so whats new for armenia and numidia?? heh
Printable View
so whats new for armenia and numidia?? heh
i desperately want to be the first to make a clever comment on your sig.
but i am not CLEVER. :bigcry: :goofy:
Some One Post Here !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Numidia is currently not an active faction, until CA makes it possible for the EB team to add more factions. It`s repalced with the Greaco-baktrians.
i would like to point out that the effect of the word idiots is lessened if you spell it IDOITS.
also, these forums aren't visited as frequently as others, be patient.
What kind of question is that anyway?
We replaced it with Baktria.Quote:
Originally Posted by cunctator
That's RTR's name, not ours. ~;)Quote:
Greaco-baktrians
RTR's wrong name. ~;)
1. why ?Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
2. who will be the opponent of carthage in north africa ?
3. why ?
4. why ?
5. what about realism and history ?
6. where are massinisa , gullusa , iogurtha ?
7. why ?
~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused: :book: ~:confused:
Carthage's great enemy was Rome, not Numidia. What is Numidia's real importance? Their soldiers often worked for Rome and Carthage, and did near nothing on their own that can't be represented just as easily as rebels and regional units. Baktria became a significant eastern power. Baktria became far too significant in the events of the east to disclude them in favor of a faction that's only true significance was service to two actual major powers. What real major events were orchestrated by Numidia itself, or massive trade endeavors? To whom were they a real threat or major obstacle? Every faction in provides a fill to having been a major enemy or ally of world powers of the period. Our western European/African factions include Romans, Gauls, Britons, Carthage, Iberians, and Germans; the major players if the area. Rome for clearly obvious reasons, Carthage as well should be obvious, the Gauls, Iberians, and Germans were all major enemies of Rome, and propagated extremely important parts of what would develop into being 'western society', the British islanders were some of the most prolific traders in Europe (trading tin, silver, dyes, linen, etc.) with numerous major powers in the mediterranean, and were a complex grouping of 5 cultures (not 1); that is harder to represent than Numidians, which are a single culture, and easier to represent with a few regional units. Britons are arguably the least important faction we've selected in the period, but I'd still vouch for them over Numidians; Britons at least accomplished a modest amount of unifying expansion. Numidians were ancilliaries; side players of the stage of ensuing events, rarely accomplishing anything themselves. Perhaps we should include Ligurians? They sometimes rebelled against their masters, and were allies of Gaul (and Carthage, by proxy). But they did little themselves, they accomplished nothing of importance. They certainly had interesting armies; a mixture of Celtic and Italic/Mediterranean combat philosophies and equipment. But they were simply not prolific or important enough to include, considering the scope. If the scope were smaller (like set only in the regions of the Punic Wars and immediate surrounding territories) the Numidians (and Ligurians, for that matter, who are admittedly more minor than Numidia, but similar in pertinent historical aspects) would be fine. Given our scope though, without the ability to add new factions, or some faction space left over, they simply aren't important enough when stacked against their replacement, Baktria.
So, the big battlefield of the West is going to be Iberia, with Iberians Carthaginians and Gauls all holding on to their territories....
Sorry, i mixed that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Gauls have no territory in Iberia, they never did. The larger region of western Europe's initial conflict would be around the Italic peninsula. Carthaginian interests in Italy had to combat with Romans, who were already up against Gauls. Iberians, being allies of Carthage, would come into the war at Carthage's support. Gauls would ally with Carthage to further their own interests; they were already enemies of Rome, and had been major enemies for a little over a century (Brennos's sack of Rome around 380 BC).
CA started the vanilla game with Gaul holding Celtiberia, but that's stupid. Celtiberians aren't even considered 'real' Celts; merely Celtic-cultural descendants, who had largely been absorbed into the Iberian culture. They lacked near enough 'Celtic' culture to call them Celts, but CA apparently didn't understand the difference between a 'Celtic' and a 'Celtiberian' culture.
Well, they both start with "celt"... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Yeah, I know the history, I was just wondering if you have redistributed the initial posessions as well, or just left the vanilla ones.
Initial territorial holdings are based upon the historical holdings, as best we can understand, of a faction at the given time. Gaul, for example, represents the Aedui, who controlled, directly, several tribes directly around them in a feudal manner, and also had 'client' tribes in southern and Cisalpine Gaul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Does that mean the Gauls will hold Segestica and/or Mediolanum? If you havent replaced them, that is.
so let me get this straight.
Thrace = ....
Numidia = Baktria
Britannia = illyria or are the thracians illyria and are the britons still the britons
Segestica was in a Ligurian region, if I recall (and I could be mistaken); as such, the Gauls wouldn't hold it at the time (after the Celts drove them from the Po river basin, the Ligurians and Celts fought for a while; they took control of some Celtic towns and regions, though I cannot recall exactly what was in Ligurian hands at the time). The Gauls WILL have a Cisalpine Gaul territory, but I believe only one (and Liguria would not be it). More of Cisalpine Gaul was controlled by the Aedui's opposing kingdom, the Arverni, and their substantial number of 'allied' (more or less subjugated) tribes, not to mention the indepedent Boii's territories.
Oh, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
Illyria was an April Fool's joke. IT WAS A LIE. They will not be a playable faction.
Shame What A Shame That There Is No Illyria Faction (worst April Fools Day Joke In My Life)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
Well, mate, next time you make a mod you can include Ilyria or even Simmeria if you want. The EB team has included what they've considered more suitable.
Considering the limitations of factions, the Illyrians simply didn't seem important enough to subplant any of our current factions. We chose what factions we did on a number of criteria; expansionism, their effect on their region (and importance historically), their indepedence in those matters, how many factions are populating a region (kind of minor, that; historical importance is more of a concern, but this can be used sometimes if the faction can't be decided), gameplay limitations (culture limits, model limits, etc.), and their general importance on the world stage (based upon trade and the like) tend to be the major points of arguing for or against a faction. Illyria had been mentioned before, but I believe we've decided against it, for any number of reasons, in favor of the factions we're working with now.
I still wonder how you'll explain that Bactria will be a faction on its own at the begining of the campaign. I think I heard somewhere the start date would be 271, and Bactria became independant only in 247 (I think).
My point is, why bactria and not, for example, Pergamene (Pergamum, or however you spell it) ? I don't really know what Bactria achieved after 247 (or the date it became independant), while I know Pergam/ene/um ruled a large empire in asia minor.
Baktria will be a faction of its own in the same way that Parthia and Armenia will be, neither of whom were independent in 272 BC.
Parthia the province was held by the Seleucids at this time but the Parni tribes who would later become the Parthians were independent of ANY outside control. The Parni took their name from the province of Parthia when they later conquered it thus becoming theParthians.
Armenia was only nominaly a vassal state of the Seleucids and largely went their own way and this would also shortly after 270 BC be the state of affairs for the Bactrian region as well. The Seleucids simply did not have the power to control the vast regions they held.
This sounds interesting Ranika can you enlighten me about 5 British cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
I am very interested in Celtic cultures in general......
I can come up with The Caledonians, Geals, Belgae but the other 2 are ~:confused: for me
Belgae, Goidils (Gaels), Caledonians, Midlanders, and Southerners.
Belgae inhabit parts of Ireland and parts of southern Britain. Goidils inhabit most of Ireland. Caledonians, of course, inhabit Caledonia. Midlanders are P-Celtic speaking 'Britons', and are the only 'actual' Britons. The southern 'Britons' are actually essentially Gauls or Belgae, depending on the region. They have some distinguishing characteristics and unique natures to them, but they're more similar to Gauls/Belgae than they are to the midlanders or Caledonians.
Ok thank you for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Are EB doing the same with the Gauls divide them in subculture groups
Like Amoricans, Eastern Celts (Helvetii,Nori) Southern Gauls Norther Gauls etc...
Or are the "Gallic" cultures more alike then the Insular Celts?!
PS: Where the Alpine and subAlpine Celts the direct ancestors of the first celts.
I know that the Hallstatt Culture starts in this area.
Eastern Celts will have a few regional units. Gaul itself is much more homogenized, but has some main varied areas. Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul, and Belgica. Noricum and its surrounding areas aren't truly 'Gallic', but they are Celts, but with numerous Hellenic influences, and will have a few regional units to display their variety from Gaul. There will be variety of continental Celts, but the variety of cultures in eastern Europe is quite wide, so things will generally be a bit more generic.
Has it been determined with some degree unanimity that the Picts were indeed Celts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Not really. We know so little of the Picts it's kind of hard to tell. If you go off the descriptions of those who converted them, the southern Picts were definitely Celts, but the northern Picts were almost surely not (they didn't speak a language related to any of the other British or Irish languages; their culture is described in a way that seems to describe a quasi-nomadic people, they lacked a concept of last names, and instead associated their families with 'houses', vaguely similar to a tribe or clan, but not based on bloodlines, the method and commonality of their tattoos, etc.). However, in this period, the Picts don't actually exist. Pict is not a culture or race. Pict was a confederacy of Caledonian tribes that formed to combat Roman pressure in the south. They were, at different times, allies of the Gaels, and enemies. The weapons they used, their armor, and so on, were rather unusual in the north. They could still potentially be Celts, just very awkward Celts (much in the way that Gaelic Celts are actually barely considered Celts in the iron age. Native and Iberian influences are very strong in Gaelic culture). I'd be wary of calling the northern Picts definitively Celts or non-Celts, though I'd learn toward the latter.
I wish someone would figure it out or find something definitively proving one way or another. I was under the impression that the Picts (for the most part, I suppose) were Celts, based on the style of art carved into their standing stones, but it's pretty flimsy by itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
well, one Could state that nobody can really have a say, since Elemental total war is no more then 1 post...Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Gander
ok but my questions were for the sake of realism and game playQuote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
realism - there was a numidian kingdom that fought against carthage for centuries and the romans used it to limit the punic empire in north africa
you should remember the jugorthine war . the most important war of rome between the years 134 to 89 (between the numantine war and the marsic war) so how can one say that numidia was nothing ??
game play - in strategy game you should have minor factions like numidia to use them as buffer states . to use them as a base of operations against major factions etc' it's make the game more interesting
about baktria . i really don't know ... what they did ? they fought the parthians and seleusids with no success so ...
btw . good work ! ~:cheers:
The decision there has been made. There is no going back on it. I'd like to have numidia too, but baktria is more deserving. But you're totally wrong about the relative success between baktria and numidia. Baktria had a dynastic kingdom that covered a large area in central asia and then was forced into their southern possessions by nomadic incursions. They still controlled a large section of northwestern India even then before we lose track of them and they are somewhat absorbed into the larger Indian culture. At its height, it encompassed an area comprising all of Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, up to the Indus River. Quite possibly controlled large areas south of there too, but it's hard to say about some of the areas with limited excavations.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
The style of art they use precedes Celts in the British isles. It appears on monoliths that are present before Celtic incursions, and is usually not actually that Celtic in appearance (except superficially). They favored clumps of spirals of varying size and direction. While that may look Celtic to some, it's not. Celts did use spirals, but they were arrayed in an orderly fashion with common patterns. Northern Pict art is rather wild and seems purposely disorganized to an extent. Their anthromorphic imagery doesn't show up until midlanders and southern Britons migrated north to escape the Romans (subsequently, due to that, the formerly undeveloped Caledonians suddenly acquired a great deal of La Tene culture, in the south, and somewhat in the north). When the Picts formed, the south was definably Celtic, and the dark age kingdoms of Strathclyde, Regydd, Gonnodin (all not Picts), were British Celts (though Regyddites had a substantial Gaelic Celt population), Fibb was Celtic (they were the southern Picts), as was Dal Riada (the Gaelic kingdom that would become formative into Alba), but the north kingdom (Caithness) has substantially less Celtic influence. If we called them Celts, it's a very loose usage of the term. A few Celtic swords, the occassional piece of Celtic art (mostly brought in by Christian conversion by Gaelic monks), etc. It probably doesn't help that Caithness was more effected by Gaels than it was by Britons. As such, they were being Celticized by a culture that was barely Celtic anyway. Mixed with their own culture and extreme isolatanism, it heavily dilutes what changes they did experience, and makes them all but superficial. When the House of Dilei took control of both the north and south kingdoms though, and formed a single Pict kingdom, the north absorbed more Celtic culture, due to the southern kingdom being Celtic, with some old Caledonian influences. It's notable, however, that the Pict government system was a form of monarchic-despotism; a rather unchecked monarch who came to power by bloodline (actually how Alba ended up taking control of all of remaining Pict lands, the king, Kenneth mac Alpin was considered the rightful heir; interesting side note, the Christian missionaries noted that, while they were extremely patriarchal, their king was decided by the matriolinical line). Celtic governments were more along the lines of a vaguely anarcho-capitalistic republican-monarchy. Everyone was elected to their position, 'heirs' more often just meant the inheritor of a business (and thus wealth and power that comes with it), and had little to do with politics. Also, the matter of an extreme patriarchal society does not fully fit (though it's concievable) with how Celts saw gender (essentially a non-issue in terms of politics). Celts usually did worship male gods as the creator of the universe, but that doesn't mean they were patriarchal societally (though certainly not matriarchal either). The northern Picts saw women as property, according to St. Columba, which was considered abhorrent by their neighbors (including the Fibban Picts). In terms of religion, Picts were obsessed with death gods, which lended itself to Christian conversion by relating the plagues, the ressurection, and other biblical events, to concepts they understood from their own religion, which seems quite a bit disassociated with Celtic religions (who had death gods, but they generally prefered law and hero gods). Picts were said to have 'little knowledge of good or evil, and live through a concept of pure strength being best'; this is completely incompatible with any known Celtic philosophies, which are almost always based on good (obeying the law, family, king, and religion, respecting slaves, enemies, elders, and children {very important}), and evil (disobediance and disrespect to such things). Picts wantonly executed children during wars with Dal Riada. That seems untennable to being 'true' Celts. Perhaps they just had war-mad leaders (such as Boudicca's mass executions of Romano-British women, including children, during her revolt in the 1st century, but it's notable those were sacrifices to Andraste), but Celts did not tend to kill children purposely. It was against the law; they were supposed to adopt them to bolster their tribes and make them stronger by absorbing foreign blood, taking their strengths and filtering out foreign weaknesses. They even did that with slaves. Slaves were often adopted into a tribe after so long in service. Of course, accounts of them may be trumped up a bit, but the missionaries hardly talk about any other people in Britain as being remotely so brutal, even people their cultures were less friendly with. The Picts are described in such an ogrish manner, and with customs devoid of seemingly any Celtic influence. Celts could be very harsh and brutal, but not on such a scale as the men of the north Picts were described, and it makes it hard to see them as 'real' Celts, but, the Christian Picts were substantially more Celtic. They adopted the Gaelic method of names (first name, 'son of' father's name, 'tribe' name, like Drude mac Cord Delei), numerous Celtic words (such as 'mac', from the Gaelic languages), Celtic artwork (produced in monastaries; since they were converted by Celts, and taught to do monastic duties by them, this only makes sense that they would produce Celtic monastic art), Celtic metalwork, stonework, etc. Christian conversion, and the uniting of Fibb and Caithness (and Monouth, to an extent, which was a third kingdom, but it's essentially more north Picts), led to a Celticization of the Picts, but even then they're really bizarre, but at that point, they are a type of quasi-Celt, at least, or just very awkward Celts.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
When did Ireland really became "Celtic" in culture.....
Where only the Belgae and maybe Gaulish refugees from ceasar's Gallic war responsible for bringing celtic culture in Ireland?!
Many people confuse germanic art with celtic art...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
I time a go there was a documentation about the ancient celts on discovery channel and they where showing some celic art examples.
Between the la-tene artifacts I saw some artifacts that where not celtic.......but a viking age dragon head of a ship and some frankish/saxon jewels..........
Discovery channel.........................
Ireland's first Celtic inhabitants are from around approximately 500 BC. Also present were Gaedals from Iberia in the south, Brigantes from Britain inhabitted the northeast coast, and Gaul's migrated to Ireland before the Gallic wars. Most refugees of the war went to Britain (the south was Gallic in culture, essentially, Ireland was a mix of the Gaedalic and Celtic cultures, and was very awkward culturally by comparison). Notable Gaedalic portions of the early Celtic-Irish inhabitants includes much of their clothing (knee-length shirts), the language (Q-Celtic language families are unlike P or Continental Celt languages), and a number of weapons and architectural style.
So there IS quite a bit known about the Picts.
Not that much. If I had the gumption, I could probably write up all the verifiable facts in under two hours, but I'm too lazy, and the best chunk of them I already stated. We know little about their language, very little about their day to day life, except assumptions based on the vague bits we do know, etc. Until they're almost identical to Dal Riadans, they're a kind of mystery. By the time they resemble Dal Riadans, they're almost wiped out, and there's little to be said of their culture at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Hey, play nice. "Greco-Bactrian Kingdom" isn't an incorrect appellation. It's a perfectly normal and acceptable name for the kingdom that broke away from the Seleucids, as opposed to the general region or its rulership over the course of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
-Simetrical
I can't see whats wrong with it. but wasnt Baktria half greek half indian?
Yeah, sorry. The kingdom itself was called Bactria though. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
No, the Bactrians (natives) were a central asian people. The Greeks were there, the native bactrians were there, indians and indo-greeks were there (though they were concentrated in india, when the bactrians conquered it) and sakae were also there. The administration was Greek/Bactrian (frequently intermarried). The language was certainly Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby