New unit at the com: Roman Comitatenes !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

That saddle may not be 100% accurate, but im sure prometheus has researched this much more than us.

I don't get want your point is. We complain that a ahistorical unit is ahistorical and you try to get back by saying that the saddle may or may not be hisrotical. In truth it is probably hard to say what the romans had. Sometimes skinners have to just do guess work as this was a very long time ago.

---

I believe his point is that it's rather ironic that you, as a staunch supporter of historical accuracy, point everyone towards a skin that is (possibly) not in fact 100% historically accurate.

As a side note, I don't think it's really worthwhile to be arguing over the looks of a unit. Units etc can be modded in or out. The real thing that will make or break BI for people here is the AI. I don't care if CA gives us Armored Bicycle Knights; as long they've greatly improved the AI then it will be bought if only to mod. (And I'm sure the armored bicycle knights will be the first to be removed)

http://img263.echo.cx/img263/8247/13gg.jpg

As far as I can see, the saddles in this screenshot match the saddles that the Romans used:

http://www.hightowercrafts.com/roman%20saddle.jpg

There are no stirrups and the saddle has two large 'horns' pointing sideways from the front of the saddle to hold the rider in place.

The unit appears to be historically accurate, although Bob has a point when he says that the AI will probably be more important to most people than whether a unit is 100% historically accurate (although I do support historical accuracy wherever possible).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobTheTerrible

I believe his point is that it's rather ironic that you, as a staunch supporter of historical accuracy, point everyone towards a skin that is (possibly) not in fact 100% historically accurate.

---

actually the "looks" of units is always debatable. Thus i never judge Ca for being inaccurate by its skins. It't the units themselves that i care about.

And if you look at the post above you will see that this unit is probably accurate. Again, i dont really know enough about roman saddles to know, but as I said the skins are always the artist impression and they cant possibly be 100% accurate, though these are possibly very accurate, as their maker Prometheus knows what he is doing.

I believ it is rather ironic that people know more about me than i do. Did i every complain about a units skin saying its not accurate? I think not.

Bob,

the ai is more important and really ahistorical units dont bother me that much. People trying to argue the priest fighting is realistic does bother me. But then again thats not even what this thread is about though most people seem to be trying to get revenge for that thread here.

I still have seen very few people post their opnions about this unit, as it seems most people find it funner to flame me or assume things that i never said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

I still have seen very few people post their opnions about this unit, as it seems most people find it funner to flame me or assume things that i never said.

---

You're right, this thread does seem to have gone a bit off-topic (and I suppose I am partly responsible for that, so sorry). If you got the impression that I was one of those trying to flame you then I apologise, it certainly wasn't my intention.

So back to the Roman Comitatenes (which is what this thread is about, after all).

I quite like the skin. It's not as nice as say, the Roman legionaries but it's still pretty good.

Marcellus you certainly werent flamming me as most of your post seemed to be agreeing with me and dont worry about you taking this thread off topic. Ever since the first page people have been more intent on attacking my opinion than giving their own. I would be pleased if this stopped and am happy to go on with the thread.

~:grouphug:

Im guessing this unit is supposed to look "barbarian" as that is what was happening to the roman army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

No what's ironic in that trying to prove me wrong you made yourself look the fool. I've learned from latin/Roman experts that it's,

When your a gladiator thumb down= bad (loser gets the *point* )

thumb covered by fingers = good (loser lives)


The tumbs down for killing the losers (accompanied by a downward thrust of the forearm) came about as it mimics the killing blow with a gladius or dagger. Thumbs covered for sparing his life came about as to represent sheathing your weapon.

---

Hmm, that's interesting. It's thumbs down good according to Discovery Channel. I'm curious, what's your source if oyu can give a online source?

I don't think we should put so much stock on whether a unit looks historically accurate. It's not like we have time machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Hmm, that's interesting. It's thumbs down good according to Discovery Channel. I'm curious, what's your source if oyu can give a online source?

I don't think we should put so much stock on whether a unit looks historically accurate. It's not like we have time machines.

---

I can't as my source is in a similar vien as yours, TV. Specifically some documentary about the movie Gladiator. They guy who gave the little speach I recited was a British Roman/Latin expert who works in Rome. He also gave the latin terms that accompanied the hand gestures (don't ask as I don't remember them).

That's not much better than several historians trying to debunk that famous Rennaissance painting of the gladiator fight where everyone's doing the thumbs down.

Moot.

I've been trying to remember more of what was said about Gladiators and the thumb signs. They did say that there was documenatry (IE written records) evidence to support that tumbs down was the sign to kill the loser. But that tumbs up to spare the loser came along later due to a mistranslation of a script or something like that. And that thumbs covered was the sign to spare someone.

Well, atleast we can agree that it wasn't thumbs up. It was either a thumb to the side or thumb covered as you said.

What`s with the shield......roman comitatanes shiled is totaly unrealistic.....and where`s that clasic red roman shield ?? ~:confused:

that makes it first mistake of BI so far

The shield seems to be accurate as you can see here.
Maybe not the motive on the shield but the rest seems to be accurate.
http://par.toutatis.free.fr/comitatus/img1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfish

What`s with the shield......roman comitatanes shiled is totaly unrealistic.....and where`s that clasic red roman shield ?? ~:confused:

that makes it first mistake of BI so far

---

The classic Roman shield has, like the shiney legionary, faded away. Armour, weaponry and even commanders had become very Germanic. Round shields and chain mail became the norm

......Orda

ummm...i didn`t knew that....i thought in that period romans still used that rectangular shield..thanks for the info....anyway i think those rectangular red shields legionaires had....are better for protection

I think everyone just needs to calm down, have a cookie or biscuit (mm), and just think of the mod possibilities with the new units. :smug: