EB news - Friday, February 25

Greetings Europa Barbarorum fans!

We are quickly coming up on the internal release of our latest alpha, 0.5. This version will test our new recruitment system, the latest version of our Roman faction setup, our new fleet & port system, as well as adding at least 40 new units and several unique buildings. We all are chomping at the bit to get our hands on the new version.

This week we wanted to show you a sample of the unit work we are doing, aside from the units themselves. Here is the unit card and artwork done by Spartan Warrior to support his new Hellenic units:

http://img199.exs.cx/img199/5004/unitinfo5mm.jpg

Next, we wanted to give you a glimpse of the work from one of our newest skinner/modellers, Weirdshady. This unit, the Briton Rycalawre, was skinned and modelled by Weirdshady, though it is still a work in progress.

The Rycalawre are wealthy, powerful men, but they were not necessarily born as such. When a young warrior begins to attract prestige to himself, often by having a mound of heads to his name, he also begins attracting favors and gifts from his chief. These favors, like armor, weapons, jewelry, and slaves, allow him to be outfitted in superior equipment to lesser men, as well as having beautiful ornate equipment, such as elaborate bronze 'horned' helmets, giving them a near mythic appearance on the field. Any who survived a battle with Rycalawre present, would surely never forget them:

Commander unit:
http://img203.exs.cx/img203/7848/00380yz.jpg

Briton unit:
http://img203.exs.cx/img203/5800/00039wj.jpg

Rebel unit:
http://img203.exs.cx/img203/1741/00148ck.jpg


Also, we wanted to give you a glimpse of some of the diversity to be found in the Gallic armies. In addition to the Gallic units you have already seen in past news items, here are some new ones from Prometheus who, as you can see, has been hard at work:

http://img56.exs.cx/img56/561/53if.jpg
http://img173.exs.cx/img173/2834/49ce.jpg

Finally, here is another of Parmenio's faction icon remakes (WIP). This one may be a bit more difficult to guess:

http://img169.exs.cx/img169/5200/parthia6bg.jpg

As always, if you have questions or comments, the best place to post them would be here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70

Or here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showforum=60

You may find old news posts in these forums, including a preview of our new map:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42840

Have a wonderful day!

Sincerely,

-the EB team

Simply amazing, those units look outstanding. I tip my hat to you gentlemen. :bow:

Those Gallic hordes are awesome! :2thumbsup:

Hmm...I'm guessing the faction icon is either Parthia or Bactria.

I have no clue what the faction icon is, but i like it

Looks Awesome! There aren't any patches or other things needed for Europa Barbarorum?

Oh well, I forgot to change the faction name.

When EB is released, you will need the latest patch version. This will probably be 1.2, but who knows, CA may surprise us.

I saw this picture in the news post, but I've never seen such a file in the RTW data. I'd like to know where those files are located. ~:confused:

http://img142.exs.cx/img142/7494/parthia6bg2yo.jpg

AMAZING!!!!!!! As a gamer and artist I congratulate you guys! Fantastic work! I wish i had more time to join up! ~:cheers:

I'd say this banner is likely the one for Parthia, though it might as well be Bactria or Pontus.

Anyway, awesome work. These weekly updates are really amazing :)

Those units are beautiful, especially that commander unit, can't wait to play this mod

Whoa... this one really got to me for some reason.... so... amazing...... so... awesome........ wow.......

Those Gallic units... are they one unit with different colors and things like that within it? Or is it a bunch of different units standing in the same place making it seem that way?

i was just about to ask the same question.

as for the Briton Rycalawre. you said it was work in progress, they look lovely but i would say the colors of the garments they are wearing need a slight change, specifically the sleeves of the briton unts.

what will the unit cards look like?

EDIT:

the Hellenic cavalry is fantastic. ~:cheers:

HOLY $%%£$£$^^&*&"%$!!!!! :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop:
Please tell me that these pikemen are from a screenshot from the game and that they will hold their sarissas with both hads pleaseee!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANd are these barbarian units with multiple models/skins? If yes Ill need to move to normal size units...
Well I guess that this is the symbol of the Parthians since it reminds me the Persian symbol...

Hellenes

http://img173.exs.cx/img173/2834/49ce.jpg

In this picture look to your left and up a little. You can see the gold board which the flag bearer is holding. Maybe you should darken it a bit because it sticks out so well. If someone had blurry vission he's think it was a banna. ~:eek:

Also the red tassle on one of the men's helmet is very bright, maybe darken that as well? Unless thats how it was back then.

Looking great as all's

This mod is going to be fantastic. The sheer quality of the models and skins you're churning out is amazing, and the unit cards look CA-quality! As hellenes, i sincerely hope that, in-game, the Macedonian pikemen will hold their sarissas (sarissoi?) in both hands. I'm guessing that the faction icon is.... Parthian, since the image's name is "parthia6bg.jpg".

Great work, keep it up! :medievalcheers:

- Panda

When are you guys gonna release this? This mod looks too great to be kept for any longer!

Those are a bunch of different units, close to each other.

those gallic screenies are epic.

to all who asked, afiak, there is absolutely no way to get multiple skins in one unit.
the screenies are just showing 3-4 unit types running around together.

i was going to guess parthia too..
not sure why but something about a lion with wings just says 'persia' to me.

It could be a griffin. If it is, then it can be from crete to all the way to bactria and India.

Some of the civilizations that used iconographic griffins are Chaldea, Assyrians, Babylon, Persia, Crete, Iberia, Rome and India..... :book:

....BUT the present day Crimea uses griffins on their standarts, as were in the old days by the inhabitants of that peninsula, and Modern Ukraine.

My bet is Sarmatia/Scythia.

Let´s see if I´m right. :2thumbsup:


EDIT: Wow...totaly forgot to congrtulate you on your work. Like others said the Rycalawre (sp?) need some work....but can´t wait to get my hands on this mod.

Mind if ask what is the type of unit next to the Argyraspids in the unit cards?

Quote:

---

Those Gallic units... are they one unit with different colors and things like that within it? Or is it a bunch of different units standing in the same place making it seem that way?

---

The Gallic units are individual units standing together and charging. Prometheus wanted to show off the Gallic work he had done. He made those in a week, I believe. If you notice, most of them share the same model. There are other Gallic units made, some of which you have seen, and a few yet to be made. Our unit lists are basically limited by model. We have a small number of unique models a faction can use, and then they must be shared. We can have many more unique units (500) than unique models (255), which is especially tough because the unique model limit includes commanders, animals, siege engines, standard bearers, and so on.

Quote:

---

as for the Briton Rycalawre. you said it was work in progress, they look lovely but i would say the colors of the garments they are wearing need a slight change, specifically the sleeves of the briton unts

---

The Rycalawre are a unit of elite warriors. They used bright colors to signify their status, among other things. These are not the final colors, but they will be more colorful than your average warrior. What, specifically, is the issue with them?

Quote:

---

Please tell me that these pikemen are from a screenshot from the game and that they will hold their sarissas with both hads pleaseee!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

They will be. We still need to do the animation for this, and the overhand spears. That is coming soon, however.

Quote:

---

In this picture look to your left and up a little. You can see the gold board which the flag bearer is holding. Maybe you should darken it a bit because it sticks out so well. If someone had blurry vission he's think it was a banna.

---

Well, this may be a matter that we will look at, but according to our Celtic scholar, the Gauls (and the Celts in general) "polished the hell out of their metals."

Quote:

---

Mind if ask what is the type of unit next to the Argyraspids in the unit cards?

---

Not at all. However, you will have to be more specific, since this is a group of Ptolemaic units, and as such no Argyraspidai are shown.

By the way, the icon was indeed Parthia - as I have noted, I forgot to change the filename before uploading it. Silly me.

This is my first post in this forum but I have followed this forum a long time.
First I want to say what the EB team is doing is simply amazing....
But I have posted this message to ask some questions about this weekly update.

I very curious about the gallic unit names displayed in the screenshots.
I already know the Belgic swordsman and the South-West warband but 4 other units are new for me.
Kelvan could you reveal the unites names or are the names still a secrect?!

Other question.
I have seen britons,gauls,greeks,romans and dacians unit screenshots but no germanics yet.
When can I expect to see them?
I am really curious how you have made the germanics :)

Well not all are done yet... So it's pretty much just posting as we get them... Don't think a German unit has been done yet.
Oh and welcome to the board!
And I think it is a gryphon... and I know they were rumored to guard the Scythian's gold treasure in Central Asia...

@ Steppe Merc

I was thinking along the same lines. We´re wrong it seems. Damn! ~;)

@ Khelvan

Well acording to your news reports there are a few units there that are not ptolemaic:

From left to right:

Ptolemaic Pantodapoi, Seleucid Pantopadoi, then we have 3 phalangitai (care to explain the diference between them?)

On the bottom, some kind of elite phalangitès (which I thought was a silver shield. What is it then? ), then there´s the one I was asking about. What is it?

As for the cavalry the first 2 are Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agemata and Thessalian Cavalry, right? But what´s the other one?

No, I knew which one it was... I helped pick the design. ~;) I'm part of the steppe task force in EB... And the Parthians were a Scythian people, which is why I mentioned it. So you were on the right track, after all. ~D

Well.....ehrrr......yeah! That´s what I meant... ~D



*....the....shame.....* :embarassed:

Ahh, yes, you're correct. I made a mistake. However, these are all Spartan Warrior units, and Parmenio did our Argyraspidai. I'll see if I can find out.

Let's see, the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Pantodapoi you know about, then we have the Ptolemaic Machimoi, Pontic Pantodapoi Phalangites, and Seleucid Pantodapoi Phalangites. I may have the names a bit off, but these are all levy units, the first two being barracks units, and the next three militia barracks units.

Then we have the Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agemata, the Ptolemaic Basilikon Agemata, the Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Cavalry, Thessalian Cavalry, and the Greek Hippeis Xystophoroi.

What we tend to do is make a unit with a new model, then do all the skins for that model with shared units/for other factions. So I apologize for stating these were Ptolemaic units. They're all the things Spartan Warrior has done based on the models he made for the Ptolemaic army. Ptolemaic is very close to being finished, from a unit standpoint, so we're excited about that.

The Gallic units are Mala Gaeroas, Belgae Batacorii, Boii Botroas, Soldurii, Milnaht Belgae, and perhaps some rebel Briton units. I don't believe we kept the SW warband, though perhaps we modified the model.

Quote:

---

Prometheus wanted to show off the Gallic work he had done. He made those in a week

---

No , 14 units in two evenings.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

The Rycalawre are a unit of elite warriors. They used bright colors to signify their status, among other things. These are not the final colors, but they will be more colorful than your average warrior. What, specifically, is the issue with them?

---

i know that they were a colorful bunch of people.~D however the colors don't seem to correspond very nicely compared to the equally colorful trousers of some gallic units. they seem blurred, not a big issue.

Quote:

---

The Gallic units are Mala Gaeroas, Belgae Batacorii, Boii Botroas, Soldurii, Milnaht Belgae, and perhaps some rebel Briton units. I don't believe we kept the SW warband, though perhaps we modified the model.

---

The models showed here are 2 or 3 max , the difference in unist is showed through alphachannelings and of course different texturings...the Southern Warband , (the one with blue shield )was textured by Psicho , but I readapted his texture to the new model wichi is the Boii type now (the one with the chequered patterns ) anyway is probably Insubre ...

Lets gamble
Milnaht Belgae=Swordsman with long red hair, bronze helmet and green shield
Boii Botroas=Swordsman with cape and shield with chequered patterns.
Soldurii=warrior with lance?!
Belgae Batacori=Swordsman with cape and yellow/green shield?!
Mala Gaeroas=Gallic slinger or maybe warrior with the big lance?!

PS: My Gaulish is very bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTank

PS: My Gaulish is very bad...

---

Don't worry. Everyone's Gaulish is very bad.

@ Spongly

Some Latin in there as well I think.... ~;)

@ Khelvan

Thx for answearing! :bow:

Everyone's Gallic sucks, so don't be hard on yourself. However, we do know enough to make names of soldiers (we know enough to actually speak it...if you don't want to be very descriptive; adjectives we seem to lack much of). And none of it is actually Latin, but Gallic is very very similar to Latin (it is not, as often is misconstrued, the basis of the Goidilic languages like Irish and Scottish, which are very different from Latin). Gallic influenced Latin (and vice versa) for a very long time, due to war, trade, and just generally being close to one another, with people moving into Gaul/Rome from their respective former countries. One of the reasons the language disappeared so quickly was because it was so similar to Latin that it was absorbed right into it quite swiftly after Roman conquest. This is why the British languages stood longer. They were very much different from Latin, so we still have P-Celtic languages.

Mind you, that isn't to say Irish and Gaelic (that's Scottish, in English; if one says Gaelic in English, proper etiquette is that they refer to Scottish, Irish is just called Irish in English) don't have Gallic influence. They do. It's just not the basis for it. Some Gallic words are in Irish (certain dialects more than others, specifically the dialects from where Gallic tribes inhabited more heavily than other places), and possibly some grammar, but if Irish came based on Gallic, it would be a much easier language for outsiders to learn, because it would be very similar to Latin.

Ranika I meant that my knowledge of Gallic is very bad compared with you guys.

I from the netherlands and I know that several dutch words are from Gallic.
They are Ambacht, rijk,ijzer and gijzelaar and maybe also zeep(soap) bever and ton.

http://img134.exs.cx/img134/1001/unt...copy0mo.th.jpg


how come that guys thing is red and the others arent is he a general?

That's a standard bearer's helmet, I believe.

yup, you can see another one near the center of the pic (the boar standard is facing us, so it's harder to see).

The translation for those units has been bugging me.... :book:

*Seleucid, Ptolemaic Pantodapoi - I´ve only seen this applied to pikeman from native/mixed population. Does pantopadoi, linguistically, imply the use of a pike as well or only their origin as you have here (since you separate them into town-watch and phalangites)?

*Machimos - on the other hand AFAIK this name refers only to the origin of the soldier - indigenous Egyptian soldier - so why not refer to the Ptolemaic Pantopadoi as Ptolemaic Machimos (as that would be in accordance with the logic of the other units I mentioned above, by having Ptolemaic Machimos Phalangites)?

*Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agemata - So these are military settlers of hellenic origin (I presume it derives from Klèrouchos) that form somekind of elite unit?

*Ptolemaic Basilikon Agemata - Royal Elite?

As terrible as my Greek is :help: .....

...my Gallic is non existent. As some of the guys here said, it´s not exactly a living tongue (ok....that sounded kind of gross....).

So can you enlighten us on the Gallic units?

:bow:

Well, I think a bit of surprise is best, but, I guess there isn't harm in a few names. And remember, if you see these elsewhere, somebody is stealing (except the Soldurii, as Caesar mentioned this name);

Soldurii; these are probably the best known, since this was not a name we transliterated later (as in, constructed from known Gallic). Soldurii were elite warriors of the Aquitanii; Caesar mentions them by name. They varied in equipment (we've chosen to feature the more heavily armored Soldurii as a regional unit). However, they were all very well trained, and had a very serious bond. Each Soldurii chose another Soldurii, the 'bond of fates'. If one Soldurii died, the other bonded to him would commit suicide, if he didn't also die in the same battle. Caesar noted that no Soldurii was known to have ever stepped down from his duty (such a renouncement probably accompanied being cast out of the society, and declared an outlaw, thus legal to kill anyway). There name is (bet you couldn't guess) the quite possible basis of the word Soldier; maybe an attempt to connect the average soldier with the bravery of the Soldurii.

Botroas; 'roas' is 'soldiers' or 'a troop' (though it's hardly unique, dozens of words existed for soldiers, warriors, troops, etc.). Bot (said like Boat) is sword. So, simply 'sword soldiers' or 'a sword troop'. These type of warriors were medium-infantry generally, any lighter swords were usually shortswords, and wielded by lighter infantry. Botroas carry long, one-handed swords, throwing javelins, and large shields. Botroas in this case are particularly the southern swordsmen (we'll also have northern soldiers; southern and northern Gauls were different). They will have a couple of 'regional' variations from two of the tribes more famous for their regular swordsmen; these will be superior infantry of this class, but each will be superior for different reasons.

Mala Gaeroas; also southern, Mala (southern) Gaeroas (spear troops) are light infantrymen; they're the lightest southern infantry after militiamen. They use the Celtic longspear (really just about as long as a regular spear to others, Celtic short spears are very short), and javelins, as well as the large line infantry shields.

Hardly everything, but, that should give an idea of some of the stuff we're working on now. And since you asked, that's all I'm giving you, though we know the direction of the faction already; surprises are good though, and I think you'll enjoy it. A general (this isn't 100% accurate for every unit) overview of the Gallic military force is:

Low Tier: Undisciplined, affordable (not necessarily cheap) poor-to-fair morale units, with good shields, no armor, and about average ability to attack

Mid Tier: Undisciplined and some disciplined, affordable fair morale units, good shields, most no armor (some with armor), and good attackers, with strong charges

High Tier: Disciplined, expensive (more than most others of equal quality) good morale units, good armor, very good attacks, very good for defending, and generally very very strong charges

Also, a quick little explanation; the double I on the end of names (Aquitanii, Arvernii, Soldurii), is used in Gallic. I believe it's also used in Latin (though I'm not 100% certain, my Latin is wretched), and the Romans, if I'm not mistaken, called the Gallic and British tribes by these names. Most of the Britons didn't call themselves as such, though the southern Britons spoke the same language as the Gauls; the midlanders and north-more Brits spoke stuff more like the Welsh, though not at all identical, but mistakable for those who can't speak a P-Celtic language. So, the southern Brits and the Gauls likely called themselves something similar, though they had many 'alternate' forms. So, in Britain, the Dumnonii could call themselves either Dumnones or Dumnonii. The second form, more common to the Romans, would be the form they would use (and implement for the tribes residing in their domains, regardless of what they spoke), and would, as such, become the more common format that we would become more accustomed to. In trying to make Britain in general seem more like their first British dominions (and their Gallic dominion), the Romans would use this suffix for all tribes they saw as being from the same stock, or habitating the same area.

-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Gallic is very very similar to Latin

---

Very interesting! What are the sources to study or at least take a glimpse at Gallic for a lingomaniac?

:book:
-

The best starting place is probably the Coligny calendar; it's a Gallic calendar. There are also places on the internet with large word lists of Gallic, but they're rarely up-to-date or 100% accurate (though, no one is 100% accurate); we find new Gallic words pretty often. However, that's a good start; finding a word list, and checking out the calendar.

(goes home and adds another language to the "Ancient Languages to Learn" list and sees he still hasn´t learnt the other 2)

~;) thx for answearing.


And...about those Hellenistic unit names translations, anyone care to take a go at it? :book:

Ranika
Is there any information about wich language(s) the Belgae spoke.
Did they spoke a Gallic dialect or Brythonic dialect or did they spoke a germanic/celtic mix?!
I often hear that the Belgic tribes where a mix of germanic and celtic people.

The Belgae spoke Gallic. Only some of the Belgae were mixed with Germans (specifically the Nervii), but they were for most intent, almost purely Celtic, and we recognize them as Celts, not a Germano-Celtic mix (since Celtic isn't a bloodline, it's simply a culture). Celts themselves were of a huge number of ethnic backgrounds, but all considered Celts because they shared most of a culture. The Belgae weren't really Gauls, or Britons, they were Belgae, and fairly unique. However, they did speak a language the same as Gauls (which makes sense, they weren't brushed up against ANY Brythonic speakers; southern Britain, as stated, spoke Gallic or a similar language at this time).

They probably had some Germanic words in their dialect, but this is to be expected. However, considering that it's noted that the Belgae and Gauls conversed without problems, this is likely because any outside influences in their languages (by this time; Latin in the Gauls language, Germanic in the Belgae language) were minimal, confined probably to slang, pronunciations, and local words and names of objects or items that were foreign to one another.

more screenshots please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

The translation for those units has been bugging me.... :book:

*Seleucid, Ptolemaic Pantodapoi - I´ve only seen this applied to pikeman from native/mixed population. Does pantopadoi, linguistically, imply the use of a pike as well or only their origin as you have here (since you separate them into town-watch and phalangites)?

*Machimos - on the other hand AFAIK this name refers only to the origin of the soldier - indigenous Egyptian soldier - so why not refer to the Ptolemaic Pantopadoi as Ptolemaic Machimos (as that would be in accordance with the logic of the other units I mentioned above, by having Ptolemaic Machimos Phalangites)?

*Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agemata - So these are military settlers of hellenic origin (I presume it derives from Klèrouchos) that form somekind of elite unit?

*Ptolemaic Basilikon Agemata - Royal Elite?

As terrible as my Greek is :help: .....

...my Gallic is non existent. As some of the guys here said, it´s not exactly a living tongue (ok....that sounded kind of gross....).

So can you enlighten us on the Gallic units?

:bow:

---

Pantodapoi Infantry = non-Greek militia. It could refer to Jews, Native Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, Aramaeans, Hyrcaneans, you get the picture. Perhaps there's a Pantodapoi Phalangitai unit as well ~;)

Machimoi have their own units.

Kleruchoi are land grant soldiers, almost like feudal soldiers.

Basileus (king) Agema (guard). Draw your conclusions.

So what does machimos mean then? I thought it meant native Egyptian soldiers........ :dizzy2:

Well at least I got the Ptolemaic Basilikon Agemata and Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agemata right...... ~D

[QUOTE=Sarcasm]The translation for those units has been bugging me.... :book:

*Seleucid, Ptolemaic Pantodapoi - I´ve only seen this applied to pikeman from native/mixed population. Does pantopadoi, linguistically, imply the use of a pike as well or only their origin as you have here (since you separate them into town-watch and phalangites)?

*Machimos - on the other hand AFAIK this name refers only to the origin of the soldier - indigenous Egyptian soldier - so why not refer to the Ptolemaic Pantopadoi as Ptolemaic Machimos (as that would be in accordance with the logic of the other units I mentioned above, by having Ptolemaic Machimos Phalangites)?

*Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agemata - So these are military settlers of hellenic origin (I presume it derives from Klèrouchos) that form somekind of elite unit?

*Ptolemaic Basilikon Agemata - Royal Elite?

As terrible as my Greek is :help: .....

Pantodapoi: means ''for every ground=all purpose''
Machimos: Combatant, soldier
Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agemata: this name is making no sense. Kleruchoi is prural of kleruchos=the one chosen by lottary, its still in use for drafted non professional soldiers that are serving for a period. Agema=unit,guard. Prural Agemata. So if you want the name to make sense must be ''Agemata kleruchon''meaning Agema of kleruchoi in greek grammar the ''of'' is indicated by the ending ''on'' of the word kleruchon. Its hard to explain in english maybe french or russian guys here can understand easier since they also have complex grammar.
So its not Basilikon Agemata its Basilikon Agema since before basilikon was single number and agemata plural.

Dont let unit names comfuse you most times they mean the same thing by different words in greek there are 1000 ways to say the same thing so words like machimos dont reffer to particular unit always but its rather general way to say warrior.

If you need any question about greek unit names or the right way to pronounce and set it with grammar rules ask me. I just wanna say dont rely much on translated history books since they scarce have the right pronounciation and spelling especially in english were they turn ''i'' to ''ai'' and ''h'' to ''k''. In greek we dont have special accent except maybe a scotish kind of ''r'' and vowels are ''clear'' ''a'' is ''a'' not ''ei'' etc.
Its not very difficult if you understand the basics russian grammar is very close since it has much too many greek elements so if any russians here maybe understand easier.

We are talking about ancient greek here, maybe some of these words had different meanings or uses in the past? :help:

They do have different meanings, and the grammar is different. I will, however, let Urnamma or Teleklos answer this.

I had a hunch they did....

Mind you, that isn't to say Irish and Gaelic (that's Scottish, in English; if one says Gaelic in English, proper etiquette is that they refer to Scottish, Irish is just called Irish in English) don't have Gallic influence. They do. It's just not the basis for it. Some Gallic words are in Irish (certain dialects more than others, specifically the dialects from where Gallic tribes inhabited more heavily than other places), and possibly some grammar, but if Irish came based on Gallic, it would be a much easier language for outsiders to learn, because it would be very similar to Latin.[/QUOTE]

Nonono Irish IS Gealic, the scotish are an irish tribe that salled to scotland and asilimated(sp?) with the picts hence there languange(sp?)being slightly different from Irish Gealic,Gealic has always been in Ireland and has been spoken there since pre-roman times! the speech of the scots is called Scots-gealic/Scotish(atleast i think, dont qoute me on that one) Get your facts strate man!

Back on topic: Great work guys! Do you think you could maybe realease differnt culture packs as they become complete? like Celtic pack Roman pack Greek pack then finally realeasing the hole thing in one!(sounds alittle farfeched i know but it could keep crazy fans like me off your back)

Quote:

---

Great work guys! Do you think you could maybe realease differnt culture packs as they become complete? like Celtic pack Roman pack Greek pack then finally realeasing the hole thing in one!(sounds alittle farfeched i know but it could keep crazy fans like me off your back)

---

Nah, cause then you couldn't play against the rest of the factions, as they wouldn't be historical. It'll be all at once.

No, Irish is a Gaelic language; Gallic is not in the same family. Goidilic IS Gaelic, but Gaelic is three different languages. I know, it's my first language (Irish), and in English, Irish do not call the Irish language Gaelic. We call the Scottish language Gaelic (hence it being a colloquialism, since technically, Irish, Manx, and Scottish are all Gaelic, but are three different languages).

The Scottish were not a tribe, they were about 12 tribes, in a tuath (a Goidilic clan). The Scottish language is very difficult for an Irishman to read or speak without being educated in it. And Gallic is nothing like Gaelic; they're two entirely different language families. Get YOUR facts straight. The Scots did not call themselves Scots; that name comes from a Roman word for the Goidils (ancient Gaels), Scotti. The Scotti were a tuath that migrated because the Ui Neill were spreading, and the Oirgal (east Goidils) were running out of space; so, they invaded modern Scotland. The Scottish language today is an amalgam of Goidilic, Pictish, Nordic, Norman, and Angle influences. Modern Irish is only amalgamated from Goidilic, Norse, a little Norman, and a few English words (in certain dialects, western dialects are Goidilic with Norse influence, but not near as heavy as the east). This makes them very different.

Gallic and Gaelic are not the same thing. And Irish Gaelic has NOT been spoken in Ireland since ancient times; what we recognize as being Gaelic only comes from the 6th century. Before that, the way verbs are conjugated, word structure, and the organization of sentences were entirely different (this language is called Goidilic, or early Gaelic, the basis of all the Goidilic languages, but it's not actually much like any of them in many ways). I've got my master's in Celtic Linguistics (specifically Q-Celtic, but we did a lot of work on P-Celtic and the dead Celtic languages); get your facts straight before 'correcting' some one in the most asinine way. The Gallic languages (which I've memorized what we know of them) are more like Latin; anyone who speaks a Gaelic language (Irish, Scottish, or Manx), can tell you immediately that Gaelic tongues sound nothing like Latin; Gallic, however, to the uneducated on the subject, can look almost identical.

Perhaps you can't tell the difference between Gallic and Gaelic because you're mispelling them; so I'll explain.

Two Ls; GaLLic; the language of the Gauls
EL; GaELic; the three languages of the Goidilic people: Irish, Manx, and Scottish; Scottish, which, in English, by native speakers of Irish, is referred to as Gaelic, despite all three languages being from the same root. Scottish and Manx and Irish are not 'slightly' different from one another. They're entirely seperate languages with a base root; it's like comparing French and Spanish.

ranika is scary.. someone hold me. :worried:

Sorry, simply don't much care for the rude manner in which an asinine accusation was delivered.

-
I can't keep all of that in memory! http://www.thelib.com/gallery/albums...ate%20poet.gif
-

Idomeneas may have valid point. I'll tell Teleklos and Umamma about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

Idomeneas may have valid point. I'll tell Teleklos and Umamma about this.

---

Sorry. I've got access to nothing very useful in the way of books where I am now. It'll be a week before I'm back at home. I am more familiar with the "settler" type meaning of the word, but I refuse to say anything very definitive till I can get to a big dictionary more easily.

Talked it over with Umamma, and he told me that the "-on" ending is just modern greek, thus the matter should be dropped.

Well as it was mentioned in another post the link of wich I cant recall now the time period of the game is Hellenistic and as such the Hellenistic "koine"=kini=common language ponounciation and structure wise is the base of the modern Hellenic language so one shouldnt base the language on the Archaic form but on the form of 270bc... It was transformed so the multicultural population of non Greek subjects of the Hellenistic Empires would read and pronounce it so the small fonts were introduced as the phoenetic symbols wich didnt exist in the Archaic Hellenic language...
While its highly debatable how the ancient Hellenic language was pronounced I believe that the Hellenistic kini was very similar in pronounciation to the modern hellenic language and even the Bible was written in it and is pronounced in any modern Greek Orthodox church...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Well as it was mentioned in another post the link of wich I cant recall now the time period of the game is Hellenistic and as such the Hellenistic "koine"=kini=common language ponounciation and structure wise is the base of the modern Hellenic language so one shouldnt base the language on the Archaic form but on the form of 270bc... It was transformed so the multicultural population of non Greek subjects of the Hellenistic Empires would read and pronounce it so the small fonts were introduced as the phoenetic symbols wich didnt exist in the Archaic Hellenic language...
While its highly debatable how the ancient Hellenic language was pronounced I believe that the Hellenistic kini was very similar in pronounciation to the modern hellenic language and even the Bible was written in it and is pronounced in any modern Greek Orthodox church...

Hellenes

---

I am currently not able to speak to this specific unit's title, but we will use the same classical (I would not call it "archaic") greek terminology that provides us the information we know about these units. For example, Xenophon and Polybios and other similar period writers will provide us with names of most units and descriptions. We must use their grammar, idioms, terminology, etc. I do wish someone would write some books however on Hellenistic common greek. What I've been able to get my hands on (with a lot of searching) just doesn't seem to be that thorough.

Another thing about these unit names: they definitely aren't the final ones. We will not use "Ptolemaic" anything, as that's the modern adjectival form. We have plenty of references to be able to give anything we want the proper classical greek adjectival form in its correct number, gender, case, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

I am currently not able to speak to this specific unit's title, but we will use the same classical (I would not call it "archaic") greek terminology that provides us the information we know about these units. For example, Xenophon and Polybios and other similar period writers will provide us with names of most units and descriptions. We must use their grammar, idioms, terminology, etc. I do wish someone would write some books however on Hellenistic common greek. What I've been able to get my hands on (with a lot of searching) just doesn't seem to be that thorough.

Another thing about these unit names: they definitely aren't the final ones. We will not use "Ptolemaic" anything, as that's the modern adjectival form. We have plenty of references to be able to give anything we want the proper classical greek adjectival form in its correct number, gender, case, etc.

---

The Gospels are as far as I know a "book" written in Hellenistic kini, well its moot point of arguing over something that neither sides will agree, and Erasmian "reconstruction" is up to anyones preference to adopt or not...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

The Gospels are as far as I know a "book" written in Hellenistic kini, well its moot point of arguing over something that neither sides will agree

---

I have no idea what is being offered as a complaint or alternative here. We will not be using New Testament Greek in this mod. As everyone knows it is indeed different. It does not pertain to our time period nor is it used by the people who are providing us with the information we have about these units we are using.

If someone wants to have the best information about this time period (and the game starts in 272bc), clearly he must use those authors who talk about these armies. Who would he use? He simply must use Polybios, Xenophon, and anyone who is close to this time frame, even if they date to a later period if he must (all things which I just stated). To try to turn their terms for these units and their descriptions for them into New Testament koine Greek is absolutely unthinkable (edit: and just doesn't really pertain here, as we are dealing with individual unit names almost exclusively, where koine changes don't really have an effect). Ask any professional historian, specifically any professional and Greek historian. That would be ridiculous and they would clearly agree.

I am just one person in a much larger mod, but I do not think we would agree to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Well as it was mentioned in another post the link of wich I cant recall now the time period of the game is Hellenistic and as such the Hellenistic "koine"=kini=common language ponounciation and structure wise is the base of the modern Hellenic language so one shouldnt base the language on the Archaic form but on the form of 270bc...

---

So, you're suggesting that Polybius (c. 200 - 118 BC) wasn't actually writing in "Archaic" Greek? What, was there some sort of conspiracy to translate his works into a form of Greek that didn't actually exist? That his documents aren't real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

So, you're suggesting that Polybius (c. 200 - 118 BC) wasn't actually writing in "Archaic" Greek? What, was there some sort of conspiracy to translate his works into a form of Greek that didn't actually exist? That his documents aren't real?

---

Polybius would be wrinting in Hellenistic dialiect of Greek. I think there was around three or four ancient greek dialects so I'm not sure what Polybius would speak in. It's hard to tell anything about these things unles you've read and analyzed Polybius in it's original form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Polybius would be wrinting in Hellenistic dialiect of Greek. I think there was around three or four ancient greek dialects so I'm not sure what Polybius would speak in. It's hard to tell anything about these things unles you've read and analyzed Polybius in it's original form.

---

What dialect do you mean? There is not a "Hellenistic dialect".
edit: I should ammend this. I see that some modern scholars do want to see different "branches" of koine greek, and one of those they do label as "Hellenistic". I can't find much on it at the time being, but it seems as though New Testament Greek is considered to be the "Hellenistic" variant of koine, by those who do wish to see a split inside koine.

Regarding the meaning of "Kleruchos":
"Kleros" (Κληρος) means a randomly distributed item or object.
In ancient times it was used for tracks of land provided to the soldiers by the state, like in the case of the Ptolemies. It was used to name these tracks of land as they were randomly distributed to the settlers by the state and NOT chosen or bought by them.
So the name "Kleruchos" (Κληρουχος, Κληρ-ουχος) means the obtainer of a "Kleros" thus the obtainer of a piece of land randomly provided to him by the state. Since, however, most of these people were settlers and the land was provided to them as return for their continuous military services, the meaning of Kleruchos came to be that of a military settler.

In modern greek, the word "kleros" retains it's original meaning of the randomly distributed object but it is usually used to name the "receipt" for the participation of a person into a lottary.
By the way, i think Idomeneas confused the "klerotoi" (κληρωτοι) who are non-professional soldiers who are drafted into the modern army with the "kleruchoi".

Quote:

---

Talked it over with Umamma, and he told me that the "-on" ending is just modern greek, thus the matter should be dropped.

---

This is not so in all cases. "Kleruchos" (κληρουχος) is the singular nom., "kleruchoi" (κληρουχοι) the plural nom., "kleruchon" (κληρουχων) the plural gen.
The -on ending in this case, actually -ων in greek, is the one of the plural genitive. It is NOT the -on ending (-ον in greek) of the singular nominative which Urnamma suggests to be a modern thing.

So, as far as i'm concerned, it should be Agemata Kleruchon (αγηματα κληρουχων), as Idomeneas suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Erasmian "reconstruction" is up to anyones preference to adopt or not...

---

Someone was asking me about this today. I should explain it here.

The pronunciation and transliteration techniques (or processes or conventions or whatever you want to call them) that EB is using aren't exactly the same. The pronunciation used in the voicemod is slightly different from the transliteration. It doesn't really have a single name either. It is not Erasmian exactly, but it is similar in a lot of respects to Erasmian pronunciation, and sometimes is classified itself as a type of Erasmian pronunciation even though it is not. It is sometimes referred to as "historical" pronunciation or sometimes as "classical pronunciation" or "philological" pronunciation. But whatever the name, the pronunciation system that we use is undoubtedly the closest approxmiation (without trying to perform tonal accents) that anyone anywhere can come up with today on how ancient classical greek actually sounded. You can see a rough presentation of it here: http://www.biblicalgreek.org/links/pronunciation.html where it is called "Historic Attic Pronunciation" (that page shows how close modern greek is to biblical greek though). It is also like the one presented in "Vox Graeca", which is found summarized here: http://www.biblicalgreek.org/links/erasmian.html .

The problem with using Erasmian, which was an attempt to try and get very close to ancient Greek in a modern pronunciation, is that it isn't close enough. It doesn't pronounce theta, phi, or rho quite the same as ancient classical greek did. Most modern classics departments in Europe and America follow Erasmian pronunciation, though they point out always that it is not quite accurate (but it is easy to use, so that's why they fall back on it). It probably would be fine for the mods, but since so many folks insist on it being as accurate as it can be, we use the "philological" pronunciation instead, which is more accurate.

The transliteration basically assumes an Erasmian pronunciation, and then uses K instead of C, AI instead of AE, OS instead of US, and a few other variations. Those C and AE and US transliterations have crept in through British convention following "Latinization" of the Greek. Why do we not use the exact same transliteration as pronunciation? I have never in my life seen a transliteration in an academic book of "t(h)" or just "t" for a theta. It's just not modern convention at all to do that. And it also would obscure the difference between tau and theta once it's turned into Latin letters from the Greek ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biguth dickuth

Regarding the meaning of "Kleruchos":
"Kleros" (Κληρος) means a randomly distributed item or object.
In ancient times it was used for tracks of land provided to the soldiers by the state, like in the case of the Ptolemies. It was used to name these tracks of land as they were randomly distributed to the settlers by the state and NOT chosen or bought by them.
So the name "Kleruchos" (Κληρουχος, Κληρ-ουχος) means the obtainer of a "Kleros" thus the obtainer of a piece of land randomly provided to him by the state. Since, however, most of these people were settlers and the land was provided to them as return for their continuous military services, the meaning of Kleruchos came to be that of a military settler.

In modern greek, the word "kleros" retains it's original meaning of the randomly distributed object but it is usually used to name the "receipt" for the participation of a person into a lottary.
By the way, i think Idomeneas confused the "klerotoi" (κληρωτοι) who are non-professional soldiers who are drafted into the modern army with the "kleruchoi".

---

I must admit that since i was writing that post at speed i made mistake about the enlish translation of ''kleruchos'' the right translation is yours the obtainer of a piece of land randomly provided to him by the state, my mistake. Now to all others. Guys please understand that modern greek include 90 or more percent of all the ancient words in original form or in other words as composite. Yes we do not have words like ''porpax'' (the support were the elbow came through to get the grip of the shield) cause we dont have shields anymore etc. Thousands of other words are still here. So dont tell me that basic grammar characteristics changed like the general -ων unless you can prove it. The common hellenistic dialect isnt so mysterious as you made it sound. Its basically the attic dialect. The thing that propably Hellenes wants to point out is the invention of accent marks wich were introduced in those years along with the lower case letters. A remain of these accent points is even the ''h'' before Hellas. We pronounce it ''Ellas'' the ''H'' substitudes that accent mark that is still ''remembered'' in many european languages while we stopped use it after the 80's.
So my point is that since you are trying so hard for realism in languages lost long ago shouldnt a still living language to be completely correct in this game? You see that guys from greece are willing to help, why should you stick to a wrong word or grammar huge errors when you can avoid easily? So PLEASE listen to people who actually SPEAK the language not just reading about it. Unless offcourse if you can support your arguements with real facts and not translations of unknown quality. Many times in TV i saw documentaries where english proffessors were reading ancient greek and i was trying to figure out what possibly they might meant! ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Polybius would be wrinting in Hellenistic dialiect of Greek. I think there was around three or four ancient greek dialects so I'm not sure what Polybius would speak in. It's hard to tell anything about these things unles you've read and analyzed Polybius in it's original form.

---

Jesus Christ man! stop comfusing everybody. What three or four? where did you read about that? The official dialect by that time was attic offcourse every region had its own like today. And not exactly dialect its a heavy word more like accent i would say. But in any case the basic grammar rules still were the same. I understand you live abroad and its a great thing you interesting about our heritage, but read alot first man most of what you say are inaccurate and people look up to you since you said youre greek. Dont get me wrong but there are things more important than you or me. Historic truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

Talked it over with Umamma, and he told me that the "-on" ending is just modern greek, thus the matter should be dropped.

---

BOINNNGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

So my point is that since you are trying so hard for realism in languages lost long ago shouldnt a still living language to be completely correct in this game? You see that guys from greece are willing to help, why should you stick to a wrong word or grammar huge errors when you can avoid easily? So PLEASE listen to people who actually SPEAK the language not just reading about it. Unless offcourse if you can support your arguements with real facts and not translations of unknown quality. Many times in TV i saw documentaries where english proffessors were reading ancient greek and i was trying to figure out what possibly they might meant! ~:confused:

---

why is this so hard to understand? if there was a mod of a game about medieval england and it wanted to include recordings of voices that sounded like english did in the time period in question, and there were several french and german guys who studied old english and knew it well and were in charge of that part of the mod, and they were actually pleading for some english or american to make the recordings, provided that they either studied old english a lot or at least would abide by what are internationally known standards of how english sounded for that period, would it make sense to moan and rend hair and belittle them about the fact that it's not an english or american doing it and doing it just speaking modern british or american english? that is exactly what is being demanded here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

We are talking about ancient greek here, maybe some of these words had different meanings or uses in the past? :help:

---

Well im not just an ignirant modern greek and i dont think you can possibly know more ancint greek than me so....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

why is this so hard to understand? if there was a mod of a game about medieval england and it wanted to include recordings of voices that sounded like english did in the time period in question, and there were several french and german guys who studied old english and knew it well and were in charge of that part of the mod, and they were actually pleading for some english or american to make the recordings, provided that they either studied old english a lot or at least would abide by what are internationally known standards of how english sounded for that period, would it make sense to moan and rend hair and belittle them about the fact that it's not an english or american doing it and doing it just speaking modern british or american english? that is exactly what is being demanded here.

---

NO no dont get me wrong please. I dont care who will do it or where he comes from i just wanna do it right. Its very difficult to find somebody who actually knows celtic dialects of that time but is not hard at all to find somebody to advice you about some basic elementary things that never changed in thousands of years. Maybe i need to post an Iliad passage in original form to see for yourself? Im trying to set few things right, and not just me but other guys that SPEAK the language also so maybe you should listen to us just for a change? I assure you that the grammar corrections of the names stands the same for at least 4000 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

Well im not just an ignirant modern greek and i dont think you can possibly know more ancint greek than me so....

---

Well, I will not presume to know more of your language than you do, but in this case you have been proven wrong, namely the specific meaning of the word Klèrouchos in this context. biguth dickuth explained the meaning which was the one I thought was the correct one as well, so I doubted you. Sue me.

Unless you are schooled in ancient Greek do not presume to know it completely (and even then...), as I don´t presume to understand every bit of Early Medieval Portuguese. Sure I can understand 90% of it as well, but I can be wrong, and proven wrong by other people, even if they´re not Portuguese. Note that I´m not saying that you´re wrong or that they are wrong. Forgive me, but it´s just that you´re sounding way too arrogant to my liking.



oh.....and it´s ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Well, I will not presume to know more of your language than you do, but in this case you have been proven wrong, namely the specific meaning of the word Klèrouchos in this context. biguth dickuth explained the meaning which was the one I thought was the correct one as well, so I doubted you. Sue me.

Unless you are schooled in ancient Greek do not presume to know it completely (and even then...), as I don´t presume to understand every bit of Early Medieval Portuguese. Sure I can understand 90% of it as well, but I can be wrong, and proven wrong by other people, even if they´re not Portuguese. Note that I´m not saying that you´re wrong or that they are wrong. Forgive me, but it´s just that you´re sounding way too arrogant to my liking.



oh.....and it´s ignorant.

---

In case you didnt read right i said i made a mistake bymyself case i was speeding to write the post and here its very late at night. I guess you never made a mistake being tired. Thanks for the correction i know its IGNORANT but i dont care much about spelling when im writing fast sue me... Im not arrogant i just know whwt i say and except my mistake on the etymology of the word the rest was all correct. Im not saying that somebody not greek is impossible to know much about ancient greek, that would make me happy as well, but i cant sit and read people with attitude of 17 cardinals to say things about greek language that even kids in elementary school knows and then justifying themselves by using ''dialect'' and ''archaic'' type of arguments. I watch people trying to find a word of a long lost celtic or sarmatian or whatever language and the most basic greek is wrong in many places. Now how does this sound to you. I started posting just ADVICES i wanna HELP since im greek and know many about ancient history and language so this mod can be more accurate. What would you think if i was naming a medieval Portuguise unit in a completely wrong way according to the most basic rules of grammar?(number, genitive etc.) Wouldnt you correct me in good will? and if i was answering in a way that has no actual basis wouldnt you protest? If you notice i also asked from Byzantine Prince to be carefull and dont comfuse people who might look up to him for an answer since he declared he is greek. That means I ve got something against him? offcourse not. But we must be carefull in what we say. I made a mistake and at first chance I admited it as i should do. That doesnt prove wrong everything i said i say and will say. If anybody here knew even basic greek would have seen the mistake long ago dont you think? Im just trying to help so the accuracy of the mod wont be in question by a small but basic detail like a unit name. ~;)

Yeah so, pretty screenshots, huh?

*hopes the thread isn't locked*