Pritanoi (and Casse) Generals-Innacurate?

Hello everyone,
I have a slight concern regarding the depiction of Pritanoi nobles riding chariots in battle. Now before the historians jump on me and tear me limb from limb quoting Caesar's (BG 4.24) description of British nobles riding chariots or Tacitus (Annals 14.35) description of Boudicca riding in a chariot I would like to ask something.

As far as I know, and I welcome anyone who can show me otherwise, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that the Britons in the south east of England fought from chariots. There are chariot-like vehicle burials from the Arras culture in Yorkshire as well as late La Tene chariot burials in Gaul (and in these cases these were not war vehciles) and Hallstatt-Ealy La Tene two wheeled vehicles from the Rhine area, but I know of no archaeological evidence to support the notion that Britons in the region of the Pritanoi faction fought from chariots.

And if there is no archaeological evidence for chariots (let's be honest they are fairly big and quite likely to leave some trace) then doesn't this mean that British nobles in EBII should be depicted fighting on foot or from horseback?

Chariots in Celtic warfare have a pretty solid history. They were a sign of wealth and prestige - seen from both the written record and burials. If we could dismount chariot riders to fight on foot, we would, but we can't.

But I fail to see what exactly your issue is. Chariots would be made from wood and other organics, which would fail to survive. Metal bits surely would and we do have quite a bit of such pieces. We also have some graves that give us the evidence for the shapes of chariots in terms of changes in the soil. We have both textual and archaeological evidence for these vehicles' existence. Furthermore, any horses in Britain would be the equivalent of today's ponies - and hardly the largest examples at that.

The thing is, we actually have records of British pre-Roman warfare. Two passages and two authors to go off of is more than we usually get for a lot of units, yet people rarely complain about those.

My issue is simply that we are lacking archaeological evidence for chariots in the area of south eastern England. That the Celts employed chariots is beyond dispute and their size and inherent production costs would restrict them only to the nobility as you say. Metal fittings (in particular the tyres) are substantial enough to allow archaeologists to conclude the presence of a chariot in a grave or context.

Simply put: Considering we do have archaeological evidence for chariot use elsewhere, is it not inaccurate depicting the Pritanoi using them when there is no archaeological evidence to support their use in that area?

Your premises are false and beset with logical fallacies. (a comment made on one of my college papers from a professor with a dark sense of humour)

While it is true that there are no vehicular burials in southern and central Britain, this is not a function of the absence of chariots, but rather a function of different burial customs. And in fact, some chariot-gear has been found in the south: linch-pins, terrets, etc. Moulds and tools for at least 50 sets of horse harness were found at Gussage All Saints, Dorset (think Maiden Castle), and there are other sites.

There are also some later Caesar-era Roman coins showing Britons on chariots - and south-eastern Britons are the only ones that Caesar ever saw, right? As far as he (and even Claudius) was concerned, the Arras culture might as well have been on the Moon. When the Roman sources describe British chariot fighters, they are describing the Britons that they saw fighting on chariots - that is, the Catuvellauni and their neighbors.

https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/...ewgeneral1.png
A detail from a Caesarean coin.

And I have to add that I have never seen any doubt expressed in any of the serious literature on the subject that the British in the channel zone fought on chariots. There really is no debate on this subject that I am aware of - and the sources that I linked in the preview go into considerable detail. Did you read Building an Iron Age British Chariot? Or Chariotry and the Road Systems in the Celtic World (Raimund Karl)? Really, this is a classical case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". There is no compelling reason to doubt that the Romans met British war chariots in the south east of England.

However, if it wasn't clear to you, let me say that the Pritanoi General's Bodyguard will be on foot, and that the chariots and cavalry will be recruitable, with the size of their pools and replenishment rates linked to the type of authority buildings. One of the reasons for this is that it seems clear from Caesar's account that the British nobility moved fluidly from their chariots, to fighting on foot, and back onto their chariots again (or on horseback) during the course of a battle. This being something that we cannot do in the game engine, we chose the infantry general for practical purposes.

So, if it makes you feel better, you can view the situation as being an evolutionary one: The Pritanoi will have limited access to chariots at first, but will be able to field more of them as their building tree is developed.





To sum up:

Quote:

---

...we are lacking archaeological evidence for chariots in the area of south eastern England.

---

False. No chariot burials is not the same as no chariots.

Quote:

---

...is it not inaccurate depicting the Pritanoi using them when there is no archaeological evidence to support their use in that area?

---

False. Frankly, there is more evidence, both archaeological and textual, of chariot warfare for the PRIA Britons than there is for any other kind of fighting, on which the record is silent.

yay infantry bodyguards

Thanks oudysseos!

Anyway they most likely fought on foot, so why not make them foot soldiers?

Hey, his exact words were... "However, if it wasn't clear to you, let me say that the Pritanoi General's Bodyguard will be on foot". First line of the second paragraph under the pictures. (dunno how to use the quote thingy, I am NOT technologically skilled). So yes, they DID make them foot soldiers seienchin.

Quote:

---

Thanks oudysseos!

---

We need more people like you in the world. It's easier to point out someone's mistakes than to acknowledge you own :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

We need more people like you in the world. It's easier to point out someone's mistakes rather than to acknowledge them :bow:

---

Do you mean you need more Brennus or more oudysseos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Do you mean you need more Brennus or more oudysseos?

---

I vote both

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Do you mean you need more Brennus or more oudysseos?

---

That or spicegirls' albums!

What is it with you and the Spice Girls, anyways?

I bet he has been pushing for a Spice Girls faction, originating from the UK to rival the Pritanoi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

I bet he has been pushing for a Spice Girls faction, originating from the UK to rival the Pritanoi...

---

Ugh, the internal forum is riddled with his threads on the topic.

I visited the bronze and iron age centre at flag fen in the east of england earlier today where in the museum they have parts of a chariot which were dug up from the site along with a collection of bronze weapons.
seeing this with my own eyes is archaelogical evidence enough for me that they were used by english tribes.:book:

However im still happy about the bodyguard being on foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kozu

I visited the bronze and iron age centre at flag fen in the east of england earlier today where in the museum they have parts of a chariot which were dug up from the site along with a collection of bronze weapons.
seeing this with my own eyes is archaelogical evidence enough for me that they were used by english tribes.:book:

However im still happy about the bodyguard being on foot.

---

There is a lovely example in the national museum in Scotland, the bronze fittings for the reins are beautiful.

It's times like these that I really miss the original MTW ability of dismounting your units before battle... I still cannot understand why they got rid of that ability...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

It's times like these that I really miss the original MTW ability of dismounting your units before battle... I still cannot understand why they got rid of that ability...

---

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

---

IIRC Chinese troops liked to do that - but then again, they were more mounted infantry than actual cavalry. Mounted infantry could easily be represented in game as an nfantry unit with the same movement points as cavalry plus an increased upkeep cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

---

That could be it, but they never brought it back for M2TW, which seems very strange. If it was easy enough to script into the 1st Medieval, why not put it in the second?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

IIRC Chinese troops liked to do that - but then again, they were more mounted infantry than actual cavalry. Mounted infantry could easily be represented in game as an nfantry unit with the same movement points as cavalry plus an increased upkeep cost.

---

That raises a good question... I wonder if the Pritanoi infantry bodyguards will have the same movement points as cavalry to reflect that they would ride to battle on chariots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

That could be it, but they never brought it back for M2TW, which seems very strange. If it was easy enough to script into the 1st Medieval, why not put it in the second?

---

Completely different engine. Things don't translate so easily if its not built in from the start.

Quote:

---

That raises a good question... I wonder if the Pritanoi infantry bodyguards will have the same movement points as cavalry to reflect that they would ride to battle on chariots.

---

On the campaign map? That is hardcoded values afaik.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Completely different engine. Things don't translate so easily if its not built in from the start.



On the campaign map? That is hardcoded values afaik.

Foot

---

Yes, that's true. Still a shame though.

How is campaign map movement points hardcoded? By unit type? As in units classed as cavalry all get the same and units classed as infantry all get the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

How is campaign map movement points hardcoded? By unit type? As in units classed as cavalry all get the same and units classed as infantry all get the same?

---

I believe that is correct. I guess this begs the question, "what if we labeled certain infantry units as mounted?" I can't help but assume that this would results in some unwanted side effects. If nothing else, it would probably further hamper the AI.

While the thread has been put back alive again. Just wanted to mention that Cassius Dio mentions them in the british invasion of 43 AD as well and if I'm not mistaken they are mentioned by tacitus in his biography of agricola too. So that's another two quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I believe that is correct. I guess this begs the question, "what if we labeled certain infantry units as mounted?" I can't help but assume that this would results in some unwanted side effects. If nothing else, it would probably further hamper the AI.

---

The most obvious side effect would be spear units getting a bonus against this special unit

Just as a side note, related to the original question in this thread, there are chariot bits recovered from several of the hillforts in the Wessex region. No chariot burials as far as I know, but a number of various metallic bits have been recovered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I believe that is correct. I guess this begs the question, "what if we labeled certain infantry units as mounted?" I can't help but assume that this would results in some unwanted side effects. If nothing else, it would probably further hamper the AI.

---

Yeah, I believe the battle AI treats units differently depending on how they are classified, so it would attempt to use the infantry unit as cavalry on the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Yeah, I believe the battle AI treats units differently depending on how they are classified, so it would attempt to use the infantry unit as cavalry on the battlefield.

---

Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, considering there won't be that many of them and that AI is reckless with their generals no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikaz

Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, considering there won't be that many of them and that AI is reckless with their generals no matter what.

---

Maybe, but if the AI likes to use cavalry to counter other cavalry (does it? I'm not really sure) then it won't just be throwing its infantry generals into your infantry, it will be chasing your cavalry around hopelessly with a slow heavy infantry unit. I guess if they're classed as heavy cavalry they'll probably just charge them headfirst into your frontline though, which isn't terrible considering these will be powerful units.