Casse

I think lobf's point is that the Britons had absolutely no impact on the rest of the world until the Romans conquered Britain. I wouldn't argue for their removal, though - how much impact did the Sarmatians or Lusitanians have, after all? EB is a game of "what if".

Evidence from burning down and building new hill forts (Almondbury, Sutton Bank/Roulston Scar) by the way, suggest that the Brigantes and Parisi may have been around since c.400 BC. In the South of England, things seem to have been in more of a state of flux.

The Sarmatians? If you want to discuss their influence in this particular era of antiquity, we are speaking of an entity which not only replaced their historical precursors, the Scythians, but had a lasting worldly influence across Eurasia, and should some controversial theories be heard, some have posited that they provided the historical basis for the Arthurian legend. Whatever the case, the later so-called nomadic and barbarian invasion, well into the dissolution of the Western Roman empire, saw a tremendous influx of Alans in migration with Vandals, Goths and Huns, across the entire known world. I'm sure you've seen this map before:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Alani_map.jpg

EB is about re-creating the past from a single moment of reference (In this case during the early Hellenistic period) and to provide the parameters of this huge universe (Which extends for almost three centuries, a huge span of time, and a span implying a ton of socio-political change for the Pahlava and Saka-Rauka); The player may choose to recreate the Parthian empire, during its Golden age, several decades if not a whole century before it was established proper as a super-power, or the player may choose to do something entirely different. EB is in such terms indeed a game of "what-if", and subsequently not a game aiming to control historical outcome. The raw material is there, hopefully sufficient enough to make a house out of it: It is up to the player to build the house.

With all due respect, using that map to say "Keep the Sauromatae" is like arguing for the Sabyn with a map of the Abbasid Caliphate...

With all due respect but that kite won't take off as we say over here.

I'm not saying I think any factions should be abolished, just taking issue with a big map of the Barbarian invasions of the 4th-5th Centuries AD being given as a reason for the importance of the Sauromatae 272-14 BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

With all due respect, using that map to say "Keep the Sauromatae" is like arguing for the Sabyn with a map of the Abbasid Caliphate...

---

That may be, but to argue that the Sarmatians had little impact on the world during the EB timeframe is flat-out wrong. The timeframe of EB was actually the time when the Sauromatae/Sarmatians (I don't want to debate about when one became the other here) probably had the largest effect on the ancient world (note that I don't include the Alans in this statement).They had a huge influence in and around the Black Sea region in the third and second centuries BC, effectively destroying the Royal Scythians and numerous other minor peoples, putting immense pressure on the Bosporan kingdom and the Greek cities in the region, and effecting the creation of the so-called 'Late Scythian' kingdom. They affected the northern Pontic littoral as drastically, if not moreso, than the Galatians affected Asia Minor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Maybe there will be a faction there.
Maybe not.

We could tell you our selected factions (we havent selected all of them). But we'd rather wait and use them as previews later on.

---

I'd rather make up Bartix in the game that add another faction in Britain, basically due to the fact (Though I must say my knowledge is very dim) of their great isolation in the pre-Roman period, limiting to some trade with the Carthaginians, relations with their Belgae counterparts and relations with the Irish island. I'm sure that faction could be put to a better use. The British Isles would be full of the said exotic British units, bonus to a Gaul/German/Iberian player, like someone suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

With all due respect, using that map to say "Keep the Sauromatae" is like arguing for the Sabyn with a map of the Abbasid Caliphate...

---

Comparing apples with oranges now are we? I used the map as a reference of later Alannic migrations, way beyond the time-frame relevant to EB; Prior to the migrations the Sarmatians as a loosely defined entity practically ruled the Eurasian steppes before the arrival of the so-called Black Huns. It marks a huge transition where Central Asia was becoming dominated by Altaic tribes, effectively supplaunting the Iranian tribes around both sides of the Caspian steppes. To merely dismiss this, it is indeed folly. The Sarmatians had an enormous influence on the affairs of the Parthian empire, the Caucasus, Asia Minor, the Bosphorus and Dacia, effectively interacting with other Scythic peoples, Iranians settled to the south, Armenians, Caucasian Iberians, Greeks, Thracians and eventually the Romans. They succeeded the Scythians, expressed in abstracted terms, as the Scythians succeeded the Cimmerians before them.

Should we even split the Sarmatian tribes to their territories, all of them encompass a respectably large area, confined only by the great rivers; Siracae and Legae to the north of the Caucasus, the Aorsi to the very north of the Caspian steppes, and two the west the Iazyges, the proposed ancestors of today's Jassic Hungarians, traced to Ossetian ancestry, and finally the aggressive Roxolani/Raukhsh-Alanna. The Scythians before them were equally divided accordingly to Old Persian naming convention. The Sarmatians had a tremendous influence on the peoples they came in contact with. Especially in Eastern Europe, their lasting legacy gave way to certain "Sarmatianisms" in Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, including "Sarmatian-style" armour.

The Poles didn't actually come into contact with the Sarmatians, it's just that the Polish nobility, out of snobbery, wanted a story that would make them a different race from the peasants. But okay, delete "the Sarmatians" and insert "the Sabaeans"... it doesn't really matter. Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

Clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

---

:laugh4:

I nominate you for the dumbest quote of the year award.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

The Poles didn't actually come into contact with the Sarmatians, it's just that the Polish nobility, out of snobbery, wanted a story that would make them a different race from the peasants. But okay, delete "the Sarmatians" and insert "the Sabaeans"... it doesn't really matter. Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

---

Indeed. I would say at least 74% if not 74.5% of all our factions achieved nothing at all in our timeframe. We explicity chose those factions that did not have any achievement instead of those factions that did.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

:laugh4:

I nominate you for the dumbest quote of the year award.

---

The mighty Casse Empire! How the King of the Sabaeans must have hoped, like Alexander, that there were new Worlds to conquer, when he had marched his armies to the edge of the known world! The Armenian king Tigranes almost sacked Rome... if only he hadn't thrown away his entire empire to a single legion. Clearly, some of the factions achieved very little, others built mighty empires. The list is not simply a "power list". Or do you think it is for some reason?

lol, what's the logic here? there are 20 slots, if you wanted only the ones that 200 years later had "achieved" something than you would have a game with, like, 4-5 factions? wow.

Elmetiacos isn't claiming that, at all. Members of the EB team themselves have admitted that after a certain number of sure-fire factions have been included (Rome, Carthage, Seleucids) who arguably achieved a lot or could have achieved more, the rest has to be included on other criteria such as regional cultural impact, trade impact, or in the end how interesting they could be. Casse probably is one of them - the fact that other mods don't even choose to include them is probably an indication of this.

There is no argument for removing a faction. He is merely confirming that which any responsible historian should know: that our sources of knowledge for the situation in 272, let alone the sharp exact features the way they have to be depicted inside a computer game, simply aren't available.

Elmetiacos is saying exactly what has been said before in defense of the Casse, even by EB team members, and to me still sounds reasonable. When confronted with this, why all the defensive reactions?

The problem is not that he is arguing for or against certain factions, but that his posts suggest that the team isn't living up to their claim of historical accuracy. That is debatable. You can indeed argue that the faction chosen do not represent the 20 greatest powers on the map. However, the original objective of the mod was to educate about those parts of the Classical world that receive little attention in popular history. Therefor, the team decided to spread out the factions over the map a bit. The Casse and Sweboz obviously weren't world-power material, and one could argue that, for example, Pergamon, Syracuse and the Spartocid kingdom stood a far better chance of establishing a major empire. However, the Greek culture is already very well represented, and these were some of the lesser players in it. On the other hand, northern Europe would be entirely empty without Briton and Germanic factions. What is more accurate: focus on the well-known nations and make the rest of Europe a mass of uninteresting rebels, or spread out factions to do other areas justice as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

The Poles didn't actually come into contact with the Sarmatians, it's just that the Polish nobility, out of snobbery, wanted a story that would make them a different race from the peasants. But okay, delete "the Sarmatians" and insert "the Sabaeans"... it doesn't really matter. Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

---

Abandoning the sinking ship so soon? I thought you had a reason when you mentioned the Sarmatians (I'll get to the Sabaeans soon enough, and clarify why we choosed it for instance over Qataban), and I think you are still infatuated with your own perception of the matters, especially when you say "It doesn't really matter", in no uncertain terms. Clearly, it matters. The Sarmatians are a chief reason for the persistence and perseverance of Eastern Iranian languages in Central Asia, and especially the Eurasian steppes. With origins as far back as the 6th-5th centuries BCE to the 4th century CE, when they were driven out of the steppes by various Altaic (Hunnic) tribes. During that span, the Achaemenid, Arsacid and Sassanian empires, right to their south, saw their rise. The Alannic migrations south to Caucasian Albania forever changed "Ardhan" or "Aghvank" and saw the rise of another clan, which would have a say in Partho-Sassanian policies, the "Ard-Alan". To this day, in countries where Ossetians have prevailed, they still call themselves "Iron", a small tribute to a vast conglomerate who spoke a language similar to Old Persian.

As for the Poles, I implied lasting historical influence, not direct contact. Again, if you'd like to indulge in building straw-men, you are only wasting your own time. The Sarmatians have been a key propaganda tool for various Pan-Slavic institutions, and the Polish, or the aforementioned historical commonwealth, as well as Russians have not only used Sarmatians in their propaganda machines, but also the Scythians. They are a recurring motif in even modern art. It partly explains the intensity of the Soviet archaeological exploits, and though much bogus scholarship exists, they have also unveiled the Iranian connection, which has tremendously contributed in tracing when the Turco-Altaic migrations took place. The previously mentioned "Sarmatianism" is a product of inspiration, and the Poles, who relied by large on a strong force of cavalry, found their perfect role-model; In fact, it has been a key in bolstering Polish-Iranian relations into the modern age, especially during and after World War II. It's the same when the last Shah named his elite d'elite, and his household cavalry "Gârd-î Jâvîdân" meaning "The Guard of the Immortals", a homage to the past military splendour of Iran.

As for Saba, we found the choice in southern Arabia to be quite obvious; It has traces from 2000 BCE, and persevered until the first century BCE, when they were conquered by the Himyarites; Sabaeans still retained influence well into the 3rd century CE. Mar'ib itself was still a metropolis until its famed dams collapsed, 570 CE. From there, and during those centuries of decline when Himyar and Axum squabbled over the area, the Sassanians finally conquered the area, which remained a province until the 630's, at the eve of the Islamic invasions. Saba was no light-weight; They had a significant possession over parts of Ethiopia (D'mt) as far as the 8th century BCE, and finally, they were clearly a literate and urban civilization, who mastered the art of irrigations.

Unlike Islamic propaganda which constantly seeks to downplay pre-Islamic Arabian history as an age of "barbarousness" and "utter poverty", applying the rationale of Hejazi warlordism elsewhere without consideration in all corners of Arabia (When we on the contrary have plenty of evidence of advanced, urban civilizations in Oman, the western coasts of the Persian Gulf, and Yemen), we know better. What Mohammed declared to be the "lost city of Ubar" turned out to be utter bull, as it was already recorded by Ptolemy's cartography (Iobaritae), and today's site of Shisar/Shisur as found by Juris Zarins proves that the Iobaritae were learned in fortifications, and agriculture. In fact, he established Parthian influences (In no uncertain terms, he declared the Iobaritae as a Parthian client) on the basis of encountered pottery. The Nabatene Arabs competed with the Sabaeans and the Aspasines of Characene (The Parthians, that is) for the mercantile opportunities in India. I could go on forever like this.

Armenia? I simply don't have the energy, their history does more than justice for their inclusion, and over the span of the Persianized Orontids, the Hellenized Artaxiads, the junior Arsacid branch, the advent of the Mamikonaeans and the medieval Marzpanate period, and the countless of battles between Iranians and Graeco-Romans over this remarkable land... Without Hayasdan, the Near East of EB would neither feel complete or genuine. This bulwark, often dubbed a client nation of either Graeco-Romans or Iranians, had tremendous worldly influence, and to this day, their alphabet as established by Mashtots, still prevails to this day. Iranology is blessed by the fact that there are ancient and medieval writings still available, describing in significant breadth the charactersitics of Partho-Sassanian society, as a contrast to Graeco-Roman writings. They have also been pivotal in describing the turmoil of the 3rd Perso-Turkic wars which took place in the Caucasus, bringing more turmoil to the Sassanian empire. Tigranes? Tigranes did the unthinkable. Without Tigranes, there would never have been an emboldened Mithridates VI in Pontus, and without Tigranes, Parthia could potentially have ended her first civil war with much more speed.

Pick someone else while you are at it. C'mon, pick the Sacaeraucae. Or pick the Graeco-Bactrians. "Insert them" instead. While you make your pick, you'd do yourself a favour and think of your own responsibilities, as the claimant. With a claim comes a burden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Elmetiacos isn't claiming that, at all. Members of the EB team themselves have admitted that after a certain number of sure-fire factions have been included (Rome, Carthage, Seleucids) who arguably achieved a lot or could have achieved more, the rest has to be included on other criteria such as regional cultural impact, trade impact, or in the end how interesting they could be. Casse probably is one of them - the fact that other mods don't even choose to include them is probably an indication of this.

---

I am absolutely certain that no faction has been included (first of all) with that as their primary or final reason (as your "in the end" states) or that (secondly) that factor was even mentioned in any substantive way as a determinent in our actual selection process. It would be embarassing to have made that a factor and it certainly was not. If an EB team member said it, I have not seen it, and if it was implied that they are "interesting" or that a by-product is that an interesting faction resulted, then that is besides the point.

edit: I have recently given about as detailed a summary of the faction selection process as anyone outside EB internal forums will get: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=531 And by "gameplay" I am referring to things like ability to keep other factions' expansion in check, ability to become allies (where rebels cannot), ability to provide cultural variation in a region that did not have it, etc. It does not mean how much fun or how interesting it can be to play as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The problem is not that he is arguing for or against certain factions, but that his posts suggest that the team isn't living up to their claim of historical accuracy. That is debatable.

---

Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by You

Factions clearly aren't included in EB because of their actual achievements.

---

Its the little things that matter.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Abandoning the sinking ship so soon?

---

I was never on the ship in the first place. lobf asked if there was any reason to have the Cassi in the game, since the British tribes hadn't had any influence in the affairs of the classical world. I said that a faction didn't have to be huge and influential to be included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:

---

So your comments about the inclusion of factions do not apply to EB1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

Huh? How can I do that here when the team hasn't said anything about the Celtic factions in EB2? :dizzy2:

---

Earlier in this thread it was stated by EB team members that we have no current plans to remove any EB1 factions from EB2.

...and I don't have a problem with that, other than the faction being called "Casse" rather than "Cassi" or "Cassoi". My criticism of EB1 is about the realism of Celtic names and certain military units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

So your comments about the inclusion of factions do not apply to EB1?

---

What comments about the inclusion of factions?
EDIT: Oh, I see, because I said that team aren't inlcuding only mighty, empire building factions, that counts as a comment on faction inclusion. Yes, very clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

My criticism of EB1 is about the realism of Celtic names and certain military units.

---

Please, proceed.
:smash:

May I attempt to clarify what is at issue? here goes:

Elmetiacos, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing, I think along the lines of what Geoffrey and Ludens said, that regional variety is frequently a more important factor in EB factions than their level of expansion. I think that's true: as TA pointed out, in addition to wanting to bring little-known factions to life out of the great swirling morass of "eleutheroi" outside the Mediterranean basin, picking factions as the strongest/most developed in a particular region can allow us to more accurately depict local culture, alliances, trade, expansion, etc.

I think, Elmetiacos, that while your issue is on Celtic language and some Celtic units, your choice of words here has raised some conflict. "actual acheivements" implied either/both that we've selected a bunch of factions who sat around in circles trying to keep their campfires alive, or/and that we've concocted imagined acheivements to buttress tenuous factions. I am not certain, but I don't think that's what you were really saying. I think what you were really saying is what Geoffrey implied, that if we went strictly by power scale/military expansion, we'd quite likely have a rather different set of factions. Not hugely different, I think, but there'd be some key changes. Pergamon and the Bosporans have already been mentioned, and we could add a number of other, powerful or significant factions which we did not choose either to bring diversity to the map or because we weren't comfortable enough with the situation in 272 for the faction.

EDIT: Cartaphilus, Elmetiacos' comments are on...I think two...threads in the main EB forum. I think they have probably descended onto page 2 by now, and you have to wade through digressions about axe-heads and various linguistic discussions, but it raises valuable points.

Correct. Ironically, I'm not really arguing at all, just stating the obvious - EB is more about diversity and not about having 3 or 4 big Mediterranean empires surrounding by annoying barbarians waiting to be crushed. Some people have interpreted my saying "size doesn't matter" for inclusion as somehow insulting someone's national honour or something.

My comments on EB1's Celts and suggestions for improvement are mostly in a thread called "Materia Celtica".

I'm currently thinking, though, that the whole idea of how Celts organised themselves for war is too Roman-like and needs a re-think.

If you mean: recruit units and off you go; or similarly recruit an army and off you go -- then obviously yes. But the RTW enigne itself was designed to cope with such recruitment only, you cannot dynamically change availabiltiy (most importantly you cannot lower it!) of units.

With M2TW however, such things are possible, and indeed are being looked into (emulating different styles of conscription based on faction). And there's more but I've revealed enough for today already.

==================================

On the subject of careless remarks being offensive: I wish to express that neither the statement about Tigranes nor the poor choice of the word actual (as it implies a sarcastic tone) help to contribute to whatever point you want to make. IIRC you are from England, so surely you must've caught that yourself too. :juggle:

I was thinking more that because we all (obviously) live in a post Marian, post Gustavian world, units tend to be designated according to what weapons they're using, so there are Gaulish units of swordsmen, spearmen, axemen, etc. I'm thinking they would be more akin to a mediaeval feudal army with units differentiated according to social class and therefore what equipment they could bring with them, from chariots and chainmail at the top to hunting spears and billhooks at the bottom...