b.c. for the last major phase of activity at Navan
Fort.194
The precise nature of the buildings that once stood at Navan is uncertain
and it cannot be stated if the multi-ringed complex was ever roofed. This is
possible. It is, however, difficult to avoid the conclusion that Navan Fort in
its later stages served no ordinary practical purpose. This is especially emphasised
by the final burning and monumental sealing of the structure. It is
possible, at the same time, that secular occupation took place elsewhere on
the hilltop. Much of the area within the enclosure remains unexcavated.
Iron-age material recovered in the course of the excavation, such as a bone
dice, a bone weaving-comb, and iron slag, all seem to indicate domestic
activities. The discovery in one of the pre-cairn levels of a Barbary ape
skull195 is of outstanding importance, emphasising the singular importance of
Navan Fort in late prehistoric times. It is not, however, clear to which phase
the skull belongs.
Excavation on the summit of Du´n Ailinne, County Kildare, uncovered a
sequence of iron-age occupation as complex as that on Navan,196 and as at
the latter site the material remains associated with the hilltop activity
are exclusively of La Te`ne and sub-Roman aspect. Initially, there were three
successive circular, timber structures, each revealed as trenches in which
a continuous series of upright posts had once stood. Phase 2 was made up of
three concentric trenches gapped and with an annexe; Phase 3 had
two concentric trenches enclosing an internal ring of large postholes, at the
precise centre of which was a small, circular building. Then, in Phase 4,
the outer and inner features were removed leaving only the ring of large
free-standing posts. These in turn were later dismantled and the hilltop was
used for a time as the site of intensive but sporadic open-air feasting. Carbon
14 age-determinations ranged from the third century b.c. to the fourth
century a.d.
Navan Fort and Du´n Ailinne, clearly overlapping culturally with the horizon
that is otherwise represented only by the scattered La Te`ne artifacts,
give us unique and important insights into aspects of contemporary society
that the finds on their own can never give us. With these structures archae-
ology, mythology, and even the first glimmerings of history are brought
together. The great hostings of the ‘Ta´in’ can be dimly discerned as a backdrop
to these extraordinary monuments, with warrior kings and queens,
hemmed in by their onerous obligations and awesome taboos, presiding over
the rituals vital for the prosperity and well-being of their people. The authority
that such rulers could wield must have been considerable, to organise
and co-ordinate the enormous labour that the construction of these great
sites involved. A highly sophisticated social organisation is implied and a
strong sense of community, allied perhaps also to powerful religious motivation,
on the part of the workers who followed the directions of the leadership
in the laborious project. We do not know, however, to what extent slave
labour might also have been used.
The task was prodigious. Many men were needed and it must have taken
months to complete. The digging of the ditch alone and the piling of the
rubble below it, using the simplest of tools, was a great undertaking. But the
timber structures on the hilltop required as much effort. Large numbers of
trees had to be felled, trimmed, and then transported, who can say for how
many kilometres, finally hauled uphill and erected in place. In situ they may
have been carved or painted and there could have been extensive joinery
work. And while all this was going on the work-force had to be fed, watered,
and housed. It is thus likely that the whole community was preoccupied with
this one project.
the burial record, not only for the iron age, but also for almost the whole of
the last pre-Christian millennium in Ireland, is meagre and the few known
sites are generally uncertainly dated. For the later bronze age we can only
point to two likely sites: Mullaghmore, County Down, where a ring-barrow
produced cremations and coarse pottery,202 and Rathgall, County Wicklow,
where three cremation deposits were enclosed by a shallow ring-ditch.203 At
each site one of the burials was contained within a coarse upright pot. It
must be assumed that the means of disposal of the dead during the late
bronze age were such as to leave no obvious trace in the archaeological
record. It may thus follow that the continued scarcity of burials in the iron
age indicates the persistence into that period of those same conditions or
customs that prevent us from recognising late bronze-age interments. This in
itself hints at a strong measure of population stability throughout the millennium,
and the surviving burial record, limited though it is, lends support to
this impression. It is only around the turn of the millennium and into the
beginning of the Christian era that a handful of clearly intrusive burials can
be identified.

the Irish iron age thus emerges as a complex, multifaceted period without
clear definition either in cultural or chronological terms. Like an unravelled
tapestry there are pieces missing and many loose strands, some of which
seem hopelessly tangled. One important strand, for instance, the La Te`ne
material, can with difficulty be linked with the forts, which must also be part
of this iron-age tapestry, while these in turn can scarcely be related to the
burials. The missing strand of the southern iron age in the last centuries b.c.
remains problematical, but it may be that the hillforts of the south will in
time help to fill this major gap in our knowledge. After the turn of the
millennium Roman imports add a significant new ingredient to the developing
Irish iron age, and before the middle of the millennium the ringfort,
rooted perhaps in earlier settlement forms, increasingly becomes the dominant
feature of the Irish cultural landscape. Throughout the iron age Ireland
received influence and inspiration from many external sources. Gaul was
important but there were also contacts with the Rhineland, the east Mediterranean,
and, possibly, Iberia. Britain too, over the centuries, provided much.
But foreign impulses were always subjected to the strong island personality
of Ireland and these, muted by environment and filtered by time, soon
developed into a new synthesis which was wholly and recognisably Irish.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what “Eremos” is. Literally it means “wilderness”, “deserted”/“desolate”, but this is not an absolute. In EB it first was used not for an “impossible to conquer” region, but an “undesirable to conquer” region. The innermost part of Arabia used to be a region with capital at Dumatha, but this was merged with Eremos (and Dumatha removed from the map) for the simple reason that it neatly avoided the Seleucids/Ptolemaioi going after the Saba quite so quickly. It happens to make sense with the idea of it being a desert, but in antiquity it contained some key traderoutes and major cities as well.

In EB 2 we reshuffle the provinces with an eye to making them trace relevant cultural/geographic boundaries better and fix problems with the way they are distributed and what we need/want to get out of that. Although it looks odd to see parts of Ireland as Eremos, it happens to make a lot of sense given the very minimal human presence it enjoyed. Note that even wooden settlements leave relatively clear traces which modern archeology is accustomed to deciphering (for instance rubbish dumps, changes in the soil which used to be a hearth, concentrations of animal/plant remains, pollen), otherwise we'd know a whole lot less about for instance North West continental Europe, Skåne, Northern Germany, Poland etc.

[Epimetheus]

Leaving the matter of native settlement aside, isn't a little unfair roleplay-wise to limit the player so drastically? Sure, even if nobody historically conquered all of Ireland in EB's timeframe, or any of it for that matter. But if Rome had somehow managed to invade Ireland, do you really think they would not have tried to settle or subjugate in these "uninhabited" areas?

Of course, if the EB team believes firmly that this is the way to go, there's little point in arguing it. I have my doubts about how the map is going to look and feel, especially if this same sort of logic is followed everywhere, and but it's their mod and they can build it however they want. If we're unsatisfied with how it comes out, we can argue the point then, and, failing that, making a sub-mod to change the map borders would take me half an hour at most.

[Foot]

Leaving the matter of native settlement aside, isn't a little unfair roleplay-wise to limit the player so drastically? Sure, even if nobody historically conquered all of Ireland in EB's timeframe, or any of it for that matter. But if Rome had somehow managed to invade Ireland, do you really think they would not have tried to settle or subjugate in these "uninhabited" areas?

We are dealing with limits. With 10 new factions it was necessary to increase the province numbers in certain areas to accomadate these. Ignoring the changes in the political nature of the EBII campaign due to these new factions would have been neglectful of us. Your argument would seem to support filling all areas of the map, which had some sort of conquerable value, with a province. I hope you won't mind if we tear out many provinces of the mediterranean to achieve this? Arabia could certainly use some provinces to fill in that middle gap, and so could Africa. Hmm, shall we get rid of Athens, or perhaps Messana? I joke of course, but as it being unfair, roleplay-wise, I see no reason to argue that at all. You could even role-play that you have conquered that part of Ireland by leaving an army in there (there might even be a permanent fort for you to hold). It seems to be odd for you to cry "shame" for the sake of role-play when it is that same role-play that often overcomes the limitations of the game (this decision included). Or perhaps thats my own perception of the matter.

Foot

[Epimetheus]

Touché on the roleplaying point, Foot. I understand there are a lot of limitations you guys have to deal with, and I’m not expecting every culture and every tribe and every river and stream in Europe to be represented. I am by no means suggesting that any actual settlements be moved or changed, especially since I haven’t even seen the map. I respect the research and dedication that the team is doing, and by no means do I claim to be either an expert modder or historian. But in terms of provincial boundaries, is there any particular gameplay reason why the “Eremos” part of Ireland cannot be part of the Emain Machma province instead? Will it throw off the economy, or allow Bartix to steamroll the British isles? Is it an uninhabitable wasteland, where nobody would ever want to live? If it is only because the team feels that it’s ahistorical for someone to conquer all of Ireland by taking one settlement, then can’t the PSF’s be used? Or, if the team feels that there are no good candidates for such, can’t it have increased unrest, or high rebel spawn values or something? In the case of Arabia and Africa, there are much more obvious gameplay and geography reasons for leaving them to the Eremos province. If we’re going to reduce to the absurd, then obviously every mountaintop, swamp, or desert in the game should be part of Eremos as well, not to mention most of the steppes. Giving such small parts of different regions to Eremos just seems like an unorthodox, and potentially unaesthetic, way to represent these issues to me. The team obviously put a great deal of thought into this decision, so I’ll respect it, but it does make me curious, and maybe a little nervous, about what the rest of the campaign map will be like.

[vartan]

The Eremos Controversy is certainly one that's still raging and is quite a confusing one because it illustrates how issues of gameplay, aesthetics, technology, innovation, art, and others can come together in both productive as well as frustrating ways. Heraclitus told us to "expected the unexpected." This is certainly one stance you may take, but I say expect nothing. Then you shall surely not be disappointed, for there will be nothing that did not fulfill your expectations.

P.S. I don't believe giving a province more surface area makes the province any wealthier in the TW system. I think wealth of provinces is controlled through other parameters.

[Genava]

A minor point about west Ireland and central Scotland becoming Eremos: if (and only if) there are rebel army spawns in the Eremos region, the units composing them will have to be generic to the Arabian desert, the British Isles, and the Russian wilderness. So I'm guessing "random" rebel spawns will be out for Eremos. Scripted ones would be more likely.

Good question... what is the answer of the EBTeam? It will be mercenaries and spawn armies in the Eremos region?


Otherwise, good eyes killer Oudysseos.

[fightermedic]

Touché on the roleplaying point, Foot. I understand there are a lot of limitations you guys have to deal with, and I’m not expecting every culture and every tribe and every river and stream in Europe to be represented. I am by no means suggesting that any actual settlements be moved or changed, especially since I haven’t even seen the map. I respect the research and dedication that the team is doing, and by no means do I claim to be either an expert modder or historian. But in terms of provincial boundaries, is there any particular gameplay reason why the “Eremos” part of Ireland cannot be part of the Emain Machma province instead? Will it throw off the economy, or allow Bartix to steamroll the British isles? Is it an uninhabitable wasteland, where nobody would ever want to live? If it is only because the team feels that it’s ahistorical for someone to conquer all of Ireland by taking one settlement, then can’t the PSF’s be used? Or, if the team feels that there are no good candidates for such, can’t it have increased unrest, or high rebel spawn values or something? In the case of Arabia and Africa, there are much more obvious gameplay and geography reasons for leaving them to the Eremos province. If we’re going to reduce to the absurd, then obviously every mountaintop, swamp, or desert in the game should be part of Eremos as well, not to mention most of the steppes. Giving such small parts of different regions to Eremos just seems like an unorthodox, and potentially unaesthetic, way to represent these issues to me. The team obviously put a great deal of thought into this decision, so I’ll respect it, but it does make me curious, and maybe a little nervous, about what the rest of the campaign map will be like.

well actually i could get used to the thought of having every swamp and moutaintop as a part of eremos ;)
i'm wondering how that would turn out in actual gamplay

[fomalhaut]

this seemingly benign topic does have some big implications into the balance gameplay/balance/accuracy/etc. interesting conversation

[oudysseos]

I scanned that all in by hand, by the way.


Here's something that's very apropos: from Talking History on Newstalk.ie (http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/programmes/all-programmes/talking-history/the-celts-sunday-27-march/), a weekly radio programme in Ireland. The 27 March episode was all about "Celts", with input from historians, archaeologists and geneticists. It's available on iTunes as a podcast: just search the store for 'talking history' and pick the one from newstalk.ie. Well worth a listen.

[cmacq]

Given the state of logistics, an army moving into such a region would be attrited to nearly nothing, very soon. Even a Roman Army supported by sea would be aversely affected. To be able to do so for any extended period of time is one thing, but the costs would be enormous and in most cases prohibitive. Then there is the issue of extracting recourses without a formal infrastructure. This is one of the little life-lessens of EB II, wherein human aggregation, such as an army or even a villge, town or city, without a proportional support infrastructure kills, and kills fast. I'm not totally sure how EB II will deal with this, but in EB this was largely handled abstractly. Its not that certain regions or environmental settings were ungovernable, rather the cost of governance was unachievable given the level of demography, technology, and type of economy that prevailed, without the collapse of the power attempting to project its authority. Simple trade with the locals was far more productive. Sorry, but dreams of a ‘One World Order’ must wait future millennia.

Thus, these regions should be places where armies and their stupid leaders go to die.

[vartan]

Total War needs attrition.

[Epimetheus]

Given the state of logistics, an army moving into such a region would be attrited to nearly nothing, very soon. Even a Roman Army supported by sea would be aversely affected. To be able to do so for any extended period of time is one thing, but the costs would be enormous and in most cases prohibitive. Then there is the issue of extracting resources without a formal infrastructure. This is one of the little life-lessons of EB II, wherein human aggregation, such as an army or even a village, town or city, without a proportional support infrastructure kills, and kills fast.

How much money did the average Greek, Roman, or Punic government spend when they colonized places? Was it really so expensive? It seems like there are plenty of examples in history of people just plopping themselves somewhere, and building the local infrastructure from the ground up with no support from the homeland at all.

[Shade]

Will there be many stone fort 'settlements' in the Eremos region, and will they be 'conquerable' by player armies with tangible benefits? Holding key points in, for example, the trans-Saharan trade routes would be a nice risky income-boost. In regions such as Scotland and Ireland the financial benefits would be minimal, so perhaps a fort would be good only for attracting hordes of barbarians away from invading your territory (wait, where do they live then?).

Looking forward to seeing Ghanese bandits spawning in all sorts of odd places!

[Ludens]

How much money did the average Greek, Roman, or Punic government spend when they colonized places? Was it really so expensive? It seems like there are plenty of examples in history of people just plopping themselves somewhere, and building the local infrastructure from the ground up with no support from the homeland at all.

Colonization was usually a private initiative, not something organized by the state. So it wasn't that expensive in terms of money, but that's also because the manpower was free. Also, colonists tended to stick to the coast, which makes the logistics a great deal easier.

This is not comparable to supporting an invasion force. I don't know how big the average start-up colony was, but I guess the population could be counted in hundreds rather than thousands. The colonists would also devote all their time to building up infrastructure and agriculture/fishing.

A Roman consular army was several times bigger and arrives over a sort period, so local food supply would suddenly become hopelessly inadequate. Foraging is no option: the army will quickly deplete local resources and has to move on. This is less of a problem if you can supply by sea, but what if the army has to move inland? Good luck getting sufficient ox-carts in place at such short notice. Also, the further you move inland, the more troops you have to detach to guard your supply line.

None of this is impossible with good organization and sufficient ships and manpower. The army can build infrastructure if necessary, and local tribes can be hired to protect the supplies. So an ambitious Emperor could certainly conquer Ireland if he wanted to. But why would he? If the western area was indeed almost uninhabited, landing an army there would be like using a wrecking ball to swat at flies; nor was there anything that could pay for such an expense. And it wasn't like the Empire lacked troublesome neighbours.

[oudysseos]

Ludens makes an excellent point, and I just wanted to point out another good source: The Teaching Company's Rome and the Barbarians by Tulane Professor Kenneth Harl: in one of the lectures he floats the idea that at least one reason that the Antonine wall was abandoned after only 20 years was that it was much more expensive to feed and maintain the garrisons than it was further south.

[Olaf The Great]

My main and perhaps only issue with this is that it will make borders look really stupid and awkward.

[vollorix]

Who cares about some lines on strategy map? The most important difference of EB as a mod was the atmosphere. Roleplaying the characters, listening to the troop responces on the battlefield in their native ( authentic sounding ) language, and even becoming some small quests/reform challenges, thus making it an experience instead of just a strategy game! The limitations of the engine make historical accuracy sometimes turn out to be an oddness, instead of pleasure, but that only if you left the path of the roleplaying, drafting toward a ( total ) war strategy game.
I still do believe that the best way to create an authentic campaign for a faction would be to make a "local" campaign for each faction within their historical boarders + advancments, and that no "general" campaign would be ever able to reach such grade of detail. But that would mean one would have to make, at least, 20 ( RTW ) different versions of EB for each and every faction, which is a little bit to much to expect from a team which doesn´t make mods for living, i guess.. ;)

[cmacq]

Will there be many stone fort 'settlements' in the Eremos region, and will they be 'conquerable' by player armies with tangible benefits? Holding key points in, for example, the trans-Saharan trade routes would be a nice risky income-boost. In regions such as Scotland and Ireland the financial benefits would be minimal, so perhaps a fort would be good only for attracting hordes of barbarians away from invading your territory (wait, where do they live then?).

Looking forward to seeing Ghanese bandits spawning in all sorts of odd places!

Actually, northern Alba controlled much of the northern European trade in ivory and seal skin.

[cmacq]

How much money did the average Greek, Roman, or Punic government spend when they colonized places? Was it really so expensive? It seems like there are plenty of examples in history of people just plopping themselves somewhere, and building the local infrastructure from the ground up with no support from the homeland at all.


You might want to relook your Greek, Roman, or Punic examples as wherever they settled there were large native popultions with well developed community infrastructures. I can give two examples were these infrastructure were absant Erie and Alba. Another example is Germania, but here there was an infrastructure, it was simply incompatible.

[Shade]

Actually, northern Alba controlled much of the northern European trade in ivory and seal skin.

So there were enough people living in an organised enough fashion to trade in goods on a continental scale, but not enough to avoid 'uninhabited wasteland'?

[cmacq]

So there were enough people living in an organised enough fashion to trade in goods on a continental scale, but not enough to avoid 'uninhabited wasteland'?

I fear, such debating skills leave much to be desired, as the clear call for evidence was well stated. As for the point thus raised, for example, the words 'uninhabited' nor 'wasteland' were never used. Again, it was stated that 'Alba controlled the northern European trade in ivory and seal skin.' Herein, the word 'trade' was not used as a verb (the act of exchange), but rather as a noun, with the intent to denote the informal procurement (as per clan or family Hunts) and initially exchange (clans and foreign traders/emporium) of said items, followed by their passage into the formal continental markets. In theory, this process would have occurred in much the fashion that the Finns of pRIA Finland procured and introduced fur and amber, which eventually made their way into the continental markets.

Again, the call was made for evidence, as words without substance simply fall-flat and lessens the potency of any discussion. Nonetheless, there is no harm in adding ones two cents, if indeed they are constructive.

[Populus Romanus]

I must say, I am impressed by how civil this debate has stayed. Oh crap I jinxed it.

[cmacq]

I must say, I am impressed by how civil this debate has stayed. Oh crap I jinxed it.

What no tongue of Bricriu???

[Cyclops]

Doesn't want to risk the "ban-mjollnir" (sorry don't know any mythical hammers in Celtic lore, just on the Averni shield)). Also I believe the Red Branch reforms take place after the EB period.

Clearly a lot of talk and thought has gone into the province delineation in EB2.

I'm guessing the decision against any more "midnight isles" factions is reflected in the province reduction. Can't wait to see the map previews so we can see where the extra provinces have gone in (guesses madly about Nabataea and India).

Is there any light that can be asked on he extremely salient point about eleutheroi stacks in Eremos? Will there be scripted armies in different slices of the province? Or just a howling empty waste?

[Populus Romanus]

(guesses madly about Nabataea and India).There is a new Arabian province confirmed: Lihyan, where the southern part of Nabataia was.

[vartan]

There is a new Arabian province confirmed: Lihyan, where the southern part of Nabataia was.
I'm sorry but Lihyan was south of Nabatea, not southern Nabatea. At least that's what I see. In greater southern Nabatea I see the cities of Berenike (west), Pyunikon Kome (south) and Dumata (east). I see an independent Lihyan with its capital Egra. PR, did the EBII team mention if this province-town was going to be part of the Eleutheroi at game-start?

[Populus Romanus]

I'm sorry but Lihyan was south of Nabatea, not southern Nabatea. At least that's what I see. In greater southern Nabatea I see the cities of Berenike (west), Pyunikon Kome (south) and Dumata (east). I see an independent Lihyan with its capital Egra. PR, did the EBII team mention if this province-town was going to be part of the Eleutheroi at game-start?

I was speaking of the EB province of Nabataia. The capital is going to be Hegra. Moros did not mention whether or not it would be Eleutheroi. However, that would be expected, as the alternative would be a tad bit of a giveaway.:wink:

[bobbin]

I'm guessing the decision against any more "midnight isles" factions is reflected in the province reduction. Can't wait to see the map previews so we can see where the extra provinces have gone in (guesses madly about Nabataea and India).

There hasn't been a reduction, the provinces have just been shifted around and had their borders changed

[Moros]

Lihyan will be represented by the independent settlement of Dedan. Hegra only started to be of somewhat importance in the first century bc.

[Cyclops]

There hasn't been a reduction, the provinces have just been shifted around and had their borders changed

Sorry I misunderstood, I thought the Isles were one down from EB1 with Ireland losing its southern province to Eremos.

The re-shaped Pritanoi provinces look a sweet fix, almost as neat as the Sardinia/Corsica solution. Just one less port, but its the starting province so its quite telling I imagine.

Of course how the neighbouring continental provinces work out wil be important too (eg if trhe Belgic area has been redrawn). I recall I never could get much trade out of the southern Indian port despite its great trade potential: I suspect the port distribuition as well as a lack of viable trading partners was part of the deal (hostile AS and all that): as rich as the Prytanoi get they'll need good ways into Europe to thrive.

There's so many little details to nut out in province slicing and dicing. Good work was done on the Baltic coast in EB I felt, would love to see the EB2 version (if my maths is right there will be one less Baltic port...but maths is not my strong suit) and the province re-shaping there prolly reflects the inclusion of the Lugiones...

[vartan]

Lihyan will be represented by the independent settlement of Dedan. Hegra only started to be of somewhat importance in the first century bc.
Where can I find mentions of Dedan? Any special lit. on that town? Findings, etc.?

I brought up Egra as it's all I had for the Kgdm of Lihyan on my 80 BCE Armenian map (Lihyan is relatively small compared to others on the map scale-wise, especially its neighbor Nabatea, hence only Egra being pointed on the map).

[Moros]

For some basic information you can search for Lihyan, Lihyanite, Al-'Ula (modern name), Dedan on wiki and http://nabataea.net/dedan.html. There are some books about it but they usually concentrate more on the languages (Dedanite, Lihyanite,...). A book called 'Lihyan und Lihyanisch' by W. Caskel, which is in german, has some basic history on it I seem to remember. Die alten Kulturen von al-'Ula und Mada'in Salih. Bedeutende Städte an der Weihrauchstraße, by al-Ansary and Abu al-Hassan has some good information as well. When you research Tayma, which is an other settlement of the region (known for Nabonibus), you can also find quite a bit of information on it, as the history of both settlements are pretty much linked. A good site on Tayma is http://www.dainst.org/index_38ebc39cbb1f14a188270017f0000011_en.html which has a short bibliography at the end. But mostly if you want information on it, you'll have to rely on scientific articles.

[Elthore]

regarding the earlier discussion on being able to conquer ireland, nobody has mentioned new colonies or military settlements. We established that romans could defeat them in battle but could not romanize them, that makes sense to me. Still, cities were created where they did not exist, like the many Alexandrias that were settled. Im sure the romans and greeks did this as well. Not being able to properly 'conquer' the region in the game, i believe, is due to some kind of engine limitation. ??!!????? is it/..

[Maeran]

Yes, it is an engine limitation. You cannot create new settlements in Total War games, although you can roleplay it with forts if you really need a permanent garrison somewhere.

[Havok.]

So Ireland the land of heroes is not unified ? Just curious.

Any subject should be and will be discussed. We live in a Democracy (or is the Netherlands the only country where you can do such things ? I am sure not) with freedom of speech even though it will rise some eyebrows.
Medieval times are over! And on top of that its was an Irishman who started this topic.

But what if the Romans decided to have look over there would all the Irish people stand United ?

You got no wrong, topics are free to be discussed indeed,just as long as in their right places.

As for the province topic, i have complete trust in the EB team decision to let just one province, i'm sure they pondered enough to decide this.

[TheLastDays]

I actually agree very much, for what it's worth...

If there weren't enough settled areas to really allow 1 region, why use 2 on the island when you need them in, dare I say it, areas that were, during the EB timeframe, way more important, politically and commercially.