View Full Version : Just to make your mouth drip
Here is something to please the eye, while the mind imagines EB's wonders...
Alin's german renders:
https://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5748/113cf.jpg
https://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2443/100hb.jpg
https://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1562/88mp.jpg
https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/887/20xt.jpg
https://img45.imageshack.us/img45/2898/28xl.jpg
https://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7952/149yl.jpg
https://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3393/154nr.jpg
https://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3293/162ez.jpg
Webbird's german renders:
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/3982/swaiutsgroup2ha.jpg
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/9208/sashnoversions2gp.jpg
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/1328/ridongroup9jo.jpg
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/4227/merjaz9ij.jpg
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/8545/swainazgroup1eg.jpg
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/5348/wulfazfinal1vy.jpg
http://img171.exs.cx/img171/9164/germanicwarband6dz.jpg
Skins Wbbird and models by Alin.
We hope you like them, Enjoy!
infierno
08-07-2005, 22:50
cool really cool those skins roolz and the axes are great wohaaaaaaaaaaa
nice. very nice skins. is everything cool with khelvan and aymar (and the rest)?
btw, nice progress on the animations (sig).
what, exactly, are the new animations? just the 2-handed pike and 2-handed spear(cav) or more?
Very good looking! I think they will be my favourite barbarian faction when I play EB... I never really gave any barbarian factions a chance really, I like my organized battle lines..
yeah. i'm really gonna give this faction a chance.
I liek strait battle lines (phalanxes), but wiht modern AI it's impossible to go || so it's a pitty.
And i'm currently more of a skirmisher myself. rtr+darthmod. and still 30% is killed with my thureophoroi+rout-charges for my hetairoi.
definatly gonna love forest fight against the phalanxes, ambushing, skirmishing. argh i'm getting excited!
nice. very nice skins. is everything cool with khelvan and aymar (and the rest)?
Yeah everyone is ok, we are just very busy with the mod recently.
btw, nice progress on the animations (sig).
what, exactly, are the new animations? just the 2-handed pike and 2-handed spear(cav) or more?
There are many new skeletons wich are done and must be done, let me name some wich are done but also wich are in progress: 2 handed swordsman, 2 you mentioned, 1 handed axeman, javelinman for elephants and chariots, overhand spearman(foot and mount) and so on.
mounted+overhead stabbing..sounds weird. will that be teh animation for fighting "militia" cav? (ridon harjaz etc)
btw, what is there to change about the chariots? will Kopis soldiers use the one-handed-axe? it was a slashing sword. or am i wrong?
oh wait: it has a point, and due to the weight distribution the sword will be likely to go further in. right/wrong?
infierno
08-07-2005, 23:32
didnt know you could animate! this will improve the game a lot! GOD BLESS THIS MOD!! final stronghold for hardcored rtw players
the_handsome_viking
08-07-2005, 23:33
those axemen look like they could do a fair ammount of ass kicking.
infierno
08-07-2005, 23:42
those axemen look like they could do a fair ammount of ass kicking.
yes the first guy is scary, a 1.60 meters roman against a 1.90 meters barbarian with an axe, it was terrifying
but still it seems a little slim, i mean, some wolf furs over their shoulders will make it much more terrifying
and other thing, in barbarian lands, i mean, north europe, its cold, why self naked warriors? only intimidation purposes or anithing beyond that?
well the Gaesatae (sp?) were not officially released. but it's basically a Milnaht(sp?) without the pants.
and i never really got the idea what is impressive about a naked guy fighting when it's 5 degrees outside..
but fighting without a shirt would mean more freedom of movement.
btw, are warriors (who where historically picked for their size) actually larger than regular soldiers? (game-EB)? thats terrifying!
mounted+overhead stabbing..sounds weird. will that be teh animation for fighting "militia" cav? (ridon harjaz etc)
No they use a normal spearman skeleton, about the mounted overhand skeleton, just imagine how you would stabb with spear like a foot soldier only down, so i don't see why it should be whyred.
btw, what is there to change about the chariots? will Kopis soldiers use the one-handed-axe? it was a slashing sword. or am i wrong?
oh wait: it has a point, and due to the weight distribution the sword will be likely to go further in. right/wrong?
Hmm i haven't thought about thatand i haven't looked at the chariot swordsman animations,i'll take a look at it, but i did plan to do a spearman skeleton for chariot, not sure if it will be used but i will leave for some months and wan't to leave the guys everything they need to make new units, i will still drop by tough.
well the Gaesatae (sp?) were not officially released. but it's basically a Milnaht(sp?) without the pants.
and i never really got the idea what is impressive about a naked guy fighting when it's 5 degrees outside..
but fighting without a shirt would mean more freedom of movement.
btw, are warriors (who where historically picked for their size) actually larger than regular soldiers? (game-EB)? thats terrifying!
Yes we made scaled skeletons for different units, this means that different units will be larger/shorter than others.
didnt know you could animate! this will improve the game a lot! GOD BLESS THIS MOD!! final stronghold for hardcored rtw players
Yeah, i've been kept secret for to much time, this has come to an end. ~:)
Gotta sleep now guys, seeya.
the_handsome_viking
08-08-2005, 00:05
yes the first guy is scary, a 1.60 meters roman against a 1.90 meters barbarian with an axe, it was terrifying
but still it seems a little slim, i mean, some wolf furs over their shoulders will make it much more terrifying
indeed, how much damage do you think those axes will do though? the same ammount as chosen axemen?
the_handsome_viking
08-08-2005, 00:16
i really like the look of those units, i just hope that those guys will be able to withstand attacks from other factions.
in germania it says their spears were very sharp, i wonder if that fact will be reflected in the hit points they can deliver with a spear.
infierno
08-08-2005, 04:09
i have a Q guys, is it posible to make different soldiers heigh? i mean, im not 100% sure, but i remember that romans were said to be like 1.60 tall, while some nordic barbarians reached 1.90-1.80 tall, its really a good difference and would be another good eyecandy
well the Gaesatae (sp?) were not officially released. but it's basically a Milnaht(sp?) without the pants.
and i never really got the idea what is impressive about a naked guy fighting when it's 5 degrees outside..
but fighting without a shirt would mean more freedom of movement.
There is a pyschological point to fighting naked; an enemy is more prone to be afraid of a man who is so sure of his physical resilience and personal skill that he sees no danger in fighting nude. That was a very real advantage, and naked Celtic fanatics really were a source of terror to those who fought them. Further, the Gaesatae weren't just impressive in terms of bravery; they would imbibe a 'potion' (actually a type of painkiller) that would make them unable to feel pain. The Gaesatae did things like tear javelins that struck them out of their body and throw them back. The seeming fearlessness of Gaesatae, combined with their remarkable ability to withstand physical suffering and continue to fight, made them truly fear inspiring. It's hard to get an idea of it largely due to modern sensibilities of things; today, a soldier who fights naked would just be seen as crazy. During the late iron age, that was a sign of utter fearlessness, which would be both heartening for their allies, and very terrifying for their enemies.
Mr Frost
08-08-2005, 04:58
There is a pyschological point to fighting naked; an enemy is more prone to be afraid of a man who is so sure of his physical resilience and personal skill that he sees no danger in fighting nude. That was a very real advantage, and naked Celtic fanatics really were a source of terror to those who fought them. Further, the Gaesatae weren't just impressive in terms of bravery; they would imbibe a 'potion' (actually a type of painkiller) that would make them unable to feel pain. The Gaesatae did things like tear javelins that struck them out of their body and throw them back. The seeming fearlessness of Gaesatae, combined with their remarkable ability to withstand physical suffering and continue to fight, made them truly fear inspiring. It's hard to get an idea of it largely due to modern sensibilities of things; today, a soldier who fights naked would just be seen as crazy. During the late iron age, that was a sign of utter fearlessness, which would be both heartening for their allies, and very terrifying for their enemies.
Not only that , they were apparantly quite magnificent of physique and kept their skin untanned to create a rather singular appearance {I understand Ranika will know this ; the point is for the poster of the question that prompted his repily and others who mightn't know} .
They must have looked like heavily muscled wraiths ~D
True; the Gaesatae would have a truly horrifying appearance. Baring in mind that Celts removed their body hair, their bodies looked quite pale in battle (not only pale skinned, but not even hair to give it a somewhat darker palor). It wasn't unheard of in other places; the Silures, for example, had somewhat similar warriors. They didn't fight nude, but they would use a white powder on their body (as if they were being prepared for burial) to give them the appearance of animated dead; the idea was to make one appear as horrifyingly monsterous as possible. Gaesatae were giant in size, seemingly invincible due to a drug that was essentially PCP (a modern horse tranquilizer; ask a police officer what it's like to engage a PCP addict; they can take a blast from a shotgun and keep moving), fearless because of said drug combined with conditioning, training and experience, and great inherent physical strength. Real 'naked fanatics' were a lot more devestating, both physically and in terms of morale, than CA's cheap knock-offs would have one understand. Not to mention no one ever seems to approach them seriously; they had very good reasons to fight how they did, and they were very effective in the process. However, the fact that they're nude is what's focused on; not that they're nude and X other things that are done in tandem to make them all the more frightening.
that is very interesting, really. didn't know about teh drug. it's sickening and wicked..makes me realize how much CA fucked up..
I`ve already seen this units in the sweboz preview and i must say that germans will have one of the best looking units of all RTW mods. Great work guys.
...just to let you know you've seen only the half of the new germanic units.
We have some special models & animations (thanks to Alin) and Textures (thanks webbird) for you.
In the future (open beta) you can enjoy units like the Frámêhárjōz, Athálingōz, Hundáskápiz, Gáizáhárjōz and many more...
It is so sad, that we are not allowed to show them yet ~;)
...just to let you know you've seen only the half of the new germanic units.
We have some special models & animations (thanks to Alin) and Textures (thanks webbird) for you.
In the future (open beta) you can enjoy units like the Frámêhárjōz, Athálingōz, Hundáskápiz, Gáizáhárjōz and many more...
It is so sad, that we are not allowed to show them yet ~;)
are you serious real Athálingōz, Hundáskápiz and Gáizáhárjōz wow those are my favourites, ~;)
...euhm...what are those? Could you give some information about them so we can at least dream about this night :)
Dux Corvanus
08-08-2005, 14:09
...but better start training your spelling and pronunciation skills! :laugh4:
are you serious real Athálingōz, Hundáskápiz and Hundáskápiz wow those are my favourites, ~;)
...euhm...what are those? Could you give some information about them so we can at least dream about this night :)
Ah, but that would be lame and boring. Where would be the surprise?
BUT: If you somehow get a idea what this names mean i'll give you some info about them. ~;)
Ah, but that would be lame and boring. Where would be the surprise?
BUT: If you somehow get a idea what this names mean i'll give you some info about them. ~;)
owkay sure Ancient german how hard can it be...Aiks that hard.
Dux: I alread exercised the last closed betas units: Mêrjōz, Wōdánáwulfōz. you see!
what they mean? Since Dutch is related to german I'll give it a try (this is going to be ridiculous, anyway):
Frameharjoz: some cavalry unit. heavy cav?
Gáizáhárjōz: some other cav. from Gaza? ~;)
Hundáskápiz: I'll bet it doesn't have to do with the cars, something with dogs?
hund is dog in german right? kapiz euhm... damn
Athálingōz: euhm... a german unit?
just gimme the bloody info will you? ~;)
owkay sure Ancient german how hard can it be...Aiks that hard.
Dux: I alread exercised the last closed betas units: Mêrjōz, Wōdánáwulfōz. you see!
what they mean? Since Dutch is related to german I'll give it a try (this is going to be ridiculous, anyway):
Frameharjoz: some cavalry unit. heavy cav?
Gáizáhárjōz: some other cav. from Gaza? ~;)
Hundáskápiz: I'll bet it doesn't have to do with the cars, something with dogs?
hund is dog in german right? kapiz euhm... damn
Athálingōz: euhm... a german unit?
just gimme the bloody info will you? ~;)
O.k. you tried really hard ~;)
Hund means dog in german, but is also has something to do with a number(not twenty, not fifty, but...) Perhaps that helps.
Gáizáz means Lance in protogermanic. Remember the attempt of the roman imperial legions to storm the hill at the battle on the Angrivarian wall? They were pushed back by some overlong lances - praelongas hastas as the romans learned to fear those weapons...
Frámê: The typical weapon of the germanics during this time...
Athálingōz: a hint - with some tknowledge in modern german - chance the t with a d and perhaps it makes some sense:-)
O.k. you tried really hard ~;)
Hund means dog in german, but is also has something to do with a number(not twenty, not fifty, but...) Perhaps that helps.
Gáizáz means Lance in protogermanic. Remember the attempt of the roman imperial legions to storm the hill at the battle on the Angrivarian wall? They were pushed back by some overlong lances - praelongas hastas as the romans learned to fear those weapons...
Frámê: The typical weapon of the germanics during this time...
Athálingōz: a hint - with some tknowledge in modern german - chance the t with a d and perhaps it makes some sense:-)
-Hundred?
-lance cavalry
-axe cavalry? or spear? Since when I was playing sweboz I almost only had spear units.
Adaling? wth? schearched in my German dictionarry tried ada, adaling and ada* in Danish, Swedish, German and Norse on-line interpreters. but nothing!?
in what language can I find it back?
and lingoz something with laguage?
it doesn't have to do with muslims: Eid Ul-adha? right?
-Hundred?
-lance cavalry
-axe cavalry? or spear? Since when I was playing sweboz I almost only had spear units.
Adaling? wth? schearched in my German dictionarry tried ada, adaling and ada* in Danish, Swedish, German and Norse on-line interpreters. but nothing!?
in what language can I find it back?
and lingoz something with laguage?
it doesn't have to do with muslims: Eid Ul-adha? right?
Hmm you're to obsessed with cavarly and the germans weren't known for that, but another hint 1 of them is a cavarly unit.
-Hundred?
-lance cavalry
-axe cavalry? or spear? Since when I was playing sweboz I almost only had spear units.
Adaling? wth? schearched in my German dictionarry tried ada, adaling and ada* in Danish, Swedish, German and Norse on-line interpreters. but nothing!?
in what language can I find it back?
and lingoz something with laguage?
it doesn't have to do with muslims: Eid Ul-adha? right?
-Yes - Hundred - the best hundred warriors of a district.
-Frame is the germanic spear - a weapon good for melee and missile alike.
-Would you hold a hill with cavalry? No - but i try to convince the team to show you at least my favourite unit this far - concerning the skills of Alin and webbird this might change pretty soon:-)
-Perhaps you know the german word Adelig or Edeltum?
Athalingoz : something noble
Hundaskapiz : maybe some infantry in number of 100 men
Frameharjoz : cavalry using framea (and again, framea was in use in III century ad)
Gaizaharjoz : cavalry equiped with lances.
Am i right?
Hmm you're to obsessed with cavarly and the germans weren't known for that, but another hint 1 of them is a cavarly unit.
what's wrong with cavalry?
hmmm I'v gotta think this time (how can you do this to me!!! :p)
let me think....
-the hundred was correct yippi!!!
-lancemen?
-frame so another spear unit?
-no I don't know those german words but I do know their dutch counter parts so noblemen I assume, then this is the one cavalry unit?
Athalingoz : something noble
Hundaskapiz : maybe some infantry in number of 100 men
Frameharjoz : cavalry using framea (and again, framea was in use in III century ad)
Gaizaharjoz : cavalry equiped with lances.
Am i right?
Frame was still in use in 300 AD along with the frankish Angon.
But the Frame was also the germanic weapon the Cimbrii and Ambronii used.
Cavalry played only a supporting role in germanic warfare - at least till 50 BC.
If you like cavalry units Steppe Merc is your best friend:-)
The Germanics were fast, flexible warriors, but relied not too much on cavalry - something very intelligent if you live in those moor-bog-forest lands. ~;)
Damn Dago beat me! how unfair!:p
Maybe you are right, after all EB has the knowledge ~;) . But was i right with athalingoz?
Maybe you are right, after all EB has the knowledge ~;) . But was i right with athalingoz?
Yes, you are right with the nobles and - praise the gods - not only nobles but also cavalry:-)
Yeah, i`m the man!!! :charge: Now i must think about the hundaskapiz, hmm... what could it be.... I got it, wait a sec.. ~D
They are some kind of clan warriors, warriors from a society similiar to the celtic clans called sibbe (proto germanic sebjo). Group of 100 sibben was called hundaskapiz, members of the sebjos were of noble birth. Now i am waiting for a reward (maybe some extra screenies of this units on my PM ~;) )
They are some kind of clan warriors, warriors from a society similiar to the celtic clans called sibbe (proto germanic sebjo).
Not really, but as a other hint:
The were considered the best and most agile warriors of a district - 100 men chosen for special tactical purposes.
A sebjo would have real problems to muster 100 warriors:-) Only the largest could have done this.
Check now SaFe i`ve edited my post.
Check now SaFe i`ve edited my post.
Sorry - again no
You could best translate Hundaskapiz with Hundredship or Group of Hundred. And No - they were not necessarily of noble birth. Noble birth was in germanic society not something you could build rulership on - they had a special mix of democracy and monarchy. Oh, i'm carried away - this doesn't belong here - perhaps it belongs more in our traits and ancillaries theme or still better in our recruiting system or still better in our new building system, or...
Chosen (argh - i hate this word - it reminds me of CA's historical view) warriors to accomplish a special task - and here we are back with our beloved theme cavalry:-)
Oh, well, but i was close was i? Now that i decoded ~;) all the names you could provide some info on these units.
yes Dago is right now gimme the info!!!!
What info do you want?
You figured out almost all:-)
But here is the description of the Gáizáhárjōz for your curiosty fans.Naturally descriptions are still in work, but you get the idea behind the unit.
The Gáizáhárjōz (Lance Warriors) are hard-nosed, disciplined warriors and
fight in a very dense formation unlike most other germanic warbands.
In years of constant battle with southern nations they adapted new strategies and learned to form a impenetrable shield-wall. The germanic lance is a deadly and intimidating weapon with a long spearhead,
making those warriors able to break almost any armor from the distance and are the fatility for the enemy, cavalry and infantry alike.
Historically the Gáizáhárjōz naturally developed through contact woth southern cultures. The lances were adapted to the amour and the cavalry tactics the enemies of the germanic tribes used. Their large shields, packed one at the other, indeed supplied an almost perfect protection while their lances belonged to the deadliest in the ancient world. The germanic lance was a deadly weapon with long, about 41-45 cm spearhead. If this type of thrusting weapon was mentioned, they were always called “enormous” or “over-long lances.
If i tell more they will kill me and i will not be able to finish the work on the germanics. Do you want that?If you want to see a pic of this unit you can try to bribe Alin:-)
Ok thank you SaFe. Alin how much do you want? ~;)
how about soem digital beers?
here's one in advance:
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/previews/00248_heinekenanyone.jpg
Aymar de Bois Mauri
08-08-2005, 18:29
Hummmmmmmm... :angry:
Trying to bribe my men? Do we need discipline here? :whip:
nothing happening here, move along.
let us bribe alin...just a tiny thing..
Ah germans!!, they look even better now!!
Nice job Alin, Webbird and Safe!!
Safe,
Some germanic's that dwell close to the Celts are very influested by them.
Will EB refect this in the Germanic unit list?!
And what about the NordWesternblock tribes ?!
Some scientist believe that tribes like the Chatti, Cheruscii where not really germans at all.
Wikipedia link
NordWestBlock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock)
PS: The Axe man look's a bit like the germanic chieftan in Gladiator
nothing happening here, move along.
let us bribe alin...just a tiny thing..
Ah Safe look what you've done, sorry guys i will leave this in the hands of Aymar, he can post them.
PS: The Axe man look's a bit like the germanic chieftan in Gladiator
I this good?! ~:confused:
I this good?! ~:confused:
Alin don't get me wrong this unit is one of my favorite EB unit but it reminds me a bit of the germanic chieftain in gladiator.
Ah germans!!, they look even better now!!
Nice job Alin, Webbird and Safe!!
Safe,
Some germanic's that dwell close to the Celts are very influested by them.
Will EB refect this in the Germanic unit list?!
And what about the NordWesternblock tribes ?!
Some scientist believe that tribes like the Chatti, Cheruscii where not really germans at all.
Wikipedia link
NordWestBlock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock)
PS: The Axe man look's a bit like the germanic chieftan in Gladiator
About celtic influence: Yes we reflect this in several aspects of the game - not only unit-wise.
Personally i don't believe the thing about the nordwestblock, and there are not many historians following this thinking about the ideas of this scientists. So, No, Chattii and Cheruscii belong to the germanic culture. Also the Hermundurii definately belonged to the suebian confederation.
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
08-09-2005, 09:04
What kind of units nobles will be? Infantry or cavalry? Will they wear armor?
So many questions to ask...
I think that they could be some heavy infantry very well equiped (just guessing).
Athalingoz are nobles on horses - but not available at the start of the game.
Germanic chieftains and nobles fought almost ever on foot to encourage their warriors. Germanic warriors fought only so good as their Harjanaz(Warlord).This changed only around AD.
Dago - the Herthoz are probably what you mean:-)
Hey, Safe could you tell us some more about the hundaskapiz? I dont want you to post here their description but you could tell us what weapons they used, how they fought and stuff like that, thank you in advance.
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
08-09-2005, 10:09
Athalingoz are nobles on horses - but not available at the start of the game.
Germanic chieftains and nobles fought almost ever on foot to encourage their warriors. Germanic warriors fought only so good as their Harjanaz(Warlord).This changed only around AD.
Dago - the Herthoz are probably what you mean:-)
But did they wear armor? And what kind of outfit they had in general?
But did they wear armor? And what kind of outfit they had in general?
Herthoz were the best equipped men in the germanic army - so yes they will wear armour - either pillaged or traded from the gauls. Also the germanics were fast to adopt new ways, so the learned the iron working real fast.
Athalingoz wear armour too, but as i aid they are not recruitable at the start of the game.
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
08-09-2005, 10:19
Herthoz were the best equipped men in the germanic army - so yes they will wear armour - either pillaged or traded from the gauls. Also the germanics were fast to adopt new ways, so the learned the iron working real fast.
Athalingoz wear armour too, but as i aid they are not recruitable at the start of the game.
Ok, thanks. One more question. What kind of horse those Athalingoz ride?
As far as I know germanic horses were pretty much pony like and not suitable for carrying armored man.
Hey, Safe could you tell us some more about the hundaskapiz? I dont want you to post here their description but you could tell us what weapons they used, how they fought and stuff like that, thank you in advance.
The hundakapiz will use 2 handed celtic long shword.
Ridoharjoz rode small germanic horses - the feet of the warriors often reached the ground.
Athalingoz had access to better horses. Also romans often equipped them with good horses as the germanics were highly praised mercenaries, who usually came on top gallic cavalry in battles.
Vercingetorix learned a bitter lesson this way.
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
08-09-2005, 10:50
I guest that was the last question for now, thanks a lot SaFe.
It really isn't very easy to find proper information about germanics in 3th century
Bc.
The hundakapiz will use 2 handed celtic long shword.
Will they be something like the celtic champions?
similar but not the same. They were used for special tactical purposes too, but yes they were usual the best hundred warriors of a Gawjam(district)
just post the damn screenie!!!
~;)
Do you have ever seen Aymar's whip?
If you would have seen it you would not ask me to post the screens ~;)
Perhaps if you ask real nice, Aymar is willing to show you the Gaizaharjoz before the open beta...
i can already guess his respons, and is the beta ThAt close?
About celtic influence: Yes we reflect this in several aspects of the game - not only unit-wise.
Personally i don't believe the thing about the nordwestblock, and there are not many historians following this thinking about the ideas of this scientists. So, No, Chattii and Cheruscii belong to the germanic culture. Also the Hermundurii definately belonged to the suebian confederation.
I was wondering how the distinction between Germans and Celts will be expressed in the mod. Are they different cultures? Can they recruit each other's units?
I don't know very much about this part of history, but I understand it hard to distinguish between the two groups, so I was wondering what EB's take on this is.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
08-09-2005, 13:36
just post the damn screenie!!!
~;)It seems the threat of the whip only causes excitment in this one. He is probably an SM fan. I'll have to sharpen my falcata instead. :devil:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
08-09-2005, 13:54
I was wondering how the distinction between Germans and Celts will be expressed in the mod. Are they different cultures? Can they recruit each other's units?No. They were different cultures although technological wise Celts did influenced Germanic tribes a lot.
I don't know very much about this part of history, but I understand it hard to distinguish between the two groups, so I was wondering what EB's take on this is.Well, Ranika, Psycho and SaFe can explain better but they were easy to distiguish not only by their religion, languages or looks but by their own social life.
Ridoharjoz rode small germanic horses - the feet of the warriors often reached the ground.
Athalingoz had access to better horses. Also romans often equipped them with good horses as the germanics were highly praised mercenaries, who usually came on top gallic cavalry in battles.
Vercingetorix learned a bitter lesson this way.
i recall vaguely (a long time since i read it) Caesar launching his german horses on the gauls after their cavalry tried to ambush the legions in march order, the gauls had been repulsed and were desorganized when the germans stroke...
And at Alesia when they were busy assaulting the fortifications (and probably disorganised too, maybe dismounted considering the situation). That speak a lot about Caesar's tactical sense and units control, not that much about intrinsic superiority of the germanic horsemen. By the way he used them only because his gallic allies betrayed him and he was left without enough cavalry support.
I don't doubt they were good troops, if Caesar praised them there must have been a reason, but i doubt they were necessarily superior to gallic cavalry.
They were superior. Gallic cavalry were unreliable in comparison to germanic one.
Ariovist conquered the lands of the aedui thanks to his cavalry tactics too.
Not to say gallic cavalry was worse, but normally germanic cavalry came on top.
Later - in the wars of Caesar Germanicus against the germanic tribes under Arminius his soldiers were short of revolt, because their superiors wanted to sent the batavian auxiliary horsemen away (fear of treason).
Also there is a interesting part of the Tencterii and their rooting of Caesar's gallic cavalry.
It seems the threat of the whip only causes excitment in this one. He is probably an SM fan. I'll have to sharpen my falcata instead. :devil:
yeah, whips suck, and falacat's rule!
but seriously, i'm just curious
yeah, whips suck, and falacat's rule!
but seriously, i'm just curious
Ok here you go:
https://img114.imageshack.us/img114/3512/79oh.jpg
argh...thats mean...and it doesnt even have a weapon..
argh...thats mean...and it doesnt even have a weapon..
ah don't worry, you'll see it soon...trust me ~:)
What is that unit you have posted? I`ve zoomed it to the max, can`t see much but this is better than nothing. ~:)
What is that unit you have posted? I`ve zoomed it to the max, can`t see much but this is better than nothing. ~:)
Finally someone who doesn't coplain~:), it the gaizaz harjoz that Safe was talking about and wich it's he's favourite german unit but not also mine. ~;)
Also there is a interesting part of the Tencterii and their rooting of Caesar's gallic cavalry.
My memory fail me (or i never memorized it lol), i can't remember, could you please give some details ? :)
Caesar's de bello gallico.
He said:
"Meantime I sent orders to the officers who had gone on in front with all the cavalry telling them not to attack the enemy, and if attacked themselves, to hold out until I approached with the main body of the army. Our cavalry force was 5,000 strong, whereas the enemy's numbered no more than 800 because those who had crossed the Meuse in search of provisions had not yet returned.
However, the Germans charged our force as soon as it came into view.[9] Our men, who were not expecting trouble from the enemy, because their envoys had only just left me and had asked for a truce for that day, were quickly thrown into confusion. But when they fought back once more, the enemy, following their usual practice, jumped down and unseated a number of our men by stabbing their horses in the belly. The rest they put to flight, driving them on in such panic, that they did not stop until they came into sight of our marching column."
The cavalry of J.C. were mainly gallic auxiliaries.
There are much better descriptions of this cavalry clash, but this is the one that naturally comes to my mind.
As always the numbers 800 vs. 5000 are too high:-)
But Caesar is known for slightly changing numbers...
Afro Thunder
08-09-2005, 21:16
How in the world are we supposed to pronounce those crazy proto-Germanic names?!? Can this mod at least include a simplified name for us simple people who aren't linguistics experts (like me)? ~;)
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 21:18
Why do you need to pronounce it? Are you going to be talking to your computer, ordering the Ridon Harjaz into battle?
Don't worry, we will have pronunciation guides.
Why do you need to pronounce it? Are you going to be talking to your computer, ordering the Ridon Harjaz into battle?
Don't pretend you wouldn't.
oh yeah..i scream, shout, curse..the whole nine yards..i order it to do stuff..and when it doesnt..i repeat the screaming shouting and cursing...
that's why i'm not gonna play 'barbarians'. hastati, princepes, triarii. are beter pronounceable than ANY sweboz unit..
btw, i know CA even nerved pronouncing triariai..but i had a few latin classes ~;) at least more lessons latin than ancients gallic.
Ah they you don't deserve to show you the screenie you requested and we wanted to do this at the end of th day but now you blow that chance away. ~;)
I was wondering how the distinction between Germans and Celts will be expressed in the mod. Are they different cultures? Can they recruit each other's units?
I don't know very much about this part of history, but I understand it hard to distinguish between the two groups, so I was wondering what EB's take on this is.
Celts and Germans were extremely culturally distinct; Germans adopted a lot of Celtic pieces of equipment, but you would readily be able to tell a Germanic force from a Celtic one, in terms of many things; standard bearers, chariots, heavy cavalry, etc. Chariots particularly stand out, but they also fought differently, and used many different weapons; Gallic Celts in this period did not use axes, for example, and the Germans didn't use chariots. Heavy infantry would look different; size and organization would be different. Further, you have traditions that would come from their religions. Celts collected heads for religious reasons; despite misconception, they weren't trophies (or weren't JUST trophies). Their important aspect is that they were a religious relic, and Celts took it very seriously. They would collect heads from the dead and dying during lulls in battle. The reverence given to the head was very strong; even in post-Christian Ireland and early Alba, where Gallic and British Celtic culture was actually a minority influence compared to Galaecian-Iberian culture, their still existed an outgrowth of the cult of the human head; the Irish and early Scots still collected heads of their enemies, and explained it was because the soul of man resided in the head.
Technologically, Celts were superior; produced large amounts of chain, long iron swords, performed complicated surgeries, and had an understanding of chemical processes. They were religiously rather advanced compared to many cultures; when others were still worshipping idols, Celts determined that physical objects and things could not be gods, except for the possible incarnation of a god. It is misconcieved by many that Celts worshipped trees; Celts believed certain trees and other things were sacred, and venerated and protected them, but they didn't worship them. Similar practices occur in all religions; just determining something is sacred does not mean one worships it. Celtic temples are generally rather 'no frills'; from what can be determined, they generally had a votive pool or ritual bath, metallic plates depicting common practices, and an altar; there were probably other things, of course, but that seems to the bulwark of what a Celtic temple consisted of.
In social life, Celts were a comparatively welcoming people. Despite a very brutal, even sometimes xenophobic approach to war, many Celts were actually fairly warm toward outsiders during peace. They liked to trade, discuss politics, philosophy, music, sports. They were very 'normal' people day to day, and one modern people can, in many respects, relate to; but that can be said of a lot of ancient people. People seem to assume many ancient cultures were dirt-farming inbred idiots, but they were pretty much like we are now, but less technologically advanced (in some respects; we've lost quite a bit we still haven't got back; in respect to Celts, we've lost the ability to make certain things, such as cultivate a type of grain from Celtic Britain which is substantially healthier than grain we produce now) and with different social concerns due to religion and general philosophy of the day. Celts were a very clean people; filth was unacceptable. A notable point of that is, when Brennos sacked Rome, he accepted a ransom and left because the stench of the city nauseated him and disgusted his men. Celts developed a number of types of soap from lye, as well as compounds to remove body hair, and other methods of keeping their bodies clean. Despite being a very real warrior-hero culture, they led fairly peaceful private lives. The common entertainment for most was sporting events; Celts enjoyed many sports, and were very competetive.
The Celts organized by way of sub-kings under a high king, or by magistrates in the case of the Aedui. Law was absolute, and these officials had little power over the law (or any power at all in many Celtic societies). Elected judges had power over the law, but they answered to the tribes that elected them; their main purpose was to act as a judge in legal disputes, and as a representative of their tribe if a law was to be changed. No one was above the law because everyone answered to some one else; the higher one's station in society, the more harshly they'd be punished by the law. Warriors, aristocrats, judges, etc.; they were meant to exemplify the law, which was divine, and by not doing so, they were setting a bad example for lower stations in society. Kings and such were elected, and, so, they could also be removed. They were a temporal official, and had to meet numerous requirements. They had to be able to lead their host in combat (that is, they had to be physically able to fight properly), they had to control a large amount of money (showing business acumen, as the kings were responsible for much economically, and being a successful businessman made one likely to be able to run a kingdom in such a manner; additionally, they needed to be able to pay fines and such, and reward those deserving of reward), and they had to have reasonable proof of their loyalties to their people. If, at any time, any of those things are compromised, they were removed from power, and a new king was selected.
That's really short and vague on Celtic society, mind you; it is most definitely different than a Germanic society, however.
...but you would readily be able to tell a Germanic force from a German one,
Whoops.
What I have read about the early germanic tribes (300BC-100AD) I get the impresion that these people very spartan..
They did not like cities and did not create many stunning pieces of art like the celts in this time period and prefered a simple more simple life.
I personally think is a big reason that the romans where very successful to romanize the gauls but roman attemps to civilize the germanics where largely unsuccessfull...
Centuries the germans started to be more interested in Roman culture but not in the way that the Romans had in mind ~;)
And about germanic art
In the time period of the wandering of the tribes and the early dark ages the germans did create stunning peices of art but that is much later.
Steppe Merc
08-10-2005, 01:09
Don't pretend you wouldn't.
Yeah, good point. I'll be yelling at my Grivpanvar and my Zradha Shivatir to charge the enemy's infantry, probably. :charge:
Thank you for that very extensive reply, Ranika. I geuss I'll have to do some reading on Gaulic and Germanic cultures before I play EB ~D .
What I have read about the early germanic tribes (300BC-100AD) I get the impresion that these people very spartan.
I don't know how 'spartan' they were, but the Celts were definitely comparatively decadent. The Celts were considered decadent by mediterranean cultures as well; they saw gold as 'jewelry' metal, and more meant for trinkets. Silver was considered holy and used to make coins as well as religious objects, in addition to much jewelry as well. It's notable though, the average Celt owned an awful lot compared to the average member of any society near them. They produced such an amount of art, jewelry, textiles, etc., that much of what they had was considered rather cheap in their society. Really class defining objects were weapons and armor; most could at least afford a nice piece of jewelry or two. That would tend to give them a bit of a decadent appearance; even the lower class was dressed colorfully with a piece of nice jewelry or a nice cloak. They had a very large 'middle class' that allowed this, due to the relative inexpense of many objects other societies would find expensive. When they relaxed, another form of decadence involved a lot of drugs and alcohol (forbidden by some tribes, most notably the Nervii, to keep their warriors hardened), many imported from the mediterranean, as well as made indigenously; Gauls were particularly skilled in producing beer and wine; wine they exported as well as used in great amounts during feasts. The feasts are another point of decadence in themselves; they weren't for a select group usually, they were for everyone in a tribe. Massive feasts, with all manner of locally available foods, drinks, etc., as well as, if a wealthier chief was financing it, imported food and drink. The mixing of classes in Celtic society was largely due to the fact that one's station could greatly change; being born in poor station hardly meant one was going to stay there. That was also seen as unbecoming to some (though it's not a purely Celtic thing, but for many cultures, for a long time, much of what they got of barbarian culture was found in the Gallic cultures).
Also, I'm going to note this; it's either Gaulish or Gallic. Gaulic appears to be an amalgam of the two.
Which drugs, specifically, other than alcohol and the PCP-type substance mentioned previously?
I think by "spartan" the conversation between the suebian Warlord Ariovist with Julius Caesar comes to mind, as the germanic king told Caesar that his warriors had no roof over their heads for many years and live only for fighting.
Which drugs, specifically, other than alcohol and the PCP-type substance mentioned previously?
i think PCP, and the havoc of battle do a good job to be 'immume' to pain..
when i was kid i went on a fieldtrip to the police. and a man told me that they always shoot in the legs. but when somebody gets aggresive and is heaily on XTC (or something) they coudl clean their clip on their legs, and they still keep running.
they smash their hands strait threw a front-screen of a car without blinking..
those Gaesatae should have been a terrifying sight... but the day after would be a REAL HANGOVER..imagine yourself waking up with a javalin stuck threw your leg..
Which drugs, specifically, other than alcohol and the PCP-type substance mentioned previously?
Depicted on a few metal plates Nantes, there appear to have been smoked and inhaled substances, and a few Celtic legends point to the usage of what would seem to be pyschedelic mushrooms. Additionally, the wealthier likely imported a lot of other substances from around the known world; the ancient world had a great deal of substance abuse, and of many many substances.
Steppe Merc
08-11-2005, 01:07
I know hemp was used a lot to make clothing and ropes and the like in the east in particular. I bet at least some of that was smoked... ~D
The Scythians in Herodotus' time seem to have smoked a fair bit of grass. As for the Celts, I can certainly speak for Britain when I say that you don't live in this country for long without coming upon fields and fields of magic mushrooms, and something tells me that people have been eating the buggers for a fair old while...
I know hemp was used a lot to make clothing and ropes and the like in the east in particular. I bet at least some of that was smoked... ~D
whahha...you get home after a hard day of work. to see your friends smoking up your scythian pants ~;)
Teutobod II
08-11-2005, 12:10
I think by "spartan" the conversation between the suebian Warlord Ariovist with Julius Caesar comes to mind, as the germanic king told Caesar that his warriors had no roof over their heads for many years and live only for fighting.
I think it was 14 years...
skeletor
08-11-2005, 13:44
I know the berzerker vikings used poisened mushrooms as drugs before battles, to get in their "berserker state of mind". This is not written down, but the effects of the drugs point to "Fly mushrooms" along with boose and others.
They wold get white foam around their mouth, and not respond to pain.
After battle, they became very calm and dizzy, and could sit still in the same place not saying a word.
I don't think they smoked too mutch. A bunch of stone pople woldn't possibly be the most frightening sight on the battlefield :hippy:
-Skel-
whahha...you get home after a hard day of work. to see your friends smoking up your scythian pants ~;)
That is the funniest thing I've read all day.
you must have a tough life..glad to have written it ~;)
Scythian1: Whoah, dude...like...where's my pants?
Scythian2: You smoked em...
Scythian1: Oh....wow...I did didnt I?
Narayanese
08-13-2005, 00:22
I'm curious about the pronunciation of the german names..
Is ¯ long vowel and ´ high-pitched short vowel?
And is the w like the english sound, or more like v, or like the last phonom in te word 'you'?
As phonetics are written, the straight line indicates a long vowel sound ("Oh";"Ay" as in "lay";) and the circumflex indicates a short vowel sound. I'm also reasonably sure that the "w" is like the English kind, and the "z" also like the English kind.
wouldn't be much of a surpize to me if scythian's walked around naked alot. scared somebody will rob their pants to smoke them.
people after a drinking game would be naked: somebody smoked their pants while they were still in it.
Wōdánáwulfōz:
As example you would speak it out like Wō(like a long spoken wonder) dá like in the word darling not in the word day ná - also here is it a long a - wulf like the english word wulf and finally ōz like in the wizard of Oz.
Hope that helps:-)
.
.
.
and if you can't get it right this is what happens to you
.
.
.
https://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1889/1024x768germannnic9zb1cr.th.jpg
that's not that hard. that's practically fonetic for me (dutch). but i can see englishmen havign trouble with it..especially Wo-Da.
german, dutch and scandinavian speaking people would have it easier to speak today proto-germanic.
happy me,
any units with a G in it..always fun to hear americans say: Slagroom (wipped cream) and that sort a stuff
Narayanese
08-13-2005, 12:39
Wōdánáwulfōz:
As example you would speak it out like Wō(like a long spoken wonder) dá like in the word darling not in the word day ná - also here is it a long a - wulf like the english word wulf and finally ōz like in the wizard of Oz.
Hope that helps:-)
*pronounces the german unit list a few times, doesn't feel as awkward as before*
Ah thanks, I think I understand. :bow:
*looks down at the street, relieved not to see any wōdánáwulfōz down there* :hide:
So ō is pronounced like o in swedish, ê perhaps like ä in swedish, short vowels exept those with ´, and no vowels are diphtongs, and w and z are english sounds.
So ō is pronounced like o in swedish, ê perhaps like ä in swedish, short vowels exept those with ´, and no vowels are diphtongs, and w and z are english sounds.
before you said it i completely understood it..
ōz like in the wizard of Oz.
"Oz" as, in the wizard (and the prison), rhymes with the english "jaws".
pezhetairoi
08-15-2005, 02:03
My god at last we can see spears stuck in the ground beside them warriors. I was having enough of having forester warbands suddenly take up spears from nowhere, and the same goes for the hastati, whose pila come from nowhere. Hmm, the skirmishers seem to be a little over-ambitious... trying to throw two framea at once? ;-)
But all that aside, wonderful job! They look really good, especially the beards... i don't know, but the fact that they have beards seems to strike me for some reason...
About the frameas check this post (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=544858&postcount=38) , someone asked the same as you at twc, hope it clears things out.
Lord Tomyris Reloaded
08-23-2005, 23:12
and other thing, in barbarian lands, i mean, north europe, its cold, why self naked warriors? only intimidation purposes or anithing beyond that?
I believe many Germanic tribesmen fought semi-naked or even naked to prevent clothing infecting a wound acquired in battle.
Ianofsmeg16
08-23-2005, 23:39
I know the berzerker vikings used poisened mushrooms as drugs before battles, to get in their "berserker state of mind". This is not written down, but the effects of the drugs point to "Fly mushrooms" along with boose and others.
They wold get white foam around their mouth, and not respond to pain.
After battle, they became very calm and dizzy, and could sit still in the same place not saying a word.
I don't think they smoked too mutch. A bunch of stone pople woldn't possibly be the most frightening sight on the battlefield :hippy:
-Skel-
The mushroom thing aint true...a program on the history channel proved that a side effect of the mushrooms (the ones that produce the factor "Beserkerness") have a nasty side effect involving Diarroeah, vomiting and other nasty stuff, not something that is prized in warriors ~:cheers:
the_handsome_viking
08-28-2005, 18:21
The mushroom thing aint true...a program on the history channel proved that a side effect of the mushrooms (the ones that produce the factor "Beserkerness") have a nasty side effect involving Diarroeah, vomiting and other nasty stuff, not something that is prized in warriors ~:cheers:
yeah , tests proved that they worked themselves up psychologically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker#Theories_to_explain_berserker_behavior
A UK television programme in 2004 tested the possible use of fly agaric and alcohol by training a healthy volunteer in the use of Viking weapons, then evaluating his performance under the influence of fly agaric or alcohol compared to no influence. It was obvious that use of fly agaric or alcohol severely reduced his fighting ability, and the tentative conclusion drawn was that berserk state was achieved psychologically; otherwise berserkers would have been too easy to kill.
has anyone here ever gone berserk?
nice site
Going berserk — berserksgangr or berserkergang — could also happen in the middle of daily work. It began with shivering, chattering of the teeth, and a chill in the body. The face swelled and changed its color. Next came great rage, howling, and indiscriminate brawling. When the rage quelled, the berserker was exhausted and dull of mind for up to several days. According to sagas, many enemies of berserkers exploited this stage to get rid of them.
sounds almost like pms..
Big_John
08-28-2005, 18:53
has anyone here ever gone berserk?one time i was playing mario cart against this guy in my dorm. i was leading the whole time, talking trash like no tomorrow! i was clearly the better racer, but it started getting tight on the last lap. at the last second, my opponent fired a random shell from about 5 seconds behind me. the thing ricocheted and clipped me as i was literally about a tenth of second from the finish line. i recovered and limped towards the line and the dirty bastard raced right past, beating me by a hair.
i can't tell you how angry i was, i threw the controller down and sprung up from the couch screaming "NO!! NO!! NO!!" as loud as i could. there were about 6 or 7 other people in the room and they were all going crazy. i raged over to a bed that was in the back of the room and grabbed the foot of the mattress and threw it straight up. the thing smacked the ceiling (more than 10-ft up) and crashed down right back onto the frame. everyone in the room scattered. i mean people were literally fleeing like i had a gun or something. it was hilarious. one girl, upon creeping back into the room, said, "you are an intense man", with a hint of fear and awe in her voice.
a few days later i tried to do the same thing, in a normal state of mind. i could touch the opposite end of the mattress to the ceiling, but i was nowhere near smacking the whole thing flush into the ceiling like i did before. it didn't even feel like it weighed anything when i raged on it.
vizigothe
08-28-2005, 19:16
has anyone here ever gone berserk?
Yes, one day during a summer vacation from school my dad woke me up 11am and told me he had some work for me to do....when i went upstairs i saw a rather large dump truck dumping 2 tons of dirt into our front yard. my dad said i had to move it to the back yard and fill in the new garden. i looked at the wheelbarrow and told my dad the tire was flat how can i possibly do this?, he told me to put air into it. i did and halfway into the backyard the tire would go flat again because the weight of the dirt pused air through the hole in the tire at a very fast rate. so after about 1.5 hours of back breaking work of pushing a wheelbarrow with a flat wheel and getting more and more angry after every load. i spilled the dirt all over the yard grabbed the spade and snapped it in 2 parts. the spade had a wooden handle about 5 centimeters in diameter i then proceded to go on a rampage kicking and throwing stuff. i fractured my foot in two places
i was very very angry
Berserker states are fairly well attested in numerous cultures. The Irish rastriagh would pray for hours and put themselves into a kind of trance where they would begin to babble incoherently; the whole time their body would toss and shake violently (both pagan and Christian Irish believed they were being possessed by spirits that protected Ireland), ending with the person speaking very loud and very clearly, but everything they said was gibberish. They would eventually get so swift to put themself into a trance (which is an actual state of mind; it's essentially what the brain goes through while asleep, but in this state one can keep themself awake and moving, though certain nerve reactions are slowed down, though, often, one can confine those slowed reactions, once experienced, to things like pain, allowing one to ignore pain briefly; however, one would still probably lack a bit of control) they could do it right before a fight, and would fight in a trance-like state. It was called a 'calm rage' because of the seeming absolute calm of the individual coupled with their intensity in a fight (they would do things like rip people's fingers off, tear out eyes, pull out/crush throats, etc., without having drawn their weapons first; they got pretty sadistic). King Brian Boru's brother Wolf was a rastriagh (Wolf also was the one who killed Brian Boru's killer). The problem with it was that a really experienced rastriagh, if he wasn't careful, could accidentally slip into this state, and essentially freak out; rarely would he hurt anyone, except himself, though. It was scary, but it was a psychological state.
That's one kind of 'berserker'. The Irish used to say vikings did something similar, but not quite the same. Much more movement, and very loud. Lots of shouting. It was probably the same basic method; given that it's said they could slip into a berserk at any time, it seems likely it was purely a pyschological state, somewhat akin to a self-induced madness. The mind can only be subjected to certain rigors so many times before it snaps.
vizigothe
08-28-2005, 20:03
i would be more afraid of a calm beserker than a loud one. i mean before you know it he is holding your throat in your hand
scary as hell
Marinakis
08-28-2005, 20:08
Have you guys by chance changed the graphic for Hellenistic Pikemen to use BOTH hands to hold the Sarissa?
Steppe Merc
08-28-2005, 20:16
Fear not, we have an animation that will allow two handed pikes/xystons/kontus where aplicable.
Marinakis
08-28-2005, 20:18
you guys never cease to amaze me....
Perplexed
08-28-2005, 20:48
Warriors who rip you limb-from-limb without any visible emotion would be quite scary... Seriously. :sweatdrop:
Marinakis
08-28-2005, 20:51
bah, ill take Greek or Roman disipline over the shock tactics and mind tricks
There was plenty of discipline and tactics to be found; this wasn't every soldier, it was (in the Irish case) a small group of religious fanatics. But there were shield and spearwalls, ordered 'break' tactics, 'shell' formations (akin to testudo), sapping, very ingenious defenses involving man-made terrain (large things; not just moats, but huge man-made hills and the like). Berserkers being present in an army isn't a sign of a lack of tactics, and it's poor form to imagine that it is.
Marinakis
08-28-2005, 22:37
Irish Case? they had no major impact on anything untill maybe a few hundred years ago. And even then they only had an impact on British intrests.
Irish Case? they had no major impact on anything untill maybe a few hundred years ago. And even then they only had an impact on British intrests.
Only true to someone who has no knowledge of ancient ireland, of course. Please refine your absolute statements to be, well, true, rather than absolutely false.
What I'm saying is you're judging tactics based on 'an army uses berserkers, so they don't use any tactics'. Also, that was rather glib, and ignorant of history. During the dark ages, it was Irish monks who kept the books of Europe from being burned by invaders; if it wasn't saved by the eastern Roman empire, it was saved by the Irish (the period in Ireland is called the 'Gaelic Golden Age' for a reason). It also neglects the wide proliferation of Irish mercenaries (which widely changed the course of numerous events, and their use during the crusades as translators was important to numerous events), the conquest of Pictland, their effect on trade (The Irish weren't some 'backwoods' civilization in the dark ages; since they were unaffected by the dark ages negatively, they were a comparatively advanced collection of kingdoms who traded with every major kingdom and empire in Europe) and the defeat of the vikings. After Clontarf, pressure on expanding into Saxon lands was higher due to the lack of Irish holdings, and invariably altered the course of history in northern Europe. Looking further back, what about the abandonment of Britain by the Romans? That wasn't just Picts; Gaels had set up slaving colonies along the coast and were raiding with impunity, destroying mines and the like. The Irish helped make Britain so unprofitable for Romans, they couldn't deal with it with the rest of the empire's problems, and they left it. Such ignorance of the history of the region is irritating.
As to the point at hand; the Irish used berserkers. However, they also fought in dense shieldwall formations, used pikes, made elaborate armor (layers of scale, chain, and padding in some cases; actually dumbed down from earlier armor used by iron age Irish invaders), and used multi-stage charges (such as axe/cudgel followed by spears to defeat a dense formation). The presense of 'berserkers' does not mean an army doesn't use tactics, and it's stupid to think it does. The vikings used very impressive tactics, and they had berserkers. How does this denote a lack of discipline and tactics as a whole? Such an attidue of throwing the baby out with the bathwater implies you have little knowledge of actual study or reasoning, and would rather make kneejerk assesments.
And what of other armies? Carthage certainly had disciplined soldiers and tactics. Carthage also employed Celts, who had 'berserkers'. They employed rather disciplined Celts sometimes, at that, such as the Brihentin, Gallic knights, who were grouped with Iberian heavy cavalry. Celtic Soldurii were disciplined; arguably more disciplined than any regular Roman soldier would be, and for good reason (religious devotion to one another); in fact, they so impressed the Romans that Julius Caesar applied the title to his men to encourage them. It's statements like yours that are the reason EB exists. Why do you think Romans used Celtic soldiers when they could? Or anyone else for that matter? Galatians were in high demand as mercenaries for a reason.
Steppe Merc
08-28-2005, 23:19
bah, ill take Greek or Roman disipline over the shock tactics and mind tricks
Yeah right. Greeks and Romans were as skilled as many others, in many cases less so. Even Roman training can't replace riding nearly from birth, or Celtic tactics in many cases.
I could say all the Greeks do are have two mindless hoplite groups who push at each other. But that would be a simplification.
Many peoples were far better at Greeks and Romans at warfare, both when it came to warriors and tactics.
anonymous_joe
08-28-2005, 23:19
Yeah, that 'Irish being unimportant' struck a nerve here too. I'm amazed at the patience of ye EB fellows. I'd have packed it in years ago under the assault of the Philistines.
Perplexed
08-28-2005, 23:20
I've made this point before and I'll make it again, all of the standard Roman equipment that we think of a Roman soldier of the 4th to early 1st centuries wearing was originally Celtic, excepting the pilum. Chain-mail was almost certainly invented by the Celts, the scutum was a Celtic shield, the gladius hispaniensis was Celtiberian/Iberian in origin, even the most popular helmet types of the Roman soldier were Celtic designs (e.g. Montefortino). The Romans might have fancied themselves the successors of the Mediterranean world but in reality their methods of warfare were highly influenced by the Celts. Additionally, in Italy the Classical phalanx was quickly replaced by more Celtic methods of warfare when the Romans first came into contact with them. I know this might be a tad unrelated, but I just wanted a chip at the "big table". ~;)
EDIT: Maybe the reason the Romans were so succesful in the first place is because, unlike the Greeks, they adopted Celtic methods of warfare!
Just rambling, sorry. :embarassed:
Marinakis
08-28-2005, 23:34
i never said that the equipment wasnt celtic in origin, im part French so im sure i have a little Gallic/celtic blood in me. Surly when talking about a peoples impact on the western world you dont look at just warfare?
Lets look ar Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Greco-Roman culture, any one of those peoples surly had a far more profound and significant legacy then celtic influences.
I know america is 99% Irish so im sure im gonna get a huge backlash from patriotic members...
Perplexed. im perplexed at the comment " Maybe the reason the Romans were so succesful in the first place is because, unlike the Greeks, they adopted Celtic methods of warfare!"
Thats a silly comment the Greeks are if not the most succesful people one of the most. Lest look at some things the greeks contributed.
Democracy
Philosophy
The Marathon
Alexander the Great
The Olympic Games
Comedy
Geometry
Public Jury
The Hippocratic Oath
Hellenistic Architecture
History
Tragedy
i could go on if you wish
I would be happy to compare and contrast
So far you have
Chain mail
Gladius
And the most common roman used helmet
Steppe Merc
08-28-2005, 23:44
Egyptian? Sure the culture was interesting, but I think Celts had a far more lasting influence on at least European culture.
Have you ever seen their gold works and art? Far pretty than Roman stuff, and Greek stuff (well, not prettier than the Greek artisans working for the Scythians). Heck, the Greeks even respected the Celts a lot, and they were not the most tolerant of not Greeks.
And without Celtic warfare, mabye the Romans wouldn't have lasted, so that's at least profound. ~;)
P.S. You're irrelevant coment on the ethnicity of America doesn't really make much sense.
Marinakis
08-28-2005, 23:47
about my america comment im just saying that a huge number of people that live in america (as i do) have roots leading back to the Irish. There is nothing wrong with that. Just that im saying alot of people are going to attack me cause they think im insulting the irish, which im not.
Yeah right. Greeks and Romans were as skilled as many others, in many cases less so. Even Roman training can't replace riding nearly from birth, or Celtic tactics in many cases.
I could say all the Greeks do are have two mindless hoplite groups who push at each other. But that would be a simplification.
Many peoples were far better at Greeks and Romans at warfare, both when it came to warriors and tactics.
~:handball:
Steppe Merc
08-28-2005, 23:55
Ok Matt, I may have taken my rhetoric a bit far... ~;)
I should have said some, not many. ~;)
Marinakis
08-28-2005, 23:57
~:handball:
Now wait a second, Steppe you honestly thing all the greeks did was hoplite warfare? For the most part I would agree with you reguarding southern most greece. however, Syracuse, Macedon, Epirus, thessally and all the Kingdoms following Alexander used very mixed and talented armies.
It wouldnt be fair for me to say that all Celts did was just rush people naked screaming and hollering would it? Just cause some did doesnt mean they all did.
the southern greeks used mostly hoplite warfare for a reason. The land was so mountainous that they couldnt get good land to raise horses. thats why north from thebes, and all the way over in Syracuse you see greek peoples using horses.
Steppe Merc
08-29-2005, 00:01
I agree 100%. The Northern Greeks figured out how to ride horses, like the Thessallians. Then Alexander introduced more Eastern elements which helped in his armies.
But if you read what I wrote, I did not say "Greeks just used hoplite warfare".
I said "I could say all the Greeks do are have two mindless hoplite groups who push at each other. But that would be a simplification.".
Just as it is a simplification to say that Celts just charged.
anonymous_joe
08-29-2005, 00:07
I'm Irish. From Ireland. Ranika mentioned the work of Irish scholars in preserving the great works of the Greeks and Romans in the 'Dark Ages.' Thus, I suppose, one is left to reflect on the advancements made in warfare by such actions.
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 00:07
I agree 100%. The Northern Greeks figured out how to ride horses, like the Thessallians. Then Alexander introduced more Eastern elements which helped in his armies.
But if you read what I wrote, I did not say "Greeks just used hoplite warfare".
I said "I could say all the Greeks do are have two mindless hoplite groups who push at each other. But that would be a simplification.".
Just as it is a simplification to say that Celts just charged.
Im sorry i dissagree, its not that the northern greeks "figured it out" its just that the terrain did not allow them to raise horses south of thessally and epirus.
To raise a horse, and enough for alot of calvary, you need ALOT of land for pasture. southern greece is extreamly rocky and mountainous which made it nearly impossable to raise good bloodlines
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 00:09
I'm Irish. From Ireland. Ranika mentioned the work of Irish scholars in preserving the great works of the Greeks and Romans in the 'Dark Ages.' Thus, I suppose, one is left to reflect on the advancements made in warfare by such actions.
I would give the vast majority of credit to the Arabs for perserving and carrying on the Greeks legacy.
Steppe Merc
08-29-2005, 00:11
Well, it's their fault for living in bad horse country. ~;)
Seriously, I am aware of the limitations of geography on horses. You can't have a steppe army in most places on earth. However, if the Greeks had wanted to, they could have hired more mercanaries from good horse nations (Scythians, Persians, Thracians even fellow Greeks like the Thessalians). And that is what Alexander and his successors did.
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 00:15
Well, it's their fault for living in bad horse country. ~;)
Seriously, I am aware of the limitations of geography on horses. You can't have a steppe army in most places on earth. However, if the Greeks had wanted to, they could have hired more mercanaries from good horse nations (Scythians, Persians, Thracians even fellow Greeks like the Thessalians). And that is what Alexander and his successors did.
Ahh good point, however, hiring mercenaries requires alot of money, something most of southern greece didnt have. Hence all the levy armies. Macedon on the otherhand have rich gold and silver mines. And after Alexander Greek nations became world powers. No longer being a tiny city state bring in a few more bucks =)
anonymous_joe
08-29-2005, 00:16
You might be right or wrong, however, there was probably more interaction between Christian Irish and their neighbours in France and our perrenial friends across the sea, the Britons, Angles and Saxons. :bow:
Of course the many Irish monasteries in Europe would have to be mentioned. Those in Italy and Switzerland, Spain and Germany. Whether the Irish single-handedly 'saved' these works is doubtful, but we certainly had an important effect on their preservation and re-introduction to Northern and Western Europe.
I would give the vast majority of credit to the Arabs for perserving and carrying on the Greeks legacy
I do not entirely agree with this.
Byzantium was rather more reponsible for the preserving and carry on the legacy of the Greeks and Romans...
I would be happy to compare and contrast
So far you have
Chain mail
Gladius
And the most common roman used helmet
You forgot Soap ~D
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 02:34
I do not entirely agree with this.
Byzantium was rather more reponsible for the preserving and carry on the legacy of the Greeks and Romans...
You forgot Soap ~D
Yeah thats true, but really in every way,other then the name "Eastern ROMAN Empire", the Byzantine Empire, as its now known, was greek. Spoke greek, Worshiped Greek othadox, Capital City was in Greece, the Capital city itself is of greek origin, Greek emporers, etc etc.
So yeah your right, but i just see eastern empire as being greek not not as carrying on someone else's legacy.
Perplexed
08-29-2005, 05:39
To Marinakis, a reply:
Democracy:
True, but was it a boon or was it a curse? *points meaningfully at stupid apes being elected by the ignorant masses for high government posts* Most of the public votes in the Greek democracies were crooked anyway, controlled by the aristocracy.
Philosophy:
Practiced by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
The Marathon, the Olympic Games:
Sports and war-games were common in all cultures, not the least of which were the Celts
Alexander the Great:
Alexander the Great was one person, a single Greek, we're talking about the bigger picture here.
Comedy:
The concept of comedy has existed and will in all cultures as long as humans can speak to each other.
Geometry:
Originally used by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
Public Jury:
A form of public council was used in Icelandic culture for one, the "All-Thing", and I am certain that similar practices were observed in other Celtic and Germanic societies.
The Hippocratic Oath:
I have to admit that (to my knowledge that is) medical expertise was greatly advanced in the Mediterranean, more so than in Northern Europe.
Hellenistic Architecture:
Again, the Greeks were very good architects, I must admit.
History:
Oh come on, many cultures recorded events before the Greeks did, even if Herodotus was considered "the Father of History". Have you read Herodotus by the way? More of a fairy-tale approach than actual historical fact.
Tragedy:
I'm pretty sure that the concept of tragedy is present in all humankind, not just in the Greeks.
I'm not just talking about warfare, my good man. ~;)
There are other points to be made, but I'll explore these three;
Democracy:
Celtic societies were based on democratic votes associated with a 'senate'; in modern terms, they lived in a type of democratic-republic with a very limited 'monarch' who was elected by a 'senate' composed of educated members of society, the warrior class, and the aristocracy. Every citizen had the right to elect local officials, and had a say in changing law.
History:
Celts kept impeccable records of their history through tightly guarded oral traditions. While many less-than-educated individuals will quickly denounce oral traditions as being inaccurate, any good historian of a culture that ever had a solid oral tradition can attest that they were very accurate at passing the same knowledge down for centuries. These weren't random people playing some kind of cultural 'grapevine'; they were trained mnemonicists who memorized exhorberant amounts of history, religion, music, poetry, and every other aspect of culture. The post-Christian Irish had pretty good recollection of the migrations of their ancestors, which were actually diluted by writing (their earlier writings are more accurate to our understanding than later writings).
Medicine:
The way bone scars show the type of surgeries employed, it is apparent that Gauls could perform brain surgeries, due to the pattern of scars on the skulls of certain dead; it evidences surgery to the skull that the individual survived for years following this, implying an understanding of complex procedures. This kind of knowledge would be passed down the same way as history. Not necessarily as complex as Hellenic medicine, but hardly an absence of medicine.
PSYCHO V
08-29-2005, 06:47
bah, ill take .. Roman disipline over the shock tactics and mind tricks
lol..just to throw in my lot here. ~:)
It was the Romans that mastered the "shock tactics" and "mind tricks". The whole Roman modes operandi (eg. silent march, throwing of pilum, adjustment of lines and noisy charge) was finely honed to produce maximum psychological shock.
In addition, the most pronounced fear in an army was that of a rout... that you would be left, by yourself, unprotected by your pears. Incidentally it was also in the rout that most casualties were sustained by armies. The Romans worked hard to build their reputation as the sons of Mars, the rightful inheritors of the known world, the invincible. Every defeat was excused, dismissed / played down or ignored. Every victory over glorified. If they suffered a major defeat, they felt obliged to take immediate action to get their vengeance for the slight of this reputation.
The forces of J. Caesar were some of the best troops ever fielded by Rome. They had no better training than any other Roman forces throughout the history of the empire so what made the difference. The difference was the difference of the mind. They believed that whilst JC was with them, they were invincible. JC was an astute enough leader to understand the human psyche. He took no real tangible risks, always being aware of the mental state of his men and using their base masculine bravado to his own ends. The result was that they only got to fight when the battle was already pretty much won, only further influencing their morale and making the commanders / JC’s job a lot more easier as time went on. What we call experience.
All military forces throughout the history of armed conflict understood one thing... war is Chaos. Even the best training can fail a soldier on the battlefield..why? The unknown possibilities of combat and the unreliable variable of human nature. For example, it was discovered that during WWII, only 15-20 % of infantry units actually fired their weapon during combat. Psychologists now acknowledge that in the modern man, there is an innate reluctance to take the life of another human being. The US for example re-wrote their training programs in the 50s to combat this and managed to raise that figure to 80% during the Vietnam War. The down side, that they failed to factor in, was the human psyche. Subsequently, psychologists believe the huge increase in 'post traumatic stress disorder' was due in part, to the effects of blindly putting this new 'training' into action.
Training / discipline in an off itself is NOT the answer to victory. It's merely a means to an ends. A means to reduce the uncertainty of battle and thereby instil greater confidence / self-belief / morale and thus greater staying power than one’s enemies.
The Romans understood this very well and it wasn’t until the later stages of the Empire when this fell to bits for them. It was the ‘mind games’ that won the Roman battles, the training, equipment, etc etc were all just tools and advantages to assist in those victories.
PSYCHO V
08-29-2005, 06:49
Ran.. forgot Legal
Trial by Jury rather than the Inquisitorial (Greeco-Romano / continental) system. Legal representation, etc etc
oh..and the legal equality of women predates even that of the Spartans
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 12:34
To Marinakis, a reply:
Democracy:
True, but was it a boon or was it a curse? *points meaningfully at stupid apes being elected by the ignorant masses for high government posts* Most of the public votes in the Greek democracies were crooked anyway, controlled by the aristocracy.
Philosophy:
Practiced by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
The Marathon, the Olympic Games:
Sports and war-games were common in all cultures, not the least of which were the Celts
Alexander the Great:
Alexander the Great was one person, a single Greek, we're talking about the bigger picture here.
Comedy:
The concept of comedy has existed and will in all cultures as long as humans can speak to each other.
Geometry:
Originally used by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
Public Jury:
A form of public council was used in Icelandic culture for one, the "All-Thing", and I am certain that similar practices were observed in other Celtic and Germanic societies.
The Hippocratic Oath:
I have to admit that (to my knowledge that is) medical expertise was greatly advanced in the Mediterranean, more so than in Northern Europe.
Hellenistic Architecture:
Again, the Greeks were very good architects, I must admit.
History:
Oh come on, many cultures recorded events before the Greeks did, even if Herodotus was considered "the Father of History". Have you read Herodotus by the way? More of a fairy-tale approach than actual historical fact.
Tragedy:
I'm pretty sure that the concept of tragedy is present in all humankind, not just in the Greeks.
I'm not just talking about warfare, my good man. ~;)
few things, firstly im not saying the greek nessacerly invented all of the listed above, but they were extreamly important in advancing the works of other peoples. Secondly im just talking about the western world, not so much assyria, sumeria, Babylonia etc. If we are talking about the most important cultures to mankind as a whole i would say Babylonia, Egypt, and Assyria.
P.S. When i say the greeks contributed Comedy and Tragedy im referring to plays, not just normal every day stuff. If your just referring to warfare then I point you to Alexander the great, Seleukos I Nikator, Pyrrhus, and the early Spartans. There wa not a shortage of brilliant and powerful Greeks when it came to war. I, however, dont judge a culture on their ability to wage war.
Some form of democracy where not only men but also women could vote were common in the germanic tribes.
O_Stratigos
08-29-2005, 14:26
There are some quite extraordinary assertions about democracy, history and medicine here if I might say so..
First I’d like to say that although there is no dought about Ranika’s knowledge of the subject, it is IMHO a bit of a biased view, almost as bad as "those Greeks" who assert Greek monopoly in almost all things "civilized". :beam:
I personally believe that what the Greeks practiced 2500 years ago has almost nothing to do with what we call a democracy today, but its "common knowledge" that the birthplace of – a kind of- democracy is Greece, are we all mistaken or is there some new evidence that shows otherwise or is it that "others also" practiced it as well?
Despite the: "While many less-than-educated individuals will quickly denounce oral traditions as being inaccurate, any good historian of a culture that ever had a solid oral tradition can attest that they were very accurate at passing the same knowledge down for centuries" sounding almost like an advertisement for "you’ll find our products in all the good stores" lets just examine the validity of "oral history".
To have a History- the way "history" is defined here as "kept impeccable records of their history through tightly guarded oral traditions"- it requires first of all an AWARENESS of history, meaning that people setting out to preserve their cultural history-identity in some kind of record for future generations, and of course there is not any kind of evidence for that! Nor are we in any position to know how "impeccable" the records or how "tightly guarded" everything was, it’s just pure conjecture; especially considering that "The post-Christian Irish had pretty good recollection of the migrations of their ancestors, which were actually diluted by writing (their earlier writings are more accurate to our understanding than later writings)" how can one know the extent of any oral "dilution"?
"Traditional oral history" however was practiced in all "primitive" societies and it was "story telling" about the achievements of their chiefs-kings, who their ancestors were and where they came from along with various tribal and religious myths; not what kind of government they had and how it was selected and operated, nor can one claim that a "council of elders" is a Senate or that they practiced "democracy" because some other people had some kind of say. About those "trained mnemonicists" is not like they had a special school where they trained them; it was more likely passed from father to son or apprentice, as a means of entertainment and story telling as we can still see today in Australian Aborigines when they talk about the "Dream Time" to name just one.
Regarding the accuracy of "oral history" even if those people did indeed possessed exceptional memory there is still this; even in book hand-copying there are errors -accidental or intentional (like someone not agreeing 100% with what was originally written) -so what would’ve happened if some of those "mnemonicists" were either not up to scratch or simply just wanted to tell the story slightly different "passing the same knowledge down for centuries"? And let’s don’t forget about "poetic license"!! ~;)
About medicine… assertions about brain surgery in primitive societies are IMHO just silly. What would be easier to accept; that a partially healed square-round-triangle hole in the head suggests brain surgery by people who had not even a rudimental idea about anatomy –let alone brain function- while their medicinal skills were not even "necessarily as complex as Hellenic medicine" or that some people simply survived horrible accidents? What was the surgery performed FOR, to alleviate blood pressure from the skull-brain or to let "evil spirits" out… or is it one and the same? As for "this kind of knowledge would be passed down the same way as history" I doubt that very much, druids-shamans-medicine-men/women-doctors-healers they all had their own clique in every "primitive" society, it was an "esoteric" knowledge that passed between them and their chosen few and not trusted to some "mnemonic specialist" to pass it on.
A few years ago a friend was telling me –laughingly- that once when something was wrong with his computer someone suggested it might be hardware problem, so he opened the computer case to have a look; and in his own words: "I felt really stupid because I had no idea of even what I was looking at!!" So much for brain surgery!
EUROPA BARBARORUM was partly set up to show that "barbarians" were much more "civilized" than what most people –including myself- believed them to be, but whether one speaks about Greeks, Romans or "Barbarians" one needs not go to extremes to "prove" or "make" a point, since in a lot of instances in History it’s a matter of "I say pota-e-to you say potato".. ~D
O_Stratigos :bow:
EUROPA BARBARORUM was partly set up to show that "barbarians" were much more "civilized" than what most people –including myself- believed them to be...
In my opinion, that is not what EB is trying to do.
Trying to prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized" then what was shown in vanilla, would be assuming the being "civilized" is a good thing. This judgement of valour is what EB, trying to correctly portraying cultures other than the "main inspirations of western modern civilization", wants to avoid. ~:)
I hope I made my point clear, I didn't want to sound harsh. ~:)
I personally believe that what the Greeks practiced 2500 years ago has almost nothing to do with what we call a democracy today, but its "common knowledge" that the birthplace of – a kind of- democracy is Greece, are we all mistaken or is there some new evidence that shows otherwise or is it that "others also" practiced it as well?
You're saying it is the birthplace of "a kind of democracy", and saying that what we have now is totally different.
So in other words, you are saying that WE (modern western civilization) are not the bastion of democracy, and that Greece isn't the birthplace of democracy (since you agree that it was merely some kind of it).
I have to say that I totally agree with both these points.
~:)
k
Just a quick point on berserkers...
The Viking "berserkers" are fairly poorly attested in the historical record, appearing more often in literature, where a number of varying descriptions of them exist:
1) In a lot of later sagas the word simply refers to a robber or other troublemaker, often a pagan.
2) The classic "berserker" that everyone thinks of would fly into a frenzy, sometimes involuntarily. This would begin with a fit of trembling, followed by the face swelling and becoming red, the teeth chattering, and then the berserker flying into an uncontrollable rage in which they would attack all and sundry, even trees and rocks if there were no people around. Afterwards they would be tired and listless for serveral days.
3) The sagas that seem to preserve some genuine early tradition actually protray berserkers somewhat differently. They tend to be an elite group of warriors retained as bodyguards by kings. Their chief attricute seems to be that they acted like animals, wore no armour, but were invulnerable to cutting or piercing weapons. They are also frequently referred to as Odin's Men, or Ulfhednar (Wolf Coats). This would suggest some kind of cult that was perceived as protecting themselves in battle with some sort of battle magic, rather than a frenzied mob.
im part French so im sure i have a little Gallic/celtic blood in me.
Pfft!! What?! Dont make me laugh man! :laugh4: You are more german than celtic, but maybe you come from Bretain (dont know if i writed good, i meant Armorica).
Pfft!! What?! Dont make me laugh man! :laugh4: You are more german than celtic, but maybe you come from Bretain (dont know if i writed good, i meant Armorica).
then you might be an ancester (sp?) of Asterix or obelix!!
do you live in a small village near the coast? ~;)
Steppe Merc
08-29-2005, 15:39
O_Stratigos, the oral histories can't be any worse than the stuff the Greeks and Romans wrote. Some might be true. Most of it is just really made up or exaggerated.
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 15:39
Pfft!! What?! Dont make me laugh man! :laugh4: You are more german than celtic, but maybe you come from Bretain (dont know if i writed good, i meant Armorica).
Oh so you know for sure that i am german, just because im part modern day french?
Ok first of all i said im sure i have a LITTLE celtic in me. I never said im part french so that must mean im celtic... Im French so im sure atleast 50%+ of my french side is from the Frankish Tribe, but im also part Helvetii, that i do know. Beyond that im sure some Celts had sex with some of my ancestors. Please dont act like you know me or my family history.
I know exactly where my famly comes from, on both sides, back to the byzantine days on my fathers side and way back on my mothers. Dont judge me please.
O_Stratigos, the oral histories can't be any worse than the stuff the Greeks and Romans wrote. Some might be true. Most of it is just really made up or exaggerated.
Actually I think it doesn't make a lot of difference. To me what counts most is the perspective of the historian interpreting that documentation. Be that oral or writen.
I'm amazed that you (at your age) already have this kind of impression about history (I sure didn't). School is usually pretty ortodox about it. With it's cientific view and ONE TRUE HISTORY agenda. ~:)
k
Oh so you know for sure that i am german, just because im part modern day french?
Ok first of all i said im sure i have a LITTLE celtic in me. I never said im part french so that must mean im celtic... Im French so im sure atleast 50%+ of my french side is from the Frankish Tribe, but im also part Helvetii, that i do know. Beyond that im sure some Celts had sex with some of my ancestors. Please dont act like you know me or my family history.
I know exactly where my famly comes from, on both sides, back to the byzantine days on my fathers side and way back on my mothers. Dont judge me please.
Ok, ok, if you say so. I just think that the majority of french have nothing to do with celts though there are exceptions, like you. So i`m sorry if i offended you, will you forgive me? ~;)
EUROPA BARBARORUM was partly set up to show that "barbarians" were much more "civilized" than what most people –including myself- believed them to be,Not at all. This was never one of EB's goals.
It may be a side benefit, because EB accepts all sources as long as they are shown to be reliable, rather than just canon. However, it requires an opening of the mind to understand that other than the canon sources are acceptable, given a demonstrated equivalent level of historicity.
It may be appropriate to toss out a group of sources because they don't meet someone's arbitrary standards as to what is acceptable. However, when they are shown to be reliable through extensive corroboration, we in EB accept then regardless if they fall under the traditional umbrella.
About medicine… assertions about brain surgery in primitive societies are IMHO just silly. But we're not talking about primitive societies. That you would call them that makes the rest of your argument understandable. However, when you come to understand that Celtic society was not primitive, then perhaps you will come to understand the Celts better.
Perplexed
08-29-2005, 18:42
few things, firstly im not saying the greek nessacerly invented all of the listed above, but they were extreamly important in advancing the works of other peoples. Secondly im just talking about the western world, not so much assyria, sumeria, Babylonia etc. If we are talking about the most important cultures to mankind as a whole i would say Babylonia, Egypt, and Assyria.
P.S. When i say the greeks contributed Comedy and Tragedy im referring to plays, not just normal every day stuff. If your just referring to warfare then I point you to Alexander the great, Seleukos I Nikator, Pyrrhus, and the early Spartans. There wa not a shortage of brilliant and powerful Greeks when it came to war. I, however, dont judge a culture on their ability to wage war.
Look, my point is that catch-all statements such as "barbarians are uncivilized", "barbarian armies are undisciplined", or "Greeks and Romans were better that barbarians" simply are never going to be made by a competent historian. For one thing, trying to group all the peoples of Northern Europe under one culture which quite frankly the image of which is likely to have been skewed by the Romans, is not possible. That would be like saying that all the peoples of the Middle-East were grouped under one culture. Some Celtic tribes were more militarily disciplined that others, some Celtic tribes were, dare I say it, more advanced than others, but there are NO sweeping generalizations in real history. One cannot say "Celts were worse than Greeks and Romans 'cos they painted themselves blue and yelled at people". That's not on, I'm afraid.
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 20:01
Ok, ok, if you say so. I just think that the majority of french have nothing to do with celts though there are exceptions, like you. So i`m sorry if i offended you, will you forgive me? ~;)
~:) no hard feelings ~D
i hate being French so swing away. Modern Frenchmen give Frances rich history a bad name. However, i will never ignore a part of my heritage.
~:) i hate being French so swing away. Modern Frenchmen give Frances rich history a bad name. However, i will never ignore a part of my heritage.
Would you please stop political allusions.
yes instead of all this make us mouth drip again ~;) :)
Berserker states are fairly well attested in numerous cultures. The Irish rastriagh would pray for hours and put themselves into a kind of trance where they would begin to babble incoherently; the whole time their body would toss and shake violently (both pagan and Christian Irish believed they were being possessed by spirits that protected Ireland), ending with the person speaking very loud and very clearly, but everything they said was gibberish. They would eventually get so swift to put themself into a trance (which is an actual state of mind; it's essentially what the brain goes through while asleep, but in this state one can keep themself awake and moving, though certain nerve reactions are slowed down, though, often, one can confine those slowed reactions, once experienced, to things like pain, allowing one to ignore pain briefly; however, one would still probably lack a bit of control) they could do it right before a fight, and would fight in a trance-like state. It was called a 'calm rage' because of the seeming absolute calm of the individual coupled with their intensity in a fight (they would do things like rip people's fingers off, tear out eyes, pull out/crush throats, etc., without having drawn their weapons first; they got pretty sadistic). King Brian Boru's brother Wolf was a rastriagh (Wolf also was the one who killed Brian Boru's killer). The problem with it was that a really experienced rastriagh, if he wasn't careful, could accidentally slip into this state, and essentially freak out; rarely would he hurt anyone, except himself, though. It was scary, but it was a psychological state.
That's one kind of 'berserker'. The Irish used to say vikings did something similar, but not quite the same. Much more movement, and very loud. Lots of shouting. It was probably the same basic method; given that it's said they could slip into a berserk at any time, it seems likely it was purely a pyschological state, somewhat akin to a self-induced madness. The mind can only be subjected to certain rigors so many times before it snaps.
god, thats scary...imagining a man with a somewhat Bored face..looks like's he's bene zapping his tv for a day..a slightly dumb grin on his mouth..
a man, looking like this http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/declankidneyKieranClancy.jpg
and he's trying to tear of your head...
Give me the loud, screaming, shouting berserker any day..at least you know he's giving effort..
god thats scary..
Marinakis
08-29-2005, 20:59
Would you please stop political allusions.
Done.
Yeah thats true, but really in every way,other then the name "Eastern ROMAN Empire", the Byzantine Empire, as its now known, was greek. Spoke greek, Worshiped Greek othadox, Capital City was in Greece, the Capital city itself is of greek origin, Greek emporers, etc etc.
So yeah your right, but i just see eastern empire as being greek not not as carrying on someone else's legacy.
Someone needs to learn about the Byzantine Empire, methinks. Capital City was in Thrace, it was of Roman origin (founded by a native Latin speaker), and had Greek, Latin, and Armenian Emperors.
I would give the vast majority of credit to the Arabs for perserving and carrying on the Greeks legacy.
This, likewise, is silly. The Byzantines, Italians, Irish, and many others played a role in this. Even the Slavs.
To Marinakis, a reply:
Democracy:
True, but was it a boon or was it a curse? *points meaningfully at stupid apes being elected by the ignorant masses for high government posts* Most of the public votes in the Greek democracies were crooked anyway, controlled by the aristocracy.
Philosophy:
Practiced by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
The Marathon, the Olympic Games:
Sports and war-games were common in all cultures, not the least of which were the Celts
Alexander the Great:
Alexander the Great was one person, a single Greek, we're talking about the bigger picture here.
Comedy:
The concept of comedy has existed and will in all cultures as long as humans can speak to each other.
Geometry:
Originally used by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.
Public Jury:
A form of public council was used in Icelandic culture for one, the "All-Thing", and I am certain that similar practices were observed in other Celtic and Germanic societies.
The Hippocratic Oath:
I have to admit that (to my knowledge that is) medical expertise was greatly advanced in the Mediterranean, more so than in Northern Europe.
Hellenistic Architecture:
Again, the Greeks were very good architects, I must admit.
History:
Oh come on, many cultures recorded events before the Greeks did, even if Herodotus was considered "the Father of History". Have you read Herodotus by the way? More of a fairy-tale approach than actual historical fact.
Tragedy:
I'm pretty sure that the concept of tragedy is present in all humankind, not just in the Greeks.
I'm not just talking about warfare, my good man. ~;)
Democracy: You hit the nail on the head. Democracy, at its root, is brutal power of the people. As Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
Philosophy: Sorry, must disagree. The Greeks do deserve the credit for Philosophy. The Pre-Socratics were the first ones to begin looking at the world in a logical, deductive manner.
Games: Games were used in all cultures, including many pre-Greek ones.
Geometry was invented by Egyptians. Give credit where it's due. ~;)
Public Jury comes straight from Scandanavian and Germanic tradition. It has nothing to do with Greek tradition. It is mildly influenced by Roman Civil Law, but is mainly a Common Law tradition that stems from Germanic legal thinking.
Architecture: if the Greeks hadn't learned from the Egyptians and pre-hellenic anatolian cultures, they'd still be building mud huts.
Tragedy as a form of expression was only codified by Greeks.
Keep note please that I am the Hellenic faction coordinator for EB, and nobody enjoys Hellenic culture more than I do. I even teach Ancient Greek right now!
Marinakis
08-30-2005, 00:29
Let me be more clear on exactly what contributions the Greeks had on the world, i was too general in my previous post.
Heres a clear list of 10
1. First to take the Scientific approach to medicine by actually studying the diseases, not just treating the symptoms! (See Hippocrates)
2. Worlds first Democracy.(Trial by Jury)
3. Invented the basic rules of Geometry along with other mathematics. (Euclid, Geometry Text of the Elements)
4. Produced and wrote the first dramas. (Euripides & Sophocles)
5. First to use the art of philosophy. (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)
6. They created amazing literature and poetry that we still read today. (Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, Sappho for love poems)
7. They recorded the first histories. (Herodotus of Halicarnassus)
8. Studied and classified or grouped different kinds of plants.
9. Gave us the Olympic Games.
10. They crafted beautiful buildings and sculptures. Along with Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns
PSYCHO V
08-30-2005, 02:37
Look, we're not saying the Greeks didn't contribute to western society, that they made some major innovations and that Alexander wasn't a great guy .... nor are we claiming the barbarians were the centre of the civilised universe that made the Greeco-Romans look like girlie toga wearing wanna-bes.
We / EB are just saying that if one wants to really appreciate this part of our ancient past, one needs to take a more holistic approach to research and realise the great diversity of peoples, cultures and practices …and that all these didn't exist in isolation. They all borrowed, stole or were otherwise influenced each other. Any student of material culture / the archaeological record would be fully aware of this aspect of our human history. It is this very interconnection that helps us understand huge parts of history where no one bothered to document events ... from Briton, Iberia, and Greece all the way to China and the Pacific. It's the regional diversity and influential changes that help us date many major events. Whether one looks at the cultural ‘democratic’ practice of equality and the ‘group vote’ within proto Celtic Indo-European Urnfield Tribes in the 7th and 8th C BC or the documented practice of Demos kratein using pebbles by Athens at the end of the 6th C BC, nothing existed in isolation.
Further, just to stress the point.. as Perplexed so aptly stated, one shouldn’t make generalisations unless you have all / most of the facts. Else one could, for example, take the Spartans in isolation and claim all Greeks were zenophobic, cenophobic, kakorrhaphiophobic, mastigophobic, cacophobic, catagelophobic, bibliophobic, zeusophobic, brontophobiac, eleutherophobic, epistemophobic, eurotophobic, etc etc
O_Stratigos
08-30-2005, 09:48
"Trying to prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized"
The words "barbarians" and "civilized" in quotes are used for lack of better words to convey our understanding -or at least mine- today of the differences betweens these peoples. In the FAQ section, khelvan wrote "Roman historians typically portrayed the barbarians they hated as being much less sophisticated than they actually were." Maybe I should’ve used "sophisticated" instead of "civilized". Also please note that "show" is not the same as "prove"..
"would be assuming the being "civilized" is a good thing."
That’s entirely up to you.. although I believe if one suggests that you are not civilized you might take exception to it… ~;) :balloon2:
"This judgement of valour is what EB, trying to correctly portraying cultures other than the "main inspirations of western modern civilization", wants to avoid."
I know this is just your opinion like you said, but I don’t really understand what you are trying to say particularly about "judgment of valour".. ~:confused:
"So in other words, you are saying that WE (modern western civilization) are not the bastion of democracy"
Sorry, but I have no idea of what are you talking about.. ~:eek:
"and that Greece isn't the birthplace of democracy (since you agree that it was merely some kind of it)"
Umm.. who do I actually"agree" with… never mind.. let me just put it this way: Ford Model T is a car, Porsche 911 is a car; is Porsche 911 a Ford Model T? (hints: progress, evolution, custom, locality etc) ~:cheers:
"I have to say that I totally agree with both these points."
I have to say thank you… I think.. ~D
"O_Stratigos, the oral histories can't be any worse than the stuff the Greeks and Romans wrote. Some might be true. Most of it is just really made up or exaggerated."
I totally agree with you, and please understand that I am not saying that oral histories are "children’s stories" and-or are totally unreliable, rather that the big difference is that you can’t change a written (original) story but you can never be sure about an oral one. What conclusions one derives from any of them can be of course totally arbitrary.
"To me what counts most is the perspective of the historian interpreting that documentation."
Different historians could have different perspectives; I hope you are not saying that if you agree with one’s perspective you’ll go along with it regardless of evidence to the contrary, just because for you "what counts more is the perspective"? There should be a lot of other considerations to be taken in to account surely.
"School is usually pretty ortodox about it. With it's cientific view and ONE TRUE HISTORY agenda."
I completely agree with this, today’s truth might be tomorrow’s great archeological discovery to the contrary.
"It may be appropriate to toss out a group of sources because they don't meet someone's arbitrary standards as to what is acceptable. However, when they are shown to be reliable through extensive corroboration, we in EB accept then regardless if they fall under the traditional umbrella."
What that means I believe is that you are employing a different set of "arbitrary standards" in this case EB’s, which is of course quiet acceptable because if one is to write a book on morality for example, one will have to use one’s own morality standards etc and that is a matter of perspective.. ~:)
"But we're not talking about primitive societies. That you would call them that makes the rest of your argument understandable. However, when you come to understand that Celtic society was not primitive, then perhaps you will come to understand the Celts better."
I am afraid I totally disagree with you on this one; when we talk about BC(E) societies+brain surgery this combination is mutually exclusive (as bad as "a concise Greek" or "Army Intelligence" ~D ) and whether Celtic, Greek or whatever we are BEYOND just "primitive" here.. we might as well be in the Neanderthal age for any difference that it makes..
Let’s say that a warrior had a swollen head from a blow and someone suggested "let’s open a hole to let the blood out" -assuming that they new/thought that blood pressure was what caused the swelling- they open a hole, blood comes out and the guy survived! That hole only needed to be very small and probably healed completely but that is not what "brain surgery" is about, anymore than by Democritus saying that matter is made up of atoms (small "things" that CANNOT be divided) would make him a nuclear physicist that could have actually built a nuclear bomb and that we should give him credit for such. Also "could perform brain surgeries, due to the pattern of scars on the skulls of certain dead" suggests different kinds of "surgeries" and my question remains; what on Earth could they possibly be looking for?
"Let me be more clear on exactly what contributions the Greeks had on the world, i was too general in my previous post."
I believe you left out the single most important contribution that helped shape western civilization and the only one that no one can claim “shares” in as with most of the others; the vowels.
"We / EB are just saying that if one wants to really appreciate this part of our ancient past, one needs to take a more holistic approach to research and realise the great diversity of peoples, cultures and practices …and that all these didn't exist in isolation… take the Spartans in isolation and claim all Greeks were zenophobic, cenophobic, kakorrhaphiophobic, mastigophobic, cacophobic, catagelophobic, bibliophobic, zeusophobic, brontophobiac, eleutherophobic, epistemophobic, eurotophobic, etc etc"
Very well put indeed!! I believe that what applies in philosophical, moral, judicial etc issues could well apply in history; that points of view don’t come just in black or white but in infinite shades of gray.
O_Stratigos :bow:
"Trying to prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized"
The words "barbarians" and "civilized" in quotes are used for lack of better words to convey our understanding -or at least mine- today of the differences betweens these peoples. In the FAQ section, khelvan wrote "Roman historians typically portrayed the barbarians they hated as being much less sophisticated than they actually were." Maybe I should’ve used "sophisticated" instead of "civilized". Also please note that "show" is not the same as "prove"..
"would be assuming the being "civilized" is a good thing."
That’s entirely up to you.. although I believe if one suggests that you are not civilized you might take exception to it… ~;) :balloon2:
Well, the point that I was trying to make with that sentence still stands. I understand the use of "barbarians" and "civilized", but that wasn't what I was questioning.
As I said...
Making a mod to show/prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized" than what was portraited in vanilla. Would be assuming that being "civilized" is a good thing. "Civilized" is a modern concept often used as the uppermost level of a progressive scale of humanity.
Showing that barbarians were "civilized" would be putting them on this same scale, and thus assuming that this unique road to "civilization" is real.
The point that I think EB is making is showing that there is no one road to civilization. Showing all these different cultures without "judgement of valour".
I might be totally off, but I think this expression exists in english too. Anyway what I mean with it is that, by not preassuming that being civilized is good, and being barbarian is not, EB is capable of looking back and portrait these cultures without submitting them to being inferior.
Of course, this is all my opinion. I'm an antropologist and I have a very relativist view of "modern science" and "progress".
"So in other words, you are saying that WE (modern western civilization) are not the bastion of democracy"
Sorry, but I have no idea of what are you talking about.. ~:eek:
"and that Greece isn't the birthplace of democracy (since you agree that it was merely some kind of it)"
Umm.. who do I actually"agree" with… never mind.. let me just put it this way: Ford Model T is a car, Porsche 911 is a car; is Porsche 911 a Ford Model T? (hints: progress, evolution, custom, locality etc) ~:cheers:
Your sentence was:
"but its "common knowledge" that the birthplace of – a kind of- democracy is Greece"
That's why I said, "since you agree that it is the bithplace of merely some kind of democracy".
But never mind that wasn't really important. ~;)
kayapó
ps. Hope my english sounds better this time ~:)
This thread is degenerating and going nowhere, locked.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.