Pritanoi (and Casse) Generals-Innacurate?

Hello everyone,
I have a slight concern regarding the depiction of Pritanoi nobles riding chariots in battle. Now before the historians jump on me and tear me limb from limb quoting Caesar's (BG 4.24) description of British nobles riding chariots or Tacitus (Annals 14.35) description of Boudicca riding in a chariot I would like to ask something.

As far as I know, and I welcome anyone who can show me otherwise, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that the Britons in the south east of England fought from chariots. There are chariot-like vehicle burials from the Arras culture in Yorkshire as well as late La Tene chariot burials in Gaul (and in these cases these were not war vehciles) and Hallstatt-Ealy La Tene two wheeled vehicles from the Rhine area, but I know of no archaeological evidence to support the notion that Britons in the region of the Pritanoi faction fought from chariots.

And if there is no archaeological evidence for chariots (let's be honest they are fairly big and quite likely to leave some trace) then doesn't this mean that British nobles in EBII should be depicted fighting on foot or from horseback?

Chariots in Celtic warfare have a pretty solid history. They were a sign of wealth and prestige - seen from both the written record and burials. If we could dismount chariot riders to fight on foot, we would, but we can't.

But I fail to see what exactly your issue is. Chariots would be made from wood and other organics, which would fail to survive. Metal bits surely would and we do have quite a bit of such pieces. We also have some graves that give us the evidence for the shapes of chariots in terms of changes in the soil. We have both textual and archaeological evidence for these vehicles' existence. Furthermore, any horses in Britain would be the equivalent of today's ponies - and hardly the largest examples at that.

The thing is, we actually have records of British pre-Roman warfare. Two passages and two authors to go off of is more than we usually get for a lot of units, yet people rarely complain about those.

My issue is simply that we are lacking archaeological evidence for chariots in the area of south eastern England. That the Celts employed chariots is beyond dispute and their size and inherent production costs would restrict them only to the nobility as you say. Metal fittings (in particular the tyres) are substantial enough to allow archaeologists to conclude the presence of a chariot in a grave or context.

Simply put: Considering we do have archaeological evidence for chariot use elsewhere, is it not inaccurate depicting the Pritanoi using them when there is no archaeological evidence to support their use in that area?

Your premises are false and beset with logical fallacies. (a comment made on one of my college papers from a professor with a dark sense of humour)

While it is true that there are no vehicular burials in southern and central Britain, this is not a function of the absence of chariots, but rather a function of different burial customs. And in fact, some chariot-gear has been found in the south: linch-pins, terrets, etc. Moulds and tools for at least 50 sets of horse harness were found at Gussage All Saints, Dorset (think Maiden Castle), and there are other sites.

There are also some later Caesar-era Roman coins showing Britons on chariots - and south-eastern Britons are the only ones that Caesar ever saw, right? As far as he (and even Claudius) was concerned, the Arras culture might as well have been on the Moon. When the Roman sources describe British chariot fighters, they are describing the Britons that they saw fighting on chariots - that is, the Catuvellauni and their neighbors.

https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/...ewgeneral1.png
A detail from a Caesarean coin.

And I have to add that I have never seen any doubt expressed in any of the serious literature on the subject that the British in the channel zone fought on chariots. There really is no debate on this subject that I am aware of - and the sources that I linked in the preview go into considerable detail. Did you read Building an Iron Age British Chariot? Or Chariotry and the Road Systems in the Celtic World (Raimund Karl)? Really, this is a classical case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". There is no compelling reason to doubt that the Romans met British war chariots in the south east of England.

However, if it wasn't clear to you, let me say that the Pritanoi General's Bodyguard will be on foot, and that the chariots and cavalry will be recruitable, with the size of their pools and replenishment rates linked to the type of authority buildings. One of the reasons for this is that it seems clear from Caesar's account that the British nobility moved fluidly from their chariots, to fighting on foot, and back onto their chariots again (or on horseback) during the course of a battle. This being something that we cannot do in the game engine, we chose the infantry general for practical purposes.

So, if it makes you feel better, you can view the situation as being an evolutionary one: The Pritanoi will have limited access to chariots at first, but will be able to field more of them as their building tree is developed.





To sum up:

Quote:

---

...we are lacking archaeological evidence for chariots in the area of south eastern England.

---

False. No chariot burials is not the same as no chariots.

Quote:

---

...is it not inaccurate depicting the Pritanoi using them when there is no archaeological evidence to support their use in that area?

---

False. Frankly, there is more evidence, both archaeological and textual, of chariot warfare for the PRIA Britons than there is for any other kind of fighting, on which the record is silent.

yay infantry bodyguards

Thanks oudysseos!

Anyway they most likely fought on foot, so why not make them foot soldiers?

Hey, his exact words were... "However, if it wasn't clear to you, let me say that the Pritanoi General's Bodyguard will be on foot". First line of the second paragraph under the pictures. (dunno how to use the quote thingy, I am NOT technologically skilled). So yes, they DID make them foot soldiers seienchin.

Quote:

---

Thanks oudysseos!

---

We need more people like you in the world. It's easier to point out someone's mistakes than to acknowledge you own :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

We need more people like you in the world. It's easier to point out someone's mistakes rather than to acknowledge them :bow:

---

Do you mean you need more Brennus or more oudysseos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Do you mean you need more Brennus or more oudysseos?

---

I vote both

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Do you mean you need more Brennus or more oudysseos?

---

That or spicegirls' albums!

What is it with you and the Spice Girls, anyways?

I bet he has been pushing for a Spice Girls faction, originating from the UK to rival the Pritanoi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

I bet he has been pushing for a Spice Girls faction, originating from the UK to rival the Pritanoi...

---

Ugh, the internal forum is riddled with his threads on the topic.

I visited the bronze and iron age centre at flag fen in the east of england earlier today where in the museum they have parts of a chariot which were dug up from the site along with a collection of bronze weapons.
seeing this with my own eyes is archaelogical evidence enough for me that they were used by english tribes.:book:

However im still happy about the bodyguard being on foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kozu

I visited the bronze and iron age centre at flag fen in the east of england earlier today where in the museum they have parts of a chariot which were dug up from the site along with a collection of bronze weapons.
seeing this with my own eyes is archaelogical evidence enough for me that they were used by english tribes.:book:

However im still happy about the bodyguard being on foot.

---

There is a lovely example in the national museum in Scotland, the bronze fittings for the reins are beautiful.

It's times like these that I really miss the original MTW ability of dismounting your units before battle... I still cannot understand why they got rid of that ability...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

It's times like these that I really miss the original MTW ability of dismounting your units before battle... I still cannot understand why they got rid of that ability...

---

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

---

IIRC Chinese troops liked to do that - but then again, they were more mounted infantry than actual cavalry. Mounted infantry could easily be represented in game as an nfantry unit with the same movement points as cavalry plus an increased upkeep cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

---

That could be it, but they never brought it back for M2TW, which seems very strange. If it was easy enough to script into the 1st Medieval, why not put it in the second?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

IIRC Chinese troops liked to do that - but then again, they were more mounted infantry than actual cavalry. Mounted infantry could easily be represented in game as an nfantry unit with the same movement points as cavalry plus an increased upkeep cost.

---

That raises a good question... I wonder if the Pritanoi infantry bodyguards will have the same movement points as cavalry to reflect that they would ride to battle on chariots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

That could be it, but they never brought it back for M2TW, which seems very strange. If it was easy enough to script into the 1st Medieval, why not put it in the second?

---

Completely different engine. Things don't translate so easily if its not built in from the start.

Quote:

---

That raises a good question... I wonder if the Pritanoi infantry bodyguards will have the same movement points as cavalry to reflect that they would ride to battle on chariots.

---

On the campaign map? That is hardcoded values afaik.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Completely different engine. Things don't translate so easily if its not built in from the start.



On the campaign map? That is hardcoded values afaik.

Foot

---

Yes, that's true. Still a shame though.

How is campaign map movement points hardcoded? By unit type? As in units classed as cavalry all get the same and units classed as infantry all get the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

How is campaign map movement points hardcoded? By unit type? As in units classed as cavalry all get the same and units classed as infantry all get the same?

---

I believe that is correct. I guess this begs the question, "what if we labeled certain infantry units as mounted?" I can't help but assume that this would results in some unwanted side effects. If nothing else, it would probably further hamper the AI.

While the thread has been put back alive again. Just wanted to mention that Cassius Dio mentions them in the british invasion of 43 AD as well and if I'm not mistaken they are mentioned by tacitus in his biography of agricola too. So that's another two quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I believe that is correct. I guess this begs the question, "what if we labeled certain infantry units as mounted?" I can't help but assume that this would results in some unwanted side effects. If nothing else, it would probably further hamper the AI.

---

The most obvious side effect would be spear units getting a bonus against this special unit

Just as a side note, related to the original question in this thread, there are chariot bits recovered from several of the hillforts in the Wessex region. No chariot burials as far as I know, but a number of various metallic bits have been recovered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I believe that is correct. I guess this begs the question, "what if we labeled certain infantry units as mounted?" I can't help but assume that this would results in some unwanted side effects. If nothing else, it would probably further hamper the AI.

---

Yeah, I believe the battle AI treats units differently depending on how they are classified, so it would attempt to use the infantry unit as cavalry on the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Yeah, I believe the battle AI treats units differently depending on how they are classified, so it would attempt to use the infantry unit as cavalry on the battlefield.

---

Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, considering there won't be that many of them and that AI is reckless with their generals no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikaz

Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, considering there won't be that many of them and that AI is reckless with their generals no matter what.

---

Maybe, but if the AI likes to use cavalry to counter other cavalry (does it? I'm not really sure) then it won't just be throwing its infantry generals into your infantry, it will be chasing your cavalry around hopelessly with a slow heavy infantry unit. I guess if they're classed as heavy cavalry they'll probably just charge them headfirst into your frontline though, which isn't terrible considering these will be powerful units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

It's times like these that I really miss the original MTW ability of dismounting your units before battle... I still cannot understand why they got rid of that ability...

---

I didn't know CA had created a game that allowed the dismounting of chariot regiments. They would shock and awe before dismounting as heavy inf. phalanx, at least during the Iron Age in the Near East (early 1st mill. BC). The dismounting feature was during deployment or could it be used real-time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I can only imagine that CA didn't consider it a particularly common occurence in Antiquity. I can't think of any battles during the EB timerame where cavalry dismounted before battle. (Prove me wrong everyone!).

---

I can't think of any myself, but chariots (if you want to call them cavalry) did dismount and fight in phalanx (using the term generously here) in the Ancient Near East from the 13th to 7th centuries BC (cavalry a la EB wasn't really a war-player until the Assyrian utilization of horses as war animals). I always wondered if chariot regiments would still dismount and fight together as heavy inf. in the EB timeframe as they did during the Iron Age as I just mentioned. I suppose it wouldn't be as significant since cavalry had by then long replaced the expensive and clumsy chariots.

would take a guess and say that all cavalry based military units would be dismounted during sieges ... though how many times did a cavalry based unit end up on the field during a siege (attacking) back then ? would it be more common that we might believe?

i felt that this was one of the major reasons dismounting was an option in MTW (from a gaming point of view) .. the fact that you could have many mounted knights or cavalry in general during a siege.

and talking about this just makes me want to play MTW XXL .. but this game will not run on with my series 8x nvidia card .. >=(
lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

The dismounting feature was during deployment or could it be used real-time?

---

Only during deployment, and then certain cavalry types could only be dismounted for siege battles. This was to indicate that equestrian nobility preferred to fight on horseback, unless circumstances really did not favour cavalry. A pity, since dismounted feudal knights were among the strongest infantry you could get early on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

I didn't know CA had created a game that allowed the dismounting of chariot regiments. They would shock and awe before dismounting as heavy inf. phalanx, at least during the Iron Age in the Near East (early 1st mill. BC). The dismounting feature was during deployment or could it be used real-time?

---

Well, this was Medieval I, so I don't recall any chariots present in that game, but you could dismount regular cavalry. Though, as Ludens said, you were limited by the battle type and only during deployment.

If Empire ever had enough modding tools to change the era, then you could have a mod with the dismounting of cavalry during the actual battle, but I'm not sure if the dismounted cavalry can move around when they are dismounted. I don't remember exactly how dragoons work in that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Well, this was Medieval I, so I don't recall any chariots present in that game, but you could dismount regular cavalry. Though, as Ludens said, you were limited by the battle type and only during deployment.

---

I'm sorry, I meant to say that I hadn't realised that CA had made a game in which cavalry* (or some cavalry) could dismount (excluding Empire and Napoleon).

Quote:

---

If Empire ever had enough modding tools to change the era, then you could have a mod with the dismounting of cavalry during the actual battle, but I'm not sure if the dismounted cavalry can move around when they are dismounted. I don't remember exactly how dragoons work in that game.

---

I was thinking the same thing, having seen the newer games, though admittedly the Empire engine is obsolete now with the release of Napoleon. The performance optimization on the latter seems improved compared to the former (correct me if I'm wrong, it just seems so).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

If Empire ever had enough modding tools to change the era, then you could have a mod with the dismounting of cavalry during the actual battle, but I'm not sure if the dismounted cavalry can move around when they are dismounted. I don't remember exactly how dragoons work in that game.

---

I believe you could move the dismounted unit when they were dismounted and use them as regular line infantry however the horses would stand immobile wherever left, though I don't remember if the horses could be killed without riders and what happened if there were more riders/horses when remounting or if you could even remount at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Password

I believe you could move the dismounted unit when they were dismounted and use them as regular line infantry however the horses would stand immobile wherever left, though I don't remember if the horses could be killed without riders and what happened if there were more riders/horses when remounting or if you could even remount at all.

---

Well, you can definitely remount, I've done that, but I'm not sure what happens if you lose a horse and the man is still alive. I think I've seen the horses get killed when dismounted, and then had the men remount, and there wasn't a problem, so I'm assuming that when you lose a horse, you lose the man as well.

Archaeology is an infant science that has one inherent problem: Not everything lasts forever. If you only accepted that which Archaelogy can prove to you, then you will have a hard time developing any type of history.

For, example, do you deny the Hanging Gardens existed, or for that matter any Ancient Wonder besides The Pyramids because Archaeology proves they never existed?

You cannot use archaeology as your primary source - only as a supplement - if you want to develop a true idea of history, and what better sources to base it upon than the words of Caesar or Tacitus?

You're argument is that when there is no Archeologic knowledge, Archeology can't be used as a primary source? Well noone can categorically deny that. However then to state it can't be generally used as a primary source is rather ridiculous. Perhaps using all sources avaible, evaluating them, comparing them,... and well just sticking to the generally academically accepted basic ideas on methodology of ancient history might not be a bad alternative to what you are suggesting?

What is the

Quote:

---

methodology of ancient history

---

?

When you read ancient history you can tell, given our advanced state of knowledge, what is readily acceptable and what is not; thus, the primary use of the source. For example, the statue of Athena in the Parthenon can be accepted because it was possible for people make such large objects even in that day. Just because archaeology doesn't prove it doesn't disprove it. However, if the source states it would stand up and greet every person that came to pay it respect, we can readily say that is untrue and disproven by, once again, noting that such things were impossible during that day. Much the same, just because there existed a statue of Remus and Romulus, doesn't mean they actually existed. There is little need for archaeology in terms of history. To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

First of all you seem to assume that Archeology and Ancient historiography are the sole sources of information? What about papyrology, epigraphy, numismatics,...
Secondly archaeological evidence just like historical evidence isn't just accepted as is. It's subject to internal and external source criticism. Archaeology is one aid to make a reconstruction of the past, which due to the limited amount of historical evidence holds a more important role in ancient history than modern history. However just like with historical and other sources, every single source of information needs to be evaluated before usage. But the again these are some of the basic principles of historical methodology.

What is the historical methodology? Well of course there are some minor different accents and all within the Academic world on the practice of history. But in general the basic modern principles on practising history are the same. For a good basic understanding and introduction to the historical methodology I'll refer you to the excellent History in practice by Jordanova. There's actually a very nice quote in it on Archaeology and Ancient history. Sadly I don't have it at hand now. I'll get you that quote this weekend when at campus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

First of all you seem to assume that Archeology and Ancient historiography are the sole sources of information? What about papyrology, epigraphy, numismatics,...
Secondly archaeological evidence just like historical evidence isn't just accepted as is. It's subject to internal and external source criticism. Archaeology is one aid to make a reconstruction of the past, which due to the limited amount of historical evidence holds a more important role in ancient history than modern history. However just like with historical and other sources, every single source of information needs to be evaluated before usage. But the again these are some of the basic principles of historical methodology.

What is the historical methodology? Well of course there are some minor different accents and all within the Academic world on the practice of history. But in general the basic modern principles on practising history are the same. For a good basic understanding and introduction to the historical methodology I'll refer you to the excellent History in practice by Jordanova. There's actually a very nice quote in it on Archaeology and Ancient history. Sadly I don't have it at hand now. I'll get you that quote this weekend when at campus.

---

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

---

Propaganda, Romans used that :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Propaganda, Romans used that :clown:

---

Kinda like the Yellow Journalism of our day right? But even such propaganda can't ever blot out the sun. What did propaganda do for the telling of the Teutoberg Forest? What did it do for the Sacks of Rome? If anything, it "justified" Rome, but it never lied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

---

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

---

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

There is a distinctive difference in writing what (according to you) is/was happening, and writing history. History does not merely seek to establish what is/has happening, it seeks to establish understanding of what is/was happening (causes, consequences and context).

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

---

History written by contemporaries still is synthesis and analysis and evaluation of sources,... unless you're talking about a diary? And amazingly you're still writing a reconstruction of the past.

You seem to be thinking in very simple, not to call idiotic, ways it seems...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

---

+rep @ Maths analogy. Possibly one of the best ways to imagine your idea!

History is just a matter of believe, mirroing your own ideals and today its also part of a scientific market. People need and want to make money and to justify the position of history as a scientific discipline.
It is of cause really hard to see this as persons who are in this circle.
Just one simple fact:
Most people cant even remember, what they ate 2 days ago and every information we store into our brains is altered from reality. Even worse is what happens to a message after communicating it to other people. Even more worse is translating between to languages, which is why most movies get worse after translating and to read ancient textes without any native speakers, who know the feeling and true meaning of words and the way of thinking. Even in written documents in a still spoken tongue (Even in english) people debate over things that were written, because there isnt anything like 100%truth in written or spoken words. So, if there is one document we read about lets say the roman army in latin, the possbility of someone really knowing the thruth afterwards are less than winning in the lottery.
Still, some people claim to know with a high possibility what happend in EB Timeframe? The fact that there are people who claim roman superiority and people who qualify that statemen or openly disagree is further proove that it is a matter of believing.

People, who studied 100years ago thought they knew something for sure. 100years of scientific and philosophical improvements later we know that this is not true.
It is funny, how the archaelogy in anglosaxon countries is so modern in its methods, but still there are so archaelogists, who dont believe or recall that they are only humans and have only evidence. They arent looking for the truth, they are looking for probabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

History is just a matter of believe, mirroing your own ideals and today its also part of a scientific market. People need and want to make money and to justify the position of history as a scientific discipline.
It is of cause really hard to see this as persons who are in this circle.
Just one simple fact:
Most people cant even remember, what they ate 2 days ago and every information we store into our brains is altered from reality. Even worse is what happens to a message after communicating it to other people. Even more worse is translating between to languages, which is why most movies get worse after translating and to read ancient textes without any native speakers, who know the feeling and true meaning of words and the way of thinking. Even in written documents in a still spoken tongue (Even in english) people debate over things that were written, because there isnt anything like 100%truth in written or spoken words. So, if there is one document we read about lets say the roman army in latin, the possbility of someone really knowing the thruth afterwards are less than winning in the lottery.
Still, some people claim to know with a high possibility what happend in EB Timeframe? The fact that there are people who claim roman superiority and people who qualify that statemen or openly disagree is further proove that it is a matter of believing.

People, who studied 100years ago thought they knew something for sure. 100years of scientific and philosophical improvements later we know that this is not true.
It is funny, how the archaelogy in anglosaxon countries is so modern in its methods, but still there are so archaelogists, who dont believe or recall that they are only humans and have only evidence. They arent looking for the truth, they are looking for probabilities.

---

I think it would be better to say that, while they are looking for the truth, all they have to work with is probabilities....

*Resists urge to weigh in on the pissing-contest*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

That raises a good question... I wonder if the Pritanoi infantry bodyguards will have the same movement points as cavalry to reflect that they would ride to battle on chariots.

---

Another way to do this might be to give all Casse generals an automatic "rides a chariot" trait, which would give them a campaign-map movement bonus that would (assuming no other bonuses or penalties) put them up to the calavry movement rate... How does that sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Trek

Another way to do this might be to give all Casse generals an automatic "rides a chariot" trait, which would give them a campaign-map movement bonus that would (assuming no other bonuses or penalties) put them up to the calavry movement rate... How does that sound?

---

Logical.

The only problem with that logic is that'd would speed up the infantry units in their armies as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

The only problem with that logic is that'd would speed up the infantry units in their armies as well...

---

Last I checked, in such cases only the general had the long distance abilities. The infantry actually slowed down the total distance possible to move by the whole army. After you've moved your army, if you select your general only, you'll see that he still can move, he has movement points left. But the infantry are depleted.

Not sure exactly how the system works but yes an army will move at the pace of its slowest unit, I don't know if a generals movement bonus is applied to the other units in the army as well though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Not sure exactly how the system works but yes an army will move at the pace of its slowest unit, I don't know if a generals movement bonus is applied to the other units in the army as well though.

---

i believe it is. Ofcourse as in EB I the infantry are still slower because while the bonus was equal, the original speed was lower. For example say a general had 30% increased speed, then the infantry units in the stack would also be 30% faster. But as they infantry and had less moving points, their new and increased speed is obviously still slower than the new increased speed of the general. You don't see any of the EBI foot generals being faster than their own infantry unit either hmmm. Unless you want them to seperate that is. As this way the bonus would only be applicable to the general unit anymore. What use would these traits have anyway if the general would move slower or faster only when he didn't have other units with him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

There is little need for archaeology in terms of history. To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

---

This is one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever seen.

It is becoming increasingly clear that EB2 is not a mod that caters to your (frankly odd) tastes. Well, I suppose we'll just have to live with not having you as a fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

This is one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever seen.

---

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.:clown:

---

I beleive that is paleotology.(sp?)

I get both archeology and paleotology attibuted to me all the time when I say i study geology. People remark how "fun it must be digging up ancient dinosaurs and civilizations everyday". "Actually, no, I just learn how to rip ore from the ground..."

Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life, if that's what you're after. Haven't you ever seen a Jurrasic Parc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khazar_Dahvos

yay infantry bodyguards

---

I'd like to see that. FMs stuck to their chariots can be some PITA, so I'd rather like to see them as regular elite unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

---

u alright bro? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.:clown:

---

I wonder if that's Kirk Cameron in disguise, based on that comment. :laugh4:

@ 1:00

srsly people:

this guy (Ibrahim), is a paleontology student. his job, if he graduates is to dig for fossil life-specifically animals-then study them. the operative word here is "study them"

an archeologist, like say Indiana Jones :clown: or the fellows who work on Mayan cities, dig up ancient human artifacts to study. the operative word here is, again, "study them"

is it really this ******* hard to understand the difference?!

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Nope.

---

good. now to see if the person who screwed up does as well :jester:

Probably not, given past examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

an archeologist, like say Indiana Jones :clown: or the fellows who work on Mayan cities, dig up ancient human artifacts to study. the operative word here is, again, "study them"

---

Is it true that archaeologists are some of the most wonderful people in the world, attractive, friendly, well liked etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Is it true that archaeologists are some of the most wonderful people in the world, attractive, friendly, well liked etc?

---

It's true. One of my friends is learning to be an archaeologist and she's been wonderful, attractive (read: hot), friendly and well-liked (read this however you will, LOL) for as long as I can remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Is it true that archaeologists are some of the most wonderful people in the world, attractive, friendly, well liked etc?

---

some of, but not the most.

Geologists (and by extension, Paleontologists*) are the most :clown:

*its technically a branch of Geology-it is a historical science-though in reality its on the border between Biology and Geology.

anyways, how on earth did we all get into this? we're supposed to be correcting some guy on Chariot use in Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

anyways, how on earth did we all get into this? we're supposed to be correcting some guy on Chariot use in Britain.

---

I believe it was this little gem of a statement that started the ball rolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

some of, but not the most.

Geologists (and by extension, Paleontologists*) are the most :clown:

anyways, how on earth did we all get into this? we're supposed to be correcting some guy on Chariot use in Britain.

---

lol, I will admit I always wanted to be a palaeontologist.

Aye that guy was me, I was only thinking about burial evidence when I posted this thread, I forgot about chariot fittings found at sites.