Are there going to be any etruscan elements in EBII? (:
Printable View
Are there going to be any etruscan elements in EBII? (:
What do you mean with "Etruscan elements" exactly?
Well I've never heard of chemical elements that are specific to the region, so I'm not sure what he means with elements either...
Units or something related to their assimilation by the romans (about this last one it just came to my mind the new "peoples" buildings)...
If elements of civilization is wrong, which word is more suited? (English isn't my first language)
Haven't you heard of Etruscium? It's slightly radioactive and decays over time, producing Romium. Tends to react violently with Punicium and Gallium too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Geeks :beam:
Well.. You have just answered your own question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Their culture is assimilated with early Roman culture. So yeah, the Romans will be portraited as Romans.
I remember of Etruscans fighting aside the Boii and Senones, and even involved during the Social War...
In EBI it was like they never existed...
The answer is yes. More details will follow in a preview or a release in the future.
IIRC when the Etruria region in EB I rebelled, the rebels were called "Etruscans". I don't know how else they could be represented by the game enigne. IMO they were not any different from the Oscans, Samnites, Romans, or any other Italian people that was part of the SPQR in 270BC.
Probably we'll get some information in the province description.
Well they wouldn't arm themselves as Hastati and Equites for example...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
There was even a Cohors Perusina ^^
There is one Northern Italian unit that is composed of Celts and Etruscans planned, and another already done is Gallic with Etruscan influences in it's arms and armor. You could refer to it as Gallo-Etruscan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Didn't they have some sort of very odd probably Asiatic language?
Seems like they migrated from Anatolia after the bronze age collapse, but other say that they where native...Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
BTW great news Power2the1 ^^
Well there are province descriptions for that kind of thing. Unit wise you shouldn't expect much, certainly not for the first or second release: Etruria is undoubtedly a fascinating regions with a strong expression of its local culture *but* like on Sardinia it is already occupied by a major power (which is going to take precedence over a the quirks of a region) and on its own it will never be more than a mildly interesting rebel province.
Yeah one of those situatons. Obviously they have a cultural link to the east and adopt a lot of Greek ideas so an Aegean origin (at least for some of the ruling class) is quite probable, but there's heaps of continuity in the material culutre as well, so i'm guessing a great proportion of Etruscans were locals. Maybe a similar situation to "Celts" in the British Isles? Or English/Lallans speakers in Scotland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
This is quite likely, yes. A bit like Turks and Turkish. They've been assimilated into the Anatolian populations, but the language of the conqueror remains. Such a scenario is most likely, I doubt the population of what is Etruria would have been small enough the be absorbed by the conqueror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
But the language! It seems related to Rhaetian, and prossibly came from western Anatolia, but it's still an agglutinative language (adding suffixes to a base word, like Hungarian), which no Indo-European or Semitic languages are (they're inflective*). It must be said that inflective languages seem to be agglutinative languages where the suffixes have fused with the base word.
*To varying degrees, ofcourse. Slavic languages are a prime example of inflective languages, with lost of declensions and conjugations. English, on the other hand, has very little left.
Of course, I wasn't expecting anything more than that, just something to show their presence along the roman side and also for other factions, as natives tried to fight against the Romans in many occasions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Following the celtic migrations of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC into northern Italy, the etruscan "merchant outposts" were cutoff from the peninsula and so the colonist settled in Rhaetia...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkhis
(I'm a new member and I'm sorry if my english isn't very fluent) Hi, Cyclops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I don't know anything about ancient people in England or in Scotland you refer to, but I agree with you on that: Etruscans, although they assimilated many aspects of Ellenism in 4rd and 3rd centuries b.C., maintained some of their cultural peculiarities but expressed them with greek art. In every case I think that their assimilation of Ellenistic and, then, Roman culture was slow and contiuous. Finally, their cultural identity was "standardized" to the Roman/Latin culture. That also happened to Iberians and to Veneti, for example.
Hello, your english is excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loverartis
AFAIK the Hellenes were a wonderfully open minded people and their language and their art are a magnificent synthesis of the many culture they visited/raided/traded with on their epic ocean voyages. Not that they weren't also evil tyrannous weak strong brave cruel good bad etc like eveyone else, just making the point that their culture was especially porous and assimilative so they became a carrier for many cultures. The Etruscans and their cultural step-children the Romans adopted it (I'm guessing) because it was so readily adaptable ("yeah that god looks a bit like Zeus, he can be your version of the Thnderer, and his wife is in charge of the household orright?") as well as bweing brilliantly attractive ("you got your statues, your painting, your philosophy, your symposiums...")Quote:
Originally Posted by Loverartis
I wonder about Punic culture: they were submerged by Greeks in the East when Alexander swamped them and extinguished/absorbed by Romans in the West. Were they a similar talkative adoptive people? What trace have they left in plain sight that we possibly think of as Roman or Greek?
There's a substantial caste of Syrian merchants in the Roman empire IIRC. I'm always reading about Syrian merchant colonies in Aquae Sulis in Brittania and at Marseille. Now were these "Syrians" Antiochian hellenes, Tyrian/Sidonian poeni, or something else? Assyrian descendants?
Certainly "Rome" as an empire was built of massive cultural congeries. Probably Etruscan was the first significant civilised influence on the rustic Latin/Sabine settlement on the Tiber, and it shows in the their basic institutions of magistracy, religion and warfare.
Thanks Cyclops,Quote:
AFAIK the Hellenes were a wonderfully open minded people and their language and their art are a magnificent synthesis of the many culture they visited/raided/traded with on their epic ocean voyages. Not that they weren't also evil tyrannous weak strong brave cruel good bad etc like eveyone else, just making the point that their culture was especially porous and assimilative so they became a carrier for many cultures. The Etruscans and their cultural step-children the Romans adopted it (I'm guessing) because it was so readily adaptable ("yeah that god looks a bit like Zeus, he can be your version of the Thnderer, and his wife is in charge of the household orright?") as well as bweing brilliantly attractive ("you got your statues, your painting, your philosophy, your symposiums...")
anyway we might ask this question: why greek culture was so "porous and assimilative", in comparison with other ancient cultures? You talk about religion: I agree, 'cause in my opinion religion was one of the aspects more assimilable.
Then I read in an essay that greek culture made philosophy and science not only to solve practical problems of their real life, but also for pure knowledge. Does it means something for the assimilative process?
Mmm... It's a curious question. I remember that a lot of Etruscan pottery was recently found tombs near Siracusa, one of the greatest cities of Magna Graecia, so in that city we might suppose there were Etruscan merchants. http://emoticonforum.altervista.org/...bbiose/038.gifQuote:
There's a substantial caste of Syrian merchants in the Roman empire IIRC. I'm always reading about Syrian merchant colonies in Aquae Sulis in Brittania and at Marseille. Now were these "Syrians" Antiochian hellenes, Tyrian/Sidonian poeni, or something else? Assyrian descendants?
I don't believe greek culture was particularly more "porous and assimilative" than others, the greeks just physically spread themselves out a lot more than most peoples and so they had the chance to interact with a greater number of different cultures
I approve what you say when I remember the high number of colonies they founded (Cyrene, Magna Graecia...); but I also ask myself this: the greek colonies met native population and their culture. Maybe there's a deeper reason if the native population often (not always, it's clear) assimilated greek culture and not the opposite (I think about the diffusion of the Greek language, it was a lingua franca like the more ancient akkadian language).Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
They invented "democracy", I find easy to imagine a rural group taking that in consideration...
Could be the fact that they didn't want to conquer anyone, but instead find land to settle on the coast in order to start trading, so the natives dealt with them more and more...
Yes, trade is an important element for a fusion of different cultures. A similar thing happened to Egyptian and Minoan civilizations in II mill. BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
And what about Greek art?? During the Ellenism in Rome a part of population (with Cato the Censor) saw with apprehension the greek influence, specially for the importation of greek art. They feared that some elements of greek culture deleted Roman "Mos Maiorum".
Why would they give two hoots about that? Firstly most greeks didn't use it and secondly it would just be seen as another way of governing, it didn't have the conotations back then that it does today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
No deeper reason, it became the lingua franca the same way latin did in western europe, because the ruling and administrative classes of the region spoke it for a long time (from alexander to muslim or turkish conquests).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loverartis
There wasn't anything inherent in greek culture that helped it spread, I should also point out that in many cases it wasn't adopted wholesale, for example Coptic (the egyptian language) was spoken by the majority of the population until after the muslim conquests.
I agree, a similar thing happened in Alexandria during Hellenism.Quote:
I should also point out that in many cases it wasn't adopted wholesale, for example Coptic (the egyptian language) was spoken by the majority of the population until after the muslim conquests.
If I've understood correctly, then I'd also add that a lot of ancient literatures talk about the diffusion of Greek culture by the circulation of "artists", teachers and philosophic writings of Greece.Quote:
There wasn't anything inherent in greek culture that helped it spread
Being most of the colonist from Ionia, or "original Ionians", and so democratic, maybe the comunities with whom they enter in contact adopted some of their system (mostly related to finance and burocracy).Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
I didn't mean the boule...
there are a few things in the works. after all, it's not like Roman control over Etruria was total in 272 BC. Arjos, as for you statement that they wouldn't fight in the same way as Romans, just how do you think they would fight?
Wasn't technology part of it as well? Greeks had quite developed school system compared to many other cultures and academics(relatively speaking for their time) often traveled with the trade and colonization missions and were invited to foreign courts.
Also- weren't many of the more despotic cultures considering Greeks chaotic and barbarrians themselves due to democracy and the demagogues which frequently arose out of that system?
Mmm, it might be a good opportunity to consult some book of archaeology of war. Maybe I 've something about this, I can try to search. http://ermopoli.it/portale/images/Er...lies/leggo.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by paullus
Hellenistic hoplite and the "italic" broad shortsword infantry...Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
As for cavalry, I don't know ^^
I would say a kind of camilian, but having in 272 Etruscans with Triarii and Hastati, when just a decade before they were still fighting Romans, It's a shame...
I've read something about the composition of Etruscan army... Arjos, you talk about Greek hoplites; yes, in fact they adopted this type in archaic period (650-600 BC), probably influenced by Greek culture (one of the causes was the importation from Corinth of the famous Chigi vasehttp://rogerioscoupedumonde.files.wo...halanx-det.jpg). An interesting source is Tragliatella oinochoe, toohttp://www.flickr.com/photos/dandiff...n/photostream/. Then they adopted the phalanx in 550-500 BC. Diodorus (XXIII 2) report that Romans learned to fight in a "phalanx-formation" by Etruscans. But I'm sorry, actually I don't have found anything about Etruscan army in IIIrd century. (Bibliography: L. Aigner Foresti, Aspetti della guerra presso gli Etruschi, pp. 97-98).Quote:
I can try to search
Ross Cowan's blog has an interesting essay concerning Etruscan warfare of the late 4th Century BC (http://rosscowan.wordpress.com/etruscans-ii/), in which he argues for pila-armed Etruscans fighting in 'manipular' fashion at the battle of Lake Vadimon 310/309 BC - but, as he quite frankly admits, 'other scholars believe [the battle] is fictitious, a couplet of the battle of 283 BC (Romans defeat an alliance of Boii and Etruscans)' and Livy - and/or his sources - may have made up the 'manipular' formation of the Etruscans,...
Thanks Lvcretivs for the interesting link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lvcretivs
So it seems a demonstration that Etruscans and Romans fought in a similar way in IIIrd century... I can still research something else. http://ermopoli.it/portale/images/Er...lies/leggo.gif
In the early third century BC, some etruscans mercenaries were fighting for Syracuse against Carthage...
I'm looking for some sources with their description...
...a thousand mercenaries and two hundred zeugippae from Etruria... (Diodorus Siculus 19, 106)
Either cavalry or heavy infantry (Zeugitas)
Do you know what cities of Etruria sent the armies to Syracusae?
And sorry, what does "zeugippae" means?
It doesn't mention cities, but it looks like it was more of an alliance (they sent 18 ships too)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Loverartis
I don't know what Diodorus meant: the translator's note said that with zeugippae, he referred to cavalrymen who brought an extra horse; but also it could derive from zeugitai meaning a "high-middle class" infantry...