Who wants Slavs in RTW?

[JANOSIK007]

Thogh Slavs and Romans didn't interact with each other all that often (Roman coins that were found on the Slavic territory proves some sort of trade between these two), I thing Slavs should be represented in the RTW, because they were viable and unique culture.

[rasoforos]

err....i do not think RTW will go all the way to 600-700 AD ...it is then somewhat difficult to see slavs in the game.

[JANOSIK007]

In 600's Slavs were begining to be significant to the western history when they started to move into Europe's interior. But because Slavs didn't have alphabet Western historians ignore and disregard them during the Roman period. The truth is that at some levels Slavs were more advanced then Romans. Ex. They were much better farmers, they've cultivated some vegetables unknown to Romans. They were also really good metalsmiths. I say that if CA is going to include the portion of the map that the Slavs occupied back than, they should also include Slavs as a unique culture.

[Vlad The Impaler]

if the game stops at 600-700 AD ( and can stop earlier too ) i dont see any reason to have slavs as an playable faction.as populations in some far territories in eastern europe , maybe , at the late stages of the game.
the appear in Dark Ages and the period of R:TW is antiquitiy

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

Can you explain to me where the Slavs are situated and who they exactly were.

Because im pretty sure that where the slavs are now (Eastern Europe) the Huns were in control between 600 and 700 A.D.

Just wanna know. I definately want to see the Huns as a playable faction. They were amazing at some points. Basically early Mongols.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Toda Nebuchadnezzar @ Feb. 12 2003,14:37)]Can you explain to me where the Slavs are situated and who they exactly were.

Because im pretty sure that where the slavs are now (Eastern Europe) the Huns were in control between 600 and 700 A.D.

Just wanna know. I definately want to see the Huns as a playable faction. They were amazing at some points. Basically early Mongols.
Slavs are on of the oldest group of people to occupy Europe. They were a culture of farmers, craftsmen, and even fishermen ( some of them were even Vikings: a generic term usually associated with Scandinavian raiders ). They were a tribe culture with council of elders controlling the power. Underneath them in rank was commander of Druzhina ( a war band ). Slavic tribes were more united compared to others. They were crafty people that left behind many beautiful artifacts. They were also skilled metalsmiths ( a good number of swords was found ). They didn't have an alphabet, though their oral culture was full of Legends and Myths. They were polytheistic, and their main god was PERUN. The encompassed the area between the Baltic and the Kaspian Sea ( Present day west Russia, Belorus, Lithuania, Latvia, and parts of Poland/Ukraine ).
By the way PERUN was god of thunder and WAR

[JANOSIK007]

Huns, after the death of Attila, were weakend. The have settled in present day Hungary/Slovakia. A new invading tribe, Avars, a turkish nomadic tribe, has replaced Huns and completely destroyed their presence in Europe. Magyars, a Finno-Ugric tribe similar to Huns, were another nomadic tribe to terrorize Europe. They didn't occupy Slavic territory. They came From the Ural Mounatains. They have destroyed the first feudal country Slavs ever Had: The Great Moravian Empire, encopmassing present day Czech Rep., Slovakia, Hungary, and Southern Poland.
Way to go STUPID Magyars http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[JANOSIK007]

[B]I would Like To Know Why Some People Don't Want Slavs On The Map? Thanks for answering.

[Longshanks]

I voted no because the Slavs do not factor in on the history of the Roman Republic, or the Early Roman Empire.(the period covered in RTW)They were still far from Roman borders. There are many other factions who would be far more deserving of being included than the Slavs, because they did factor in on the history of Rome.

I would have voted yes if the question asked whether Slavs should be included in the upcoming expansion pack for MTW.(the time fram starts arounnd 800 A.D. I believe)

But I wouldn't want to see a faction simply called Slavs. Its too generic. There were many different nationalities who were Slavic, much as there were different nationalities who made up the Celts.

Novgorod is a Slavic faction in MTW, so are the Poles.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 12 2003,18:28)]But I wouldn't want to see a faction simply called Slavs. Its too generic. There were many different nationalities who were Slavic, much as there were different nationalities who made up the Celts.

Novgorod is a Slavic faction in MTW, so are the Poles.
Well Longshanks, Slav is as a small division as it got. Back then there were no Polish, or Novgorod. It was simply Slav. They had the same language and they had the same customs. It's when they started to move out of their territory, their customs, language, and even culture started to differ. German or Celt is a generic term. Sure Slavs would identify themselves by the area they are coming from, but that didn't make them different from one another.
All I am saying is if the map is going to include their territory, they should be on it, just like the Germans will or the Celts. That's all I am asking for.

[JANOSIK007]

O.K. What other factions would you like to see that have a bigger right.

[Elwe]

Quote[/b] ]O.K. What other factions would you like to see that have a bigger right.

Goths
Celts
Huns.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Cheers.

[Longshanks]

Factions that I haven't heard mentioned yet, but who should be included:

Britons
Dacians
Parthians
Suebi
Iberians
Celt-Iberians
Seleucids

[Tempiic]

are Dacians slavic?

[Vlad The Impaler]

Tempiic the dacians are an ethnical and religious group part of a bigger group , the thracians. they have nothing to do with slavic populations ( nor customs , religion ..anything )
Herodot describe them as the most franc and fearfull in battles from the thracians.
Pitagora give a lot of good example about them in his Moral and Political Laws
also the latin poet Ovidius Publius Naso who was deported at Black Sea and study this peoples wrote a lot of poems about them.

Slavic populations come in known roman world ( orbis romanus ) at a late stage and i dont think that are any conection ( not even commercial ) between this two populations.

[kataphraktoi]

Slavs in RTW??

A resounding No.

Why?

Well not because I don't like the Slavs but simply because they were too fragmented to constitute a viable faction to with, they were based in the broad central european plains, the Slavs began their destructive course south due to pressures of eastward moving steppe people. eg. Huns, Avars and so forth. The Slav are too anonymous in the early stages to play a major factor in the world of RTW and frankly they could not compare to such factions as Egypt, Greece and Rome with an identifiable homogenity in their culture, true and granted Greece was disunited but compared to the Slavs are more coherent as Greeks rather than as city states, but even as city states Greeks were generally homogenous.

Involving Slavs in RTW would cause more trouble than it seems if someone picked one aspect of it and exaggerated it. If CA made one mistake about thwe Slavs in the game would that cause a lot of controversy???

Even if they included in RTW that would be interesting though.

[Sainika]

Rebel forces - yes, playable faction - no. Slavs tribes were known in Roman world as Veneds. Some historians think that ancestors of slavs appeared in Northern Europe in times of Herodotus but lack of evidences made those versions rather unproved. Slavs did not play any significant role in ancient world, so including Slavs as playable faction would be historically inaccurate.
BTW Hungarians and Huns are two absolutely different nations. Hunns are supposed to be from Chinese area (hunni, chinese tribe, lived to the west-north of Beijing). Hunn movement from Asia to Europe was accompannied with accumulation of a number of tribes of asian and european origin (incl. slavs) in hunn's army.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Elwe @ Feb. 12 2003,20:24)]
Quote[/b] ]O.K. What other factions would you like to see that have a bigger right.

Goths
Celts
Huns.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Cheers.
Goths and Huns shouldn't be included if we want to be Historically accurate. You see the game is going to span until the first Emperor 10 A.D.?

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 13 2003,10:46)]
Quote[/b] (Elwe @ Feb. 12 2003,20:24)]
Quote[/b] ]O.K. What other factions would you like to see that have a bigger right.

Goths
Celts
Huns.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Cheers.
Goths and Huns shouldn't be included if we want to be Historically accurate. You see the game is going to span until the first Emperor 10 A.D.?
You are correct, neither appeared until the late Empire.(Huns actually didn't appear until AFTER the fall of the Western Roman Empire)

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Feb. 13 2003,08:06)]Slavs in RTW??

A resounding No.

Why?

Well not because I don't like the Slavs but simply because they were too fragmented to constitute a viable faction to with, they were based in the broad central european plains, the Slavs began their destructive course south due to pressures of eastward moving steppe people. eg. Huns, Avars and so forth.
First of all, Celts And Germans Were much more fragmented: Britons, Longobards, Markomans, Ouads, etc.,etc.etc. So uoy'd rather pick all those small subtribes, but You wouldn't want Slavs? That's Just wrong.

Second of all, Avars didnt push Slavs into the Europe. These two met in the central Europe around 800s. And by the way, Slavs contributed majorly by diminishing these nomadic tribes. Where have you been reading that. A comic. Look just pick up a history book written by somebody who's not ignorant torward Slavic history.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 13 2003,10:58)][
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Cheers.
Goths and Huns shouldn't be included if we want to be Historically accurate. You see the game is going to span until the first Emperor 10 A.D.?[/quote]
You are correct, neither appeared until the late Empire.(Huns actually didn't appear until AFTER the fall of the Western Roman Empire)[/QUOTE]
Actually Huns contributed torwards the destruction of Western Rome. Remember Attila.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Sainika @ Feb. 13 2003,08:47)]BTW Hungarians and Huns are two absolutely different nations. Hunns are supposed to be from Chinese area (hunni, chinese tribe, lived to the west-north of Beijing). Hunn movement from Asia to Europe was accompannied with accumulation of a number of tribes of asian and european origin (incl. slavs) in hunn's army.
You are incorrect. Hungarian is a modern term for people from Hungary. It is derrived from the Huns. And Huns aren't from China they are Mongolian Steps. Magyars, who had similar lifestyle as Huns, though were totally different people, were often times called Huns. In my country we still call them Magyars. Though you are right to say that Slavs would often times fight in the ranks of these nomads.

[JANOSIK007]

There is so much bias in this room. You all would like to play little fragments of celts, germans, iberians, etc. Slavs have the same right.

[Sainika]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 13 2003,20:08)]You are incorrect. Hungarian is a modern term for people from Hungary. It is derrived from the Huns. And Huns aren't from China they are Mongolian Steps. Magyars, who had similar lifestyle as Huns, though were totally different people, were often times called Huns. In my country we still call them Magyars. Though you are right to say that Slavs would often times fight in the ranks of these nomads.
AFAIK hunni live on a very large area including Mongolian Steps and northern China. They attack chinese provinces, loot them and went back to their steppes. One day Chinese was up to all this and began big war. They defeated hunnies forcing them to move to the west. So it began so called Great movement of nations. Hunnis were moving to the west, gaining smaller tribes into big army.
When Attila died huns were weakened and during next two centuries dissapeared. Some of them inhabited modern Hungary and this place was named as Hungary. Hungarians call their country the other way (I think you know how) but they are not direct successors of huns. After huns these rich and beautiful places were inhabited by slavs, avars, even goths.
Huns were asian-faced nation, hungarians are real europeoids so they differ from huns.
BTW I will miss slavs as playable faction too but also I want RTW being historically accurate. Relax, I think there will be enough fun even without slavs at all.

[Elwe]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 13 2003,10:46)]
Quote[/b] (Elwe @ Feb. 12 2003,20:24)]
Quote[/b] ]O.K. What other factions would you like to see that have a bigger right.

Goths
Celts
Huns.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Cheers.
Goths and Huns shouldn't be included if we want to be Historically accurate. You see the game is going to span until the first Emperor 10 A.D.?
Point conceded. I responded before becomming aware of the timeframe of the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Cheers.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Sainika @ Feb. 13 2003,11:42)][AFAIK hunni live on a very large area including Mongolian Steps and northern China. They attack chinese provinces, loot them and went back to their steppes. One day Chinese was up to all this and began big war. They defeated hunnies forcing them to move to the west. So it began so called Great movement of nations. Hunnis were moving to the west, gaining smaller tribes into big army.
When Attila died huns were weakened and during next two centuries dissapeared. Some of them inhabited modern Hungary and this place was named as Hungary. Hungarians call their country the other way (I think you know how) but they are not direct successors of huns. After huns these rich and beautiful places were inhabited by slavs, avars, even goths.
Huns were asian-faced nation, hungarians are real europeoids so they differ from huns.
BTW I will miss slavs as playable faction too but also I want RTW being historically accurate. Relax, I think there will be enough fun even without slavs at all.
I have been to Hungary and I have seen many Hungarians as a kid and believe me that some of them still rettain their Asian features such as black hair and the eyelids. When Huns have settled they have been either absorbed into the culture of new invaders or got destroyed by them. I know for sure that Avars, as I've pointed out earlier a Turkish tribe, are majorly responsible for that. Slavs also arrive at the same time as Avars. At that time, around 600s, is when the real division of Slavs begins. Their languages start to sound different, they start calling themselves differnt ( ex. Bulgars, Serbs, Moravians). Slavs become fed up with the Avarian raids and under the Frankish merchant, Samo, central European Slavic tribes unite and defeat them, around 700s. Samo has also repelled a Frankish invasion, which is pretty ironic considering that he was a Frank.
Getting back to Roman Times, all I want is for the people to understand that Slavs weren't just some insignificant little tribe. In fact it was a huge tribe grouping spaning from Carpatian Mountains to almost Ural mountains, and form Baltic Sea to Kaspian Sea. I just want CA to ackowledge Slavs existence at the appropriate time and place, which is by the way, historically accurate. They don't have to be a playable nation, heck, they don't even have to interact with anybody. Or, since many people don't want to see them on the map, CA shouldn't include this large portion of the map. AFAIK, you say, you want RTW to be historically accurate. Well, that's all I am saying too. I wouldn't be very historically accurate if Slavs would be totally eradicated from the map, now would it?
RTW will still be a whole lot of Fun even without Slavs as playable faction, but I still strongly oppose Slavs beig just totally wiped out of the map, if the map is going to include their territory.
One Last question
What does BTW stand for? I've seen it dosens of times, I just don't know what it means. Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[JANOSIK007]

Nevermind abot the BTW. I have figured it out. By the Way.

[Rosacrux]

Oh, come on now, the Slavs in the BC era (which is basically what the game shall cover - read some posts in the Colloseum forum) were completely and totaly unknown. Nobody in the so-called civilized world had heard of them.

The first Roman records about the Veneds comes pretty late to fit into the timeframe of this game. Plus, they had no actual political organization at the time and they didn't influence the rest of Europe up until the 4th century AD.

So, no, Slavs shouldn't be in a game that covers late Republican-early imperial Rome.

OTOH, we can all lobby together to bring more Slavs (Polish, Novgorod and Russian factions are already in MTW) into the Viking expansion if you like.

BTW About Bulgars and Hungars:

Hungars have nothing to do with the Hunns. The Magyars adopted the name because they liked to be the offspring of Attila's hordes, but they aren't relevant at all. They have more ties with Finns and Esthonians, for instance. Both linguisticaly and ethnologicaly.

Bulgars: Originally a turkic tribe, they travelled into the Balkans, where they managed to become the ruling class of the area now known as Bulgaria, but soon enough they were absorbed by the great slavic population they conquered. So, the Turkic Bulgars became another Slavic branch, or - if you like it so - they gave their name to that particular branch of southern slavs.

[Tempiic]

I still think the setting of the fall of the western roman empire as well as the Great Migrations make a great expansion for RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 14 2003,07:46)]Oh, come on now, the Slavs in the BC era (which is basically what the game shall cover - read some posts in the Colloseum forum) were completely and totaly unknown. Nobody in the so-called civilized world had heard of them.

The first Roman records about the Veneds comes pretty late to fit into the timeframe of this game. Plus, they had no actual political organization at the time and they didn't influence the rest of Europe up until the 4th century AD.

So, no, Slavs shouldn't be in a game that covers late Republican-early imperial Rome.

OTOH, we can all lobby together to bring more Slavs (Polish, Novgorod and Russian factions are already in MTW) into the Viking expansion if you like.

BTW About Bulgars and Hungars:

Hungars have nothing to do with the Hunns. The Magyars adopted the name because they liked to be the offspring of Attila's hordes, but they aren't relevant at all. They have more ties with Finns and Esthonians, for instance. Both linguisticaly and ethnologicaly.

Bulgars: Originally a turkic tribe, they travelled into the Balkans, where they managed to become the ruling class of the area now known as Bulgaria, but soon enough they were absorbed by the great slavic population they conquered. So, the Turkic Bulgars became another Slavic branch, or - if you like it so - they gave their name to that particular branch of southern slavs.
I have alredy made my point hundreds of times. Regardless if the Slavs were known by The Rome, they still existed. And if CA is going to include a map of their original territory and exclude them, that's what I am strongly opposed to. Has anyone read my posts completely?

Give me ideas what Slavic nations would you like for VI X-pack. I know of one: The Great Moravian Empire, which existed during the 800s. At it's height it encompassed the modern day Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Rep., Southern Poland, and during the war with Bulgars, Svatopluk, its greatest king, annexed part of Bulgarian Empire. It was rival of Eastern Franks. So they called in the Magyar tribes to destroy this fragile country. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

It's not Hungars, but Hungarians. And I didn't say they had anything to do with Huns, except maybe few Asian traits that are still visible. Huns did settle in Panonia, so the invading population of Magyars mixed with the native population, which was by no means Hun, but sort of a mix of Slavs Huns and even Avars. And by the way Magyars didn't adopt the name Huns, or Hungars, it's westerners who gave them that name. They still call themselves Magyars and do people from my country. Please read my whole post before you're going to accuse me of misleading an information. I never said that Magyars are Huns, in fact I've clearly stated that Magyars belong to the Finno-Ugric group, which is related to Finns and Estonians.

And about the Bulgars: I am not sure what they are. Though I think you're right about it. But if they were Turkish, weren't they related to the Avars? Because I am sure that the Avars were Turkish tribe too. I think that Bulgars might have been a mix of Turks and Slavs, and I am for sure you could find plenty of Slavs in their ranks.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ Feb. 14 2003,09:43)]I still think the setting of the fall of the western roman empire as well as the Great Migrations make a great expansion for RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I totally agree with you on this one Tempiic. May be in it they would include Slavs as a playable faction.

[JANOSIK007]

I definitelly think Slavs are as good of an option as any other barbarians. RTW would work nicelly with variety of Nations that truly existed during that period.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 13 2003,11:12)]There is so much bias in this room. You all would like to play little fragments of celts, germans, iberians, etc. Slavs have the same right.
There is no bias here. Some of my ancestors were Cossacks, which makes me part Slavic as well.

The fact is, Slavs didn't fight against Rome. Germans, Celts and Iberians did.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 16 2003,06:38)]There is no bias here. Some of my ancestors were Cossacks, which makes me part Slavic as well.

The fact is, Slavs didn't fight against Rome. Germans, Celts and Iberians did.
Cossack isn't really a national term. Although it's mostly associated with Ukranian rebels.

Since we don't have any written records that doesn't mean that there were no conflicts between the neighboring German tribes and Slavs. Who knows.

I know that Slavs didn't play any role in Roman history, but my argument is that RTW is just a game. What if you're going to counquer Germans in the game ( which isn't historically accurate, but if you're going to play as Romans that's going to be your goal, right? ) than you're practically done. You can't go any further than the Carptian Mountains, because Slavs were there and they're are not going to be included in the game, according to you. If you want it historically accurate than that's how it shold be.

You say that there is no bias? Than tell me some Slavic subtribes, since you probably know all the German and Celtic ones. Tell me what do you know about Slavs that makes you think they're not important.

Well if there aren't going to be any Slavs in RTW there former territory shouldn't be either?
Do you, at least, agree with me on this one.

[Pretz]

JANOSIK007 I think for most Americans and Britons ignorance of the Slavic subtribes goes hand in hand with ignorance of the Western European subtribes...

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] ]Cossack isn't really a national term. Although it's mostly associated with Ukranian rebels.

Tell that to a Cossack. Their ancestors came from many different peoples, largely Slavic....i.e. mainly Russians and Ukrainians, but some hosts(tribes) also have Golden Horde Mongol ancestry. The Cossacks also took in significant numbers of other peoples, like Germans, Poles, Serbs. The Cossack name Millerov for example comes from the German name Miller.

Regardless of their ethnic make-up, the Cossacks developed their own culture and traditions, and are in a sense their own nationality.


Quote[/b] ]I know that Slavs didn't play any role in Roman history, but my argument is that RTW is just a game. What if you're going to counquer Germans in the game ( which isn't historically accurate, but if you're going to play as Romans that's going to be your goal, right? ) than you're practically done. You can't go any further than the Carptian Mountains, because Slavs were there and they're are not going to be included in the game, according to you. If you want it historically accurate than that's how it shold be.

I would have no problem with Slavs being included if the game map was large, and there were many factions present in the game. IMO the Slavs wouldn't be a priority, as the game's central focus is Roman history. All of Rome's enemies should be included before the Slavs are considered.


Quote[/b] ]You say that there is no bias? Than tell me some Slavic subtribes, since you probably know all the German and Celtic ones. Tell me what do you know about Slavs that makes you think they're not important.

Just because I don't know the name of the Slavic subtribes, doesn't mean I am biased against them. I just happen to have an interest in Roman history, and Roman history did not involve the Slavic subtribes. Had Rome never warred with the Gallic or German subtribes, I wouldn't be able to rattle them off either.

I never said the Slavs were unimportant, just that they don't factor in on Roman history. RTW's central focus is going to be the Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire...considering the focus of the game, the factions most likely being included will be ones who played important roles in Rome's history.

BTW, can you rattle off all of the Turkic tribes circa 1000 A.D.? If you can't, does that mean you are biased against the Turks because you do not know their history? Or does it just mean you are interested in Slavic history, and don't know much about the Turks?

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 16 2003,17:20)]BTW, can you rattle off all of the Turkic tribes circa 1000 A.D.? If you can't, does that mean you are biased against the Turks because you do not know their history? Or does it just mean you are interested in Slavic history, and don't know much about the Turks?
I don't know all of them, but Seljuk and Ottoman come to my mind as being the most important. How about you? Do you know all of them?
And that's more than you know about Slavs. As it appears.
Look, I don't mind picking up a book and reading about diiffernet cultures, it's just you westerners always get me on a defensive stand, because there isn't much interest about Slavs.
I would like to know why?

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Pretz @ Feb. 16 2003,16:48)]JANOSIK007 I think for most Americans and Britons ignorance of the Slavic subtribes goes hand in hand with ignorance of the Western European subtribes...
What American culture has adopted from the British is holding your nose up above everything that's not their's. This culture is totally conceited above every other. There are but a few of trully cultured people who aren't afraid to experience the world, learn a new language, or the history of a non-western country. Almost every history teacher that I've talked to in U.S. doesn't know much about what was going on in the world before 1492. And the studnets? They barely know history of their own country, let alone history of some other country.

I knew the significance of 4th July 1776, before most of American kids.
BTW, that's when I came into this country.
I knew about your history before you did and you don't even know where my country is located.
So please don't tell me about me being ignorant.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 16 2003,22:43)]I knew the significance of 4th July 1776, before most of American kids.
BTW, that's when I came into this country.
I knew about your history before you did and you don't even know where my country is located.
So please don't tell me about me being ignorant.
Janosik, he wasn't calling you ignorant. He was saying that most Americans and Britons don't know the names of Gallic and German subtribes either. They are equally as ignorant about Slavic history as they are about early German and Gallic history.

That being said, I think you are getting a wee bit touchy about including the Slavs in RTW.

Noone here flamed the Slavs or you. Its only you getting bent out of shape over it. Take a deep breath and relax bro.

[kataphraktoi]

Slavs are really sensitive

All I'm trying to say is this:

Celts, Germans, Greeks, etc may be fragmented but they ahve a certain homogenity in their characteristics, its not just that that qualifies them to have the RIGHT to be in RTW but rather also the contact and the immediate influence.

CELTS and GERMANS are a no brainer, simply becasue they are traditional foes of the Romans

GREEKS, as enemies and as an influence on Rome

EGYPT and CARTHAGIANS, enemies, and intricately enmeshed in Roman politics and its developments

As for SLAVS?? not too much to do with the world of Rome, that is not to say isolated but too insignificant to be of any value in RTW

If the scope of RTW was much much later yeah I would give my thumbs up to SLAVS.

As far as factions are concerned in RTW SLAVS should not be a playable faction, mercenaries perhaps, rebels why not.

[rasoforos]

JANOSIK007 what all these people are trying to tell you is that the Slabs did not interact with the romans or any other nation during the timeframe of the game. To my knowledge the current slavic nations were not even near the area at that time. To put slavic nations in the game would need to change history in both ways a)the timeframe b)the regions occupied by the nations.
I am sure the game will be easy to mod so you can make a nice 'Earlier than expected Slavic invasion' mod and share it with the rest of us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[JANOSIK007]

Thank you guys for cooling me down. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I've always seen your piont-of-view as valid ( just to let you know ), I just think that it'd be nice to have barbarians divided into three factions: Celts, Germans, and Slavs.
What if you're going to conquer Germans in RTW?
Than you have reached your Eastern frontier ( Carpatian Mountains-somewhwere around there ).
I just think I'd be more exciting to have yet another barbarians to subdue to the East.

BTW, are not ignorant torwards the subtribes of Celts and Germans. In my grade school, in my country, when we were being thaught about Roman history, we heard all about Markomans and Quads, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Teutons, Saxons, Longobards, and Gauls, Britons, etc.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Feb. 17 2003,01:56)]Celts, Germans, Greeks, etc may be fragmented but they ahve a certain homogenity in their characteristics,



.
Didn't the the different German tribes speak differnt languages and had differnet customs?
I know for sure Slavs spoke the same language and customs.

So I don't know about the homogenity.

[JANOSIK007]

How about you people that have voted for Slavs being a playable Nation, what's your thought on this?

[Mr Frost]

I would like to see them in RTW .
They existed in the timeframe in areas the map will apparantly cover as JANOSIC007 pointed out , had a fair degree of potential power and though there seems no direct intercourse occured between Rome and the Slavs it is dictated by simple logic that their sharing borders with Germanic peoples to begin with they would certainly had serious indirect influence as they would most definitly have had all kinds of strenous interaction with the Germans . {just because Rome seemed ignorant of them does not mean they were insignificant ... Rome did not know of the existance of the huge Chi-na empire -ie :China- and yet they did very large amounts of trade with China ; it was where all of Romes' silk came from after all . Rome was ignorant of many important things} .

In MTW , we can conquer England with Russia {or modded Novgorod} even though there was virtually no interaction in real history of that time period . What would be wrong with having a Slavic faction that did actually exist in real history in the time period in question {try to look past the adoption of a mediteranian alphabet . They did not suddenly pop into existance from nowhere with that particular advent} who were quite strong {it can be fairly argued that they lost much real strength as an ethnic group when they divided into many different sub-groups} and would exert a potent effect on the peoples near it which would effect how they in turn interacted with Rome and also provide some interesting possibilities .

If that part of the world is to be on the RTW map , then either the Slavs would have to be placed there , or a lot of work would need to be done to populate it with some other people without greatly altering the whole political dynamic of the map . Someone has to go there , and whom ever that is their strengths/weaknesses , culture , patterns of behavior must be similar or the historical play of events will evolve dramatically differently as they would were the Celts more cohesive or the Germans less warlike . Whoever is there must be the same or history would unfold very differently , and thus why not use Slavs and what is known {if one merely does diligent research} rather than the alternative of either trying to shoehorn some other {historically incorect} culture and peoples in there then tweaking like a mental patient to ballance the political dynamics of the entire map if they are different from the Slavs or leaving the region empty for whomever takes it first and thus still having the troubles of unballancing the map {free territory would make those who took it much stronger than they were in history} .





As an interesting aside ; here is a neat what-if from history that might make a very cool expansion option {or official mod} : in 97 AD , Pan Ch'ao heard about a Kingdom to the west called Ta-ts'in {which was actually the Roman Empire} . He sent an Army to conquer it under the command of a general Kan Ying but the General called off the invasion merely a few days march from Emperor Trajans' frontier in Asia Minor to deal with Barbarians closer to his own masters' borders .
Imagine if he had kept marching instead Rome and China were well matched at that point in history . Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif An epic clash of behemoths

[JANOSIK007]

Well articulated argument Frost http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I was wondering why weren't there any people arguing for the Slavs being in RTW, when there's an equal amount of votes.

That's the exact point I have made earlier, yet nobody agreed with me. I thought I was alone in this one. Luckily there are people that share the same idea as me.

I'm not alone. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif anymore

[JANOSIK007]

I just would like to thank everyone that has participated in these discusions and the poll.
I just want to let you know that I value all of your comments and suggestions.
And I hope more and more people will post here and share their ideas with us.

Though my argument is still the same ( I am for Slavs being represented in RTW ), I have learn much from all of you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Thank you

Again, I'd be happy if more people joined this discusion and share their ideas with us.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Mr Frost @ Feb. 18 2003,04:45)]As an interesting aside ; here is a neat what-if from history that might make a very cool expansion option {or official mod} : in 97 AD , Pan Ch'ao heard about a Kingdom to the west called Ta-ts'in {which was actually the Roman Empire} . He sent an Army to conquer it under the command of a general Kan Ying but the General called off the invasion merely a few days march from Emperor Trajans' frontier in Asia Minor to deal with Barbarians closer to his own masters' borders .
Imagine if he had kept marching instead Rome and China were well matched at that point in history . Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif An epic clash of behemoths
I don't think it would have been that epic though. Rome was a long way from Han China, and those oh-so pesky Parthians were in the way, plus quite a few less powerful peoples. The Chinese troops would never have reached the borders of Rome most likely, and if by some chance they did....they would most likely be so reduced in number to be any real threat to the security of Rome.

The same could be said for Roman troops headed in the other direction.

[kataphraktoi]

They're not categorised under Germanic for nothing, fragmentation and homogenity goes hand in hand.

Vandals and Goths may be hugely different but they classified as Germanic because of certain characteristics, language may be different but there is a common root.

Look mate I have no bone to pick with Slavs but you seem to have a pathological obsession with me hating Slavs.

I just expressed an honest opinion and you bore down on me like some politically correct balkan powderkeg ready to explode.

I will reiterate:

I don;t hate Slavs

I see no point of them in the RTW world

They would be acceptable in the right time period within the ROMAN CONTEXT not the demographic context.

IF CA PUT SLAVS IN RTW I STILL WOULD NOT MIND THEM BEING THERE IN WHATEVER SHAPE OR FORM

I don;t want to get into some ethnic-historical argument over who gets peeved because someone mentioned the wrong traits, genes, title or anachronistic mistake, ancestry, etc, etc.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Feb. 19 2003,13:42)]They're not categorised under Germanic for nothing, fragmentation and homogenity goes hand in hand.

Vandals and Goths may be hugely different but they classified as Germanic because of certain characteristics, language may be different but there is a common root.

Look mate I have no bone to pick with Slavs but you seem to have a pathological obsession with me hating Slavs.

I just expressed an honest opinion and you bore down on me like some politically correct balkan powderkeg ready to explode.

I will reiterate:

I don;t hate Slavs

I see no point of them in the RTW world

They would be acceptable in the right time period within the ROMAN CONTEXT not the demographic context.

IF CA PUT SLAVS IN RTW I STILL WOULD NOT MIND THEM BEING THERE IN WHATEVER SHAPE OR FORM

I don;t want to get into some ethnic-historical argument over who gets peeved because someone mentioned the wrong traits, genes, title or anachronistic mistake, ancestry, etc, etc.
Tell me if you atleast agree with me on this one:
If CA is going to include their ( Slavic ) territory they should also include them in RTW.

BTW, I never thought that you hate Slavs.
I understand that people have different opinions, we just have to tolerate them. I do admit though that I felled biased, because there really wasn't anybody that felt the sam way as I did.

I don't get how fragmentation goes han in hand with homogenity?
Doesn't homogenity mean same, whatever that may be reffering to.
Earlier, I don't know if it was you, somebody said that Slavs don't have homogenity.
But how could you call Germans homogeneous, when they had different languages, subtribes, customs, etc., when Slavs were pretty much same.

I would like to know how did the Vandals get to the North Africa? All the way from North Europe- I suppose.

[kataphraktoi]

Fragmentation and homogenity can exist together how?

Fragmentation refers to the tribes they belonged to, eg. you have the Vandals anf then you have the Franks, they are fragmented more by political fighting than anything that is cultural, Germanic tribes in their fragmentation are diverse in character yet, I reiterate yet they share certain common roots, it is these common roots that piut them in the homogenous category of Germanic When I imply same in homogentiy I am referring to the same common root, Germanic races had one common root, diverse in characteristics but demonstrative of certain relationships between each other.

If the RTW map encompasses the areas where Slavs lived in that time period, I would accept them in the map but not as a faction, in the ROMAN context the Slavs are insignificant compared to the ones who are factions, it is the ROMAN CONTEXT by which I stated my opinions not for any ethnical agenda. So if the Slavs were rebels(even though they never were rebels but independent peoples) or mercenaries I have no qualms with it.

Slavs are acceptable in RTW under the right contextual circumstances and therefore if it includes Central Eastern Europe.

We have a detente or what?

Vandals came like all other barbarians did, across the Danube on a cruise boat on a delightful holiday package of rape and pillage they travelled south to Spain before emabrking across the straits of Gibraltar(anachronistic reference for all smartasses concerned, not you JANOS). Took a while to settle in, as illegal migrants they made North Africa home sweet home until Belisarius the Thracian general destroyed them in two decisive battles. Bad holiday investment.

[caesar]

I didn't manage a vote, as I pressed results-null vote first and can't go back but I would at most see them as rebels, or a province name vaguely identifiable as venedi I guess.
Considering during most of the Roman classic era Slavs would likely have been overrun by other tribes without likely presenting any threat to their neighbours I don't think they should be a faction or anything capable of attacking anyone. That'll stir certain sensitivities.
But I'm not entirely ignorant, I've read History of europe by norman davies a notoriously pro-slav historian. But even he couldn't contribute much about their pre-history.
I just don't think they were warlike and adventurous enough or forced to be so, at least at that time.
It's likely though I'm unsure if the Sarmatians would have occupied their territory in ancient roman times.

[JANOSIK007]

Was it during that time that the Byzantine Empire was conquering much of former Rome territory?
I know that they held on to the I talian peninsula until the invasion of Lombards.
Probably not the battle of Manzekert Byzantium would remain a world power long after 1453.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (caesar @ Feb. 20 2003,10:21)]I didn't manage a vote, as I pressed results-null vote first and can't go back but I would at most see them as rebels, or a province name vaguely identifiable as venedi I guess.
Considering during most of the Roman classic era Slavs would likely have been overrun by other tribes without likely presenting any threat to their neighbours I don't think they should be a faction or anything capable of attacking anyone. That'll stir certain sensitivities.
But I'm not entirely ignorant, I've read History of europe by norman davies a notoriously pro-slav historian. But even he couldn't contribute much about their pre-history.
I just don't think they were warlike and adventurous enough or forced to be so, at least at that time.
We can't really say that they would probably be overun and not put up a fight as it didn't really happen during the history.
They weren't forced to do that as they were on good stand with their neighbors.
I am sure that they weren't warlike people back than ( as the circumstances didn't require them to adapt these traits), but also I am sure that if the circumstances would change ( an invasion of foreign tribes ) so would they.
We now have their weapons as proof that Slavs did have the war-like potential.
It's true though that even the Slavic historians don't have much information about them.
Many artifacts would have been been destroyed as there was a lively motion and clashes of different tribes.
The early history of Slavs is shrouded in history, so most historians dismiss it as unimportant.
This whole attitude has to change if we want to be able to compare them to other civilizations.

[Galestrum]

I think you take things far too seriously Janos. Obviously you have read some history, and if you have, you would know that information about the barbarian tribes is fragmented and hard to piece together.

Slavs were just as fragmented as any other ethnic tribal grouping of their day and time, and it is this very fragmentation that kept those tribes from being major powers until much later in history.

As others have said, the reason celts and germans are in and slavs have as yet to be included is the actual history of it. As far as having slavs a faction, i am for as many factions as possible that were real factions historically. I personally dont want generic slav/german/celt factions, because none of them resembled a true factions by themselves. I would much rather see several of the more powerful tribal factions listed, say 2-3 of the more powerful tribal factions from each ethnic group, however, i am sure we will have a generic faction of celts and germans sadly.

Next, I just wanna say that I found your comments about westerners offensive and arrogant. You made a bunch of nasty and rude comments about people you dont even know, and described them in terms that you yourself were acting like, that was poor form.

On an aside, arguing about ancient histroy is often an exercise in futility. Information is scarce and incomplete, we know most of the ancient world in terms of generalities and by painstaking linguistic, anthropolgical and archaeolocal evidence. People often read some evidence and take it as fact, the fact is, we unfortunately know very little for FACT about many ancient peoples.

[Galestrum]

Regarding ancient peoples being shrouded in history. Obviously any peoples, groups etc that we know little about will not get as much attention.

History is about gathering information, evidence and facts, not about being politically correct and acting as if every little tribe, people or nation was equally as great as every other.

Fact is, Rome built a huge empire, and made or incorporated laws, arts, literature, architecture, military institutions, political institutions, etc which lasted for centuries and still impact the world today. When you look at them, they formed an empire with augustus which lasted until 1453, no group in europe has even come close to that accomplishment. The other great cultures/peoples did similar things and built great structures and languages which people can still see and touch, many of the barbarians did nothing on the scale that the romans, egyptians, greeks did. Thats just fact.

The reason that historians dismiss slavic history and other peoples including german and celts is they did not leave us a lasting legacy, there is no Slav Acroplolis, no Celtic Aquaduct, no German pyramids, no great libraries, roads, and empires that lasted for centuries.

Its not that these tribes are dismissed, its that unfortunately (1) there simply isnt much information known and (2) they did not impact the outside world to a large degree.

[DojoRat]

What was the ethnic make up of the Lombards? I remember hearing they were Slavic.

Wrong. The web says Germanic. I must have been high.

[Siena]

damn, I voted for a second choice by mistake, when I really meant third one.

JANOSIK007, if Slavs extended from Baltic Sea to Kaspian Sea, then where were Balts?

As far as I know Balts occupied considerable territory then... and they certainly weren't Slavs...
Are you biased against Balts or what?

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Feb. 20 2003,11:30)]Slavs were just as fragmented as any other ethnic tribal grouping of their day and time, and it is this very fragmentation that kept those tribes from being major powers until much later in history.


Next, I just wanna say that I found your comments about westerners offensive and arrogant. You made a bunch of nasty and rude comments about people you dont even know, and described them in terms that you yourself were acting like, that was poor form.

On an aside, arguing about ancient histroy is often an exercise in futility. Information is scarce and incomplete, we know most of the ancient world in terms of generalities and by painstaking linguistic, anthropolgical and archaeolocal evidence. People often read some evidence and take it as fact, the fact is, we unfortunately know very little for FACT about many ancient peoples.
Slavs weren't just as fragmented as the other barbarian nations. In fact it was after when they started to move out of their territory, that they started to be fragmented. Before that they spoke the same language ( with slight dialects ), they worshiped the same Gods, sand the same songs. Therefore, you are incorrect to state that they were as fragmented Celts or Germans.

Why did you say that I made rude comments about people, who I don't even know. I know the western culture, I live in the U.S., and that's enough to inform me about the westerners. I don't see here anything, but self-interest and ignorance about what's going on in the world. Sure there are exceptions, however, in most cases poeple don't know and don't care. Unfortunately, it's true.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Feb. 20 2003,11:42)]Regarding ancient peoples being shrouded in history. Obviously any peoples, groups etc that we know little about will not get as much attention.

History is about gathering information, evidence and facts, not about being politically correct and acting as if every little tribe, people or nation was equally as great as every other.

Fact is, Rome built a huge empire, and made or incorporated laws, arts, literature, architecture, military institutions, political institutions, etc which lasted for centuries and still impact the world today. When you look at them, they formed an empire with augustus which lasted until 1453, no group in europe has even come close to that accomplishment. The other great cultures/peoples did similar things and built great structures and languages which people can still see and touch, many of the barbarians did nothing on the scale that the romans, egyptians, greeks did. Thats just fact.

The reason that historians dismiss slavic history and other peoples including german and celts is they did not leave us a lasting legacy, there is no Slav Acroplolis, no Celtic Aquaduct, no German pyramids, no great libraries, roads, and empires that lasted for centuries.

Its not that these tribes are dismissed, its that unfortunately (1) there simply isnt much information known and (2) they did not impact the outside world to a large degree.
It's not just lack of information. It's also lack of interests that makes it even more difficult to come up with new FACTS. Not just in Slavs, but any other culture that's been practically forgotten.

And abou the Romans: everything in history favored them.
They invaded the Italian peninsula at the right time, they were shielded by the Alps and the Sea, they were influenced by the Greeks and the Etruscans.

Rome, on it's own as Latins, couldn't accomplish what it did without some major help.

[Galestrum]

If your definition of same gods and language etc is together so were the celts and germans. You must be right, the slavs ruled the known world in 250 BC and the west just decided to omit that information. sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif Slavs were not a united politcal group anymore than germans or celts. About your comments on the Romans, wow you are right im sure they were just lucky http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

And you just show yourself to be an ignorant biggot with your continued comments about western people, noone here said anything bad in any way regarding anyone, yet you take every chance to take pot shots at western culture. Its easy to just say this or that group is full of self interest and ignorance, yet all you have done is personally spout off ignorance in your comments. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Feb. 20 2003,16:15)]If your definition of same gods and language etc is together so were the celts and germans. You must be right, the slavs ruled the known world in 250 BC and the west just decided to omit that information. sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif Slavs were not a united politcal group anymore than germans or celts. About your comments on the Romans, wow you are right im sure they were just lucky http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

And you just show yourself to be an ignorant biggot with your continued comments about western people, noone here said anything bad in any way regarding anyone, yet you take every chance to take pot shots at western culture. Its easy to just say this or that group is full of self interest and ignorance, yet all you have done is personally spout off ignorance in your comments. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
How dare you call me ignorant
I have never ever shied away from any historical knowledge. I've read more texts about Rome than you can imagine. And BTW Latin tribes were as primitive as any other tribe living in central Europe at the time. It's when they invaded the Italian peninsula and got in contact with civilized people ( Etruscans and Greeks ) that they became civilized them-selves. My whole life I was thaught nothing, but about the west. Well let me tell you something you self-interested ignorant: For your information west wasn't the craddle of civilizations, but you still make it sound like it was.
Look too bad you have been reading comics instead of some real history texts.

And you show yourself to be a misguided child that constantly constapated, because somebody took away your toys. Why can't you just accept that there is a world outside of West that holds entirely different values than YOU
And how dare you misinterpret my posts to try to make me look like a fool. I've never said about Slavs ruling the world. I've said about them being more of a same Group.
Than you come in with your 3rd grade education insulting me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

And why do you call me a bigot? Does it bother you that much that there is a person talking about something beside west. Does it make me a bigot talking and informing you guys about a culture different from the west. I appologize for talking about something different from what you are used to hearing. I hope a little bit of knowledge about Slavs won't kill ya. Does it hurt you so much to see one topic talk about Slavs.

I didn't mean to insult anyone here, but I couldn't let you just mock me like this.

How could a friendly discusion turn so aggressive?
Oh, I remember. When somebody called me a BIGOT
Look I have been part of many discusions that didn't involve Slavs. And I am a well informed individual.
But if I won't adress this issue who will. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and I've never said that somebodies opinion is WRONG. NEVER http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

But if their historical facts were incorrect I might have mentioned that. You say I'm wrong about something?
PROVE IT

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Feb. 20 2003,12:46)]damn, I voted for a second choice by mistake, when I really meant third one.

JANOSIK007, if Slavs extended from Baltic Sea to Kaspian Sea, then where were Balts?

As far as I know Balts occupied considerable territory then... and they certainly weren't Slavs...
Are you biased against Balts or what?
I think Balts were just North of Slavs'but I am not sure.
Why? Do you have some information that I don't Please share with us.

And please don't tell me that I have biass against something.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (DojoRat @ Feb. 20 2003,12:39)]What was the ethnic make up of the Lombards? I remember hearing they were Slavic.

Wrong. The web says Germanic. I must have been high.
Lombards were for sure Germans.
They caused much havoc for pope. They've also taken Italy from under Byzantian rule. Though they were destroyed by the Franks, who were called up by the Pope to help him the invaders. And that's how Holy Roman Empire was born.

[JANOSIK007]

BTW, who is the history written by?
The winners.
And who were the winners in this case?
Romans.
Romans??
WHAT they never said a good thing about any culture beside theirs. They called Carthaginians barbaric.
They've looked down upon everything that wasn't Roman.
They were worst than Communists, who also liked to talk big.

I am sure had the history been written Celts Germans and Slavs it would've sounded much differently.
Romans called Slavs dumb, and this document is still regarded a really good historical document.
Truth still remains that Rome can't really be called the greatest culture of its time when most of what is Roman is just different version of Etruscan/Greek.
Did you know that Rome was actually build by Etruscans. And when they had to rebuild it after the Gallic invasion they have done a poor job with the sewage, which resulted in deaths of many people from diseases.
Or how about the aqueducts, one of Rome's greatest achievements? Etruscans had a underground pipe system that used a pressure technology, unknown to Romans, that made the water travel. These are just the facts, so don't get mad at me for mentioning them.

[Gregoshi]

That is quite enough of that folks

JANOSIK and Galestrum, if you can't keep your discussion on the issue and feel the need to flame each other - then don't post

Remember, we are talking about a game. A game that isn't even out yet and which we know very little about. CA will make the game they want to make with the factions they feel will make it a good game. So, aside from an interesting diversion to speculate about the game, this thread means diddly squat. So why are we so worked up about nothing? Especially when everyone seems to agree that facts from history are often sketchy at best.

Anymore such antics and this thread is closed. You folks seem well read about the period so I expect you will be able to continue the discussion in an intellectual fashion. There is a chance to educate people here and you are blowing the opportunity.

[caesar]

Fragmentation: yes the slavs were apparently extremely fragmented and likely led by local tribal chieftans, like most other barbarian peoples. Vague but true.
Later on in the late 900s a jewish diplomat even described their many kingdoms as fragmented, and if they united they might be the greatest military force. This was also said about the Thracians by Herodotus in 4th? century: again a fragmented people who usually duelled amongst themselves.
I think it was down to numbers, Slavs just didn't have the numbers until a likely population explosion.


btw, I think it would be more important to mention (and for people to be educated about) the Scythians and Sarmatians. These peoples are far more significant during the ancient period, and in fact had a massive lasting influence on the Slavic tribes and countless others.

[kataphraktoi]

Anything CA does with Slavs will cause an uproar.

Leave the Slavs out of RTW and a dozen Slavic professors are up in arms in the Balkans and worldwide with files and books under their arms waving firebrands wanting to correct our ignorance.

Put the Slavs in and some sensitive Slavs with agendas of their own will demand this and that to be put in the game as to not offend their feelings.

Seems to me everything CA does is wrong because you can never make everyone happy.

Individualism??

I don;t care about this anymore, if Slavs are left out in RTW i don;t care, if they are in RTW, I don;t care........this thread just peeves me off about anything Slavic.

I want the Roman context not the European context thats why its called Rome Total War

[rasoforos]

how about putting the mongolians as well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif , i mean they were not exactly in the area but they came afterwards , and they were not exactly a nation but thehad the same language and gods. just like the slavs. Putting slavs so near rome in BC years just changes history. It doesnt have to do with who WROTE the history , it has to do with the facts that the Slavs were not near Rome at the time.

It a simple fact and it saves a lot of fighting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Siena]

JANOSIK007, sorry about that bias thing. I guess I was just trying to annoy you, because you used same argument for Slavs.

Anyway, here is something about territory covered by Balts:

From the period of 1300-1100 BC the southern Baltic territory was populated by the Balts, who inhabited a square area: Gdansk harbor-Ventspils-Daugavpils-50 km north of Warsaw (Dunsdorfs 10). We know that Balts inhabited these territories from the modern day Baltic river names that have been kept intact in places, where Balts no longer live. In Smolensk is a tributary Meža, which has its own tributary properly called Laukesa. It is generally accepted that the density of Baltic names shows that the Balts either reached or left more sparsely populated areas. “Water names communicate that the ancestors of the Latvians and the Lithuanians occupied the upper Dnieper region until as late as the first millennium AD and the first centuries of the second milliennium AD (Bojtar 55).

I took it is from:
http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/prehistory.html

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Feb. 20 2003,23:43)]That is quite enough of that folks

JANOSIK and Galestrum, if you can't keep your discussion on the issue and feel the need to flame each other - then don't post

Remember, we are talking about a game. A game that isn't even out yet and which we know very little about. CA will make the game they want to make with the factions they feel will make it a good game. So, aside from an interesting diversion to speculate about the game, this thread means diddly squat. So why are we so worked up about nothing? Especially when everyone seems to agree that facts from history are often sketchy at best.

Anymore such antics and this thread is closed. You folks seem well read about the period so I expect you will be able to continue the discussion in an intellectual fashion. There is a chance to educate people here and you are blowing the opportunity.
I apologize to everyone that I might have offended.
We have to realize the main purpose of this topic, which is to inform.
I try to use as much of info that I have and form time to time I will try to correct someone who doesn't have his historical facts together. Please don't take this personal. I know that I'm not right all the time so I expect people to correct me too.

BTW, thank you guys for making me a Junior Memeber.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (caesar @ Feb. 21 2003,10:43)]Fragmentation: yes the slavs were apparently extremely fragmented and likely led by local tribal chieftans, like most other barbarian peoples. Vague but true.
Later on in the late 900s a jewish diplomat even described their many kingdoms as fragmented, and if they united they might be the greatest military force. This was also said about the Thracians by Herodotus in 4th? century: again a fragmented people who usually duelled amongst themselves.
I think it was down to numbers, Slavs just didn't have the numbers until a likely population explosion.


btw, I think it would be more important to mention (and for people to be educated about) the Scythians and Sarmatians. These peoples are far more significant during the ancient period, and in fact had a massive lasting influence on the Slavic tribes and countless others.
I am sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you meant by fragmentation. I thought it meant fragmentation into subtribes. You're right than, they were fragmented, but they had a more defined homogenity. Where as description of the German tribes is pretty vague. I hope there are no hard feelings.

You wanna share some info on Scythians and Sarmatians?
Feel free to do so. I would personally like to know how they've influenced Slavs.

Thanks

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Feb. 21 2003,12:45)]JANOSIK007, sorry about that bias thing. I guess I was just trying to annoy you, because you used same argument for Slavs.

Anyway, here is something about territory covered by Balts:

From the period of 1300-1100 BC the southern Baltic territory was populated by the Balts, who inhabited a square area: Gdansk harbor-Ventspils-Daugavpils-50 km north of Warsaw (Dunsdorfs 10). We know that Balts inhabited these territories from the modern day Baltic river names that have been kept intact in places, where Balts no longer live. In Smolensk is a tributary Meža, which has its own tributary properly called Laukesa. It is generally accepted that the density of Baltic names shows that the Balts either reached or left more sparsely populated areas. “Water names communicate that the ancestors of the Latvians and the Lithuanians occupied the upper Dnieper region until as late as the first millennium AD and the first centuries of the second milliennium AD (Bojtar 55).

I took it is from:
http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/prehistory.html
Thanks for the link. This is some interesting stuff.
I think that the boundaries of different tribes were much more fluid and undefined than we depict it to be. You see we can't be sure exactly where did those boundaries end as this changed from day to day and at times different cultures would coexist and create this melting pot.

If you have some more info about how Balts moved North to where they're now please let me know.

[JANOSIK007]

I wont get mad if CA doesn't include Slavs.
Only thing that I want is for CA to atleast ackowledge the existence of Slavs by seting a north-east boundary on the map stating this is the land of the Slavs. This is, I think, a pheasable solution.

BTW, even in B.C. years Slavs were hanging around the Carpaths. Just to get some history straight.

And please read all of the posts as I have already mentioned this before.

[Gregoshi]

The trap everyone falls into with MTW and now RTW is that the inclusion/exclusion of a faction by CA in their games is somehow the final end-all judgement as to the worthiness of that faction in history. It isn't. Making these games is many times a compromise to make the game playable, interesting or overcome a technical limitation. Remember all the grumbling when MTW came out? This banner is wrong, province X should be split into Y and Z provinces...and so on. Maybe some of those thing were mistakes, but I'm willing to bet most were due to conscious decisions on the part of CA.

Now regarding Slavs in RTW, it is hard to imagine a campaign map without the slavic areas included. So something has to be there. As some of the no Slavs group pointed out, they had little interaction with Rome. However, the Total War games are as much about what ifs as they are about history. What if Rome turned its gaze towards slavic lands? I don't think a large area of rebels will do much as far as challenge goes. Therefore it seems to me that having a Slav faction would add more potential for variety in the campaigns.

Whatever the final game looks like, I'll trust CA to make RTW the best game they can.

Final note: very nice recovery to get this thread back on track. There is a lot of oft-ignored history to learn here. Thank you one and all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[JANOSIK007]

Thanks Gregoshi.

I really do sometimes feel like the appearance of a certain faction in RTW signifies its importance in the history. Though int's just a game, some people who don't know much about history will learn quite a few things from this game. That's why I think that CA should do the best they can ( Regarding all of the factions ) to stick to history.

Cheers

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Mr Frost]

Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Feb. 20 2003,11:42)]The reason that historians dismiss slavic history and other peoples including german and celts is they did not leave us a lasting legacy, there is no Slav Acroplolis, no Celtic Aquaduct, no German pyramids, no great libraries, roads, and empires that lasted for centuries.

Its not that these tribes are dismissed, its that unfortunately (1) there simply isnt much information known and (2) they did not impact the outside world to a large degree.
However note that there are powerfull and thriving countries decended from these peoples {Celts , Germans and Slavs ... Celtic influence on western Europe is stronger than Roman and Russia was untill but recently the second most powerfull nation in human history } whereas Romans are extinct {Itallians now are either Germanic , Greek , Spanish or Arabic by decent with some Norman influence} and Egyptians nearly so {nearly all Egyptians today are Arabs , the Koptics are the last of the Classical Egyptians} and Classical Egyptian culture is , like Roman culture almost vanished {again , most of modern Egypt is actually Arabic} .

The Celts , Germans and Slavs outlasted Rome and Egypt both That is their monument .

[caesar]

Quote[/b] (Mr Frost @ Feb. 23 2003,07:57)]However note that there are powerfull and thriving countries decended from these peoples {Celts , Germans and Slavs ... Celtic influence on western Europe is stronger than Roman and Russia was untill but recently the second most powerfull nation in human history } whereas Romans are extinct {Itallians now are either Germanic , Greek , Spanish or Arabic by decent with some Norman influence} and Egyptians nearly so {nearly all Egyptians today are Arabs , the Koptics are the last of the Classical Egyptians} and Classical Egyptian culture is , like Roman culture almost vanished {again , most of modern Egypt is actually Arabic} .

The Celts , Germans and Slavs outlasted Rome and Egypt both That is their monument .
Celtic influence? Well they speak a roman derived language, worship a roman religion, lived under so called Holy Roman Empire, generally loathed the celtic speaking peoples, called them outsiders (welsh), and pushed them to the fringes like brittany, ireland and wales. Celtic meant weakness and defeat to the Germans, and no doubt many people tried to cover up their heritage.

The germans, turks, slavs and other tribes were lucky that they were amongst the last of the tribes to migrate further west in Europe, seeking better climate, safer environs, weaker territories etc. The Italic people were a settled docile lot, not wandering warlike folk. I think you always find that the last of the fringe tribes sets down the borders. Just look at Turkey.

Might be a bit ignorant called Italians non Italian in ethnicity. Are you saying that because Lebanon was occupied by Egyptions, Greeks, persians, turks, romans, arabs and french, that they aren't a Semitic people related to people who lived there 1000s of years ago? I reckon they still are.
How can you say Italians and Normans are related ? Southern Italians are not tall scandinavian types, they're a mix of Italic and Greek as they always were. Northern Italians were mainly celtic and italic in ancient history and still look like. Sorry but in most cases the original populations are still going strong.

Most egyptions may speak arabic but they certainly ARE related to ancient egyptions. Have you ever seen a egyption and compared one to a Saudi ? Certainly there's much colonisation involved, mainly in city populations - same with greeks, when they colonised egypt.
I think religions and languages change more rapidly than ethnicity.

Sorry to dismiss many of your comments but you made it personal when you said I'm not Italic :-)

[caesar]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 21 2003,17:43)]You wanna share some info on Scythians and Sarmatians?
Feel free to do so. I would personally like to know how they've influenced Slavs.
Wow, where do we begin.

Surely whilst you research the earlier tribes that migrated into Ukraine territory, around the Black sea up to the Danube, and all the territory that stretches over to mongolia, you must have seen mention of Sarmations and Skythians. They spoke and Indo-Iranian tongue related to the Eastern branch of IE - like Iranian. They were primarily a horse folk like huns and mongols. Alans of 4th century AD were Sarmatians, maybe the last.
Anyway Norman Davies goes on to say that the Polish Heraldic clan signs bear stark resemblance to Sarmatian symbols. The Polish nobles claimed their ancestry back to Sarmatians - horsemen of the steppes. And that it could I quote be explained as a legacy of the Alans who disappeared into the backwoods of Eastern Europe in 4th cent AD. Should interest you as I believe you to be a pole.

Anyway there's sure to be many websites on them. Here's one I just looked at http://www.silk-road.com/artl/scythian.shtml

Herodotus's The Histories is one of the best sources of accounts of Scythians, and it's worth reading even if you aren't interested in them. Though make sure you read an edition with appendixes/commentaries as Herodotus tells many fibs.

Davies notes that a scythian chieftain is buried with all his treasures at witaszkowo on the western Neisse (east of Poznan). This website http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_st_wlkp.htm claims that it's The richest hoard ever to be found in Polish territory. Their treasure hordes/graves are also to be found in Siberia all the way to Mongolia.

Davies also claims that much of Slavonic religious vocabulary from Bog to raj is Sarmato-Iranian in origin. And as a side note that much of their words relating to primitive technology is Germanic :-P

I'm not saying these guys are related to Slavs, I'm just saying there's no doubt influences, moreso horse-wise, but in that regard they would influence all steppe peoples. I'm not able to find a resource that lists influences and similarities either - and I'm no expert on either cultures.
There's lots of controversies regarding Scythians, with people trying to connect their race and origins with this or that, so view unsubstatiated info about them with healthy scepticism. (Here's one site describing their origins: http://www.turanianhorse.org/scythians.html)

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (caesar @ Feb. 23 2003,11:43)]Surely whilst you research the earlier tribes that migrated into Ukraine territory, around the Black sea up to the Danube, and all the territory that stretches over to mongolia, you must have seen mention of Sarmations and Skythians. They spoke and Indo-Iranian tongue related to the Eastern branch of IE - like Iranian. They were primarily a horse folk like huns and mongols. Alans of 4th century AD were Sarmatians, maybe the last.
Anyway Norman Davies goes on to say that the Polish Heraldic clan signs bear stark resemblance to Sarmatian symbols. The Polish nobles claimed their ancestry back to Sarmatians - horsemen of the steppes. And that it could I quote be explained as a legacy of the Alans who disappeared into the backwoods of Eastern Europe in 4th cent AD. Should interest you as I believe you to be a pole.

Anyway there's sure to be many websites on them. Here's one I just looked at http://www.silk-road.com/artl/scythian.shtml

Herodotus's The Histories is one of the best sources of accounts of Scythians, and it's worth reading even if you aren't interested in them. Though make sure you read an edition with appendixes/commentaries as Herodotus tells many fibs.

Davies notes that a scythian chieftain is buried with all his treasures at witaszkowo on the western Neisse (east of Poznan). This website http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_st_wlkp.htm claims that it's The richest hoard ever to be found in Polish territory. Their treasure hordes/graves are also to be found in Siberia all the way to Mongolia.

Davies also claims that much of Slavonic religious vocabulary from Bog to raj is Sarmato-Iranian in origin. And as a side note that much of their words relating to primitive technology is Germanic :-P

I'm not saying these guys are related to Slavs, I'm just saying there's no doubt influences, moreso horse-wise, but in that regard they would influence all steppe peoples. I'm not able to find a resource that lists influences and similarities either - and I'm no expert on either cultures.
There's lots of controversies regarding Scythians, with people trying to connect their race and origins with this or that, so view unsubstatiated info about them with healthy scepticism. (Here's one site describing their origins: http://www.turanianhorse.org/scythians.html)
Truthfully I have never came across these tribes. I have heard people mention it, but really it's very new to me. Maybe in my language we call them differently, but surely Scytians and Samartians are a new concepts to me. I am glad you have introduced me to them.

BTW, I am not Polish ( just to let people know ). I don't know why you people like to assume that an educated Slav about Slavic culture is most likely Polish. I get this wibe from most everyone.

I find it very hard to believe that words like Bog (God) and Raj (Paradise) come from somewhere in Iran. I'm not dismissing it as false, it's just these words are as Slavic as Slavic can get. These sound preety much like a generic Slavic terms to me. I know one person from Iran and it surely doesn't sound similar to Slavic.

I'm sure that in some modern Slavic languages there is some German influence, but I doubt that any German tribes influenced the old Slavic language. As Slavs were good and inventive farmers, I don't see how they would they need tools from Germans. Morover, I think you could find influence on the other side as well.

[JANOSIK007]

Thanks for the info. The picture of these riders slightly resembles cossacks. How about Samartians? Is there any website dedicated to them?

It's really interesting stuff.

[JANOSIK007]

Thanks Ceasar for mentioning this new info to me.

Now that I think of it, Scythians should be included in the game as well.

[JANOSIK007]

Is there anybody who has a different idea about the fate of Slavs in RTW? Or just wants to present his thoughts to us. Please fell free. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[caesar]

JANOSIK007,

>BTW, I am not Polish ( just to let people know ). I don't
>know why you people like to assume that an educated Slav
>about Slavic culture is most likely Polish. I get
>this wibe from most everyone.

err, i typed JANOSIK in yahoo and most sites listed were Polish, or so it seemed.
You can't be that educated as you've never heard of Scythians ;-)


>I find it very hard to believe that words like Bog (God)
>and Raj (Paradise) come from somewhere in Iran. I'm not
>dismissing it as false, it's just these words are as
> Slavic as Slavic can get. These sound preety much like a
>generic Slavic terms to me. I know one person from Iran
>and it surely doesn't sound similar to Slavic.

Well iranian doesn't mean from Iran. There was no such things as Iran then. Iranian is a group of languages encompassing a huge area. Probably better called Indo-iranian. You do believe that Slavic is an IE language don't you? Then you have to believe that many terms are linked, i.e. the vocab is shared, at least from a very early time.
That's the theory anyway.
I didn't say Slavic and Farsi are the same. Really you have to learn more about the relationship of early indo-european tongues. Slavic, Hindu, Persian, Armenian are all eastern Indo-european tongues.
For example in the middle-east I think you'll find that El and Baal are pretty common amongst most of the languages meaning generically god - though often refering to a specific one.

>I'm sure that in some modern Slavic languages there is
>some German influence, but I doubt that any German tribes
>influenced the old Slavic language.

Well your conclusions mean diddily squat, as you used no research, just an assumption.
If you dont think languages borrow words, then you're nuts. Even old-proto languages.


>How about Samartians? Is there any website dedicated to them?

Definately are. I dont know as much about them though. Look them up as I mentioned before. Dont type samaritans though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

>Scythians should be included in the game as well.

Certainly, they had close contact with Greeks. Dunno if they were still as warlike around the time of the punic wars though. I think many tribes eventually soften up.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (caesar @ Feb. 27 2003,05:56)]
err, i typed JANOSIK in yahoo and most sites listed were Polish, or so it seemed.
You can't be that educated as you've never heard of Scythians ;-)
All those sites are wrong

Janosik has nothing to do with Poland. Polaks just like to assume that, because he was a great folk hero.

He was actually Slovak ( just like Andy Warhol, but Polaks like to steal from Slovak culture )

And you can't be that educated if you don't know very much about Slavs. It's just a matter of interest and opinion.

And I've clearly stated that the term Scythians is new to me. May be they were called by a different name in my language.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (caesar @ Feb. 27 2003,05:56)]Well iranian doesn't mean from Iran. There was no such things as Iran then. Iranian is a group of languages encompassing a huge area. Probably better called Indo-iranian. You do believe that Slavic is an IE language don't you? Then you have to believe that many terms are linked, i.e. the vocab is shared, at least from a very early time.
That's the theory anyway.
I didn't say Slavic and Farsi are the same. Really you have to learn more about the relationship of early indo-european tongues. Slavic, Hindu, Persian, Armenian are all eastern Indo-european tongues.
For example in the middle-east I think you'll find that El and Baal are pretty common amongst most of the languages meaning generically god - though often refering to a specific one.

>I'm sure that in some modern Slavic languages there is
>some German influence, but I doubt that any German tribes
>influenced the old Slavic language.

Well your conclusions mean diddily squat, as you used no research, just an assumption.
If you dont think languages borrow words, then you're nuts. Even old-proto languages.
You still didn't present to me any influence that Scythians had on Slavs. The site didn't mention anything and beside those few words that you have mentioned, they could be linked by many different cultures of the Indo-Europian group. Also you didn't make your-self clear on what the influence was.

I do believe that different cultures would share some words, however you make it sound as if Slavs were influenced by everybody around them, as if they had no culture of their own. You must ackowledge that there must have been a sharing of vocabulary on both sides. You must be nuts to think that Slavs were insignificant so their vocab wouldn't be borrowed by Germans as well.

Your assumptions are just as meaningfull as my. You didn't show any example of German in Slavic language.

If I had a PhD. than perhaps my assumptions would have meant more than yours ( even with the same knowledge ).

[Sainika]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 27 2003,19:32)]You still didn't present to me any influence that Scythians had on Slavs. The site didn't mention anything and beside those few words that you have mentioned, they could be linked by many different cultures of the Indo-Europian group. Also you didn't make your-self clear on what the influence was.

I do believe that different cultures would share some words, however you make it sound as if Slavs were influenced by everybody around them, as if they had no culture of their own. You must ackowledge that there must have been a sharing of vocabulary on both sides. You must be nuts to think that Slavs were insignificant so their vocab wouldn't be borrowed by Germans as well.

Your assumptions are just as meaningfull as my. You didn't show any example of German in Slavic language.

If I had a PhD. than perhaps my assumptions would have meant more than yours ( even with the same knowledge ).
Let me tell you guys something about languages and their croos-influence on each other http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Slavic languages and almost all european languages are all born from ONE indo-european language. There are a lot of common words in european languages with rather insignificant changes. All of you know a number of them: water (germ. wasser, russ. voda, polish woda, italian aqua, spanish agua, french eaux, etc), beer (germ. bier, ital. bere, russ. pivo etc.), number 1 (engl. one, germ. und, ital. uno, spanish uno, french un, russ. odin), numbers 2 to 10, several common words like knight (german word knecht, in russian very close knyaz&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Et cetera, et cetera. And all neighbouring tribes influence each other. In Russian language there are a lot of foreign words as in German or English (btw in english there are more foreign word than you can imagine), or Italian, or French. Also we must take into account words - I don't know how it sounds in english - when original foreign word is decomposited into parts and these parts are translated in native forms and recollect in a whole word. Such words are not original foreigners but also they are not native ones. E. g. russian word 'vpechatlenie' (impression). If we decomposite russian word: v - pechat - lenie. V is analog of 'im', 'pechat' is directly translated as 'press' and postfix -lenie is translated as '-sion' (that is correct). So we get russian word which means tha same as English one and seems to be of foreign origin. One can find such words in other languages too.
In polish language there are a lot of german words, in slovak and so on. And in German there is a number of french and latin words.
It is incorrect to say that German or any of Slavic languages are made fron foreign words. All of european words are brothers and sisters. They influence each other.

BTW Janosik, I'm russian and I'm Slavic. I like your efforts to make CA include Slavs in RTW. BUT as I said before I will play RTW in any case whether I see there Slavs or not. I agree with you that strategic map must include Eastern Europe, but I don't want to see Slavs as major faction. Rebels - yes, that would be historically accurate.

[JANOSIK007]

Thanks Sainika for clearing that up. And I am aware of many German words being in Slovak vocab. However those German words entered Slovak dictionary relatively recently.
It happened right after the decline of Mongol Empire. Many vilages in North Hungary ( Slovakia ) were left desolate. So the Hungarian king called up people from Bavaria to settle there. They have recieved more privilleges than natives of that area. That's what I was reffering to earlier.

[JANOSIK007]

Well from the poll I can safely conclude that most people want Slavs to be represented in RTW.

Suits me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[Siena]

JANOSIK007,
Balts moved North at about the same time when Huns moved East and pushed Slavs. Slavs in turn pushed Balts, and Balts moved aside.

Right now the only Balt nations are Lithuanians and Latvians.

Form my Lithuanian point of view, the period of prominence of Balts (more explicitly - Lithuanians) was from 1200s to about 1600s. Lookup Grand Dutchy of Lithuania.
So Lithuanians really belonged as a faction in MTW. But.... it was not to be...
I would dare to say that Middle Ages wihtout Lithuania seem sort of half-told to me. How can study Middle Ages and ignore the last Pagan kingdom in Europe, that held on against Crusades and at last became Christian of its own will.

As for Slavs in RTW:
are there any major battles known that Slavs played important part in RTW era?
are there any major political feats known that were accomplished by Slavs at RTW era?
are there any major cities known that were built by Slavs and then contested by other civilizations?
are there any important cities that Slavs tried to contest from other civilizations?

And besides that, Slavs would really be a fictional faction, because there was no tribe called Slavs, was there? And there was no attempt to unite Slavs into one group of tribes, was there?
I would not object if some Slavic tribes that were known to Rome would be in the game, though.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 04 2003,16:33)]JANOSIK007,
Balts moved North at about the same time when Huns moved East and pushed Slavs. Slavs in turn pushed Balts, and Balts moved aside.

Right now the only Balt nations are Lithuanians and Latvians.

Form my Lithuanian point of view, the period of prominence of Balts (more explicitly - Lithuanians) was from 1200s to about 1600s. Lookup Grand Dutchy of Lithuania.
So Lithuanians really belonged as a faction in MTW. But.... it was not to be...
I would dare to say that Middle Ages wihtout Lithuania seem sort of half-told to me. How can study Middle Ages and ignore the last Pagan kingdom in Europe, that held on against Crusades and at last became Christian of its own will.

As for Slavs in RTW:
are there any major battles known that Slavs played important part in RTW era?
are there any major political feats known that were accomplished by Slavs at RTW era?
are there any major cities known that were built by Slavs and then contested by other civilizations?
are there any important cities that Slavs tried to contest from other civilizations?

And besides that, Slavs would really be a fictional faction, because there was no tribe called Slavs, was there? And there was no attempt to unite Slavs into one group of tribes, was there?
I would not object if some Slavic tribes that were known to Rome would be in the game, though.
Just as Slavs didn't build grand cities, Germans and Celts didn't either. Some thing they have in common.

And what difference does it make that they weren't united?
Makes it even easier to subdue them.

Slavs were certainly known to Rome ( there is a hard proof of trade between these two and there are historical documments from ancient Rome, which describe Slavs, although not accurately ), it's just that Rome never got so far to make any use of them. And if not for the defeat of Legions in Black forest, I am sure that would change.

You are definitely wrong to say there was no tribe by a name Slavs, when in fact Slavs was their name that they have given themselves. Slav is derived from a Slavic word meaning word or to talk. Other tribes might have called them differently ( Example: Germans called them Wened meaning shepheard ), but Slavs did exist with their present-day name.

[Siena]

JANOSIK007,
right there was no tribe called Celts or Germans either. So the Celts or Germans factions would sound funny also.
I would preffer bunch of allied tribes.

And I still do not think that there was one big tribe called Slavs. I assume Slavs were a bunch of ethnically (but not politically) related tribes.

Anyway, Cells and Germans are known for raiding cities and contesting territories from major civilization like Romans.
Also Celts tried to unite against Romans. That would be a major political feat.

To be consistent with my attempted vote:
I would not mind if there was faction called Slavs if Slav territories are on the map. I just hope that it would not be made to rival Carthaginians in power...
But there are so many tribes and kingdoms that were in much more immediate contact with Romans (and game is centered on Romans), that I don't think Slav territories need to be on the map.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 05 2003,16:27)]To be consistent with my attempted vote:
I would not mind if there was faction called Slavs if Slav territories are on the map. I just hope that it would not be made to rival Carthaginians in power...
But there are so many tribes and kingdoms that were in much more immediate contact with Romans (and game is centered on Romans), that I don't think Slav territories need to be on the map.
I am there with you. I don't think that Slavs should rival Rome, in any aspect of power, unless they would be united like the Celts you've mentioned.

It's really up to CA if the Slavic territories are going to be on the map, but if they will so should the Slavs.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 05 2003,16:27)]To be consistent with my attempted vote:
I would not mind if there was faction called Slavs if Slav territories are on the map. I just hope that it would not be made to rival Carthaginians in power...
But there are so many tribes and kingdoms that were in much more immediate contact with Romans (and game is centered on Romans), that I don't think Slav territories need to be on the map.
I am right there with you. I definitely think that Slavs shold be made into a split tribal faction that couldn't rival Rome. Unless they will unite.

It's really up to CA if the Slavic territories are going to be included in RTW, but if they will so should the Slavs.

[Gregoshi]

JANOSIK, your stereo channels are a bit out of synch. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[JANOSIK007]

I don't know what happened. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif