Ah so? One learns something new every day. I'll have to correct a trait/title.
Printable View
Ah so? One learns something new every day. I'll have to correct a trait/title.
This is frickin' amazing site on chariot reconstruction from the BBC: check it out!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interac...ot/index.shtml
I found that both very interesting and hilarious due to the fact that the place was called wetwang...
On topic the work youve put into The Pritanoi is epic and I realy look forwards to playing as them.
Two pieces of Celtic pedantry:
It should be tegeslougos, not tegoslogos - *tegos is an s-stem noun.
It should be marcacones not marcacoi; the modern Welsh marchog, plural marchogion shows that this was an n-stem noun.
AmazingQuote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Elmetiacos, I am willing to consider those points, but I'd like to see a little more development of the argument. *marcacoi is a compound of *markos and *akos - the latter, we have assumed, being an -os declension.
https://img535.imageshack.us/img535/...00719at083.png
https://img827.imageshack.us/img827/...00719at083.png
āko become -acum in gallo-roman period. It's a suffix for some adjectives, mainly for the locating adjectives.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/-acum
But I don't know why the Gaelic use it for the horseman "marcach".
Okay, though it appears not, the entry for *tegos you post actually proves my point; the stem is *tegos-, you notice, not *tego- as it would be if it were an o-stem and not an s-stem... I don't understand why apparently the same publication (what is it?) then quotes *tego-slowgo-. Raimund Karl in Thoughts on the evolution of Celtic societies and grand Celtic narratives has *tege- as the compositional form and I've assumed he was correct. The word for horse *marko- is an o-stem, but we're talking riders, not horses. The Welsh plural marchogion suggests Brit. *marcacones rather than *marcacoi; this is my presumption... I don't know why the authority you quote goes for an o-stem agentive *-ako- rather than *-aku- when the Welsh suggests otherwise. Maybe there's something about Old Welsh plurals (and it's still -ion/-yon in Old Welsh) that I don't know about and which causes o-stems to have n-stem plural endings put on?
Hmmm. You might well be right. The source, by the way, is the Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, Ranko Mastovic, although I also have the U of Wales/J. Koch's project glossary.
I'll re-read Raimund Karl, as I never noticed the form you mentioned (it's been a year at least since I last read it), and I'll check some other sources, like The Celtic Languages, Ball and Mueller. I do think that it is possible for Old Welsh to have acquired later elements not common to early British languages - but I'll research it.
So I'll get back to you on this, but the pricking of my thumbs tells me I might concede to Maracones. The other is not so great a difference, and I also have always considered the spelling to be less 'fixed' than modern languages - you know, like 18th century English, where the same word could be spelled differently in the same sentence.
I'm sorry that I can't promise a very prompt response: I'm actually on vacation from EB until mid-August (family stuff).
I hate to ruin everyone's appreciation of the Wetwang cemetary but it isn't strictly speaking a chariot burial. The case is too long for it to have been a war chariot, the turning circle would have been too great for it to have worked (See I.M. Stead's two books on the site).Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I responded on your other thread about British chariots. As far as the Wetwang burials go, well, there are lots of assumptions made by anyone saying that they are or are not definitively war chariots. In any case, the scale of the car in the game is a function of many factors, including aesthetic ones, since there are no actual wooden pieces left to work from, only 'shadows' that the decayed wooden frame has left in the ground. The technology of the frame suspension and the harness pieces would be unaffected in any case. We have to look at any of the reconstructions, including our own model, as composites drawn from many sources.
Good point. And if you could remove the box easily the Wetwang vehicles could be adapted for different roles.
One question I have with regards to the Pritanoi faction, will there be any Belgic influences later in the game or will the fact Belgic influences occurred towards the end of the Iron Age preclude their inclusion?
In fact, I always assumed that the vehicles in the burials were able to function in either role, depending on their fit-out. It might in fact be the case that the wicker sides were removed for battle, leaving only the bare platform - or this might have been a matter of personal preference. We also have to consider that each chariot was probably unique in matters of style and decoration, with no two looking exactly alike (but all basically the same insofar as having two wheels, two ponies, etc.). That's all speculation, but it is important to note that the "Wetwang Chariot" and "Llyn Cerrig Bach Chariot" do not actually exist: in every case of reconstruction, whether on paper or out of wood, the final product is a composite of all the sources we have on charitos.
For your second question, the answer is yes.
Just kidding.
We plan to allow for the development of the Belgic/Ayelsford-Swarling Culture in southern Britain, without making it inevitable. Exactly how quickly the Channel region gets 'Belgified' will depend both on the actions of the player and on developments beyond his control (if the Carthaginians invade Kent in 225 BCE, for example). This has nothing to do with the possibility of a Belgic faction. Sorry, dude.
Since there arent enough slots anyway: what would that second British Isle faction be?
Does that mean there will be no Belgic faction or these cultural changes are no indicator that a Belgic faction would be included?Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Ah... life's full of questions is it not? It's what keeps life interesting IMO...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
The latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
The faction slots are less important in this case than other factors like number of provinces. Even if we wanted a second British faction, there are only 8 provinces in Britain - which makes designing a good campaign more difficult. But, if it were up to me only, and I had unlimited game resources, I would look seriously at a faction based on the Arras culture of the Vales of Pickering and York - the Parisi, with an evolutionary path towards becoming the Brigantes. That's really the only other serious candidate, in my purely personal opinion.Quote:
Since there arent enough slots anyway: what would that second British Isle faction be?
Phew.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos