Printable View
There are some medieval drawings here:
http://www.xlegio.ru/tension_springald.htm
And from the aforementioned celtic sources we've gathered that similar device, though of simpler build, was used by the ancient Britons.
Actually, I wanted the machine to only have single javelin on the top, initially, but Alin liked that design more... It might get changed into simpler engine before the public release is made. Remember that all pictures we post here are work in progress.
ok, this engine looks more like real siege engine (instead of the machine gun type I've seen on the picture). but then again you said it's work in progress, so I hope it will be changed.
what worries me more is, what sources allow to date it back in the time 270 - 0 BC and give it to "barbarian" peoples, apart from celtic tales. especially, because these tales where written down a long time later.
I don't want to offend anybody, but celtic tales are no reliable source. If you have archeological finds and/or roman or greek sources, I would be very happy to hear and learn more about them.
Celtic tales aren't necessarily unreliable because they were written down at a later time, since, of course, they had to survive that long in order to be written down. Although the monks who wrote the stories down were Christian and therefore changed the stories to fit with a Christian mythos, I doubt that the technicalities of an outdated siege engine would be important enough to change or partially omit, provided they had the information presented to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skilfingr
The best solution to the 3 families problem is to cripple two of them from expansion, and either 1) As someone said above, make them Samnites and Etruscans, or if you want to start the mod really far back, Sabines and Etruscans. The third faction would be the Roman Magistrates who, if possible, would start without a province and have to conquer the other two. This would simulate in some way the Roman imperial system of administration by a group of magistrates. The third family would obviously have to have many different surnames.
or 2) You could have one faction of Roman magistrates, and the others could be the pacified Latin states, one in Campania and one in Veii. If crippled to not expand, these would nicely demonstrate the allied status of these city states. The civil war would still be short, but if the Senate can demand provinces, it could be a force in its own right. This would be somewhat equivalent to the civil wars in which one faction always received the support of the Senate against the other (Pompey against Caesar, Augustus against Antony)
This mod looks and sounds incredible, but a botched family system that leaves three competing factions will make that facet as unrealistic as the vanilla version trying to be replace.
Frankly: buzz off. You can't imagine the sweat and tears that have been taking place over this issue internally here with serious modders and scholars trying to figure out the best solution. So for future reference when stumbling onto a new board, you and your little mad red face emoticon might be best served to make your initial post a little less irritable. Your interest is appreciated, but your demeanor and demands ("the best solution is..." made me laugh out loud) are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by waldoa
You guys have put forth some great ideas onto what to do with the Roman family system in RTW. Though, in mentioning this I may to late to have any influence what so ever, but anyhow... I read in another posting, relating to a different mod, where the person eliminated the ability for a captain to move and having it only be possible for a famliy member to do so. Well taking that a step further, remove all movement points from family members, unless they are elected to an office, say praetor or consul; in which case they would receive movement points. (I think this could be done by editting the traits) Further, the ex-praetor etc, should also have movement points as the use of proconsuls etc was common in commanding Roman armies. Now I realize that this is completely out of left field, but in doing this a family system could be made to work (somewhat) with historical accuracy. Though, this really only work for the Roman factions...Also I have no idea to what extend this would mess with the ai.
Oh, and if possible the reforms of Marius could eliminate the past restriction of movement as the armies past this point can be seen as private to an extent. Finally, to make up for the overall lack of movement the movement points should be greatly increased over the average movement points.
This is only my humble suggestion and I realize it probably won't go over well, but I figured I might as well through it out. And by the way you guys are doing amazing work here.
Eadingas has misspoken here. Celtic "tales" are no more used as sources for EB than any other recognized storytelling or mythological work. We have literary evidence from serious historians who write about times no further removed than, say, Livy did, and with corroborating evidence that is just as strong. The Celts did create religious myths and storytelling tales, but they also have serious histories. As always, any serious history is examined as closely as we would examine any other serious historian; recognizing their faults as we recognize the faults of writers such as Titus Livius, and also recognizing their strengths and what information was proved true through archaeological finds and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by eadingas
I am quite sure eadingas will be more careful with his choice of words in the future. :dizzy2:
can we watch the punishment ceremony? or are you going to hide eadingas' ritual spanking in the EBH forum?? :angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Both Celtic fictional stories and myths and the actual histories they recorded (by oral tradition and then by writing after the Christian period) point to the usage of a simple weapon that, while is not described in depth, appears to be very similar to the springal. The reason for it being described poorly or the rare mention may just be because they didn't see it as that important. It isn't really a 'siege' weapon, it's a very simple war machine. The thing is, the first instances of it being written down are actually in a period where it wouldn't be used. The Gaels did not use the weapon, but they note it in histories of wars with British tribes and kingdoms. It doesn't remotely resemble Roman weaponry, and its existence is stated to be used in wars that would predate Romans in Britain anyway. It is not a complicated machine at all, and it's not very difficult to imagine they probably had something like this. The Britons were attested two versions, a smaller version used against infantry, and a large version used against horses. The only time both are mentioned at once was the account of Troidhan's invasion of Mann, which was at the time under the control of a British kingdom. Troidhan actually stole the machines, and they were such a simple concept to grasp, his men were able to use them proficiently in short order. However, it was noted he didn't return them to Ireland or ever use them again because, aside from being useful for disruption, they actually killed little, and were pretty inaccurate.
Edit; By the way, not the same Troidhan in my qoutes, that was a much later fellow
Well they still are 'tales' in the sense of being transferred orally, before being written down some time later. Since I knew Ranika would eventually explain everything, I allowed myself to be a bit vague :)
I posted earlier, suggesting a three-family alternative that involved replacing the Julii/Scipii/Brutii with Etruscans/Samnites/Romans - and opening the game with the Civil War already underway. The big issue was, is this even possible? And I'm happy to report that the answer is a tentative "Yes". Here's the thread where the theory was discussed and tested:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45612
(For what it's worth, I feel some obligation not to just throw out wild ideas, but to perform a bit of due diligence as well)
then again: please tell me the name of the author and the book you are talking about, so I can read myselfQuote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
that siege engines really looks ineffective and unmovable. will it have ány use? why not use a pack of skirmishers...
yes, but what facts allows you to date it back in the time of EBQuote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
when where these notes written down and again: how can you date it backQuote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
who states this and when?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
when did this invasion happened? I have found nothing on the internet (it's simply not the place for historical research ~;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Eadingas, I quote from that website you listed,
"As far as we can tell, 'tension springald' was invented during the Early Gothic Era, in the 11th and 12th centuries AD. Antiquity had no knowledge of such throwing machines."
Can you read early Irish? If not, this will be of no use to you, as they have not been translated into English or any other language (except perhaps modern Irish?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skilfingr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kull
I really like the idea, as long as you get rid of the senate in the game. Either that or make sure it doesn't give you any order.
-Shrap
if it is early irish, than it's far too late for EB. and you still haven't told me the name of the author and the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
and don't be ridiculous - if it's not even translated to english, what kind of source would that be. you will not tell me, you are using source that are secret to modern historians!
Let's be serious here. Not all recorded histories that we find extremely valuable information in were written in the same period as they cover. Livy, for instance, gives us histories of hundreds of years removed from his own time; they are considered extremely valuable, as some of the information that he records is not available anywhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skilfingr
Is Livy perfect? Does he always record things accurately? No, of course not. Historians use his work but understand that it may be less accurate than others, because of his writing style, and time removed. However, much of his information is corroborated both through archaeological finds and through other textual evidence. This is the process of evaluating a source.
That we happen to have access to similar sources from the Celts is a good thing. Yes, the writing is about as removed from the times written about as Livy was from a good portion of his written histories, but Livy did not have access to sources as reliable as those who transcribed the oral history of the Celts did. Keep in mind; oral histories are very different from religious or storytelling myths. Those too existed, and were transcribed. We can, through evaluation of the writing, corroboration with other written works (including Caesar and others), examination of the works that have led to discoveries of physical evidence, and so on, separate the wheat from the chaff, the works of history from the mythology.
Is any source perfect? Of course not. However, such sources should not be dismissed merely because they are removed from the time in which the history was recorded, any more than we should toss out the works of early Roman historians such as Livy - and you wouldn't ask us to toss out Livy's information about the Samnite Wars because he was two hundred years removed from them. Evaluation of any source must be done on an individual basis; and is done as such in this case.
One such work is called "the Precious Children," which is a military history of the Gaels. Of course you won't find any information about it anywhere in English since it hasn't been translated to English. If I can find out the author's name, I will. But why bother? The information isn't published yet, so you won't find anything. You must either accept that we have access to reliable information that isn't generally available to the public yet, or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skilfingr
The same goes for some of the information we have about Carthage, Ptolemaioi, and the Seleukids, particularly their militaries. One of our members has taken part in archaeological digs in Syria, and other areas of the Near East. The information he gathered there, items he found, and other evidence is not fully available to the public yet. It will one day be published (he may even be publishing some of it himself), but we choose to accept the information as reliable; we trust the people who work on our team who have done these things professionally. We're serious about evaluating evidence, we are quite pedantic about it.
These sources aren't secret to modern historians. On the contrary; they're only available to modern historians/linguists, not to you or I. One day I hope to read them myself, when translated into English. Until then, I must rely on those who do speak the language to inform us of what they say, and what portions have been corroborated, what have not, which are mythologies, which are histories, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skilfingr
Traditional historians are always inclined to take oral tradition with a bit of salt. But we can't dismiss it as a source, specially when it's ratified -or at least not discarded- by archaelogical evidence, and other different traditions. Besides, Celtic culture -lacking writing for most of its history- valued too much oral tradition since it was the basis of their knowledge transmision, not only for History, but for their science, when accuracy is a must.
A phenomena similar to the native American civilizations, which -excepting the Maya- trusted knowledge transmision to a forced and specialized oral tradition -and whose value as a source is invaluable, how do you think we know about the names and facts in the origin of Inca culture?
The early Middle East civilizations have a good amount of written 'chronicles' which are just unending lists of kings and some facts -most of them flattering accounts of incredible deeds- which hardly can be considered a more reliable source than oral tradition, except for the fact that someone put it on a brick -unless you believe some persons can live a thousand years and defeat whole armies on their own. If not for other sources of knowledge -mainly physical, but also comparing similar sources to pick the more relieable parts- we would know less about Sumer than we know about ancient Germans.
Even in the Greek-latin tradition -Livy and the others- accounts are full of bias -historians of then were as politically and nationalistic biased as we are- and include a lot of gossip and noted-down oral tradition.
It's not a secret for specialists. Translation is a hard task, the common scholar has only access after hard work made by the specialists. Do you think all the Ebla library tables have been translated to modern languages? There are thousands of them still untouched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skilfingr
Not to talk about the Herculan library 'logs' -uncountable book rolls that were burnt in the 79 AD eruption and were discarded as 'logs' by the first early archaeologists... now they're reading them with the help of modern technology: an incredibly long and hard task that are giving us back many treasures we thought lost since the Alexandria Library disaster... ~:)
Perhaps we should ignore the fact that a huge number of modern scholars in the field of celtic studies and linguistics are now rethinking early Irish sources, and have begun to suggest that they are medieval monastic fictions only vaguely based on any early Irish oral tales or mythology, and are often quite possibly based on Classical sources about the Celts...
Perhaps we should ignore that huge numbers of members of Celtic historical scholarship recognize a serious difference between the 'historical' statements and the 'legendary' statements. Take the book of invasions. Historians in our lifetime have never taken much of it literally (and shouldn't, as the entire first part is purely legend). However, they do accurately track the movements of multiple migrations as best we can tell them in later sections. The spread of weapons, metalwork, methods of burial, etc., spread in the exact same ways the migrants as having moved, and the book of invasions was written and compiled far later than some other sources. The characters involved aren't important, they're almost surely legendary, or amalgamations of other, real individuals. However, the people they supposedly led do follow the appropriate paths set down by the invasions. The oral traditions in general must be taken with a grain of salt. They're subject to corruption or confusion. However, many of the Gaelic traditions have maintained an amount of purity (though still imperfect), particularly transcriptions before the 8th century, when major viking influences severely effected the stories and histories, and many of the more accurate or important books were sadly destroyed, such as the 'books of health', which purported to record Gallic medical practices (which would be surprisingly interesting to see; a few Gallic skulls show proof of a successful brain surgery upon them).
One has to be careful, of course, but there are corresponding proofs to mentioned events (such as a massacre near modern Galway, where the dead were then piled up in a pit, and burned, several layers of earth in the area show proof of burning). So, what one does, is, usually (not always, sometimes we can identify actual people) ignore names and 'characters', and pay attention to the events. The incineration of the executed was only mentioned in one line of a story of invading the region, and the entire part goes on and talks about unimportant things (and the way it's presented, the manner of disposal would be 'unimportant'). One must look for things like that which would offer a place to look for a proof. Burials of the dead occur in described places, descriptions of weapons, metalwork, etc., often sync up with the subsequent writings, which were all recorded by hand, centuries after the events in question. Historians do question the validity of many small details or conflicting statements, but we're not modding something on a small detail level, and have avoided the conflicting statements. The large details (soldiers, how they organize, the weapons they carry, the equipment, are all spoken about in laws pertaining to the military). Some of the best places to look, are in the known laws (which we actually know a great deal about). They talk about everything that's 'legal' for a military to do, and outlined its practices (like in Gaelic law, the ownership of swords was forbidden to anyone who wasn't a warrior all year, and even then, most warriors were forbidden from owning a sword with a blade longer than their forearm).
:smitten: Drool............can't wait to see the beta, great work guys :duel:
Yeah, me too...I'm not playing RTW until the Europa Barbarorum Team fixes up the mess that Activision made of what should have been the greatest game of all time.
Great work guys. It's inspiring to see so many extremely intelligent people from all over the world just spontaneously come together and take on a project like this in an orderly and competent manner.
Thank you all.
this mod looks fun im lookin forward to it ~D i still don't understand the goverment thingy.
Your posts reminds me, Ranika. I watched something on TV the other day where an archeologist unearthed a series of bodies in Turkey, attributing them to be Galatians before they settled down in the Galatia area. However, one grave held the bodies of many young animals, women and children. Somehow, she equated this with the idea that these Celts were cannibals. I dismissed the idea, but I'm still curious; have you heard anything about this?
WHEN IT'S DONE ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Pintaphilly
Nothing personal, i just love posting that ~:cheers: . I can't wait either. ~:)
No one really knows...modding is slow and somewhat unpleasent.
I had heard about it (or something similar), but it seems he was actually a member of a specific Gallic cult that buried one's slaves and livestock with them when they died.The whole cannibal thing seems tacked on, I find it highly unlikely, and I doubt the individual who found them is much trained on Celts to initially suspect cannabalism as opposed to a type of ritualistic burial common in parts of Gaul.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod