Gauls and Celts

[ShadesWolf]

From what I have seen from the campaign pictures, it appears that the game will include a Celt/Gaul faction.

This faction appears to occupy the area of:
- Northern Italy
- Modern Day France
- Parts of Spain

I will use this thread as a reference point for creating my article on the faction for my web site. Any information you know about the faction or history is most welcome.

[ShadesWolf]

GAUL - a definition from the encyclopedia Wikipedia


Gallia (in English Gaul) is the Roman name for the region of western Europe occupied by present-day France, Belgium, western Switzerland and the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the left bank of the Rhine. In English the word Gaul also means one of the inhabitants of that region in ancient times.

The Gauls sacked Rome circa 390 BC, destroying all Roman historical records to that point.

Roman rule in Gaul was established by Julius Caesar, who defeated the Celtic tribes in Gaul 58-51 BC and described his experiences in De Bello Gallico, which means Of the Gallic War.

The area was subsequently governed as a number of provinces, the principal ones being Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Lugdunensis, Gallia Aquitania and Gallia Belgica. The capital of the Gauls was Lyon (Lugdunum).

On December 31, 406 the Vandals, Alans and Suebians crossed the Rhine, beginning an invasion of Gallia.

After coming under increasing pressure from the tribes of Germany from the middle of the 3rd century AD, Roman rule in Gaul ended with the defeat of the Roman governor Syagrius by the Franks in AD 486.

[a_ver_est]

Will be nice to do an Asterix & Obelix mod ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Sep. 01 2003,01:26)]GAUL - a definition from the encyclopedia Wikipedia
Remember when using Wikipedia as a source that it's written by whoever felt the urge - you can write an entry yourself if you want - or comment on one.......

It can be useful, but needs to be treated carefully.

Mind you whoever wrote this one got it right AFAIK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ShadesWolf]

http://www.rometotalwar.co.uk/blankfactionmapwip.gif

http://www.rometotalwar.co.uk/factionsmap.gif

These two maps are ones Ive produced, the one is a patchwork stitched together. The other is one I have made based on what I have seen

[Stefan the Berserker]

What Gauls believed ->

Gauls, as a Celtic Culture, believed that the Soul is immortal and re-inncarnated after Death within a new Body. During this time the Soul can "relax" in a kind of Paradise and decide by free will if it wants to stay there or go for the next Life.

"So, if I understood you correctly you see the Death as a break between Lifes?" - how a Roman Legatus commented this.

Their highest Gods were Belenus (Sun) and Taranis (Thunder), the "Belthaine" Festival that was celebrated on May 1st is still practised today (Remember Belenus on next May 1st). "Taranis" is still the word for "Thunder" in Welsh and Bretonian...

Note: Teutates is not a God, his Name means "Tribe". Each Tribe had a special God, the romans mixed them to "Teutates". If Gauls ment "Teutates" they ment their Tribe-specific Teutates.

More on: European Celtic Community (http://www.euro-celts.com/)

The Site is in german Language, but also contains English parts. Like this one: Carnyx (http://www.euro-celts.com/ego/carnyx_e.html)

[Hurin_Rules]

If you'll note on that map, there also seems to be a second Celtic faction: the Britons. In the period in question, they were also Celts who ruled most of modern day England and Wales.

Anyone else notice that huge faction above the Crimea? Is that the Scythians?

[Hurin_Rules]

P.S. For some odd reason, the Britons seem also to have been given Gallia Belgica on that map. Not sure why.

[ShadesWolf]

Something to do with the Celtic tribes in Belgium, and the link to the Celts in Britain.

[Nowake]

what celtic tribes? the nervii and all their allies were of germanic origin.

[ShadesWolf]

Sorry I was using a general term,

I ment the tribes in Belgium having links to the Brits.

So were the Belgae German or Celts ?

ERM interesting question.....

Just found this.....



Quote[/b] ]The Belgae were German and Celtic tribes who inhabited the Rhine estuary, the Low Countries and north-east France. After being defeated by Julius Caesar in the Gallic Wars (58-51 BC), a number of Belgae moved to southern Britain where they played a prominent role in resisting the Roman invasion in 43 AD.

[Nowake]

Indeed, this is true in my opinion. In De bello gallico Caesar points out their germanic origin, thus explaining their ferociousness in battle when compared to gauls. Modern sources confirm this fact.

[ShadesWolf]

I have now completed my section on the Celts....

Please take a look and tellme what you think....

The Celts Civilization (http://www.rometotalwar.co.uk/nations/gauls.htm)

Ive tried to keep it as basic as possible, if you think I should expand it, then just let me know. There is plent more info that I could add......

[Hurin_Rules]

Good stuff.

You might also want to note that the Romans that settled in Gaul after Caesar's conquest gradually merged with the Celts. They are generally called Gallo-Romans, to distinguish them from both Gauls and Romans. The Celts in France did not so much die out as merge with their conquerors (and they'd do it again, when the Franks invaded). In the latter part of the timespan covered by RTW, this merging has already begun.

[Sir Robin]

Thanks for the pictures. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I have noticed these on the videos and it seems the RTW map is still broken up into provinces.

Perhaps this is just a placeholder until the finished version.

Maybe this is a way for the Senate to define mission objectives. "Secure this region before this date."

If these are actual regions/provinces I hope there is more than one city per region/province.

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Sep. 03 2003,21:49)]Something to do with the Celtic tribes in Belgium, and the link to the Celts in Britain.
The first celtic tribes in britain were Belgae that crossed the north sea IIRC.
But that was waaaaaaaaay before the Roman invasion of Gallia (again IIRC).
Oh yes and the Belgae were not completely celtic, they were about half germanic and half celtic and supposedly had (among other things) a very distinct language from the other celtic groups.

[JANOSIK007]

the orange territory must be Slavic.

You see, that's the territory that they occupied during this time.

[Hurin_Rules]

I don't think so. I think the brown is the Slavs. I don't remember the Slavs ever occupying territory between the Black Sea and the Caspian. I'm betting it's the Scythians.

OOps, correction: I just checked and there is a theory that the Slavs inhabited this region at that time. But the source I checked also mentioned that they were often slaves of the Scythians, so I guess it could be either.

[DBS]

The Belgae

As noted above, they were a distinct group within the broad definition of Gauls/Celts, due to a Germanic admixture. Their area of dominance seems to have been the Low Countries and south-east England. They certainly were not the first "Celts" in the British isles, and probably only represented a relative minority there, but equally they tended to have disproportionate influence and importance, at least in Roman eyes, since they were sitting in the best bit of the British Isles - south-east England. (Waits for howls of protest from the Celtic fringes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )

Other tribes in the Isles were definitely not Belgae, and arguable they were any more truly celtic. The Iceni, for example, are not thought to be Belgic, despite being in eastern England. Indeed, not being Belgic may explain why Prasutagas was pro-Roman. And the Silures in southern Wales were also noted for being very different to other "Celts" - perhaps pre-Celtic aborigines? Anyway, Caesar used the excuse of "English" Belgae supposedly helping "Belgian" Belgae for his cross-Channel excursions, which of course made an outrageous mockery, even by his own standards, of exceeding his allocated imperium.

As for other colours on the map?

Blue = Belgae

Green = Gauls, though the splodge in Spain is where the Celt-Iberians lived, and they were definitely a rather distinctive mix, rather than pure Celts

Spanish brown = Iberians

White = Carthage

Red = Germans

Orange = Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc

Bright Yellow = Macedonia/Thrace

Dark Brown = now, are these supposed to be the Dacians? Could be, but a bit OTT if they are. God help us if they are the Slavs

Gray - I presume Epirus, although the long stretch in the Balkans could mean Illyrians, but surely they should be "rebels" rather than a true faction?

Light Yellow - obviously the Greek Ptolemies suddenly finding themselves to be Pharaonic types from a few centuries before - for shame CA

Black - Berber/Libyan tribes, but again they should surely be a collection of rebels.

Light Brown - Seleucids

The others in the far east are a bit odd to say the least. Purple might be Parthians (or Bactrians too far west), but they really replaced the Seleucids... Grey could be Armenians but they were never a recognisable state during the RTW period. Blue-Grey - in right place for Pontus, but rather large Alternatively very, very off-target Bithynians or Pergamenes?

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (DBS @ Sep. 12 2003,02:49)]Dark Brown = now, are these supposed to be the Dacians? Could be, but a bit OTT if they are. God help us if they are the Slavs
You don't seem like a very cultured person.
Probably with a grade school education at most.
Take your meager ideas and read a factual book about history.

I have done this myself and the most I can do is pitty you.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Sep. 11 2003,23:44)]I don't think so. I think the brown is the Slavs. I don't remember the Slavs ever occupying territory between the Black Sea and the Caspian. I'm betting it's the Scythians.

OOps, correction: I just checked and there is a theory that the Slavs inhabited this region at that time. But the source I checked also mentioned that they were often slaves of the Scythians, so I guess it could be either.
So that's your process of inquiry.

You read article by some sharlatan posted on the web and everything else you simply ignore. You only know that little, while you are being ignorant about everything else.

In history you have to be your own detctive. And if you don't see that than I am sorry.

Though the most accepted theory is that the Slavs have settled around the Black Sea as the wave of Indo-European migrations were coming to an end. The had a tremendous infleunce on the are they occupied.

And the thing you were talking about (them being slaves).
MOST OF THE SOCIETIES BACK THEN WERE SLAVE-BASED.
This means that you could find some scythians slaves in Slavic society.

Don't put them down just because you don't know and don't care about their history.

[DBS]

Quote[/b] ]You don't seem like a very cultured person.
Probably with a grade school education at most.
Take your meager ideas and read a factual book about history.

I have done this myself and the most I can do is pitty you.

Actually, old bean, I have an honours degree in Classics and Ancient History. 25 years study of the period. A rather-better-than-meagre library of academic works on the era.

I take it that your ridiculous response was due to a misinterpretation of my comments re the Slavs - your login perhaps suggests a Slavic inclination. I was in no way implying any racist attitude towards the Slavs, merely despairing at the thought that someone might regard them as relevant to the period to be covered by RTW, namely ending in the first principate.

Given your intemperate response to both myself and Hurin_Rules, might I politely suggest a little more moderation or you will risk giving the impression that you are the one who is, shall we say, culturally challenged. The very strength of these fora are the general even-temperedness and restraint of debate.

[Hurin_Rules]

Thank you DBS. Let me add to your response to JAN.

I have a Ph. D. in Medieval History from the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto. I am currently an Assistant professor of history. I do not much like being lectured to as if I were a child from someone who cannot manage to spell 'charlatan'.

If you cannot respond in a civil fashion to an honest inquiry, please do not respond at all.

"You read article by some sharlatan posted on the web and everything else you simply ignore. You only know that little, while you are being ignorant about everything else."

I did not read anything by any 'sharlatan' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, nor did I 'ignore' everything else. I read the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia. Granted, these do not represent the most current scholarly opinion, but for general knowledge they are usually reliable. What evidence did you present to the contrary? What 'evidence' did I ignore?

I'll make a bet with you. If that is actually the Slavs, I'll buy your copy of RTW. If it is the Scythians/Sarmatians, you buy mine.

Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

[shingenmitch2]

Let me add my voice to the chorus asking JAN "WTF is your problem?" Got a sensitive slavic bone to pick?

In response to DBF, my guess would be that Bright Yellow are the Thracians and the Brick Red are the Dacians who I guess they've broken out of Thrace, but not sure they should have...

I'd venture that Olive Green is the Iranian/Parthian tribes.

Must say I like Carthage's set up, especially the old Phoenecian strip... but it looks like it might be the hardest faction to win with being so spread out.

I'd agree with your thought that grey is Epirus (poor Phyrrus), though it would be cool if Epirus had specialty "Illyrian" tribal levees.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (DBS @ Sep. 15 2003,11:06)]Actually, old bean, I have an honours degree in Classics and Ancient History. 25 years study of the period. A rather-better-than-meagre library of academic works on the era.

I take it that your ridiculous response was due to a misinterpretation of my comments re the Slavs - your login perhaps suggests a Slavic inclination. I was in no way implying any racist attitude towards the Slavs, merely despairing at the thought that someone might regard them as relevant to the period to be covered by RTW, namely ending in the first principate.

Given your intemperate response to both myself and Hurin_Rules, might I politely suggest a little more moderation or you will risk giving the impression that you are the one who is, shall we say, culturally challenged. The very strength of these fora are the general even-temperedness and restraint of debate.
Actually, old bean, I am far too young to be called an old bean. But not too young to know the facts and accept them for what they are.

My answer didn't adress the relevancy of the Slavs during that period. It was adressed to the factual evidence about Slavic existence during that time. So you see, you have misitnerpreted my opinion, not the other way around.

So you've studied 25 years of nothiing but Greeks and Romans. Well maybe that is the problem. May I politely suggest to you to read something from a different perspective.

Lastly, how do you know I am inclined to Slavs?

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Sep. 15 2003,11:24)]Thank you DBS. Let me add to your response to JAN.

I have a Ph. D. in Medieval History from the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto. I am currently an Assistant professor of history. I do not much like being lectured to as if I were a child from someone who cannot manage to spell 'charlatan'.

If you cannot respond in a civil fashion to an honest inquiry, please do not respond at all.

"You read article by some sharlatan posted on the web and everything else you simply ignore. You only know that little, while you are being ignorant about everything else."

I did not read anything by any 'sharlatan' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, nor did I 'ignore' everything else. I read the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia. Granted, these do not represent the most current scholarly opinion, but for general knowledge they are usually reliable. What evidence did you present to the contrary? What 'evidence' did I ignore?

I'll make a bet with you. If that is actually the Slavs, I'll buy your copy of RTW. If it is the Scythians/Sarmatians, you buy mine.

Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
You're right. It'll probably be Scythians, because I don't believe that westerners would have much understanding of the issue. Slavs will get ignored once again.

Relevance is in no question, however if you consider their sheer number and the area they've covered, you must admit it to be preety impressive and worthy (since their are is displayed on the map).

Since we are throwing our titles around, I have a Ph.D. from University of Comenius in Bratislava. And believe me, it's much tougher to study there than in here. During this time I've studied history of Rome (ind general), archaic and classical Greece, but mainly ancient and modern Slavs.

So I have mispelled sharlatan. Big deal. Most Americans don't even know what that means.

Lastly, I think you could forgive me for mispelling a thing or two.

BTW, the info you presented was off the internet and I can find dozens of sites that support my claim.

[DBS]

I am extremely reluctant to continue debating with someone so inclined to flame. But a couple of points:

1) I respect your academic qualifications, which I now know. But it was utterly wrong for you to respond to my contribution by making snide comments about MY education, of which you could have no knowledge.

2) It was equally wrong of you to accuse Hurin_Rules, on no basis whatsoever, of being a charlatan. The spelling of the word is not the point at issue, but the fact that you were prepared in the first place to use the phrase. And for why? H_R merely said - ooops, I've just checked my sources and am correcting myself. You have immediately assumed, on no basis whatsoever, that his sources are mickey mouse websites, rather than respectable academic works.

3) The Slavs. OK - I am a product of an English classical education. I have read far more on the Greeks and the Romans than I have on the Slavs. BUT... we are here discussing a game based around the Roman acquisition of Empire. Can you point to any mention of the Slavs in any of the Greek or Roman texts covering the period up to and including the 1st Century AD? I should be delighted to be corrected, but the point is that the Slavs had not yet impinged in any shape on the Mediterranean world. Does this mean that they did not exist? Of course not. But they appear to have been as relevant to Roman history in the RTW period as, say, the Indians. And there is a damn sight more said about the Indians in the ancient texts. The Slavs become profoundly relevant during the latter centuries of the Roman Empire. But those are centuries after the RTW period.

Quite seriously, I should be very interested to know what is the evidence for the Slavs being placed around the Black Sea region as early as the RTW period. As I say, I am not a Slavic expert. Maybe it is the fault of my "western" education. But certainly the received wisdom seems to be that various "Aryan" peoples - Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Rhoxolani, etc, remained the dominant factor in the northern Black Sea/southern Steppes region, as reported in the ancient authors. If "Slavs" were present, were they perhaps at this time a settled culture, oppressed by the nomadic elements of the Scythians, etc? If so, fine - but they remain politically irrelevant to the Romans for RTW.

Are you talking about archaeological evidence? I assume so, since there are, as I say, precious few literary sources to go on for this time, let alone necessarily accurate ones. This of course raises the interesting question of what we really think we mean by labels such as Celtic, Slavic, Germanic. A common culture, shared artefacts, possibly similarity in social customs, etc.

Last night I was re-reading one of Professor Cunliffe's works, probably the leading authority on Celtic issues. He makes the very valid point, which I had previously missed, that at no time did an ancient contemporary author describe the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isles as Celts. Yes, Caesar talks about the south-east England tribes as Belgae, brethren of the tribes in the Low Countries. Yes, we find a certain commonality of culture between the British Isles and Gaul. The linguistic evidence suggests a certain commonality. But we are always at risk of applying modern racial/nationalistic labels on peoples who might not have recognised any such distinction. Celtic, Slavic, etc are wonderful short-hand terms. But at the end of the day, the tribesman sitting up on a hill in south Wales waiting to ruin the day of a bunch of legionaries would probably have said "I am a man of the Silures, and proud of it", and scratched his head if asked about his Celtic heritage. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (DBS @ Sep. 16 2003,09:25)]Last night I was re-reading one of Professor Cunliffe's works, probably the leading authority on Celtic issues. He makes the very valid point, which I had previously missed, that at no time did an ancient contemporary author describe the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isles as Celts. Yes, Caesar talks about the south-east England tribes as Belgae, brethren of the tribes in the Low Countries. Yes, we find a certain commonality of culture between the British Isles and Gaul. The linguistic evidence suggests a certain commonality. But we are always at risk of applying modern racial/nationalistic labels on peoples who might not have recognised any such distinction. Celtic, Slavic, etc are wonderful short-hand terms. But at the end of the day, the tribesman sitting up on a hill in south Wales waiting to ruin the day of a bunch of legionaries would probably have said "I am a man of the Silures, and proud of it", and scratched his head if asked about his Celtic heritage. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yep and this probably was the reason why they were beaten. While modern people would say: "if they united they would have won" the average tribesman back then would say "why would we unite?" as these tribes often had long grudges among themselves.
"Divide and conquer" didn't really apply IMHO, because to divide something it has to be whole in the first place.

[ShadesWolf]

Please stop this petty arguing.

Can we return to a constructive discussion on the subject.

What I find amazing on the maps is the area around Greece, ITs hard to make out, What do we think the Black represents ?

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]What I find amazing on the maps is the area around Greece, ITs hard to make out, What do we think the Black represents?

Those three black regions in northern Greece should naturally represent Macedonia but I am unaware if Macedonia actually owned that northernmost territory during the time period depicted in RTW. The two (or is it three?) remaining territories in Greece should belong to the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues. If there is in fact a third faction on the west coast of the Peloponnese I have no idea who that might be (I think it's simply part of the Aetolian League). The Spartans were, except for a brief comeback under Agis IV, Cleomenes III and the tyrant Nabis, a non-entity during the RTW period. I suppose for game balance purposes Sparta should owned by the Achaean League except during 'emerging faction' events.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (DBS @ Sep. 16 2003,03:25)]I am extremely reluctant to continue debating with someone so inclined to flame. But a couple of points:

1) I respect your academic qualifications, which I now know. But it was utterly wrong for you to respond to my contribution by making snide comments about MY education, of which you could have no knowledge.

2) It was equally wrong of you to accuse Hurin_Rules, on no basis whatsoever, of being a charlatan. The spelling of the word is not the point at issue, but the fact that you were prepared in the first place to use the phrase. And for why? H_R merely said - ooops, I've just checked my sources and am correcting myself. You have immediately assumed, on no basis whatsoever, that his sources are mickey mouse websites, rather than respectable academic works.

3) The Slavs. OK - I am a product of an English classical education. I have read far more on the Greeks and the Romans than I have on the Slavs. BUT... we are here discussing a game based around the Roman acquisition of Empire. Can you point to any mention of the Slavs in any of the Greek or Roman texts covering the period up to and including the 1st Century AD? I should be delighted to be corrected, but the point is that the Slavs had not yet impinged in any shape on the Mediterranean world. Does this mean that they did not exist? Of course not. But they appear to have been as relevant to Roman history in the RTW period as, say, the Indians. And there is a damn sight more said about the Indians in the ancient texts. The Slavs become profoundly relevant during the latter centuries of the Roman Empire. But those are centuries after the RTW period.

Quite seriously, I should be very interested to know what is the evidence for the Slavs being placed around the Black Sea region as early as the RTW period. As I say, I am not a Slavic expert. Maybe it is the fault of my "western" education. But certainly the received wisdom seems to be that various "Aryan" peoples - Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Rhoxolani, etc, remained the dominant factor in the northern Black Sea/southern Steppes region, as reported in the ancient authors. If "Slavs" were present, were they perhaps at this time a settled culture, oppressed by the nomadic elements of the Scythians, etc? If so, fine - but they remain politically irrelevant to the Romans for RTW.

Are you talking about archaeological evidence? I assume so, since there are, as I say, precious few literary sources to go on for this time, let alone necessarily accurate ones. This of course raises the interesting question of what we really think we mean by labels such as Celtic, Slavic, Germanic. A common culture, shared artefacts, possibly similarity in social customs, etc.

Last night I was re-reading one of Professor Cunliffe's works, probably the leading authority on Celtic issues. He makes the very valid point, which I had previously missed, that at no time did an ancient contemporary author describe the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isles as Celts. Yes, Caesar talks about the south-east England tribes as Belgae, brethren of the tribes in the Low Countries. Yes, we find a certain commonality of culture between the British Isles and Gaul. The linguistic evidence suggests a certain commonality. But we are always at risk of applying modern racial/nationalistic labels on peoples who might not have recognised any such distinction. Celtic, Slavic, etc are wonderful short-hand terms. But at the end of the day, the tribesman sitting up on a hill in south Wales waiting to ruin the day of a bunch of legionaries would probably have said "I am a man of the Silures, and proud of it", and scratched his head if asked about his Celtic heritage. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
First of all, I thank you for your ackowledgement and I would like you to know that in no way intended to disrespect you ed. (I am not sure what comments you're talking about)

Secon, I didn't accuse Hurlin of being charlatan. I accuse many authors that post on the web of being a charlatan. It's just so easy to post on the web that any unqualified person can do it and mislead many people. I've seen so many outrageous lies being posted on the internet that it sickens me. Than when I argue with someone (pressumably about historical facts), that person is gonna go web-hunting and eventually run into these lies.
That's how many people don't even have clue about what they're talking about, as long as some idiot says it on the web.

Thirdly, yes I know of one text from one Greek writer. You should know him. He goes by a name of Herodotus. Supposedly, a father of history. He mentions Slavs to be lean, tall, not quite fair or dark, wearing baggy pants. He goes on like that, even mentioning some bias info. (but you know how Greeks of that era were, thinking of everybody not Greek as barbarian). I regard Thucydides to be the first real historian (he was much more factual and exact, where as Herodotus exagerated, once wrote that more than a million Persians invaded Greece, and reffered to gods a lot). There was actually indirect trade between Rom. and Slavs, so they knew of one anothers existence (there's no question about that).

There are plentiful remains of Slavic artifacts ranging from Crpaths into Baltic and Black Sea. When Romans took control Scythians were already too weak (they were a major power around the time of Persian Empire 6th Cen. BCE). Slavs were mixing into those nomads and became the dominant culture. During their time, agriculture flourisched, since they were inovative and successful farmers.

DBS, I bid you good bye

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

[Hurin_Rules]

Janos,
I'll end my side of the argument by saying that I do agree that the Slavs unfortunately seldom get their due respect in English sources, and I'll leave it at that.

Black does seem to be the Macedonians.

[Mr Frost]

DBS , your "god help us if it's the Slavs" comment got the reaction it deserved . There was nothing "rediculous" about his reaction , especially when one considers that english is not the primary language of all members

The comment was poorly thought out and the suggestion it was his entirly his fault he misinterpreted it decidedly churlish .
That he snapped at you for it was your own careless fault . That you then wrongfully dismissed his reaction AND your own fault in it shows poorly on your character or civility or both .

Were I to say "god help us if's the Jews or Negros" I wouldn't be at all supprised if someone thought I was racist . Why should it be any different being Slavs {especially given they lost more people in the Holocaust than did the Jews } . Just because he is jumpy on the issue is no excuse .

The mature thing would have been to appologise {which you did not , you merely presented the seeming of one then declined to actually give it in truth } , and contain you defense of your education and character to civil fashion . Instead you blamed him and reacted with NO MORE maturity than he , perhaps less

For a man who claims to have such a weighty education , and poses as some "paragon of culture" {the phrase "old bean" is a bit much "old boy"} you should have known better and shown more class

You indeed seemed to be intentionally provoke him once you noticed him bite . Come down from your "high horse" ; it is not at all impressive for an older man to provoke a younger man to angry reaction , especially when stating from a beging of race

Or if you prefer plainer words : you were a PUTZ



__


JANOSIK007 : You do tend to react strongly in relation to things mentioned about Slavs .

In THIS case it was understandable give the origonal comment , but very often you snap to angry reaction and your anger clouds your judgement .

You should instead post a quote that bothers you then give the reason why {what it says to you ... words only point to concepts and ideas , they are not the concepts or ideas themselves and thus can mean different things to different people within reason} and ask then to justify their comment {it may very well be completely innocent} , or appologise if they cannot .

It is good to be ever ready to defend you and yours , but don't let your anger control you .

Not everyone is going to be against you , but those who are {real racist whom I havn't actually ever seen on these forums thankfully ... just the rare schmuck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif} count on people like you reacting so easily to possible threat that you might drive away those who would be your freind .
It is the concept of divide and conquer .

Make yourself stop next time , and examine first in both thought and questions .

Edit for chopped sentance .

[Hurin_Rules]

On the plus side, it seems I was right all along. Scythia is playable and I'll bet that's who they are. No Slavs though, unfortunately.