Log in

View Full Version : Countdown to Open Beta - Casse



The Wizard
06-25-2005, 20:34
Greetings Europa Barbarorum fans!

Prepare to meet the second faction preview of the week! EB does not take responsibility for frothing mouths, heart failures or spilled beverages over your computers.

This week internally, EB has begun to iron out the many little and big bugs found by our hard-working beta testers in the closed beta release. Besides that, some of our skinners and modelers that have been away or busy taking exams have returned, and because of that some of the units you will see here are fresh like baby breath.

Shout outs go out to Prometheus, Psycho V, WEIRDSHADY, Spartan_Warrior, Kali and Aymar du Bois Mauri for skinning and modeling the units. A big shout out goes out to Teleklos Archelaou for taking and uploading the extreme-zoom screenshots, and making the faction banner and sigs, something that he’s been doing for us for quite some time now. Finally, props and kudos to Ranika and his team for their hard work and care that went into the realization of the Casse faction and its warriors.

Still, EB is a team effort and this preview is a product of all our efforts.

This week, the EB team is proud to present:


http://img244.echo.cx/img244/8979/logobritons1medium7qu.jpg


http://img149.exs.cx/img149/388/britons6aw.jpghttp://img244.echo.cx/img244/6262/minimapcasse2gk.jpg

At the end of the world, there is a great people. Far removed from the wars of the Mediterranean sea, the steppes, and far off deserts, they wage their own war. Your people are among the most fearsome in all of the known world, and you know this. They came to these islands and crushed, displaced, or flatly annihilated the old people; broke them utterly. They are poets, and traders, and miners, but most of all, they are warriors. The people of the islands cry to you. They want a leader. They want some one to direct them, to lead them to great things. They want you, and who are you to deny them? This land is your right, it is the right of anyone strong enough to take it. Would you let the petty lesser tribes put you down before your chance for greatness?

The British tribes have always fought as skirmishers and ambushers, with only the rare field engagement. While this is fine for petty tribal conflicts, a potential emperor of the Britons cannot focus on this forever. He must be decisive and swift, and build a real army, not an amalgam of petty warbands. But you are the ruler of the Casse, and they have long been the most militaristic fore-thinking of the Britons. They are descended from Gauls, and employers of Gallic tactics; with planning, Britain will easily be attained, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Britain is rich; rich with tin, and silver, and copper, and livestock of all kind. A large, well funded army is quite possible, with all of the island under your yoke. The southern tribes provide the strongest, heaviest soldiers. They are the best trained, the best equipped, and the best disciplined tribes. The midlanders are more wild, lightly armored at best, but available in great number, and are relatively inexpensive, making them a good asset for overcoming an enemy by number. In the far north lay the remaining peoples. Caledonians are without remote concept of civilization. Abhorrent even to the other Britons, they are maniacs in many ways, and completely disorganized. However, they are brave. If nothing else, Caledonians are an effective shock force, and fairly disturbing to an enemy. You must rely on infantry and foot soldiers. Your cavalry is scarce and weak, and chariots are expensive. You must organize units of champions, brave warriors, who will encourage your other men to continue to fight. Britons are brave, but sometimes practicality of a situation overcomes them. Seeing great warriors of their people continue to fight will spur them on though, but champions expect compensation.

To become high king and forge a real empire, uniting Britain will be the foremost part of your early reign. The Britons are pleased to serve a powerful king, so you must show military strength. However, they also expect acumen in business matters; Britain has always been made rich by trade with distant foreign powers, and they have come to enjoy their lifestyle. You are not ready for wars with any major powers. Not yet, anyway. It may be humbling, but you are, after all, only a very small kingdom. Conquest of all of the British Isles will provide you with an easily defended enclave, which will produce great amounts of money, with proper trade agreements, and a large population from which to pool a great army of conquest. Invading mainland Europe will not be easy, but if one takes advantage of the constant wars there; attacking weakened enemies in Gaul or Germania, you can secure an easily reinforced stronghold on the mainland, and expand from there. However, this assumes everything goes to plan, and no one turns a covetous eye on your wealth. Germans are strong, brave, and numerous, and Gauls have great soldiers and relentless leaders. Further off are the ambitious Romans, Carthaginians, and the hearty Hellenic peoples, who already know the value of the island from centuries of trade. The task is daunting, to say the least, but you are not a leader of common men. You are king of the most fierce warriors, wisest clerics, and greatest champions on the whole of the planet. You are the rightful king of all of Britain, and your people deserve an empire. Their lives have been endless strife and toil at war. They deserve an empire to reflect the greatness of their achievements. As your glorious ancestors drove the wretched men who once inhabited the island from it, as they had destroyed them, so must you destroy your enemies. You must be vicious, you must be relentless, and utterly break every enemy to your will. Your people deserve peace, and peace will only be had when your enemies submit to your rule. Again, king of the Casse, I ask you, who are you to deny them?

History:

The Casse came to Britain in an unknown year, but likely in the third or fourth wave of Celtic migrants from Gaul. They established themselves as a military and trade power swiftly. They traded with Gaul, the Greeks, and likely many others. They were very similar to Gauls in many respects, like most southern Britons, and had some influences from the Belgae as well. Archaeological evidence, and transcribed oral histories, copied in later periods by Christian monks, point to stories of a failed attempt at unifying the whole island under their rule. A plague racked the Casse and their subject tribes, among them, the Atrebates, Icenes, Trinovantes, and others. The plague was seen as a bad omen, as the king and several sub-kings had died from it, so the attempt fell apart. Caesar recongized them as the Catuvellanians, and called their king Catuvellanius, likely taken from an actual Gallic title; 'Catuvallanorix', or 'King of the Islanders'. At any given time, their power waxed and waned in varying levels of severity, but they remained some of the best organized, strongest, and most wealthy of all Britons. Their control of tin trade, large silver reserves, and substantial wheat harvests ensured them a place as the most powerful in Britain.

Culturally, the Casse were very similar to the Gauls and Belgae, with distinct Briton influences. They had advanced coinage, large mines (significantly larger than Gauls or Belgae, for that matter), quality metallurgy, and an involved political and legal system. The average person's life was spent pursuing a trade, going to a school, becoming a soldier, or going into politics, not unlike a later society. Day to day life for Britons would be a bit more stressful than it was for their Gallic counterparts; the threat of enemy tribes raiding or invading was constant. However, that doesn't mean every moment was purely war. A favored pastime was sports, including a game we now call 'hurling'; so popular was this game in all of the British Isles, that it's mentioned in numerous legends. The Irish hero Sentata, better known as Cu Chullain, was noted for his great skill in hurling. They also told lengthy stories, sang, played music, and created poetry, about such heroes, wars, and gods. They engaged in large public feasts, keeping the local chiefs and chieftans as somewhat accessible characters, to whom the people felt an honest relation. This practice encouraged a tribe to feel exemplify their relations; the extensive Celtic clan model encouraged loyalty, so long as the people felt they were truly related. They were also good farmers, and had a strain of wheat grain that was exceptionally healthy, pointing to an advanced understanding of farming methods. They also ate a great deal of meat, especially compared to later civilizations in the region, which likely accounted for their great size; they were even taller than Gauls. Swords were not as common among the Britons; iron was expensive, and often imported from Gaul or the Goidils in modern Ireland. Iron was favored, instead, for spear and javelin heads. Swords in the south were often imports from Gaul, and swords in the midlands were made to be shorter than other Celtic swords, to preserve iron. Everyone in a tribe was considered family, even slaves, who eventually worked their way into the upper tribal community. Their economic model was a type of anarcho-capitalistic lifestyle, with religion encouraging charity, but never enforcing it. Taxes were taken mostly to provide their leader with a home, improve settlement defenses, and pay their warriors and champions. Soldiers were paid based upon experience, and it was not uncommon for a particular warrior to recieve a large gift for performing a heroic action, such as a pile of silver, or a new weapon or a shirt of mail. In war, champions were a rallying point. They would be banded together as an elite group, whom which the other soldiers would unite with, and follow them into battle; this was an important aspect of British-Celtic war. While the Gauls were similar in some respects, the Britons relied heavily upon champions to inspire them in battle.

As in any Celtic kingdom, their leader is elected, not hereditary. The tribes elect a chief, chiefs in an area elect a chieftan, chieftans elect kings over a larger area, and the kings elect the high king. That is, in a stable kingdom. The Gauls and Goidils successfully managed larger kingdoms in this format for many years, but the Belgae and Britons struggled to attain a remote semblance of order over anything but the smallest of areas. Part of it would have to be enforced through pure military might, to ensure every tribe and region plays along, even when their king is not elected as the high king. In terms of law, the kings had little power; law lay in the hands of judges, elected as well by the people. The higher one's station in society, the harsher the fines and punishment under the law levied against them. Law was central to Celtic religion, and elected officials were meant to be exemplars of the law. A king was a military and business leader, and expected to be intelligent, versed in several languages, and capable of fighting in combat, and intent on leading his men personally when the chance was logically available. The Casse had a king, who ruled over the Casse and their surrounding subservient tribes, such as the Belgic Atrebates, directly. His position was mainly as the organizer of the military, and had a great deal of control in this respect. He also had control of diplomacy, and was the final word in making or breaking alliances. His electors were a kind of 'senate', composed of all the chiefs and chieftans under his rule; after his election, they would also act as advisors. Chieftans and lesser kings acted as generals and lieutenants, and chiefs were captains of local militias. As such, all of them, from the lowest chieftan, to the high king, were elected based on a multitude of issues, but the foremost was their ability to command and lead soldiers. The elected judges formed a seperate 'senate', through which they passed and modified law. This was a slow process; this model was still in use in post-Christian Celtic countries, such as the Irish and Welsh kingdoms, and it's notable that almost no laws changed over hundreds of years. A change to a law would be proposed, and the judge would take this proposal to his tribe. The tribe would vote for or against it, by majority rule, and the judge would return to the conclave, and give the tribe's results. A majority of votes on part of the judges' tribes was required to pass or veto the proposal.

The religion of the Casse, and other Britons, involved dozens of minor local gods, demigods, hero worship, and major deities that would be worshipped over huge regions. Most of their deities tend to be war, health, or legal gods, and their heroes tend to vary between warriors or great poets and storytellers. Among their most important deities are Camulos, a Belgic god of destruction, and Andraste, a British goddess of war. Both require sacrifices, and encourage a large amount of xenophobia toward outsiders; though Britons were remarked as cordial and even warm to outsiders; as well as absolute obedience to the law. Their religion also includes certain ritual aspects, such as painting the body, believing it provided some amount of special, magic protections. They also collect the heads of dead enemies, not just as trophies or signs of bravery, but because the belief that the soul resided in the head. To control a man's head, they believed, meant that his soul had to be your slave, in both this life and the next. The 'druidae', druids, actually didn't come to Britain until around 70 BC, though they'd been in Gaul much longer. However, an essentially identical class, which we casually call druids, was present before hand, and their influence was quite strong. If a higher official was arrested, such as the king, this conclave would also try him, collectively, rather than having a single judge oversee him, since he represents all of the tribes. Likewise, a chieftan would be tried by those judges of the tribes he represents, if he was accused of breaking the law. These systems meant to give each tribe a voice in the events of their kingdom, and the matters of running it.

The Britons were conquered, allied, or otherwise subverted to the Roman powers. During the Roman conquests, Britons fought both as defenders, and alongside the invaders. The Romans withdrew due to constant pressure from both Picti from Caledonia and Goidils (called Scotti) from Ireland. The destruction of silver mines, tin complexes, and encroaching Goidilic slaver colonies and piracy operations made Britain far too unprofitable, especially considering the problems in the other parts of the empire. The Britons continued to exist for a very long time in varied sub-cultures, such as the Cymriae and Cerniuae (Welsh and Corns), the Strathclyders, the Regyddites (who were also partially Gaelic), and the Cumbrians (also had a large Gaelic population). Even today, the Welsh remain a distinct people and are culturally descended from the Britons, though diluted heavily by the Anglo-Saxon and Norman influences from England, and Gaelic influence from Irish colonies established during the dark ages. The Britons never experienced the total Romanization that Gaul did, and their culture was quite resilient and long-standing because of it.

Take a look at the Casse warriors in action:

http://img173.echo.cx/img173/9745/action18vw.th.jpg (http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=action18vw.jpg)

http://img173.echo.cx/img173/6725/action41rl.th.jpg (http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=action41rl.jpg)

http://img173.echo.cx/img173/3963/action51br.th.jpg (http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=action51br.jpg)

http://img173.echo.cx/img173/512/action60ml.th.jpg (http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=action60ml.jpg)

Now, some of the warriors that will give their lives for the Casse cause:

http://img72.echo.cx/img72/4573/sotaroasscreen11xi.th.jpg (http://img72.echo.cx/my.php?image=sotaroasscreen11xi.jpg)

Celtic archers, Sotaroas (Sow-tah-rows, Bow Soldiers), while not great or exceptional, are good. They are well trained, disciplined, and can put a fair deal of range behind their attacks. While their arrows aren't too notable, their ability to swiftly pepper an enemy with arrows is always of use. They are not really meant to defeat an enemy force, or even truly damage one, so much as they are meant to irritate and draw attention away from a main force, so it can position itself for flanking. As such, they are good runners, who fire a few volleys as a distraction, and then withdraw to a safe position to hide. If caught in a melee, they would be slaughtered for sure.

Historically, archers in Celtic culture had little variety, with only a few truly notable types of archers. They were irritative forces, and intended to soften large enemy forces, but rarely meant to be truly effective in the manner of eastern archers. However, if positioned properly, or experienced enough, they could be truly devestating. Their skill was good, they could fire many volleys swiftly. The Celtic concept of archery was more often to simply blacken the sky with arrows, than it was to fire few, effective volleys. However, their arrows were well made, though not great, and would be capable of puncturing lighter armors, and were quite deadly in their own right. All the same, these men were better off as hunters than field warriors.

http://img188.echo.cx/img188/9571/malagaeroasscreen14ew.th.jpg (http://img188.echo.cx/my.php?image=malagaeroasscreen14ew.jpg)

Mala Gaeroas (Mah-lah Guy-rows; Southern Spear Soldiers) are the file warriors of the southern tribes of Gaul and Britain. The Gaeroas all utilize well-made long spears, and a few decent javelins, making them both fair melee warriors and impromptu skirmishers. Their versatility, and low relative expense, mean they are a fine warrior band for enterprising warlords looking to expand their lands. They have some experience with combat, but are not yet hardened to battle. However, they are trained well enough to march in a good formation, something actually lost on greater warriors for the Britons. Their longspears may seem a bit unwieldy, but this is likely to help them in combating cavalry and chariot horses as a unit. While unarmored, they have large rectangular shields, which provides them a good amount of protection. They are fairly well trained with these shields, and they provide a fair amount of protection from ranged attacks, but the lack of armor makes them quite vulnerable to flanking.

Historically, spearmen in Britain and Gaul would have been the young to middle-age warriors, who had not risen greatly in prestige, or who had chosen to continue to fight as a lower warrior. They would use well-made, but not truly exceptional spears, and javelins for skirmishing. This allowed their most basic warriors to perform two duties, and allocate other soldiers to more specialized positions. Their equipment would be self maintained, and they would be expected to keep their weapons and shield in good condition. They likely paid for their own equipment, but spears and javelins are relatively cheap, the most expensive part of their equipment was likely the shield. These warriors represent the most basic professional warriors of almost all of the southern tribes. They would be highly viable for warchiefs who couldn't afford to bring in many swords or other weapons for his tribe.

http://img188.echo.cx/img188/8610/belgaebatacoriiscreen10ul.th.jpg (http://img188.echo.cx/my.php?image=belgaebatacoriiscreen10ul.jpg)

The Belgae are terrifying warriors. Even their younger men are well trained, disciplined, and willing to fight. Braver than most warriors equal their societal status, the Batacorii (Bah-tah-kur-ee-eye; Fighting Troop) are good spearmen, and fine light infantry, well worth their cost. Even experienced warriors fall into the Batacorii, basic warriors of the Belgae, but fully honorable. Those warriors too poor to enter the ranks of the swordsmen of the Belgae armies, the Batacorii is a fine position to fall into.

Historically, the Belgae were a number of extremely fierce tribes that were highly indepedent. However, they were fairly well trained, their violent behavior toward most outsiders forced them to learn tactics and the finer points of warfare to defend themselves from their many, many enemies. The lower warriors would fight bare chested almost always, even in winter, though they actually wore cloaks to the point of the battle, then would toss them aside to fight. Belgae spearmen were lower warriors, but very important to the Belgae's warring. They were quasi-professionals who formed the bulk of the Belgae's forces.

http://img188.echo.cx/img188/8356/botroasscreen12vt.th.jpg (http://img188.echo.cx/my.php?image=botroasscreen12vt.jpg)

The Botroas (Boat-rows, Sword Soldiers) are the basic medium infantry of the southern tribes of Gaul, but also of the south of Britain. They are well trained, with a fair amount of experience, and good quality swords, with javelins to soften an enemy before a charge. Like near all Celtic warriors, they are loyal to a tribal head, who is himself loyal to numerous mounting tiers of nobles, leading to the king. These form the core of the southern armies. Like most Celtic shock infantry, the brunt of their attack is in the charge.

Historically, the Botroas were the younger professional warriors of southern Gallic and Briton tribes. The similarity between the two was very close; somewhat odd, as the northern Gallic tribes equivalent was dressed and armored so differently. In Gaul, these men would be Aquitanii, Boii, and similar tribes. In Britain, they were the Casii, Dumnonii, and other southern tribesmen. Their lack of armor would leave them vulnerable, but they had great mobility, and their youthfulness included a desire to prove themselves to their people, making them somewhat lacking in fear, or, perhaps, simply more afraid of disgrace than they are of death.

http://img188.echo.cx/img188/3374/belgaemilnahtscreen16zo.th.jpg (http://img188.echo.cx/my.php?image=belgaemilnahtscreen16zo.jpg)

The Belgae Milnaht (Mel-not; Great Men) are a very fierce group of warriors. With lands in the north of Gaul, south of Britain, and middle of Hibernia, the Belgae have spread themselves over a fairly wide area. They are a fair mix of Britons and Gauls, with portions of the more civilized Gallic culture mixed into the more tribal and fierce culture of the Britons. They still wear bronze helmets and sometimes employ bronze weapons as back ups. However, they use a great deal of iron in swords, spear, javelin and arrow heads, and chain shirts worn by their nobles. The professional warriors of the Belgae are bare chested warriors with a long, bronze rimmed shield, and bronze helmet, and sometimes painted with the elaborate designs popular to the Britons. Their ferocity and skill with their swords and shields make them capable of standing against slightly heavier warriors. They are also capable of sapping, and have a penchant for undermining walls, making them valuable to any army of Britons marching into Europe, where they are bound to encounter stone fortifications. If the Gauls or a tribe of Britons ever managed to incorporate Belgae regions into their lands, they would undoubtedly try and use them in battle.

Historically, the Belgae were a number of extremely fierce tribes that were highly indepedent. However, they were fairly well trained, their violent behavior toward most outsiders forced them to learn tactics and the finer points of warfare to defend themselves from their many, many enemies. The lower warriors would fight bare chested almost always, even in winter, though they actually wore cloaks to the point of the battle, then would toss them aside to fight. Among the Belgic tribes were the Nervii, easily among the most fierce of all the Celtic peoples, and many of the first Celtic invaders into Ireland. The Belgae fought using three main manners, their fierce forward charge, their skilled and methodic ambushes, and their hit-and-run skirmish tactics. They were also skilled sappers and tacticians, but above all remembered is the charge. The Belgae could break near any enemy with a fierce charge, and if they could not, their good skill with their weapons and shields allowed them the power to stand and fight.

http://img72.echo.cx/img72/8370/clohmcoriiscreen14bd.th.jpg (http://img72.echo.cx/my.php?image=clohmcoriiscreen14bd.jpg)

Clohmcorii (Klum-kur-ee-eye, Swordsmen) are Celtic shortswordsmen. The shortsword is a common weapon, essentially a very long knife or dagger, and used by hunters, and carried by many as a form of self defense. Warriors using shortswords are not generally very well trained, if at all. However, they are readily available, cheap, and have a good charge. They lack javelins or other ranged weapons and are extremely vulnerable at range.

Historically, the Celts generally favored spears and shortswords. These warriors, with shortswords, were not necessarily that high up in society; the swords were of debatable quality. Many may not even have fought in battle before, just being hunters or young boys called in to fight, or have chosen to go and fight. Light swordsmen in Celtic society were fairly common, and necessary, often, as a bridge between light and medium infantry, when medium infantry was unavailable. They were increasingly more common during the Roman conquests, as the professional armies with longswordsmen had either been bought by the Romans, or turned on one another, leaving the only defense to these young warriors.

http://img188.echo.cx/img188/4286/rycalawrescreen10vk.th.jpg (http://img188.echo.cx/my.php?image=rycalawrescreen10vk.jpg)

The British tribes best warriors are not so much trained, as they are proven. Young men are trained to fight, but the older warriors grow through real experience in battle. The Rycalawre (Rie-call-a-oo-re; Great Champions) are near fearless, and even more hungry for glory than younger men. They have already felt the rewards of victory, and have many heads to their credit. Their original training has been augmented by years of warfare, often leaving their bodies heavily scarred. The Rycalawre are wealthy, powerful men, but they were not necessarily born as such. When a young warrior begins to attract prestige to himself, often by having a mound of heads to his name, he also begins attracting favors and gifts from his chief. These favors, like armor, weapons, jewelry, and slaves, allow him to be outfitted in superior equipment to lesser men, as well as having beautiful ornate equipment, such as elaborate bronze 'horned' helmets, giving them a near mythic appearance on the field. Any who survived a battle with Rycalawre present, would surely never forget them.

Historically, Rycalawre would have been individual warriors from tribes that grew to prominence through having numerous victories and kills to their credit. While individually desiring glory, the Rycalawre would organize into groups, possibly to appear more fearsome (since a group of horned warriors is more frightening than an isolated one). Their elaborate, ornate clothing, weapons, and armor would help encouraged the other men, and surely appeared fearsome to their enemies. Their presence would also encourage their fellows, as they were built up in stories about them as being nearly indestructible, and their own fearlessness would serve as a good example. They would be armed with quality swords, spears, axes, and other weapons, likely given to them as gifts for their service to the tribe. Likewise, their armor was gifted to them, rather than bought. This would make outfitting a champion very expensive, but once they have their armor and weapons, they would be otherwise ready to fight.

http://img72.echo.cx/img72/6501/calawrescreen18ia.th.jpg (http://img72.echo.cx/my.php?image=calawrescreen18ia.jpg)

Celts are a collection of hero cultures, and the Britons are no different. Among their southern tribes especially, there are warriors of exceedingly great skill, who use Gallic equipment. The Calawre (Call-a-oo-re; Champions) are not actually generally real champions, but they wealthy, and skilled. They have good armor and good Gallic swords. They are called champions more because of their appearance than anything; they actually mostly simply fill in the need for more affordable, all-purpose heavy infantry among the Britons. They are skilled, and professional, but their expense generally would keep their numbers low.

Historically, the Britons had little in the way of 'real' heavy infantry. Most often they relied on wealthy champions to fill that need. However, sometimes they did employ bands of wealthier warriors, who were not necessarily the greatest skilled, but they would be easier to amasse in one place than a group of real champions, and, while they wouldn't be AS skilled, they certainly had to have a talent for combat to survive as long as they had to afford their equipment, which was likely imported. However, the Britons also were fond of using leather and bronze scale, which was made locally. These shirts would be lined under with padding, so they could be worn comfortably. Such armor grew far more popular in wake of Roman invasion, due to armor worn by some auxilia being of similar design.

Some monuments to remind you that not all is blood and gore:

http://img72.echo.cx/img72/7771/stonehengescreen20mc.th.jpg (http://img72.echo.cx/my.php?image=stonehengescreen20mc.jpg) http://img72.echo.cx/img72/1163/tarascreen35lm.th.jpg (http://img72.echo.cx/my.php?image=tarascreen35lm.jpg)

Finally, nice sig proving your allegiance for y’all:

http://img244.echo.cx/img244/4397/logobritons1small0eu.jpg

We heartily invite our fans to use these sigs. They’re here for you, and we delight to see them be used by our great fans!

We hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s update!

Please note that unless stated otherwise, ALL pictures shown in our previews are of works in progress. We continue to improve on all parts of EB, and we will continue to do so long after our initial release.

Since some areas where these news items are posted cannot handle wide images, we appreciate your restraint from quoting full-size images.

As always, if you have questions or comments, the best place to post them is here, where the EB team is most active:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70)

Or here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31 (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31)

Or here:

http://207.234.213.122/forum/viewforum.php?f=13 (http://207.234.213.122/forum/viewforum.php?f=13)

We give special thanks to http://www.imageshack.us (http://www.imageshack.us/) that provides us with a simple, foolproof, and free way to show you all these pictures each week.

Have a great day!

Sincerely,

The Europa Barbarorum team

Viking
06-25-2005, 20:37
Nice. Hopefully we`ll see Armenia next week, or has it already been taken?

-edit-
What exactly did you censor on that "Cairncalladryrdan" buliding? ~:rolleyes:

TheTank
06-25-2005, 20:44
Wow this a very nice update!!!
Faster than expected ~:)

Kääpäkorven Konsuli
06-25-2005, 20:47
Looking great. Btw it looks like germanics are losing in every celts vs germanics screenshot. Or am I just thinking?

The Wizard
06-25-2005, 20:50
Wait until you see what happens when the Sweboz invade what is now Finland ~;)



~Wiz

Spendios
06-25-2005, 20:53
Very nice preview with very beautiful units ! The Rycalawre are really marvellous !

Region
06-25-2005, 20:53
Why must you always cover something? :p

The Wizard
06-25-2005, 20:54
Why, to torture you, of course, my good friend.

*hides black latex*



~Wiz

Quietus
06-25-2005, 20:55
That was fast.

He-he. The units are getting more and more fabulous. Mala Gaeroas with the Statue of Liberty hairdo, barcoded warpaints and chess pants.

And the Rycalawre looks cool too with the funny hats! ~D :charge:

Alexander the Pretty Good
06-25-2005, 21:02
http://img262.echo.cx/img262/4290/what5mc.th.jpg (http://img262.echo.cx/my.php?image=what5mc.jpg)

Someone has some explaining to do. :book:

TheTank
06-25-2005, 21:08
Great update but I have noticed that there are no chariots in this preview?!
Are they not done yet?
I really like to see them

Ranika
06-25-2005, 21:14
I'm afraid they aren't ready at all. I did want them ready for the preview, but I'm afraid we just could in time. Hopefully they'll be ready soon, and maybe they'll show up in another preview sometime (as you can see some Germans in this preview, of course, so Britons may show up in another preview in the 'enemy' role).

Viking
06-25-2005, 21:14
http://img262.echo.cx/img262/4290/what5mc.th.jpg (http://img262.echo.cx/my.php?image=what5mc.jpg)

Someone has some explaining to do. :book:

Nice catch. Looks like the giant fish of Britain with a Samurai on his back ~:confused:

Kääpäkorven Konsuli
06-25-2005, 21:30
Wait until you see what happens when the Sweboz invade what is now Finland ~;)
~Wiz

So the only province Sweboz can take is what is now called Finland? ~:confused: (The finns couldn't be great warrior, they lost for the sweds!)



Someone has some explaining to do.


It looks like one of those robots, who can transform to car. What they those called again?

TheTank
06-25-2005, 21:33
[QUOTE= It looks like one of those robots, who can transform to car. What they those called again?[/QUOTE]

Transformers ~;)

Alexander the Pretty Good
06-25-2005, 21:34
I believe you refer to the "Transformers" line of toys. ~:)

Crap, Tank beat me to it. :furious3:

Kääpäkorven Konsuli
06-25-2005, 21:35
Transformers ~;)

:wall:

GoreBag
06-25-2005, 21:39
Everything looks great...except the Rycalwre skin. It's not bad, it just seems...out of place, somehow. I don't know, I can't really articulate my sentiment properly.

The new Casse boat looks really good, too. I think I'll play this faction first when I get EB.

Ranika
06-25-2005, 21:40
Remember, everything is a work in progress. We're always touching up and changing things a bit, to get them to work better and improve the over all look.

TheTank
06-25-2005, 21:49
Everything looks great...except the Rycalwre skin. It's not bad, it just seems...out of place, somehow. I don't know, I can't really articulate my sentiment properly.

I agree, don't like the colours of this unit but the model is very well made as usual.
The rest of the units are superb and my personal favorite is the Calawre unit.

Question:
The Rycalwre are fighting in a phallax formation is this historical or EB did this to allow the unit to change to swords?!

The Wizard
06-25-2005, 21:52
TheTank: Take a look at the third action shot. :]



~Wiz

Ranika
06-25-2005, 21:54
They would've fought in something like a shieldwall, but we can't really imitate that well, and the second reason is, yes, so they could switch to swords.

Teleklos Archelaou
06-25-2005, 21:59
FAQ from another forum:
Q: Is the minimap that is shown meant to be covered up?
A: No, the minimap itself is fine to reveal as long as it has fog of war turned on. It is only a problem when showing a rebel-held building, since then all the rebel province borders would be shown and then you'd see exactly what we've got up our collective sleeves. That's why we cover up the new minimaps of buildings that start off in rebel-held provinces. ;-)

Checkers
06-25-2005, 21:59
I just started following it recently, and this mod looks fabulous.
Some of the pics here show units wearing.........plaid and checkerboard pants. Is there good history backing this up?

Ranika
06-25-2005, 22:03
Yes, both textual descriptions and physical remains (though scant, Celtic regions have a dreadful tendency to be very wet) reveal clothing was usually in a plaid, striped, or checkerboard-style of design, often with many colors (Celts were, for as long as they're spoken of, extremely colorful people who used pretty much similar pools of designs regardless of their particular culture or region, though non-Celts often used similar designs)

The Wizard
06-25-2005, 22:11
Indeed, but the Celts certainly used checkered and plaid patterns a lot more than the Germanic peoples.



~Wiz

Ranika
06-25-2005, 22:13
Oh yes, quite, I'm just pointing out that checks and plaid wasn't just a Celtic thing, though Celts did use it far more widely, and it was used by Celtic societies for hundreds of years after our period (and even into the modern period if one counts designs on the Scottish kilt, and the few proper Gaelic-Irish cloaks and shoulder cloaks still in use).

GoreBag
06-25-2005, 22:46
I'm confused about the "switch to swords" thing. What is meant by this?

The Wizard
06-25-2005, 22:50
Primary to secondary weapon issue. In this case the spears would be the primary weapon and the sword the secondary.

Hope this helps,



~Wiz

GoreBag
06-25-2005, 23:01
Ah...so a unit can't have two close-combat weapons unless it has the phalanx ability? Not even if you take the time to hold the alt key?

Proper Gander
06-25-2005, 23:18
i think i'll play them next, could start a campaign right now. :idea2: yes, sounds good.

:tongue2:

jerby
06-25-2005, 23:18
Transformers ~;)
somehow, it figures you knew this ~;)

Birka Viking
06-25-2005, 23:26
Wow...Great work as usual EB... These Casse looks realy beautiful.. ~:cheers:

Dux Corvanus
06-25-2005, 23:47
Oh yes, quite, I'm just pointing out that checks and plaid wasn't just a Celtic thing, though Celts did use it far more widely, and it was used by Celtic societies for hundreds of years after our period (and even into the modern period if one counts designs on the Scottish kilt, and the few proper Gaelic-Irish cloaks and shoulder cloaks still in use).

Curious enough that these very same designs have been also found on the mystery caucasian mummies from the Takla-Makan desert, in the heart of China. Those mummies -maybe Tocharian-related- may prove an early Far East-bound Celtic migration -a fact that the Chinese authorities try hard to conceal for nationalistic reasons. ~;)

Greek_fire19
06-26-2005, 00:18
Just a teensy weensy thing, but 'The holy Hill of Tara' wasn't at Emain Macha. It was at Tara. The fort of Emain Macha was at Emain Macha.

I have to assume that you are entirely aware of that in EB, so i'm guessing you have your reasons, but I'd like them to be clarified.

Anyhow, excellent preview, but I agree with one of the previous posters that the texture of the rycalwyre (sp?) is a bit...I dunno, bright and blotchy and cartoony. WIP I know, im just trying to be constructive ~;)

But yes, apart from that one of the most impressive previews so far, I look forward to the finished mod with ever increasing anticipation :)

Teleklos Archelaou
06-26-2005, 00:35
I don't know exactly what the reason is, but we do have to abstract it a little - Olympia is not in Korinth, but for our purposes it has to be to be in the game since it's in Korinth's province. If Emain Macha is the biggest city and capital for that province, and the unique is in that territory - then it's "in" that city.

Krusader
06-26-2005, 00:52
Good as always.
*Goes searching for a dice to see if its Casse or Sweboz, that is to be played when EB comes*

GoreBag
06-26-2005, 00:53
i think i'll play them next, could start a campaign right now. :idea2: yes, sounds good.

:tongue2:

:smartass:

antiochus epiphanes
06-26-2005, 02:38
nice, buti still think baktria was your best preview so far.
eta? anyone?

Geoffrey S
06-26-2005, 04:00
As always I'm looking forward to trying out this new faction on the various equally excellent looking neighbours. Nice work!

Ranika
06-26-2005, 05:30
Curious enough that these very same designs have been also found on the mystery caucasian mummies from the Takla-Makan desert, in the heart of China. Those mummies -maybe Tocharian-related- may prove an early Far East-bound Celtic migration -a fact that the Chinese authorities try hard to conceal for nationalistic reasons. ~;)

That would fit with numerous things we've found in recent years. I was told by a colleague who works mostly around China (has trouble working IN China, but sometimes gets the chance to) that he had been to a dig where they found twenty men buried in sacks, with anthromorphic-hilted swords, large oval shields (which had decayed badly, but were intact enough to identify), and large hooded cloaks, with bright blonde hair, and numerous heads (not preserved) in the sacks with them, along with other little trinkets like coins and pieces of flatware and such. We'd talked before at length about different cultures, and he came to the conclusion (though he only had a chance to briefly be a part of any examination) that they were probably Celts, because it resembled Celtic sack burials. That was in China though, and they were not apparently not friendly to the findings, and had the whole site closed down and kicked a few people out of the country. It's a very disturbing state of affairs, and a very sadly underexplored part of things, because, for my field, we know Celts went into the east, we have a vague idea when, but no idea what happened to them when they got where they were going, or if they ever did get where they were going. We find the occassional Celtic graves in the north of India, parts of east Russia, and places in between. It's surmised they may have affected even as far as Korea because a great deal of things in Korean art and myth do resemble things in Celtic art (such as 'lion-dogs', which show up in some eastern European Celtic metalwork).


Greekfire, yeah, we know, Teleklos explained. I'll explain the 'city' choice. Emain Macha had a large population center around it. 'Tara', at the time, had a very small center. The fort of Emain Macha was more important as an actual population center, where as Tara was more important as a religious and cultural center. If we can edit battle maps, I'd love for Tara to show up in the right place, so one could fight near it. It'd look pretty interesting, I think, to be able to fight near these special things we're adding, like Stonehenge and Carnac and the various special structures through Europe and Africa and west Asia, but I don't know if we're doing that or not. All that Tara at Emain Macha means is that it occupies the same province on the map.

QwertyMIDX
06-26-2005, 06:15
Ah...so a unit can't have two close-combat weapons unless it has the phalanx ability? Not even if you take the time to hold the alt key?


Not quite, infantry units can only have one melee skeleton if they don't use phalanx formation. So if they want a spear and a sword they have to either use phalanx or use the same animation for both weapons. Basically we can a spear and a predominatly thrusting sword without too much trouble but not a predominatly slashing sword, which the longsword was.

Dago
06-26-2005, 08:19
:jawdrop: Oh man, this is great!!!

Ignoramus
06-26-2005, 08:42
How do you put pictures in your signature?

Vercingetorix
06-26-2005, 08:55
Nice catch. Looks like the giant fish of Britain with a Samurai on his back ~:confused:

OMG It looks like a pirate riding a flaming shark with lazers shooting swords on fire (cold fire) (http://www.stanford.edu/~scodary/tkam.htm) ~:confused:

Dux Corvanus
06-26-2005, 10:53
Ranika, that is not surprising. Actual Chinese rule establishes from above, that the ancient Chinese culture evolved and adquired its high civilization degree without any Western influence, and from their 'West-phobia', those late findings threaten their cultural nationalistic 'independence'.

What one wouldn't expect is that many voices in the Western world also claim against these evidences, by similar reasons. Why?

You've surely heard about the Himmler's akward Nazi historical theories about a primitive arian brood of supermen raising in Europe and bringing all forms of civilization to all the world. These mad theories point that the Asian cultures -and also African and American thru Schliemann Jr.'s Atlantis fantasies- had been born from this influence, and that Tibetan mysticism was a remain of ancient arian spiritualism -hence the 1930's Tibetan expeditions payed from Nazi budget.

By unfortunate coincidence, the late findings prove an early contact of both Western and Eastern world, and the admision by many of Central Europe as the origin of Celtic cultures does not help at all. Now, many people is willing to look aside from anything that may be wrongly interpreted as a confirmation of Himmler's mystical, racial and historical deliriums, even if it's just a funny coincidence.

Curious -and sad- how modern world goes on and on creating the past to fit modern day interests, conventions and traumas. :no:

Little Legioner
06-26-2005, 12:02
Casse really looks cool but Aediu still had the best balanced unit roster. ~;)

Mikeus Caesar
06-26-2005, 13:33
OMG It looks like a pirate riding a flaming shark with lazers shooting swords on fire (cold fire)

I'm surprised someone went to all the trouble of making that...it was funny though. It just degenerated into utter random cr*p. Why was it a time-travelling castle!? Why did the laser swords have guns that shot more laser swords!?

The Stranger
06-26-2005, 15:15
Nice. Hopefully we`ll see Armenia next week, or has it already been taken?

-edit-
What exactly did you censor on that "Cairncalladryrdan" buliding? ~:rolleyes:

a new feature perhaps. i dunno :wink:

Quietus
06-26-2005, 15:49
How do you put pictures in your signature? You just put the url address of image you are using inside the img tags such as:

url address :charge:

TheTank
06-26-2005, 17:00
How different are the midlanders units from the Casse units?
Are they less sword oriented then the Casse and how many different types of midlanders will EB include in this mod?

Ianofsmeg16
06-26-2005, 17:40
Will EB work if you already have Mundus magnus installed? just wanted to know....

Mongoose
06-26-2005, 17:43
EB will use an advanced version of MM. I would suggest you get a clean vanilla install ready for EB, mixing mods is hard.

QwertyMIDX
06-26-2005, 17:44
EB has it's own map, you'll have to install it over vanilla 1.2. I suppose you could use the MM map files and EB for everything else if you really wanted. I think you'll find our map is pretty much MM 2.0 though.

Steppe Merc
06-26-2005, 18:17
Let's see Parthia next.
I wish. However, we have to work with what we have done, and so factions people want to see might not have enough work to done to warrant an entire faction preview. But I assure you, I hope for more Parthian stuff as well. ~;)

Mikeus Caesar
06-26-2005, 18:22
No one's answered my question yet. Why the heck is there a pirate with an energy sword riding a burning shark just above ireland!?

Spacemonk
06-26-2005, 18:55
Yeah I'd like to know that as well. It's not like you can't notice it :p

Teleklos Archelaou
06-26-2005, 18:59
(Spelling it out) I-t-space-i-s-space-a-space-j-o-k-e. :wall:

Spacemonk
06-26-2005, 19:43
allright, sorry for not understanding the joke... :dizzy2:

Dux Corvanus
06-26-2005, 19:55
I don't get it. Why is a space pirate riding a shark over Ireland? ~;p

(Now we hear a distant shot, right from Teleklos's home). ~:mecry:

jerby
06-26-2005, 19:57
the inside jokes are nice. but i woudl get really old, really fast, i had to face the damn chicken every time i scroll over the map...

The Wizard
06-26-2005, 19:57
He lies -- it's EB's new ship animation. ~;)



~Wiz

Viking
06-26-2005, 20:41
Now that would be cool. I thought of it myself, but the laser sword was kinda out of this world :alien:

Ranika
06-26-2005, 22:27
How different are the midlanders units from the Casse units?
Are they less sword oriented then the Casse and how many different types of midlanders will EB include in this mod?

There are less sword-oriented units in the midlands; they focus more on spears. They are (generally speaking) less disciplined, and more oriented for raiding tactics. The southern Britons are Gauls, and more capable of fighting a 'conventional' battle, where as, the further north one goes, units rely increasingly on skirmishing tactics.

Mikeus Caesar
06-26-2005, 22:43
There are less sword-oriented units in the midlands; they focus more on spears. They are (generally speaking) less disciplined, and more oriented for raiding tactics. The southern Britons are Gauls, and more capable of fighting a 'conventional' battle, where as, the further north one goes, units rely increasingly on skirmishing tactics.

Go too far north, and the natives of the little islands have found out the wonders of Energy Swords and Burning sharks!

Ignoramus
06-26-2005, 22:43
I still don't get the URL address thingy. Can you explain it more simply?

Spacemonk
06-26-2005, 23:41
Que?? You mean the bbcode thing to get an webadres turned into a hyperlink?
I donno if this site has something but they got something overhere (http://www.heavengames.com/forumfaq.shtml#bbcode) that explains it :)

anonymous_joe
06-27-2005, 00:03
Those lads look, to be honest, amazing. Looks like I'll have to swallow my national pride and play as (horror) the proto-Welsh. Ah well. Only way the Goidils will get an empire I suppose....

As a matter of curiosity though, will the Casse always get conquered by the Romans? Or will they have an actual chance of surviving? Because I'd love an empire of Celts stretching from 'Hibernia' out to Alexandria the furthest...

QwertyMIDX
06-27-2005, 00:15
If not controled by the player they won't often be succesful, but if you play enough games you might see it happen. It won't always, or even often, be the Romans who destroy them though, the Aedui have a good shot at it, as do the Sweboz, or any faction that gets REALLY big.

anonymous_joe
06-27-2005, 00:18
Cool.

Not that I dont mind the Romans per se, it's just that vanilla got rather tedious in that you always ended up having to defeat three large/massive factions of Roman legionaries. You can only kill so many before it gets boring. ~:)

QwertyMIDX
06-27-2005, 00:50
We should manage just a wee bit more variety than Vanilla.

Byzantine Mercenary
06-27-2005, 12:54
Casse's units look really good, however i was just wondering whether Casse's Generals will have chariots in their bodyguard, cavalry or infantry. when i play as britain i get fed up of seeing my 10 star general killed when his chariot falls to peaces, in the end i just hold them back which isn't very realistic. cavalry is tougher and mean that the general actually makes a difference to the battle rather than just killing himself and providing extra firewood at the same time.

zakalwe
06-27-2005, 13:16
These look fantastic guys! It's just such a shame though that we're unable to have individual factions for 5 or 6 areas of the Britain and Ireland. Would make the unification of the Isles very interesting. Goddam faction limit!

Couple of very minor comments

They are descended from Gauls plus other mentions at numerous other points

As you're of course aware, this is a matter of some debate in archaeological circles. I'm sure you know the ins and outs of the arguments, but i feel that in a mod going with historical accuracy it would be better not to come down on one side or another. It would be easy to mention in the text that their origin is debatable - whether indigenous, from the continent, a mixture or elite immigrants. There's no point really going through all the arguments, but i feel rather uncomfortable with EB going purely for this side of the debate.

Caledonians are without remote concept of civilization. Abhorrent even to the other Britons, they are maniacs in many ways, and completely disorganized.

I'm very surprised at the inclusion of these sentences! I thought this was exactly what EB was supposed to be against. How many times have you got annoyed with 'barbarians' north of Rome being called uncivilised? Have you been to the hillforts of Finavon, Eildon Hill and the Caterthuns? Have you seen the incredible artwork in the Museum of Scotland? I'm sorry but this piece of nonsense should have no place in the EB mod.

A favored pastime was sports, including a game we now call 'hurling'; so popular was this game in all of the British Isles, that it's mentioned in numerous legends

I would change it to 'parts of the British Isles'. We can hypothesise that a version of proto-hurling may have been played elsewhere but we don't know. Incidentally this is also Irish-centric - it is called 'shinty' (in anglified terms) in Scotland. So possibly say '... a game we now call 'hurling' or 'shinty' ...'


Incidentally - 'British Isles' – is this the term you want to use? I know that it is debated over all the time, but there are distinct arguments for both its use and non-use. Just checking that this is a debate you’ve had.



Anyway i look forward to playing this. It looks great ~:cheers:

QwertyMIDX
06-27-2005, 15:43
"Caledonians are without remote concept of civilization. Abhorrent even to the other Britons, they are maniacs in many ways, and completely disorganized."

This passage is written from the point of view of the Casse, it not EB's judgement on their people or culture. EB has not problem with culture calling another one names, we just perfer serious history refrain.

khelvan
06-27-2005, 16:27
They are descended from Gauls plus other mentions at numerous other points

As you're of course aware, this is a matter of some debate in archaeological circles. Sorry, I, for one, am not aware of any serious debate regarding this. That the southern Britons were Gauls is an accepted fact, as we can trace their whole migration to where they settled. Of course once there, they could easily have interbred with indigenous people, but in our period they were predominately, if not wholly, Gallic.

If a debate exists on the origin of the southern Britons, specifically the Casse, it would be better to reference it directly.


Caledonians are without remote concept of civilization. Abhorrent even to the other Britons, they are maniacs in many ways, and completely disorganized.

I'm very surprised at the inclusion of these sentences! I thought this was exactly what EB was supposed to be against.As Qwerty stated, we have "flavor" and "historical" portions of our faction descriptions. This was "flavor," written from the point of view of the Casse, who most certainly did view the Caledonians this way.

In any event, the goal of EB is not to be politically correct and claim that all people were civilized. All people had varying degrees of advancement in different cultural areas, and the Caledonians were significantly more disunited than any other people on the island. The Caledonians were not liked (many of the indigenous names we have for the Caledonians are insults) and from all evidence were pretty close to the stereotypical "barbarian."

Regardless, the passage will stay because we know the Casse most certainly did view the Caledonians this way, and that is what this particular passage represents.


A favored pastime was sports, including a game we now call 'hurling'; so popular was this game in all of the British Isles, that it's mentioned in numerous legends

I would change it to 'parts of the British Isles'. We can hypothesise that a version of proto-hurling may have been played elsewhere but we don't know. Incidentally this is also Irish-centric - it is called 'shinty' (in anglified terms) in Scotland. So possibly say '... a game we now call 'hurling' or 'shinty' ...'Eh, we can change it. The name for it in Scotland wasn't immediately known to the person writing the description. It isn't anything-centric, you're reading too much into it.


Incidentally - 'British Isles' – is this the term you want to use? I know that it is debated over all the time, but there are distinct arguments for both its use and non-use. Just checking that this is a debate you’ve had.Others have had this debate. I have not, personally, and I see no reason to even consider changing it when the point is to insert the most recognizable name. We could call it a period name, but we have no desire to explain what everything is in every single context we use it, so period names are used in appropriate places only, and elsewhere are chosen based on recognition as much as accuracy.

Is there a more recognizable name? If so, I'm not aware of it. Keep in mind that our goal, as stated above, is not political correctness.

Teleklos Archelaou
06-27-2005, 17:09
As Qwerty stated, we have "flavor" and "historical" portions of our faction descriptions. This was "flavor," written from the point of view of the Casse, who most certainly did view the Caledonians this way.

In any event, the goal of EB is not to be politically correct and claim that all people were civilized. All people had varying degrees of advancement in different cultural areas, and the Caledonians were significantly more disunited than any other people on the island. The Caledonians were not liked (many of the indigenous names we have for the Caledonians are insults) and from all evidence were pretty close to the stereotypical "barbarian."

Regardless, the passage will stay because we know the Casse most certainly did view the Caledonians this way, and that is what this particular passage represents.I can just see the fur flying already from our future "Greek_Cities" faction description when it comes to their view of the Maks. ~D

Mongoose
06-27-2005, 17:31
Yeah, but they deserve it. They were barely Greeks at all! ~D

Steppe Merc
06-27-2005, 17:39
Gah! Run! :help:

zakalwe
06-27-2005, 19:13
Sorry, I, for one, am not aware of any serious debate regarding this. That the southern Britons were Gauls is an accepted fact, as we can trace their whole migration to where they settled. Of course once there, they could easily have interbred with indigenous people, but in our period they were predominately, if not wholly, Gallic.

If a debate exists on the origin of the southern Britons, specifically the Casse, it would be better to reference it directly.

Honestly? I'm very surprised by this. It has been the key issue in British Iron Age archaeology for the past 10 or more years. In fact the debate goes back to Hodson's attack on the Hawkes ABC system in the 1960s. The majority of contemporary archaeologists tend to see any immigration as relatively minimal, except in several particular areas and with a number of certain groups. I'm not arguing one way or the other - just saying that it might be better to be more ambiguous

Some references - Iron Age Communities Barry Cunliffe; Iron Age Britain Barry Cunliffe; The Atlantic Celts Simon James; The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland. Recent Trends Champion and Collis (eds); Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age Gwilt and Haselgrove; The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions (2003) John Collis

Re – hurling – I wasn’t meaning much by saying it was irish-centric, just that it had another name. Not that it matters as these are both anglicised anyway as I’m sure ranika would be first to say

Re - Caledonians - Fair enough. I had thought it was in the history bit. Incidentally what references do you have that during this time period the people in south-east england thought this about the caledonii?

Re- British Isles - I don't have a big problem with it, but when i was working in Dublin, alot of the archaeologists did. The usual alternative is the 'The Isles' or 'Britain and Ireland'. A lot of the Irish I knew would not like being called ‘politically correct’ for it though. They just hated the term and had for decades. But as i said though, i don't have a problem with it.

QwertyMIDX
06-27-2005, 19:15
Grab the fire extinguishes, this may get hot ~;).

Dux Corvanus
06-27-2005, 19:31
Caution! Troll call! Graoooorrrrr! :laugh4:

http://www.tuckborough.net/images/cavetroll.jpg

anonymous_joe
06-27-2005, 19:31
Fine, call it iománaíocht, that'll solve your problem.

British Isles is annoying, but feck it, the Britons are long gone/Welsh, it's just a name. We'll live. Though I prefer Britain and Ireland.

Dux Corvanus
06-27-2005, 19:47
British Isles is annoying.

They refer to Great Britain and the Falklands. And maybe Gibraltar Rock... ah, no, that's not an island. Just an painful abscess in Spain's butt... ~D

Greek_fire19
06-27-2005, 20:16
~:eek: just noticed that in Ireland you've added Lough Neagh, Lough Erne and Strangford Lough. Living on the shores of Strangford Lough as I do, thats actually quite a big deal for me and I'd just like to applaud whoever has been working on your map- because it definately wasnt present on mundus magnus.

Ok lough Neagh isn't perfect ~;) but a good attempt is much better than nothing ~:)

thanks again- can't wait to fight near home

eadingas
06-27-2005, 20:27
Oh cool, somebody appreciates my work :) I sincerely hope y'all be amazed at the level of detail this map will have. I did Ireland as first "study" of making realistic map, and I'm quite glad of the results.

Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-27-2005, 20:31
shinty has a different shaped stick.

Hurling is a type of football/handball in Cornwall: fascinating no?

What's the evidence for the early names of the British Isles?
I always thought that it tended to be someting pretty similar to the Welsh for Britain (Prydain) which is near enough Britain.
If not not but why have kittens over it. What's the evidence? Go with where that points.

jerby
06-27-2005, 20:38
Re – hurling – I wasn’t meaning much by saying it was irish-centric, just that it had another name. Not that it matters as these are both anglicised anyway as I’m sure ranika would be first to say

by hurling i'm sure you mean throwing up, and not chucking heads at your opponent? ~;)

zakalwe
06-27-2005, 20:42
yeah there's definitely differences between shinty and hurling including the shape of the stick, although they're similar enough to play a Scotland vs Ireland game every year/2 years (?). Must be strange. They do a similar thing with Aussie Rules and Gaelic Football. But what i'm saying is that the modern versions are descendants/variants of the older game. I don't think that either can say that it is the only legitimate descendant. I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue in the description.

As i said re - the British isles, i'm not too bothered. The argument against is that the term is essentially an imperialist term whose contemporary usage is outdated. While there is clearly the need for an overarching term for Great Britain and Ireland plus associated other islands, some people see the term as not really legitimate. Who knows?

Getting an old name of britain is always a bit of a pain in the arse. You can go from terms such as Prydain, Britanni, Pretani, etc, but there'll all slightly dodgy in one way or another. Can't be helped though. Just one of the problems in doing a historically close computer game for the period.

Eadingas i could only see a wee bit of Scotland. Nice that it's there now though ~:)

Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-27-2005, 20:48
I love that Gaelic/Aussie football and the shinty/hurling games.
I'm now in the wrong part of the world to see them played normally, let alone with their sister sports.

Oh yeah, definitely variants of an older game. There were some really interesting games played in Wales until relatively recently too, like cnapan, bando etc.

I don't think anybody plays them anymore though.

zakalwe
06-27-2005, 21:09
OT - The classic one up here is the ba game in Kirkwall in Orkney between the Uppies and Doonies. The whole town basically scrapping in the streets. :duel:

http://www.bagame.com

Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-27-2005, 21:23
I've been looking for an excuse to go the Northern Isles for a long time: now I have one. Excellent.

GoreBag
06-27-2005, 22:27
Sooo... Ba' is a big fight over a ball? Like a municipal version of "kill the guy with the ball"?

Lord Tomyris Reloaded
06-27-2005, 22:36
EB, once again you outdo yourselves...very nice, and I'm glad to see you stick to your guns against PC! British Isles is a good name, me thinks.

pezhetairoi
06-28-2005, 05:57
Pardon me, but why do the Rycalwre helmets look like they have two large metal breasts on them? O_o

thrashaholic
06-28-2005, 08:39
The British Isles (including Ireland I believe) were known as "the Isles of the Mighty" way back when, why not call them that?

Ranika
06-28-2005, 11:03
Of the British Isles thing; I'm Irish (very much so, I'm actually descended from Gaelic Irish, not Norman settlers or subsequent English or Scottish landlords), and it doesn't offend me. It's simply a term. I'd considered some other things, but very little would be 'recognizable' to large groups of people. It isn't a legitimate political term anymore, but to explain the position of a region, it works fine. Some early names including 'The Holy Islands' (from Celtic myth that surmised that one of the two major islands; Ireland or Britain; was a kind of holy land), 'Islands of the Mighty' (as mentioned), 'The Tin Islands' (from which we get the name 'Britain'), and a whole mileu of other names. I may look into changing it later, but right now, for the sake of simplicity and recognizability, British Isles works fine. Everyone who looks at the previews will know where that is, and what it constitutes.

Forgus
06-28-2005, 13:24
What do you think? ~:confused:

From the Independent comes an interesting bit of revisionism:


The history of Britain will have to be rewritten. The AD43 Roman invasion never happened - and was simply a piece of sophisticated political spin by a weak Emperor Claudius.

A series of astonishing archaeological findings of Roman military equipment, to be revealed this week, will prove that the Romans had already arrived decades earlier - and that they had been welcomed with open arms by ancient Britons.

The discovery of swords, helmets and armour in Chichester, Sussex, dates back to a period between the late first century BC and the early first century AD- almost 50 years before the supposed invasion. Archaeologists who have studied the finds believe it will turn conventional Roman history taught in schools on its head. "It is like discovering that the Second World War started in 1938," said Dr David Rudkin, a Roman expert leading the work.

The discoveries in Sussex will be revealed on Saturday during a Time Team special on Channel 4 analysing the Roman invasion. Tony Robinson, presenter of Time Team, said: "One of the frustrating things with history is that things become set in stone. We all believe it to be true. It is great to challenge some of the most commonly accepted pieces of our history."

Dr Francis Pryor, president of the Council for British Archaeology, said it would prove controversial. "It turns the conventional view taught in all the textbooks on its head," he said. "It is going to cause lively debate among Roman specialists."

The AD43 Roman invasion is one of the best-known events in British history. More than 40,000 Roman soldiers are believed to have landed in Richborough, Kent, before carving their way through the English countryside.

The evidence unearthed in Sussex overturns this theory. Archaeologists now believe that the Romans arrived up to 50 years earlier in Chichester. They were welcomed as liberators, overthrowing a series of tyrannical tribal kings who had been terrorising clans across southern England.

Sussex and Hampshire became part of the Roman Empire 50 years before the invasion that historians have always believed was the birth of Roman Britain.

The findings and their implications will be published by Dr Rudkin later this year. The discoveries have centred on Fishbourne Roman Palace in Sussex. Artefacts found there in a V-shaped ditch include part of a copper alloy sword scabbard fitting that archaeologists have dated to the period between the late first century BC and early first century AD.

Dr Miles Russell, a senior archaeologist at Bournemouth University who has studied the evidence, said: "All this talk of the Romans arriving in AD43 is just wrong. We get so fixated on the idea of a single invasion. It is far more piecemeal. In Sussex and Hampshire they were in togas and speaking Latin five decades before everyone else."

According to Dr Russell, it was in Emperor Claudius's interest to "spin" the invasion of AD43 as a great triumph against strong opposition. Claudius had become emperor two years earlier but his position following the death of Caligula was tenuous. A bold military adventure to expand the empire would tighten Claudius's grip in Rome and prove his credentials as a strong leader.

"Every period of history has its own spin doctors, and Claudius spun the invasion to look strong," Dr Russell said. "But Britain was Roman before Claudius got here."

Julius Caesar first tried to conquer Britain during the Iron Age in 55BC, but storms on the journey from Boulogne, in France, to Dover caused Caesar's two legions to turn back. A force of five legions tried again in May 54BC and landed in Dover before marching towards London, defeating Cassivellaunus the King of Catuvellauni in Hertfordshire. News of an impending rebellion in Gaul caused Caesar to retreat, but not before he had made his mark.

Britain at this stage in history was not one unified country, rather some 25 tribes often at war with each other. Not all tribes joined the coalition to fight Caesar. For example, the Trinovantes appealed to Caesar to protect them from Cassivellaunus who had run a series of raids into their territory.

Dr Francis Pryor said that the findings in Sussex prove that relationships between tribes in southern England and the Romans continued after Caesar's attempted invasion. "The suggestion that they arrived in Chichester makes plenty of sense. We were a pretty fierce force but the Romans had a relatively easy run. This would have been a liberation of a friendly tribe - not an invasion."

Oxford historian Dr Martin Henig, a Roman art specialist, said that the whole of southern England could have been a Roman protectorate for nearly 50 years prior to the AD43 invasion. "There is a possibility that there were actually Roman soldiers based in Britain during the whole period from the end of the first century BC," he said.

Time Team will unveil their findings in a live two-hour special on Saturday evening on Channel 4. It will form part of the biggest ever archaeological examination of Roman Britain running over eight days and involving hundreds of archaeologists at sites across Britain. The series will investigate every aspect of the Romans' rule of Britain, from the supposed invasion to their departure 400 years later.

Ranika
06-28-2005, 13:41
I've read that; for EB, this means nothing, this would all affect a period around/just after the end of the mod. For British history; personal opinion, they're rushing ahead a bit and inferring things based on proof that's just recently been attained without proper research. That isn't to say they're wrong, by any means, but I feel they've been rushing forth a bit quick; it's like when a Roman fort was found in Ireland, and there was a lot of otherwise respectable professionals saying it was proof of Roman invasion, only to find it was probably just for trade. They're respectable historians, but when a major find is discovered, a lot of people (perfectly learned, respectable historians) 'jump the gun', as it were; we want to know so much more than we do, and we want to know it now. Clearly, there were Romans there, but in what context has not been proven; some tribes in southern Britain were friendly to Romans, and may have allowed a Roman garrison, but that doesn't mean the Romans had the whole south as a protectorate, though it is possible. I'd say, it's best to give it a little, and wait a while longer before saying it's concrete one way or another.

Dux Corvanus
06-28-2005, 14:13
And then it's the question of Caesar's invasions: we don't know ALL the details of ALL their movements. They could well have settled some time around the area, before leaving. Did the owners of those found items really land in Chirchester? Have they found proof of a disembark there? And datation of that kind of non-organic stuff, based only in style, is unlikely to have that sheer accuracy.

It only proves Roman presence before 43 AD, something that we knew yet. Ranika's right, mass media and show-bound scholars tend to sound the trumpet too early. Let them make a serious research, and then, make the special on TV. Not on Saturday, OMG.

Lord Hammerschmidt
06-28-2005, 14:25
The article didn't say that they had found any coins in with the other objects they located, making the dating process difficult indeed. With the certainty with which they are talking, perhaps there were coins in there and the article merely forgot to mention it. Like others have said, there are too many possibilities to assume that southern Britain was a Roman protectorate at that time. It may well be impossible to prove that -- but a few artifacts in one hole in the ground is not overwhelming evidence.

zakalwe
06-28-2005, 17:24
The media are always a nightmare about these kinds of things - exaggerating, obsessed with firsts and biggests and constantly talking how some find has overturned 'previous theories'. Pretty irritating. Very few people would dispute pre-43 contact (it's just a question of how much), but the media has to turn this into some big deal. Almost every media account of a project or excavation or whatever that i've worked on has been strewn with errors.

Francis Pryor, while an excellent archaeologist, can also be slightly prone to hyperbole though. Some of his points are very interesting, but i would personally say he's slightly off the mark on a couple of issues in his recent 2 books.

Ranika
06-28-2005, 18:35
The media loves to sensationalize these things, and it is interesting, but it's hardly earth shattering, and not over-turning any theories; at best, it'll strengthen our understanding of how much Roman contact was in Britain, and how many Romans/Romanized-Gauls were cohabiting with Britons. To say it's proof that Britons welcomed them with open arms and that southern Britain was a protectorate is advancing way beyond what they actually have; it's historians and journalists wanting to be the one's to be come up with earth-shattering news that'll change how percieve history, but it's simply not the case. A find of this size, even with coins to date it or other things, proves little except there were people in southern Britain from the Roman Empire; that doesn't change our perception of British history in the slightest, it only makes it clearer. Journalism like this has a horrible habit of misinforming people; without more to support it, this is just another find, which aren't that uncommon. They're interesting, they offer insight, but this is a mountain from a molehill without proper examination, and even when properly examined, I doubt it'd offer near the grand expectation this article is putting forth; however, I'll note again, it's not impossible, but given what they are said to have found, I highly doubt they can reasonably infer it.


Back on track with the thread; chariots are going to be the general unit probably, but the nature of combat in EB, for some factions (Celtic factions included) does sometimes rely on specialized units that perform special tasks; so, the general is meant to be used in a certain way (like any chariot unit). Another part of Briton specialization I'm wanting to explore is to use units that increase morale more extensively; the average Briton unit will have slightly less than average morale, and the use of 'elites' to encourage them to fight will be necessary to sustain them in prolonged fights, representing tribal tactics that use champions and chariots as a rallying point. This is really not even tested yet, and will require some planning. The idea is to represent the extremely tribal nature of the Britons, and their focus on their hero culture; they used champions and chariots and the like as rallying points. It's also meant to contrast them against other factions, especially the culturally related Gauls; Gauls were similar, but not nearly so based on the small tribe level.

Dux Corvanus
06-28-2005, 21:48
One thing I find specially annoying, is that new fashion of presenting any evidence of uncommon burial or violent death in ancient times as the fruit of some mysterious ritual of magic ceremony. It's specially irritating about any Celtic or German finding. I don't doubt this kind of thing existed, but, IMHO, I guess there were also robbery and common murder in ancient times, no? But every time they find a guy stabbed to death and thrown to a river, they insist and insist in stories about witches and druids that were sunk to avoid them returning from the other world.

It's like all that crap about linking Celts to New Age hippy-like movements and relaxing music CDs full of synthesized violins and bagpipes -with a misty landscape in the cover...

From the Romantic vision of the 'orc-like barbarians', to an Arcadian paradise full of Tolkienish misticism and Conan warriors. Reality doesn't sell well, I guess...

Steppe Merc
06-28-2005, 22:22
It's like all that crap about linking Celts to New Age hippy-like movements and relaxing music CDs full of synthesized violins and bagpipes -with a misty landscape in the cover...
Real hippies listen to Grateful Dead, not some weird bagpipes. ~;)

And about the find, was it just weapons and armor? Isn't it just possible that some British traded with Romans?

Ranika
06-28-2005, 22:28
The realistic Celt is horribly boring to many people; they weren't at war, they were traders and metallurgists. And they weren't at war constantly. Nor were they ultra-mystic or unusual; outsiders didn't see druids as mythic, they were philosophers and scientists a lot of the time, and priests. They had normal functions in their society, like priests and other learned men had in Hellenic and Roman societies. They did what smart people did; they went to schools and got educated and then went and practiced whatever they'd been trained for. And new age 'Celtic' music seems devoid of what actual Celtic music of the period was probably composed of. While early bagpipes did exist, on the scant few accounts of high society Celtic music itself (whenever it's mentioned, it's usually that it accompanies things; singers and so on that sing for their patrons, or play instruments, etc., but what they're playing is rarely described) it's generally described as loud and boisterous, or very low and cryptic; it probably wasn't 'relaxing' generally; much of the idea was to tell stories or encourage one to fight. Celtic stories are generally violent or in some way off-setting, and it's unlikely they'd be relaxing. That isn't to say relaxing Celtic music probably didn't exist; everyone wants to just relax at times, but Celts were big on celebration of victories and achievements, and lamentations for failures, the dead, anything that was percieved as having gone wrong; either one is not really that nice to try and nod off to.

However, 'new-age' Celts are more popular; they're mystic and mysterious and we know nothing about them, and they're so enlightened; it's not the case. Celts were human. Not everything they did was ritual. We have found bodies that have been clearly executed in ritual fashion (and can be attested because the same methods are used on several other bodies), but Celtic society was extremely harsh on those who disobeyed the law; murderers in a lot of places probably had good reason to dispose of a body in a way that it would not be found. Rarely did Celts simply execute. You would be fined first; if you couldn't afford that, you'd be outcast, and anyone could legally kill you. If you were lucky. If you were unlucky, they would select you for ritual sacrifice, which was going to hurt, a whole lot. When Celts executed people, they did so in horrific manners. You're damn right some bodies are probably just a smarter criminal covering up things he did; burying a body in a bog, or throwing it in the river, would at the time, hopefully, keep some one from finding out that you killed some one.

Zero1
06-28-2005, 22:49
There is this whole romantacist idea that our ancestors were these mysterious supermen with strange rituals we can never understand and magical powers and super enlightened ways of doing things etc. etc.

Simply put, people like to fantasize about our ancestors being more then just "human", personally I think it stems from the almost empty monotiny of modern life. We like to dream about a bygone age of magical druids carving away missletoe with gold sickles and using it to preform magic spells or what have you. The reality is they were human just like us, but like already said reality doesnt sell.

BTW, Ranika's description of the Druid "They did what smart people did; they went to schools and got educated and then went and practiced whatever they'd been trained for", is the truest I've read in awhile. Its always, "They were these barbarian canibals who ate babies by the light of jackolanterns" or "They were these magical beings of super enlightenment who used missletoe to cure all the world's known ailments". :dizzy2:

Ranika
06-28-2005, 23:05
Druids were intelligent; as has been stated before, they clearly had an advanced understanding of medicine and chemistry, but only comparable to the rest of the ancient world. We often too swiftly discount just how smart iron age civilizations were. They could perform brain surgery, and formulate chemicals and medicines, but they weren't supermen or magic. They were learned scientists and doctors, in that respect, like any other culture's equivalent; they would study a 'higher' calling (medicine, history, philosophy, science, religion, etc.); anything requiring extensive education, and would spend their lives practicing that. There wasn't anything mystical about it; they were Celtic college graduates, essentially. The most learned in the society.

On the other side of things, in their religious role, druids did commit ritual sacrifice. They would ritually kill animals as well as people. The modern Celtophilic revisionism that they never commited sacrifice is simply a lie. We know they did, and it'd not be unsurprising if they were proud of it. Put yourself in the ancient mindset; that'd be a great way to show your faith and dedication. On the same note, though, they weren't horrid monsters. They weren't that different from so many other pagans, who practiced the exact same way, with ritual execution or animal sacrifice. It's nothing isolated, by any means. The druid was, in the religious role, the same as any ancient priest; not particularly grand, or remarkably reprehensible by the means of the time. A big problem is trying to view them through, or justify them to, a modern morality system. Yes, they did things that we would (and should) view as morally incorrect; they killed people, like prisoners of war, who were otherwise innocent, in grisly ways. In their time though, that was not unusual. You can't say they were evil without saying a huge chunk of cultures were; if you can say that any culture that commited human sacrifice was commiting an evil (like I do), I don't think you can be denigrated for it. But to say one, and not the other, was barbarous because of this practice, you're being a hypocrit. And trying to ignore those things to make them more palatable to modern sensibilities is ignorant as well; you're lying about a people, boldly, just to justify them to your sense.

It's like 'Celtophiles' who hate Rome; why? Celts attempted the same thing, and had, at one time, a rather well-formed kingdom. The Romans, by modern standards, could be viewed as cruel, or self-important, or powermongering, but they weren't part of the modern world. Empire was the goal of everyone. That was the way of life then. Enslaving people, destroying their homes, and their families, and everything that really matters to some one; these are horrible things to us, but then, those were common practices. For Celtophiles; were Celts so kind to the natives they conquered? Did they allow their culture to persist? Where are the pre-Celts of Ireland and their entire culture? Utterly wiped out; conquered, subjugated, and their culture annihilated. Pre-Celts of Gaul? Do you even think of them? They were obliterated to the extent that Gauls became the basis of what we view as Celtic; all other Celts are measured by how similar they are to Gauls. Why were Romans so much worse? They did the exact same thing. You can't blame them for being more successful at it, they did the same thing, over a wider area. That is a sad thing, today. It was not something that was really thought of much then; one might lament the passing of a great culture, but that was life. Civilization was fickle. Measuring it by modern morality, if it's human sacrifice or conquest or anything else, is pointless; it's not how they viewed things, and they didn't understand evil and good to be the same things we do.

TheTank
06-28-2005, 23:43
Ranika:
Which modern european language is the most affected by ancient Gallic?!
I know some Gallic loan words in Dutch but to call dutch a Gallic language or even a celtic language is very very wrong ;-)..
I personally think French is the most affected by Gallic but it wouldn't be very much...

Ranika
06-28-2005, 23:47
Modern French has very little Gallic, it's more Germanic and Latin than Celtic by this time. Really, it's hard to say; a number of languages have Gallic loan words. It would arguably be Irish, but Irish isn't like Gallic at all, but, like Dutch, it has some Gallic loan words. Swiss has some Gallic words too, but we don't call their language Gallic. Modern Irish, however, probably has the most, but it's not Gallic at all. The base root of Irish is Q-Celtic, which is closest to the 'pure' Celtic language; Gallic has a lot of Greek, and a lot of influence on and from Latin. Really, a lot of 'Gallic' influence in modern languages (like French) we'd probably see as Latin influence before we'd call it Gallic.

TheTank
06-28-2005, 23:53
Modern French has very little Gallic, it's more Germanic and Latin than Celtic by this time. Really, it's hard to say; a number of languages have Gallic loan words. It would arguably be Irish, but Irish isn't like Gallic at all, but, like Dutch, it has some Gallic loan words. Swiss has some Gallic words too, but we don't call their language Gallic. Modern Irish, however, probably has the most, but it's not Gallic at all. The base root of Irish is Q-Celtic, which is closest to the 'pure' Celtic language; Gallic has a lot of Greek, and a lot of influence on and from Latin. Really, a lot of 'Gallic' influence in modern languages (like French) we'd probably see as Latin influence before we'd call it Gallic.

Do you mean that Irish is closer to proto-celtic than Gallic?!
It make sense because ireland is relative more isolated than Gaul.

Ranika do you know some exemples of gallic.
I have seen lots of gallic texts but are there sounds files of people trying to speak gallic?
I like to hear them ~:)

Ranika
06-28-2005, 23:59
The reason the Irish language would be closer to proto-Celtic is not about isolationism (entirely, anyway); it has nomadicism. The original speakers of the base Celtic language spread in all directions. Some spread really far, really fast, before they could spend sufficient time in a region to adopt a great deal of foreign influence (though they surely adopted some). The Gaelic language family is an example of very fast moving nomads, who then became a very insular people. Gallic was always heavily affected by Greek, probably Semetic languages, and by Latin; it would have been vastly more modified than the base Q-Celtic language would've been. Same with P-Celtic languages; so much Punic and Greek in them. Q-Celtic has some Punic influence in early languages (as it ended up being isolated largely in Iberia for a period), and later, of course, the Gaelic languages formed, and started adopting a lot more, but they have remained closer to root than Gallic would have.

As for speaking Gallic, I have heard people speak proposed pronunciations and carry on brief conversations in Gallic for the sake of trying to get an idea of how Gallic conversation would sound, but I know of no recordings online, and we don't really know how accurate it all is.

Lord Tomyris Reloaded
06-29-2005, 07:35
Here Here, Ranika! Excellent points on common misconceptions!

anonymous_joe
06-29-2005, 13:08
Even Gaeilge's been heavily influenced over the years, mainly by English and French, as well as elements of Norse languages. 'Pure' languages are rare enough in Europe, as there are very few isolated peoples, instead, years of interaction has led to similarities in all the languages.

Regarding Druids and their equivalents in other societies, animal sacrifice was common among Celts, yes, and human sacrifice was not unknown, but look at the revered and vaunted Greeks. Animal sacrifice was an important tenet of the Greek and Roman religions. Human sacrifice was uncommon (I think) but certainly there are mentions of it. (Agamemnon and Iphigenia for example)

Ranika
06-29-2005, 16:36
Right; I didn't mean to imply modern Irish is by any means 'pure', but it is more similar to what we believe to be the base Celtic language than Gallic, though Norman-French, Norse, and English are prevalent in the modern dialects.

Spacemonk
06-29-2005, 17:56
What do you mean with Irish? I suppose you don't refer to the English they speak overthere, but their own language, wich not many people do speak if I'm correct. And what about Fries? The thing people speak in Friesland, the north of the Netherlands.

Spongly
06-29-2005, 18:03
That's very similar to Old English - so similar in fact that if you know enough Anglo-Saxon you can get by alright in Friesland, assuming you want to recruit warbands of warriors, fight in shield walls, buy cows and farm rather than hire cars or book plane flights.

Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-29-2005, 20:15
Wouldn't Welsh, Breton or Cornish be closer to Gallic, despite loanwords?

Also, I have heard that Gallo displays more Gallic influence than standard French but this could just be confusions due to Breton influences, I do not know.

Haven't various people attempted to reconstruct some Romance languages from the Latin up and got something completely different from modern French etc.?

Ranika
06-29-2005, 22:44
What do you mean with Irish? I suppose you don't refer to the English they speak overthere, but their own language, wich not many people do speak if I'm correct.

More people speak Irish now than used to; it's still one of our official national languages, and some areas still speak it as the first language (like my home), mainly in the west, where it's generally common enough that one can at least expect some one nearby to understand at least a handful of simple conversational speech. We do not call Irish 'Gaelic' in casual speech (I've explained this before); the Irish term is 'Gaeilge', when speaking in Irish, but in common speech in English, most call the language 'Irish'; Irish is a Celtic language from the Q-Celtic family, which are collectively called Goedelic or Gaelic languages. Modern Irish has a lot of Norse, Norman-French, and then English influences.

GoreBag
06-29-2005, 23:11
I've heard that Welsh, as a language, is less compromised than either Scots or Irish Gaelic. I never bothered to verify this information, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

As for 'Celtophiles', as you put them, I think it's more of a case of "us vs. them" when they hate Romans. It's not because what they did was despicable, it's that they did to their ancestors.

Ranika
06-29-2005, 23:30
Welsh has a great deal of Semetic, Greek, Latin (proto-Welsh influences; these three), Gaelic, Saxon, Norman-French, and then English influence. I've heard arguments that it's 'less compromised', but that's more and more seen as probably unlikely. The Irish language (at least, certain dialects) had the station of being very isolated, even from conquerors. Welsh; conqueroring languages were right on top of it, and they were smashed right against other languages constantly. The Irish language in the east is probably more compromised than Welsh, but I'd wager western/island dialects are probably less compromised.

Steppe Merc
06-30-2005, 00:52
As for 'Celtophiles', as you put them, I think it's more of a case of "us vs. them" when they hate Romans. It's not because what they did was despicable, it's that they did to their ancestors.
Celtophilia is fine, just not when they turn them into not Celts. ~;)

Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-30-2005, 01:05
Ranika,

some of those Gaelic speaking islands off the west of Ireland were settled by Cromwells soldiers.

All of the languages you mentioned as influences on Welsh have been influences on Gaelic too (as well as Scandinavian and Welsh influences on Gaelic).

However, I doubt that either language could be described as uninfluenced by other languages (I don't like the term corrupted as outside influences show up in all but the most isolated linguistic communities and tend to go both ways).

GoreBag
06-30-2005, 03:51
Celtophilia is fine, just not when they turn them into not Celts. ~;)

Run that one past me again?

Big_John
06-30-2005, 08:01
actually, i think he's saying celtophilia is fine until people start celebrating crap that isn't even celtic (e.g. "new-age" celticism). may be wrong though.

QwertyMIDX
06-30-2005, 14:26
Very tolerant of you ~;).

Ranika
06-30-2005, 18:32
Ranika,

some of those Gaelic speaking islands off the west of Ireland were settled by Cromwells soldiers.

All of the languages you mentioned as influences on Welsh have been influences on Gaelic too (as well as Scandinavian and Welsh influences on Gaelic).

However, I doubt that either language could be described as uninfluenced by other languages (I don't like the term corrupted as outside influences show up in all but the most isolated linguistic communities and tend to go both ways).

I'm aware, but certain islands were much more isolated; some still had traditional Irish clothing into the late 1900s as the standard of day-to-day wear. I am aware some were settled by soldiers from Britain though. Simply saying that more influence, I'd expect would be on Welsh. I'm fully aware of the influences on Irish (I never said it was uninfluenced; more that I believe parts of it can be described as substantially less so), my sticking point of study has always been linguistics; also, Saxon has no great influence on Irish except through English; Saxon itself is a seperate language, and any affect it'd have on Irish (before it became what we recognize as early/old English) would be far more minimal than its influence on Welsh, though it does have a pronounced affect on the Scottish language (as they had substantially more direct dealings with Saxon speakers). The more Welsh is picked apart these days, the more we seem to find it is influenced by things we hadn't originally expected, and in more heavy a way. It is clearly still a Celtic language (as are the Gaelic languages and Bretonic), and so long as it's spoken it'll be recognized as one. It's just a matter of development. Calling any modern Celtic (or any other) language truly 'pure' of external influence is without merit; it's simply not possible. Modern Celtic languages do experience, in general, much less external influence than a lot of better known languages, but that's a matter of placement and regularity; they're not major languages in multiple nations, where they would be absorbing all manner of local slang, other local languages through loanwords, and local accents through which one develops a seperate style of pronunciation, and thus dialects.

As to Celtophilia; I think it's fine to take an interest in things, but I think it does a great dishonor to the people you find interesting to believe things of them that you shouldn't. The peaceful, mystic interpretation of Celts does them a great disservice, as it ignores their quite blatantly violent behaviors to outsiders, and their understanding of sciences and other completely non-mystical factors of life; it ignores that they were a real live people, and does them a disservice by turning them into some fantasy beings (in either a positive or negative light). And the problem isn't just with Celtophilia, but with any culture worship; it's completely unnecessary. Rather than extrapolate the merits they have, people often change or create merits (like the mystical thing) that fit better with what they want, while totally ignoring truly good things.

Steppe Merc
06-30-2005, 19:01
actually, i think he's saying celtophilia is fine until people start celebrating crap that isn't even celtic (e.g. "new-age" celticism). may be wrong though.
Give the man a cookie! ~D
Exactly right. I'd be a hypocrit if I said liking a particular group of people was wrong, but only you like them for what they really were, not for fantasy ideas.

anonymous_joe
06-30-2005, 21:09
The erudite Ranika, is, (as always ~;) ) right about Gaeilge, and how it has been comparatively less influenced by other languages than other Celtic languages, such as Welsh, Breton, Cornish, Manx and Gaidhlig (or whatever the spelling of Scot's Gaelic is). There are several reasons for this:

1) If one closely examines a map, as one can, it is noted that Wales and Brittany are physically attached to the nations that would later conquer them. Surprisingly, this had an influence on their native tongues.

2) Returning to the same map, we will notice that Ireland is an island, and one lacking in valuable resources. As a result, the Goidils/Gaels were left to their own devices until the Vikings starting poking around our area.

3) Due to this isolation, we were left unconquered for longer in comparison to Wales and Brittany. This allowed the Irish language and its dialects to retain their individuality for longer.

Zero1
06-30-2005, 22:29
Very tolerant of you ~;).

Tolerance is for GIRLY MEN!,

And for the reccord I too think the Celtic newage crap is just that, a load of crap. I fell in love with Celtic and ancient Germanic civilizations for their great warrior spirits and their greater respect for women and females in general when compared to the Grecco/Roman civilizations whom more or less treated women like crap.

zakalwe
07-01-2005, 00:39
such as Welsh, Breton, Cornish, Manx and Gaidhlig (or whatever the spelling of Scot's Gaelic is

Gaelic just i'm afraid, although pronounced with an 'a' rather than an 'a'. ~;)

incidentally one of the interesting things with gaelic and gaelic is that speakers of Donegal Gaelic i know feel it is far closer to Islay and S Argyll Gaelic than either N Hebrides Gaelic or south of Ulster Gaelic. Not really surprising as the sea is a connector rather than a divider along the west coast, and we shouldn't judge the borders of the past by the borders of today. But just a nice reminder that the modern division of Ireland and Scotland is not so simple in prehistory as we might imagine

Ranika
07-01-2005, 01:24
A funny thing is, Scots for a very long time after the formation of what we would call Scotland (though it lacked the Hebrides and such), still considered themselves an Irish kingdom (and were called Irish by Saxons/English for a long time). The relations began to fall away as the Scots grew culturally distinct from the Irish; where they had been essentially identical as Dal Riadans, as they took control of the north of Britain, they grew to be culturally distinct, but essentially still 'Irish'; they had their own customs and unique traits, but, so did all Irish kingdoms; more or less, they became seperate from the clans of Ulster in custom and tradition. When the last Dal Riadan holdings in Ireland were lost, their direct connection to Ireland was severed, but connections were still, more or less, close. However, they remained, essentially, an 'Irish' kingdom; however, conflicts with Northumbria introduced very long-lived land claims in the south of modern Scotland/north of modern England, between who actually had the right to what. So many treaties were rather ambigous, so there was constant conflict over interpretation; one didn't much like the thought of a foreign king collecting tax or raising levies from people who didn't belong to their land. This inevitably led to the influx of Anglo-Saxons into the area we would come to call the 'lowlands'; invaders, migrants, and by way of marriages. Marriages were meant to try and ensure peace, but that never lasted long in the earlier periods; that most weighs on the very much Gaelic culture of the early Scots, which doesn't recognize marriages that well, since the Gaelic clan societies had no concrete nobility, just various ranks of aristocracy that could fluctuate; a marriage agreement good in one generation can very suddenly become utter rubbish. Until the introduction of the Norman feudal system (where feudal noble houses merged with clan systems to an extent, though Norman political styles became predominant), the Saxons/English were dealing with a people who had a wholely different system of politics. The introduction of Norman systems did change a lot. Ireland (at first), despite Norman presence, and despite descending, in large part, into anarchy, preserved much of Gaelic political systems. Normans were Gaelicized; they started following similar systems. Gaelic/Norse Irish took well to some Norman customs, but found many rather abhorrent and flat out barbaric (the concept of 'divine right', particularly, which even most Irish aristocrats, who would benefit, didn't adopt for generations). The Scots in the lowlands changed far quicker; they had been directly associated with the Saxons and then Normans for a longer time than the Irish. Through marriages and just political situation, they adopted many more customs, much quicker. Normano-Irish and Normano-Scots were wholely different groups; the Normano-Irish were more Irish with strong Norman influences (they were simply substantially more prevalent, and the Norman culture was being submerged in Irish culture), and Normano-Scots were more Norman with strong Gaelic Scot influences (not a matter of numbers here; Saxon and then Norman feudalist influences had been being absorbed for some time); this would be a major shift culturally between the two. However, highland Scots, though affected more heavily by Norse culture (though both were substantially influenced by it) were still like the Irish in many respects, though they also had absorbed Pict culture, and had existed in their own land now for centuries, so they, of course, followed a different course of development; by this point, Scots and Irish are most distinctly different groups. However, things still changed more. That's only the Norman invasions and developments; we could explore further (much further), but I think that's a good time to declare the genuine split between the Irish and Scots into completely distinct cultures, though I could understand arguments placing it earlier or even a bit later.

That said; the kingdom of Dal Riada, despite being across the sea (mostly, it had some coastal holdings in Ireland for a while) was, I think, Irish. I don't see much debate in it; while they did change (northern Briton and Pict influences), they could still converse with the Irish easily, shared most of the same customs, etc. Scots and Irish are culturally distinct today (and I'm sure any of us from either would remind you), but it is something of note that we weren't always.

zakalwe
07-01-2005, 10:58
I tend to agree with most of what you're saying i think. I see the modern divisions between Ireland and Scotland as somewhat misleading for this period. I wouldn't say Dal Riata was 'irish' as such as i think that puts a modern spin on things, but i agree that culturally these areas were similar. Argyll and the southern hebrides and much of Ulster can really be seen as a single unit. I go with the idea that the supposed 'invasion' of west scotland by the Scots was nothing of the sort. This was predominantly later attempts to explain why the west coast of Scotland had a Gaelic culture. Rather what existed was a cultural and geographical unit encompassing the north of Ireland and Argyll and some other parts of Scotland. Of course this was a dynamic process and power structures shifted between various areas within this unit at different times and interactions with external bodies had strong effects, but the so-called invasion is unlikely to have ever happened. The connections and existence of this socio-cultural sphere had always been there.

Ranika
07-01-2005, 16:10
Right; I only use the term 'Irish' as it's something people can understand quicker than trying to draw out a more nebulous concept of culture and tradition. The 'invasion' of Dal Riada has been determined, more and more, to have actually been more of a slow migration; remains of early Gaelic houses from substantially earlier than the proposed period of the 'invasion' exist, so clearly, Gaels existed in Argyll. It's not hard to see why; it's a very short distance between the closest point of Ireland and Scotland; it would be easy to simply determine that one could 'hop the pond' and set up a community; it'd be more of a slow expansion into a relatively unpopulated region. The invasion concept seems more, to me, as an attempt to explain the hostilities that arose between the Picts and Dal Riadans; if the Dal Riadans had violently invaded and conquered the region, it would give more of a valid reason for hostilities between the two, but, as it is, it seems they rather peacefully migrated, and hostilities probably escalated over unrelated matters; probably just a land grab. It's a lot less epic that way I suppose; people want colorful wars, but, that's just not how people spread all the time.

Sfwartir
07-03-2005, 19:33
Casse looking good, EB. I've never bothered to play the Britons in vanilla and (no offense) probably won't play Casse either, but still - Casse looks great.

Ranika
07-04-2005, 03:52
That isn't offensive; even if one doesn't intend to play a faction, we want to provide good opposition (hence also spending time on making regionals and rebels and such). It's not that fun to play a game where the enemies are boring or ugly. It's much more exciting if the opposition is colorful

the_handsome_viking
08-02-2005, 15:39
Hi im new to this forum, infact I just joined a few minutes ago, but I have been viewing the progress of this mod for quite some time and I must say im very impressed.

I do however have just a few quesitons concerning the fantastic Rycalawre unit.

1) I have indeed seen the real life helmet that inspired that design in this mod, however was it defiantly used in combat? and if so would it be used by such an elite unit of men?
I have read about the celts being somewhat intimidating due to their natural height , and also that they would add to this natural height by wearing horned helmets like the ones the Rycalawre are wearing, however I'd assume that they would wear this more to shock the enemy rather than go right into combat with them, the helmets dont seem very practical.
anyway getting to my point, the Rycalawre unit seem to be the supreme fighting experts of this factions unit list, so i ask you , would they really go into combat wearing such highly decorative helmets?

2)the Rycalawre is a very attractive unit, the chain mail and the swords and helmets etc all look very good, and I cant wait to play this mod becuase of units like this but theres one problem.........the shirt/tunic.

would it be possible to change the texture of the shirt to something a bit less...bright and clashing? Dont get me wrong, im not trying to insult the skin artists of this mod, I wouldnt be here if i wasnt 100% impressed with the project, I just think that the shirt doesnt look very good on this unit. I understand historical accuracy is more important than simply looking good, but from what ive read the various celtic peoples were somewhat....well, fancy when it came to their clothes and I doubt that a group of elites that belonged to a culture that was extremely fond of being well dressed would wear such a brightly colored shirt that clashed with their trousers and just about everything else it came into contact with.

so is there a chance you could change the shirt?