Printable View
EB's Celtic Expert and "Goidilic" Units
> > > > > > >Quote:
Originally Posted by Posted by Riadach : 08-05-2007, 18:31
> > > > > > >Quote:
Originally Posted by Posted by Riadach
> > > > > > >Quote:
Originally Posted by Posted by Riadach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Posted by Ludens : 08-08-2007, 14:01
I was just wondering, I noticed that there was no change for EB 1.0 (10-11-2007). Will this be fixed in EB II?
Uhm... Why are you posting this here? (This forum being for EB 2; and there being another one for EB 1x...)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70
he's asking if there's going to be an addressing of Goidilic names in EBII, so it fits here....and yes, name changes have already been made in internal planning.
For 1.0all the names of Goidilic units were changed, Vellinica, Ordmalica, Dubosaverlacica and so on... get your facts right...
I think my facts are right, there were Goidilic units in EB 1.0?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
I'm questioning if these will be removed and replaced with a more accurate depiction of the Hibernia?
Thank you. That is a good step.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
-to be deleted by mods- Wrong forum.
Sorry. Why wrong forum? I'm asking about EB II. Is there another EB II forum I should be posting in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
I think he means that he posted in the wrong forum and he wants his post to be deleted by a mod.
I don't understand. Is it just the names of the units that are wrong, or did the big hooded madmen in EB never actually exist? Have EB fixed them in 1.0?
Are the EB team trying to cover something up because this all looks very strange to me.
Some of the units are alright with a few changes. Others draw to heavily on the myths of the Irish early christian and medieval eras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperknickers
The Iron Age Irish almost certainly did not refer to themselves as goidils.
There is also no archaeological evidence for an invasion from spain or any where else during the Irish Iron Age (roughly 300bc-300ad). Most (well, 99.9% really) modern archaeologists and historians regard the Irish mythological texts as fantasy and propaganda by the Irish early Christians to try and tie themselves to the various bible stories and the works of roman scholars.
For example, the Tain is probably an ancient Irish myth, but is adapted by mounting the heroes on chariots in imitation of the Greek Heroes of the Trojan wars (no evidence that the chariot was used in battle in Iron Age Ireland, but that it was a civilian/ceremonial vehicle-only a part of a true battle chariot like those in Britain has been found, and that piece was imported from Scotland/North England. Calvary seems to have been more common but whether this was "true cavalry" or mounted infantry is another matter) and arms them with Viking era swords and spears.
So, basically the Irish monks didn't really have a clue as to what their ancestors actually looked like so based them on the warriors of their own time period that they were familiar with.
O ok. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Admetos
yes, this what I was trying to questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Taliferno
I'll admit to knowing little of the area and period, but right now the evidence supporting various units (Ordmalica and Dubosaverlacica spring to mind), their armament (such as scale, apparently with links to Iberia and Carthage), and ties between Iberia and Ireland appear to be rather unclear. And in particular, the dating of sources apparently used makes me wonder how much relevancy they have for the timeperiod of EB, and even if the are applicable if they are representative enough to support full units.
The Goidils in EB are not called Goidils in game and the Dubosaverlacica are based on recently discovered archealogical evidence.
In my version (EB 1.0) they are called Goidils? About this Dubosaverlacica unit, what evidence are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
Was there really forces of "descendants of the Vasci - Iberian invaders of Hibernia" wearing "layers of scales upon linen, upon chain" in this time period?
From my understanding these are dated many hundreds of years later, am I wrong?
No, its not proof that Dubosaverlacica existed. I am unfamiliar with this find of armour, but on its own it means nothing. The context and other finds with it are more important in trying to trace its origins. I would say the armour was a gift to a King rather than evidence of a Vasci tribe in Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony III
The armour was found in a burial site, and if it was a gift to a king then they at least had trade with the Vasci.
EDIT: sorry, they are called Goidils in game, my mistake.
The Irish in EBs time period did not practice inhumation burials (unless you count the bog bodies) but burned their dead, and left no grave goods on them. It wasn't until the Irish had contact with various Roman cults did they begin to bury their dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
And no one is denying that there was contact between the Irish and the various Iberian tribes-Ireland has had similarities with north Iberia from at least the neolithic. For example a bog body-called Clonycavan man- had hair gel that would have been imported into Ireland from Iberia or SW Gaul. But having trade relations does not = invasion.
From the description of the Battle of Ebhernis River (aprox 100 BC).
Quote:
The semi-mythic histories of the invasions of Ireland, while conflicting, point to a common thread. Coming from southern Gaul, northern Iberia, and typically both, there came a great multitude of people who settled in the lands of the south, within the kingdom of Erainn. The migration was motivated by numerous factors, such as need for more land for the growing population, stories of the wealthy mines of Ireland, and religious beliefs that implied the island was a sacred refuge of the gods.
Well-motivated, the people began to migrate at the inference of one of their kings, who is named in the histories, recorded much later from a combination of oral histories and hagiographies, as Milesus. Milesus merely means 'Soldier of Spain', though, and implies he was a warlord of some power and distinction. Milesus, before being able to go himself, was killed in battle. The job to invade Ireland, then, fell to his sons and other relatives. They gathered their people and allies, and began a great expedition.
While the hagiographies imply a much more warlike landing usually, archaeology implies the south actually welcomed them. When the first Gadelic objects appear, they are often alongside the graves of the local Celts. As such, we can infer the Erainn were friendly to them. The Gadels were given a land to settle, which had been depopulated by raids from the Fer Bolgia, a Belgic and Cruithni tribe that inhabited much of what is now Connacht. This was the land of Ebherni, and the tribes adopted the name as their own, and joined within the confederacy-kingdom of the Erainn. They dwelled there around a great fortress named Ebhernis, or Ivernis.
Upon settlement, a warlord from the north, a member of the Cruithni people, kin to the people of Caledonia, had already planned an assault on this percievably weak stronghold. They marched a force of men, composed of various Celtic and Cruithni tribes, into the west, and turned south, through the land of Fer Bolgia, on to Ebhernis.
The leader of the Ebherni called for aide. This leader is alternatively Eremon, Eber, or Ithil, one of the sons or nephews of the soldier of Spain, who had become the chieftain of his people. The Erainnach sent aide from their tribe to hold the enemy at a river-ford north of the fort of Ebhernis, to repulse the Cruithni and protect this gateway into the south of the island. Loss of the battle would open this region to intense raiding.
Undaunted, the Cruithni, under a warlord named Hama, or Amag, moved south, and met his enemy. The Cruithni were of greater number than the Gadels and their allies, but undisciplined and over-eager. They charged into the ford where they were slaughtered in the ensuing melee by the Erainnach, who drove them back over the river. The Cruithni fell back far from the ford to reform their lines.
In this time, Eremon's men and the Erainnach both crossed the river and reformed, and launched a brief sortie between their cavalry and young Cruithni men armed with darts and javelins. After this skirmish, the Cruithni charged again, with their warlord at the head of the charge in desperation. He was cut down almost as soon as he reached the opposing line, and his head cut off and taken as a trophy. His army soon routed at great expense, with many being captured or killed by the pursuing Gadels.
With the victory, the Gadels cemented themselves as a powerful element in the Irish scene, with good, disciplined soldiers, and enjoyed increased political influence. Their influence entered into the Erainn so much that a syncretic culture began to form, as nobles embraced Gadelic society. A Gadelic noble class bred further a mixed culture that became the earliest Gaels. These people came to dominate the island, ultimately subjugating the earlier Celts and Cruithni people to their own culture.
Had the battle gone otherwise, this may not have occured. This is not a definite, as the battle was not of substantial size. However, had the Cruithni had easier access to the southern kingdoms, any expansion of their society would have taken much longer, and the series of wars fought between the various kingdoms may have grown in size and commonality, to the point where the island would have descended anarchy of the proportion only seen in post-Norman invasion Ireland.
The success and rise to prominence of the Gadels completely transformed the political landscape of Ireland. The creation of Gaels advanced the technology of the island substantially, and introduced new concepts, weapons, and superior organization that facilitated the large scale invasions of Britain in the waning days of the Roman Empire; one of the reasons Britain became so unprofitable as to necessitate abandonment by the Romans. The success of the Gadels in their initial battles in Ireland, as such, could have had farther reaching influence in the history of all the islands than we can readily percieve.
Yes, well it seems clear from this that EBs Celtic expert is using primarily the somewhat outdated interpretation of prehistoric Ireland that T.F O'Rahilly came up with from the Lebor Gabála Érenn .Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
Again, there is no archaeological evidence for an "invasion" in Ebs time frame. The introduction of the Irish/Q-celtic language probably came from the hillfort builders of the bronze age, or the Irish Dark Age when said hillforts seem to have been abandoned (600BC-300BC).
As for the Cruthin, there is not a single object or site that can be declared to be Cruthin. When they do turn up in the early Irish texts they bear Irish names and there is nothing to say that they didn't speak Irish as well.
Alhough O'Rahilly and other early historians were extremly influential, it has to be remembered that they did not have access to the modern dating techniques that we use today. They attributed many sites and artefacts to the Iron Age that really belonged to later periods, such as Raths (really early christian/medieval)