Briton "Head Hurlers"?

I'm surprised no-one has brought this up yet... I saw them in one of the unit profiles, and have seen them mentioned occassionally. Are they really accuarate though? I know that the British Celts were head hunters, and that they preserved these heads with quicklime. But, I also know that to the Celts the head was the most important thing of all, and if one possesed anothers head one gained all of their knowledge as well, plus the heads were trophies. With the head being such an important symbol in the Celtic belief system, would they really throw them away at people? And I wouldn't have thought that was a very limited supply of heads to 'hurl', not making it a very wise choice for a battle-field projectile. Anyway, could someone with a greater knowledge than me on the Celts shed some light on this?

I doubt it. Heads were trophies, you don't throw throphies away. And even if they did sometimes, it is ridiculous to to assume that there were 'dedictated' units of head hurlers.

It almost seems that CA is doing this on purpose to annoy Europa Barbaorum. I can live with the fact that the kataphraktoi has the wrong shield. I can live with flaming pigs and wardogs. But head hurlers?

What is CA is doing to realism of their series?

This has been discussed time and again (before the forum changed).

Heads were so important to the celts that a number of times some warriors would stop fighting and start head-collecting before the battle was finished.

Indeed... throwing a collected head away was the same for a Briton as having your own Maserati trashed to me and you.

Sigh.



~Wiz

Originally Posted by The Wizard:
Indeed... throwing a collected head away was the same for a Briton as having your own Maserati trashed to me and you.

Sigh.

~Wiz

Sorry. I wouldn't know how that feels. ~D

Originally Posted by The Wizard:
Indeed... throwing a collected head away was the same for a Briton as having your own Maserati trashed to me and you.

Sigh.



~Wiz

Mazerati? Try VW Golf, you might catch some of us... but ...Mazerati? Yeah, right ~:rolleyes:

shhhh

we try not to talk about the Head Hurlers ~:mecry:

Maybe we have the wrong end of the stick, guys. They might be throwing their own heads at the enemy! ~:joker: Or perhaps it's a style of charging into close combat-head first!

GAH!

Vanya wants to take head hurler rush army onto field!

Hmm... but, then they would throw heads AWAY from Vanya... maybe that no so good since Vanya then have to run about picking them up.

GAH!

No, Vanya, it's not all bad if you make it half head-hurlers and half wardogs ... this way, the head-hurlers would throw the heads, and the dogs would fetch.
come to think of it, you could also use screaming women for that. They might even keep the enemy from collecting the heads for themselves better than the dogs. ~:p

They may be thinking of the 'tathlum' which were supposedly made from the brains of enemies and used as sling-stones.

What is there to say really, except that the game is filled with goofy historically innaccurate units like head hurlers, Druids, dual-sword wielding arcani, the gladiators that fight for Rome, Iberian bullsh*te warriors and Mummy Returns spearmen.

"And I wouldn't have thought that was a very limited supply of heads to 'hurl', not making it a very wise choice for a battle-field projectile."

From what I read I don't believe the projectile heads will not cause damage that instead they will cause a morale pentaly in the targeted unit.

Bah, it's another Lord of the Rings rip-off from Return of the King. If CA is going for the mainstream strategy gamer market, they're still going to get creamed by Battle for Middle Earth.

The one thing I will say is that CA is trying to make it balanced. Keep in mind if the game was truly historical you couldn’t win with certain arms. Certain armies sucked. At the time pound for pound Rome had the best army, it was internal problems that lead to its downfall, not a fault of its army. To make the game challenging and balanced we are going to have to allow CA some leeway.

If you were trying to make a modern war game that was balanced you’d have to beef up the Iraqis with some units that might not be accurate in order to make them a viable option against the US.

I'd disagree. Who cares about balancing? Some factions are better than others, and in MTW, they never gave the Argonese head hurlers because they were small. Balancing is okay up to a point, but then it gets stupid.

Im annoyed snould be Irish hurlers with big ash tree stick's and sliotar's (hard leather ball) not heads unless your from clare
This is a hurler

That problems that led to the downfall of Rome didn't come around until they converted to the Christian faith.

That was long after the period of the game.

I'll agree a historically accurate game might be a bit dry. Mobs of peasants, and mundane troops with irregular gear would be accurate.

Some troops add flavour. I am not totally onboard with the Pharoah spears or head hurlers. Some flavor can be good. We just need to create rules for multiplayer battles that ban specific especially eggregious units like head hurlers.

That should make a point.

I’m not saying that head hurlers where the way to go. I was just pointing out some of the obstacles that can lead to historically inaccurate units.

Another would be marketability. They have to sell this game, and they hope to sell it to a audience that is wider that the die hard history and military buffs in this forum. Head hurlers, dogs and screaming women are units that might peak a lay persons interest. I must admit I am interested to see them and use them. Flaming pigs crack me up.

I think CA is relying on our ability to mod, and work together to play the historically accurate games. This may not be completely fair, but them selling more copies increases the chance we will keep getting installment in the total war series. Which I think every one in here will agree is a good thing.

Hear, hear!!!!

More installments is definetly a good thing



-Soul

Originally Posted by LeeJackson:
Head hurlers, dogs and screaming women are units that might peak a lay persons interest.

You may be right - but it also re-inforces the perception that the ancients were only interested in "getting their freak on" in one way or another. ~:eek:

I mean come on - the "barbarians" weren't all that barbaric and Roman society was much (probably too much) like our own modern Western society - except for the gladiator's - but we do have the NFL.

I'm just one of those people who believe that ancient history is colorful enough as it is without all the the Hollywood embelishment. I'm currently reading "The First Man in Rome" for the 3rd time and I can tell you that it is BOTH historically accurate AND entertaining as Hell!

Barkhorn.