About the new ''Barbarian'' settlements model that you previewed

I Just saw your latest preview.
I can see that you've made an impressive work on the research and modeling for the settlements, BUT I think some (by some i mean not a lot) of the information are outdated. In the past decades we have uncovered (especially in france) more and more sophisticated buildings (or trace of them).
I'm not that fluid in english, so I will try to keep it short.
The more we search, the more advanced piece of architecture we find. I'm talking about temples (on of the most recent discoveries since we thought they only practiced in nature), bath, ''manor'' ( I don't know the exact word, but I'm talking about a very large lord residence), >>3rd floor buildings.
We also found out that most city building weren't rough and dull but vibrant of color, artwork, colorful hangings (full of it since they liked to dye things), iron sculptures and iron low relief.

Only the the past decade have we been able to find this, thanks to the huge leaps in electronic instruments (laser...). And, as the year past, the instruments improve, and we are able to detect more finesse and more traces of buildings. The archeologist unanimously said that this is exponential, and that in a few years, we will find bigger, finer pieces of architecture.
Thanks to aerial lasers we also found out many traces of paved roads and wooden roads in the settlements itself. As well as large columns for some buildings...

I am a bit disappointed (but still cheered by your efforts) that most of these weren't featured (at least not in the pictures) in the settlements. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not writing that what you did is wrong and inaccurate. The amount of research is impressive, and many if not most buildings are perfectly accurate. Except cities weren't solely composed of those rough (if not a bit archaic) buildings and also had what I have mentioned above. If you ask, I can send you to a few links, including some archeological reviews that adress the matter and say exactly what I'm saying.

That being said you guys are awesome. If anything I would like to propose my help. Right now I don't think I could do anything (apart from some archeological advice) but I'm taking an in depth C programming formation (pretty big formation) next semester, so I may give you an extra hand in programming if you need so.

Keep up the cool work, guys, looking forward to your answers.



Thanks =D

PS: This is a duplicate from a post I made on total war center. I'm not sure one which forums it should go as I don't know which one is the official one. I also thought it would be interesting to make an actual thread.

They made clear they were representing La Tène, Celtiberian, Iron Age Wessex, Lusitanian-Vettonic, Dacian, Jastorf and Przeworsk cultures in the same settlements, because due to the engine's culture limit, they can't allocate a slot for each...

Besides, what we saw were villages and small enclosures, of cities (that's what you are talking about), only the outer walls were shown...
More complex and refined buildings probably still need modelling, are planned for the later releases (the 1st one should cover the early era of the game) or are still wip: we don't know...

To answer you, the org holds the private EB fora, where the developers work, so you could consider this the official one, but I know the team members (at least some) are registered at both the org and twcenter...
Imo a whole new thread wasn't necessary and honestly, by looking at a murus gallicus, saying the work is outdated, it's dismissive and superficial at best...

Hey there.

Thanks for the reply, no need to take it aggressively, I didn't meant any offense when I said outdated. I did specify I'm truly impressed by the attention toward accurate details, and the overall massive research behind this.
What I mean by outdated is that, most source about the Celtic cities haven't yet been updated, since the breakthrough are only a few years old. Even in the field of historian, only a handful ones specifically specialized in the archeological research on the celts knows that. It will take more than a decade before this information becomes mainstream, even to valid sources like manuals, encyclopedias and even to passionate and well informed people... As I said, I can back everything with sources (and the most accurate one).

While Most have been found on the roman, we only started very recently to consistently uncover Celtic traces of architecture : the reason is that Celtic cities were completely razed to the very last speck of dust (almost) and vegetation has completely recovered the places were they once were. Only the most sophisticated tools (laser and scans mostly) were able to detect the buildings I have mentioned.

I realize this settlement is generic for all the ''barbarian'' factions. Yet I've red that the two last levels are supposed to be exclusively made from dacian and celtic (gauls and celt-iberian) material, since they were the only ones to have reach that level of development. That is why I thought it would be pertinent to give some input.


PS : I have yet to compare with the roman ones, but the level 2 settlement may be a tiny little bit more ''vibrant'' with colors, decoration, artwork. Even at this stage they knew how to decorate things properly. But, as I have said, I haven't seen the roman ones, but If they make the roman ones look colorful and full of art at level 2, then it would make sense to do it for these settlements. (don't know if I made sense). I find what they did to be pretty detailed and amazing, I'm simply saying there may (not the ''may'' ) have left out the decoration part.


Cheers. =D

It's possible that the high-lvl settlements will include bigger and more vibrant buildings. ATM only walls are visible on the screnshots in case of high-lvl stuff.

hum, i think i replied to you on TWC on this matter ;)

Also, Brennus is some very reliable historian, already having gone on some archeological sites doing some research. He is specialised on those celtic factions (i think ^^). @Brennus, you can correct me if I'm wrong...

Here's my answer to your post on TWC, so that the org members can see that.

Quote:

---

Hi!

yes, we've decided to make the 1st and 2nd tier settlements rough looking. With those small huts and primitive houses. the 3rd and 4th tier will be more like this.
At least that is the aim we have given ourselves.
I think it matches a bit more your description ;)

---

Also, you must have noticed the tier 1 building models were used in the tier 2. I intend to rework the tier 2 settlement before release, it lacks colour indeed, and vegetation... But as i said, custom buildings modelling and texturing is very time consumming.

Perhaps that in EB V8.0, their will be some unique models for each settlements, but first the task is to give most culture some "base settlements" to replace medieval ones in the first release. That's why the work might not be perfect... :2thumbsup:

@wanchang How dare you question us! Je blague.

Thank you for your thoughts and I'm glad that, on the whole you liked the previews.

The reason that we did not include any of the new, and rather impressive, Gallic structures in the settlements we have shown is for two reasons. Firstly, as we have stated and Arjos said, the tier 1 and 2 settlements are intended to include/represent the architecture of all the "barbarian" factions. As the Sweboz and Lugiones never developed the large urban sites of the Gauls and Celtiberians (British sites are likewise rather dimunitive by comparison to continental oppida) it would have been inaccurate to include the more grand examples of Gallic architecture in these settlements.

Secondly, these are the Tier 1 and 2 settlements. With populations of less than 1,000 people (at the very most), and limited evidence for social stratification at British hillforts, Celtiberian castros and Gallic ferme indigenés it would again be inaccurate to include the larger, grander examples of Gallic architecture which has recently been discovered.

We fully intend to include the larger examples of Gallic architecture, for example the Parc aux chevaux from Bibracte, and the capture point will be a sanctuary based on the examples from Gournay-sur-Aronde, Závist and Corent. We are also basing the terrain on Alesia so it should be grand enough to fully do justice to the historical oppida. Unfortunately we have been unable to post any more than the images of the walls, gate and towers as we (Red Devil) is still enclosing the terrain (it's that big).

We would welcome any images you have of recent discoveries to aid us. We have mostly been working from the evidence from Alesia, Bibracte, Avaricum, Manching and Závist so far.

Just to give you and idea of the scale we are working to (@Red_Devil I hope you don't mind me sharing this) here is an out of date aerial view of the oppida:

Attachment 8134

BTW did you test the pathfinding in-game?

That's what has been slowing us down.

That is simply excellent to read! These post relieved me of my last doubt. Without any fake flattering, you have exactly the kind of attitude this mod needs, in my book.

About my sources, after seeing the link you've gave, I'm pretty sure you've found most of the internet ones. The paper ones (you may have found them too) : «Dossier d'archeologie» number 21 : «Les gaulois la fin d'un myhte». Also the collection «l'univers des formes» volume on the celts. Those 2 ones are in french, I think an english translation (if needed) exist for the later, but maybe not the first one. The book «Celtic People», I can't remember the author right now and it's in my 6000 kilometer away library (I will come back on this one later) addressed the matter many time.
I also have an actual metric ton of Research Papers (thesis...), but their titles are less remarkable and I can't recall them on the spot (I'll also post the links or title as soon as I can).
The first 2 one I've mentioned are definitively a must, in my opinion.
I will gradually send the metric ton of archeological report as soon as I get back to the University computers (and their amazing database).
I hope to see some pretty nice colors (and maybe drawing) painted or hanged (drapes) on many of the buildings and houses :)

This mod looks more and more super special awesome each time I come back. I wish you luck on making these settlements vibrant with color and art of different kinds. Keep going!

Beware of one thing.

I didn't had the occasion to come back here for quite some time, But Beware of one simple but important fact. What I'm about to tell is definitively not mainstream knowledge, not even amongst most of the historians community. Not that it's some big state secret. I learned it from an exchange between a member of the public and Stephan Fichtl in one of his conference I had the privilege to watch.

Most, if not all of the reconstitution, documents... that you will surely base your modelling on, are missing some major component. Don't get me wrong, I, or Stephan Fichtl are not questioning the professionalism of all the researchers in that field.
BUT, in this particular context, most of what we can reconstitute will look much more primitive than it actually was in reality.
In our particular context : A temperate, humid climate, with component mostly made of wood, iron or degradable materials, AND the fact that almost everything was scavenged to build the new Romans agglomerations.
This is the worst context for an archeologist. Most of the material was scavenged, ''recycled'' and transferred to newer settlements, and the remaining material was degraded.

So in the end, we are missing a lot. All we have left is the roughest elements, that survived because not worth the effort to recycle or because it was sturdy enough to survive the test of time. So we are only uncovering a rough version of the town, and therefore our reconstructions will look way more simple, primitive that they actually were.
Which is normal, because as scientist, they simply can't make up stuff on their own, even if it's suspected that said stuff was there.

A concrete example : Iron low relief, or any metal artwork. You can be sure any of these elements would have been promptly taken away when these Oppidium/settlements were meticulously deconstructed. Also, most of the foundations don't even allow us to draw conclusions about the number of floors those buildings actually had. Again, since they can't draw definite scientifical conclusion, the experts don't want to step into speculation and therefore only give the number of 1, 2 max floors that we are sure of.
Considering the level of advancement showcased by this culture, it is fair to speculate that there could have been more ''towering'' buildings, composed of 3-4 even 5 floors. As it was the case in what appear to be even less advanced civilizations. Those are mostly speculations, but fair ones considering the pitiful state of the remaining evidences.

Hell, we can't even tell for sure if there was or wasn't paved roads in the settlements. We can't even find more than 25% of the building's locations. we are missing entire chunks of the cities, and the one we found are lackluster. I am not making this up.
If any of you guys have the occasion to speak to one of the experts in these fields (either archeologist or historians) ask them about what I just wrote. The terrible lack of evidence is a pain for most people studying these northern cultures.

To sum this up, We are almost certain that these settlements and structures were far more sophisticated than we can currently reconstitute, but we just don't know how they were.
The models that are currently using are watered down and archaic versions of what really stood there 2000 years ago.
Therefore, in this special case, one could take some liberties, but only in this very special case where we know that there is ''more'' than meets the eyes, but simply don't know what is this ''more''.


If you are already aware of this, which would not surprise me, how do you intent to handle it?
Will you keep the ''unfair'' (i can't stress the '' '' more) version, more primitive than the real stuff, or get some inspiration from other, well known sophisticated bits of celtic culture to ''fill the gaps'' ?



PS : Off topic, But I want to congrats whoever modeled all these buildings. That is some impressive piece of work, and a great display of modelling skills (it exceeds whatever the museums and documentary have produced so far) . I would have never doubted the internet had that in reserve.
And overall congrats to the EB team for the long lasting effort required to maintain such a mod after so many years.

Congrats should go to Red Devil, he has been responsible for all the lovely work so far.

I agree, wanchang, it is a problem. There is a good chance Gallic oppida were far more complex than our reconstructions suggest. Multi floored buildings, metal fittings, complex architecture, all of these were feasible for the Gauls. Whether or not to include paved roads or not has been of particular concern. And I don't doubt Stefan Fitchl's views (or for that matter Olivier Buschenshutz or Ian Ralston's) view that oppida were likely more complex than archaeology would lead us to suggest (although I do wish Fitchl would respond to his emails). However, schooled in the critical British way of thinking that I am, I would prefer to restrict the reconstructions to the evidence provided by archaeology. It probably doesn't do La Tene C/D culture justice, but it is a better alternative than producing hypothetical structures which the evidence doesn't support. As you will hopefully have noticed with the sanctuary, we are applying as much colour as possible to the buildings and intend to use curvilinear and zoomorphic patterns for further decoration.

As always wanchang, it's a pleasure to hear your thoughts on the subject.

I understand your point of view, as it's the same as the scientific consensus. You shouldn't go around fantasizing new shapes, buildings... I do like what you are doing with colors, that's a good start and it's safe to assume such decorations were here.
However I do think the middle ground can be pushed a little bit further. Not too much, but your team could have a try at making small and careful steps toward this direction. For example, making the main building (town hall or whatever you will call it) a 4 floors building wouldn't be too much of a stretch. Those floors could have the same look as the first one, that way you aren't making up a new architecture.
Or other stuff like gardens, It's one thing you can safely assume, is that there must have been some sort of ''garden'' or whatever beautiful things you can do with plants. Again that wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
If it can reassure you, always remember that we are 100% sure it looked much better than what we can visualize. Therefore some small invention here and here, isn't too much scandalous (and I would say it would do history more justice).

But yes, I am pretty sure you are trying to squeeze the maximum.


About the roads, it really seems mitigated. In my humble opinion, after hearing much about it, I would say it's 50% yes and 50% no. In that case, you would be as wrong/right, regardless if the are here or no.
In this case considering the La Tene culture doesn't get much justice, I believe the 50% yes should get an extra 1% for fairness. Which means I would include them =P . That's up to you of course. But I'm fairly sure that if they bothered covering hundreds of kilometers of countryside with pavement, they wouldn't stop at the gate of their cities, leaving everything is mud.
I can't imagine how a dirt covered 50 000 souls settlement would look like on a rainy day.


One last proposition I have would be some amphitheaters/entertainments buildings. It's an interesting theory, but every experts all seem to love speculating about it. Even thought no one affirm anything (because rationality), they all seem to enjoy the theory. I've yet to hear about one ''calling bullshit'' (pardon the word). So here again, it wouldn't be much of a stretch, and wouldn't need too much architecture fantasy, since I think some models (speculative) were already made. If I found one I will post it here. And it would help even the scale of fairness.

I'm not sure why I'm obsessing about this particular culture when it comes to praising it. It's only my third antiquity favorite (Northern Indians and old pre-columbian ones being first). I guess it's because of all of the known one, it's the one that is getting the most unfair treatment, and probably because i study in France =D

So what would be the big plan? (compared to the perspective of the last post)

Still on vacation so I am afraid you will have to wait till the weekend and then I can share my thoughts.

Yeah no problem. Take your time. Australia is too nice to lose time on the internet.

It was a bump just in case.

Hey Brennus. I'm pretty sure your busy with other things, so it's not really a bump.

What do you think of this pic?

Attachment 8747

Attachment 8747


I send it to red devil in case he needed some inspiration. From all the images I could come up with on the Web, this one is by far the most impressive structures.

It's pretty much High Medieval age Tier, which personnaly doesn't surprise me (considering the wealth, and that they were well implented for quite some time).
For once, it's a reconstitution that doesn't look like a small time Hovel (as alway, why assume it was miserable when it had as much chances to be big and refined :P)

Apparently, it's A Succesfull gaulish Farm from 2nd century BC (belonging to a rich landowner or something).
What do you think?


PS : No pressure, but when do you think you'll be able to provide the full reply about what we started discussing ealier? I'm pretty eager :) .

Salut Wanchang!

Sorry for the delay in my response, my real life encountered several unexpected hills recently that had to be climbed before I could properly reply.

I like them, they are not too different from the models Red Devil has been producing for the oppida.

A brief description of the BIG PLAN for the oppida:

1. As previously said we are using a mixture of the topography of Alesia and Bibracte,

2. The wall itself is a composite of the Murus Gallicus and Kelheim type walls. We have done this in order to create a balance between the western Celts (Aedui, Arverni), the Boii and also to consider the walls build by the Getae and Celtiberians. A ramp has not been included on the wall as it causes too many pathfinding problems.

3. Our oppida will include both single tier and double tier structures which will also be painted in colours derived from surviving pieces of Celtic metalwork (coral, enamel etc), fabric and Strabo's description of Celtic clothing patterns. Patterns for the buildings have been adopted from the Waldegesheim burial metalwork.

4. We are including a variety of features common to oppida including workshops, small farmsteads, a nearby water source and a sanctuary. In our case the sanctuary will be placed on the acropolis of the oppida, as was the case as Manching, Zavist and Bibracte. Although when Red Devil starts work on the Tier 3 (proto-oppida) I may ask him to place the sanctuary near the entrance as was the case at Gournay-sur-Aronde and Ribemont-sur-Ancre.

5. As to roads I am still undecided. Complex and large stonework was not beyond the Celts abilities (Murus Gallicus walls, the Roquepertuse sanctuary etc) but I would expect evidence of stone roads to have survived, consider that Roman roads survive to this day. Although you could be right, they could have been removed and relocated to help build the new Gallo-Roman settlements.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

@Roads: while "urban" roadwork would have been dissembled. Roads connecting Settlements were often built over by the romans and most people(in this case archaeologists) understandably are pretty happy with finding a roman road and would not dare to dig deeper(destroying the roman road they just found) to look for possible Celtic roads underneath. Afterall Caesar would not have marched through Gaul the way he did if they did not have roads^^.
Afaik those roads would have been made of(covered with) wood rather than stone tho.

Hey Brennus,

Thanks a lot.
Yes that does answer a lot of my question, I'll raise just the few that remain :

1. Vegetation, garden or whatever. When I look at those 3D reconsitutions like the Corent, I can't help but think they are incomplete. A few houses separated by vast and bland emptiness, covered in dirt. I just feel like there certainly has been something occupying those.
It would be pretty impossible to tell if there was said ''garden'' or not, since decorations would have been salvaged, and the vegetal layout obviously gone after 2000 years.

Considering the importance of nature, forest, plants, river, stream in the Celt tradition and culture, I find it highly unlikely that their settlements looked like Post apocalyptic Wasteland.

2. Large infrastructures. Gauls were not the most industrialist, I give you that, but settlements of thousands inhabitants consisting of just homes and a few gathering place is highly unlikely.
Sure, Because we can just dig a few rotten remnants of the remnants of a trace of a foundation, it's just difficult to tell anything at all. But as we spoke earlier, it's 99.99% certain that they are missing most of picture, which they admit themselves.

So what about those large infrastructures. I seem to recall that there existed ''universities'' (note the '' ''), at least in Bibactre. I've heard speculations about bathhouses. One can also expect big buildings for all the magistrature and administrative stuff. As well as as some pretty big ''mansion'' ('' '' again). I really find it unlikely again that in a 30 000 settlements there wasn't some big Building. Sometimes with 3 to 4 even 5 floors. Those would have also been the most likely to be salvaged since big usually means more capability.

3. Hygiene? Like canalisation or anything that is almost mandatory for any big town (in any part of the world).


so basically 1 and 2 are long questions with a big introduction and without a ''?''.



bonus : I guess road is indeed tricky. But one thing is even if they 100% existed for sure, they are 100% likely to have been salvaged, as you put it. Usually when people built a new paved road, they would try to use the pavement from the old one if the old one was to become obsolete.
That and the fact that after having installed a massive road system across the territory, it's weird if they can't even pave their own towns (and the road stops at the entrance). And it would also be awful when it rains a lot (by awful I mean really terrible). And the the fact that the corent had Stone canalization in the middle of each roads, which would be weird if the rest wouldn't be paved.
I'm pretty sure you thought about all those, but it can always helps to affirm your position.


PS : don't be intimidated by the size of the question, I'm not necessarily expecting a similar wall of text for the answer ~:)

And I guess I did repeat myself a lot again. Damn it, I tried no to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wangchang

1. Vegetation, garden or whatever. When I look at those 3D reconsitutions like the Corent, I can't help but think they are incomplete. A few houses separated by vast and bland emptiness, covered in dirt. I just feel like there certainly has been something occupying those.
It would be pretty impossible to tell if there was said ''garden'' or not, since decorations would have been salvaged, and the vegetal layout obviously gone after 2000 years.

Considering the importance of nature, forest, plants, river, stream in the Celt tradition and culture, I find it highly unlikely that their settlements looked like Post apocalyptic Wasteland.

---

I agree, and I hate it when there's this "wasteland" in reconstructions, but if you actually put in vegetation as you see fit, it can lead to a host of new issues. For example, many splendid reconstructions of Greek (or Roman) sanctuaries feature vegetation, yet it is often wrongly implemented, showing many trees scattered around the area in places that are almost certainly wrong.
Generally speaking, a bit "what if" isn't really anything to go by, though in the case of EB I'd be more lenient, as it's a piece of art (not an encyclopedia) and there's only so much the creators can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wangchang

3. Hygiene? Like canalisation or anything that is almost mandatory for any big town (in any part of the world).

---

I would personally love if there were piles of sh*t lying around. After all, we imagine Greek and Roman settlements far too hygienic.

Also, although I'm no archaeologist, I think you should be careful not to overreact in wanting Gaul to be 'civilised'. Rather than adding everything you view to be civilised, you should question your definition of 'civilised'. Your wish to see a lot of floors in any particular house is a good example of that. True, the Romans did build multi-storied insulae, but they did so out of necessity, not want. Despite their being very acquinted with architecture (slightly more so than the gauls in later periods, proven by their engineers in war), those building were really really unstable and prone to collapse. Why would you build 5 floors, adding the difficulty of going upstairs with buckets of water, furniture, amphora of wine, ... if you could simply have a larger house that has only one floor? Also, wouldn't higher buildings be visible by deeper foundations?

The gardens are an interesting aspect, but could it be the 'empty spaces' were used for small-scale horticulture? That's what I've always heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailfertes

I would personally love if there were piles of sh*t lying around. After all, we imagine Greek and Roman settlements far too hygienic.

Also, although I'm no archaeologist, I think you should be careful not to overreact in wanting Gaul to be 'civilised'. Rather than adding everything you view to be civilised, you should question your definition of 'civilised'. Your wish to see a lot of floors in any particular house is a good example of that. True, the Romans did build multi-storied insulae, but they did so out of necessity, not want. Despite their being very acquinted with architecture (slightly more so than the gauls in later periods, proven by their engineers in war), those building were really really unstable and prone to collapse. Why would you build 5 floors, adding the difficulty of going upstairs with buckets of water, furniture, amphora of wine, ... if you could simply have a larger house that has only one floor? Also, wouldn't higher buildings be visible by deeper foundations?

The gardens are an interesting aspect, but could it be the 'empty spaces' were used for small-scale horticulture? That's what I've always heard.

---

Yes of course, civilization is not about multi floor buildings. But humans all around the world tend to build them in any developed settlements (== legit city).
The Gauls weren't as industrious as the Romans, so 5 floors insulae wouldn't have worked in their town. And the town weren't massive enough, and not as crucial as in the roman world, to need such apartment.
I won't expand too much on how that work, but usually a ''new'' settlements start with only 1 floor buildings, then more floors appear progressively as more people come, as you can't expand the settlement forever (security purpose). Not only that, but on an individual scale, those who are already in the middle of a city and wish to expand their houses will have no choice but to add 1 or 2 floors to their homes (usually they'll have to rebuild the section entirely, because foundations). Same for the public infrastructures. They have to grow as the settlement expand.
5 Floors would probably be very rare, mostly for the very important infrastructures. And it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be an homogenous repartition, the 5th floor could be much smaller.
So really, not having much multi floors building would mean that : 1. Your settlement is brand new and still have space to expand.
2. Your settlement growth has stagnated.
2. You are too stupid to build more floors.

About the foundations, problem is we haven't found most of them. But even those who found, more often then not, they do not allow us to say whether they supported 1, 2 or even 3 floors. Some do allow you to say for sure that there was only 1 floor, but it's not as common, and usually it's all uncertain.


As for the gardens, yes, a lot of people would probably use those spaces for horticulture. But at the same time, many aren't farmers, and wealthy artisans/magistrate/whatever could afford to grow a garden for aesthetics's sake. And even those doing small scale horticulture may leave some spots for a tree, or some flowers...
So in the end, it would be a bit of both.
It's all speculation, but that looks like the most plausible thing. Empty wasteland with just a few tools lying in the mud doesn't make much sense. And it's pretty ugly.

And about the sh*t, yes, we shouldn't expect those towns to be paragons of hygiene. They should look a bit trashy, especially in the most condensed zones. But there are limits, and at some point, efficient means to evacuate most of the cr*p, dirty water... are mandatory. It doesn't need to be as advanced as what the romans did, more like what was being done in the high medieval age.

Usually I tend to make comparison with High Medieval cities (HRE, france, burgundy...) . Now don't get me wrong, they are completely different things, and Medieval Age people had more advanced techniques and architecture. But they could share some similarities, due to some similarity geopolitical and social context of both society (as a whole, not just cities) (and their buildings seems to share resemblances). And yes I know I have to be careful with comparisons ~;)

As brennus told you, most of the brainstorming has been done, but the team follows this discussion.
I find it interresting, however, I do "obey" brennus' instructions.

For now, we will keep it to two stories max.

I must admit that it has been 4-5 weeks without much progress on my side due to some lack of time and inspiration, but i should go back to work in a bit more than 1 week.
Some eye candy will be posted to show you th work done so far as soon as the project is sufficiently advanced. ;)

Thanks for your support and your discussion, i really do appreciate your different point of view and this gives me some ideas. please carry on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red_Devil

As brennus told you, most of the brainstorming has been done, but the team follows this discussion.
I find it interresting, however, I do "obey" brennus' instructions.

For now, we will keep it to two stories max.

I must admit that it has been 4-5 weeks without much progress on my side due to some lack of time and inspiration, but i should go back to work in a bit more than 1 week.
Some eye candy will be posted to show you th work done so far as soon as the project is sufficiently advanced. ;)

Thanks for your support and your discussion, i really do appreciate your different point of view and this gives me some ideas. please carry on!

---

That's understandable.
Good luck ~;)
I may have new big picture soon. My friend just visited a museum in Brittany and promised to bring me back some high quality picture of the fort reconstitution.

Forterresse de Paule end of 3th century BC.

It's actually not a fortress, more like a private residence for a wealthy Gaul (an aristocrat or something). It's still fortified of course. Note the 3rd floor house/tower/whatever.

Attachment 8859

Quick note for those watching the pics :
Now I've already seen those models many times before in other reconstitutions (of other towns). It says a lot about the pitiful budget these guys have. Could look 100% better with 100% more gold. They often use the same simplistic, generic models : a cube with a triangle roof. At best you'll see some beams. It's Obvious everything was more refined, paintings, sculptures, different shapes, more complex interior/exterior layout.



Edit : here in the middle of the 2th century. Apparently the aristocrat's family became quite successful, so it was in the middle of growing pretty big. They had just finish building a new large wall, so it's safe to assume it got filled with buildings the next few years. But since we always miss 75% of the buildings, they aren't represented.

Attachment 8861

This is saddening, just look at how pitiful it is, the houses in the court are still in their primitive state even thought they went through a century of success. They haven't changed from one inch. No matter how backward a people is, houses are bound to change after centuries, even decades, usually to improve (when peace/stability allows). And what's with that empty court?
I'm talking about the archeologist cheap reconstitution, not what it looked in real life. It's obvious that a lot is missing.

Still, it's much better then what we are used too (3 square meters roundhouses). So there is the promise of incline for the future.

Hi wangchang. Is there any other information regarding these models, as in the archaeological evidence that was used to establish the layout etc. that you can share. This isn't, by the way, to question the voracity of the models, but because I am genuinely interested in the evidence for pre-Roman Iron age culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Hi wangchang. Is there any other information regarding these models, as in the archaeological evidence that was used to establish the layout etc. that you can share. This isn't, by the way, to question the voracity of the models, but because I am genuinely interested in the evidence for pre-Roman Iron age culture.

---

Unfortunately, I did not visited the museum. A friend of mine reluctantly agreed to take a few pictures and send them to me. I can always ask him if he red anything while he was there, but I doubt it (he wasn't there out of his own free will).

If it can be of any help, here is how the settlement started :
Attachment 8862

A ''startup'' entreprise by a wealthy guy back then. It turned out to be quite successful over the decades.

Thank you. Which museum is it? (If you have said already I have missed it, so my apologies)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Thank you. Which museum is it? (If you have said already I have missed it, so my apologies)

---

Hahaha. I was wondering why those pictures seemed to be of so high quality.

I just found out those aren't even pictures from the museum. He got them from a book. Apparently the pictures he took were too horrible. I'm surprised he went through that hassle for me.
The book is called : ''La question de la proto-urbanisation à l'âge de fer'' written in 2012.

The book is called : ''La question de la proto-urbanisation à l'âge de fer'' written in 2012.[/QUOTE]

Adding that to my reading list.

Attachment 9151

Attachment 9152

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules....wpic&pid=84000
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules....wpic&pid=83547

Quote:

---

A reconstructed Celtic village (museum) with 6 buildings and a watchtower. In the nearby there is a celtic garden.
fot further information:
http://www.keltendorf-steinbach.de/

---

Pretty houses. That + some potential paintings/decorations.

I think it's legit. Not entirely sure thought.

those houses remind me of some of the ones in Germany to this day. (with the generally white color, and then the presence of these wooden beams going at angles). there are obviously major differences, but still, the resemblance is striking.

did they draw from a common thread, or did one influence the other, or did they evolve independently?

Human beings can be very creative when developing their cultures, or they can be downright lazy. This type of house is simply a type which has proven to be long lived in temperate Europe. The predecessors of this type of house can be found in Linear Band Ceramic sites from the Neolithic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Human beings can be very creative when developing their cultures, or they can be downright lazy.

---

Or (as an alternative way of looking at it) the rule 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' seems appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Human beings can be very creative when developing their cultures, or they can be downright lazy. This type of house is simply a type which has proven to be long lived in temperate Europe.

---

Long lived in more than one sense. There are houses of this type in Central Germany that are as old as 800 years (probably more, I'm not sure) and are still in use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Or (as an alternative way of looking at it) the rule 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' seems appropriate.

---

Very true.