Faction names.

Printable View

10-25-2005, 15:43
Craterus

Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greek_fire19

Complete faction list is:

Rome (probably 4 factions though it has not been revealed how they will be divided) (Roma)
gauls (aedui)
germans (sweboz)
Iberians
Carthaginians (tsorim)
Britons (casse)
Macedonians (makedonia)
Allied Hellenes
Bactrians (Baktria)
Parthians (parni)
Sarmatians (sauromatae)
Pontus (pontos)
Seleucids (arche seleukia)
Ptolemeics (ptolemaoi)
Armenians
Thracians
Dacians
Rebels (eleutheroi)

The Aedui were the largest Gallic tribe, I'll give you that. But just because something is the largest, does it mean you refer an entire race by it's name? By this rule, all Americans are Texans. Historically, Gauls were known as Gauls. They had their individual tribes, but unless you are going to use faction slots to accomodate for all the tribes, don't refer to Gauls by the name of one tribe.

Historically, Carthaginians were known as Carthaginians. I have read a few history books about Carthage and I've never heard the term Tsorim. The Romans referred to them as Carthaginians, so why aren't you?

Why do you feel it is necessary to change the name of every faction? CA might not have made the best game, but I think they were "spot-on" with the faction names (bar the Romans). Why do you feel it is necessary to change the name of every faction? The only reason I can think of is that you want to make the game "your own".

If you want me to believe your names are even close to historical reality, give me reference, authors, book titles etc.
10-25-2005, 15:50
Reverend Joe

Re: Faction names.

Oh, dear god no.

:hide:
10-25-2005, 15:51
cunobelinus

Re: Faction names.

To add to that: CASSE, as far as I0 know and i have read a few books on briton and the celts, was only a small tribe and was not the name of the whole country. I also agree with him on the point of Gaul. Also the rebels were not called Eleutheroi by any stretch of your imagination. They were known as lots of different names, all under different rulers, but you cant really do that with the number of faction slots available..

Also, the Parthians were not called Parni. They were called Parthians. I could understand if you called them Persians, but not Parni.
10-25-2005, 16:13
Sheep

Re: Faction names.

I'll take this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

Also the rebels were not called Eleutheroi by any stretch of your imagination.

Well what WOULD you call the collection of rebels rolled into one giant faction that hard-coding forces us to have? They can't name the faction in every language of every rebel province in the game. Greek was a very common language in the Mediterranean and beyond around 270BC, so why not name the faction in Greek?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

The Aedui were the largest Gallic tribe, I'll give you that. But just because something is the largest, does it mean you refer an entire race by it's name?

You'd be right... if EB was referring to the entire "race" of Gauls. But they aren't, they are referring to the specific tribal confederation known as the Aedui. The faction doesn't represent all the Gauls... it doesn't hold all the Gallic territory... just that of the Aedui and their allies. The other Gauls are represented by rebels in rebel provinces (assuming they haven't been hiding an Arverni faction from us). Representing the entire Gallic "race" as one unified faction in 270BC is just as historically inaccurate as referring to the entire collection of Gallic tribes as the Aedui, which you seem to have a problem with. So EB decided to just pick one tribe and go with that.

Quote:

Historically, Carthaginians were known as Carthaginians. I have read a few history books about Carthage and I've never heard the term Tsorim. The Romans referred to them as Carthaginians, so why aren't you?

EB doesn't give a flip what the Romans called the Carthaginians, they are interested in what the Carthaginians called the Carthaginians. Factions are named (as best as possible) using the native tongue OF THE FACTION ITSELF.

That being said, EB has already scrapped the name "Tsorim" and I think they are now using "Karthadashtim" or something to that effect... basically "Carthaginians" in Phoenician.

Quote:

Why do you feel it is necessary to change the name of every faction?

Couple reasons:

1) To make the content of the faction more close to historical accuracy, for most of the barbarian factions, EB has settled on using one single tribe to represent. This has resulted in a number of very specific names, such as Casse for the Britons (representing only one tribe in one province in Britannia), the Suebi for the Germans (representing a tribal confederacy in only a few provinces in Germania), the afore-mentioned Aedui for the Gauls, and the Getai for the Thracians/Dacians (another single powerful tribe). These tribes DO NOT represent all the tribes of their ethnic group, and WILL NOT hold all the territory historically held cumulatively by those tribes, just the territory and people that belonged to those SPECIFIC tribes. If there was no faction limit, EB would represent each major tribe or confederation of tribes with its own faction. But there is a faction limit, so this is the compromise they have made.

2) To name the factions in their own tongue. You may wish to play the game from a Roman perspective, but not everyone does. I'm pretty sure the Armenians didn't go around calling themselves Armenians in 270BC. They more likely used "Hayasdan" to describe their nation (such as it was). This is the same reason that all the units are named in their native tongues, instead of English words like "Armenian skirmishers" or "Sarmatian horse archers." It's about immersion... from ANY faction's perspective.

Quote:

If you want me to believe your names are even close to historical reality, give me reference, authors, book titles etc.

Let's see your references that all of the peoples near the Mediterranean named themselves in English (or Latin) in 270BC. C'mon, I want to see where the Parthians called themselves "Parthians".

We're waiting.
10-25-2005, 16:14
Antagonist

?

I don't think the "tribal" factions such as the Aedui and Casse are intended to represent the entire "faction" they are conceived to belong to. If you look at the most recent faction map you can see that the Casse, for example, do not control or represent the entire of Britain, only a single area of it.
10-25-2005, 16:23
the_handsome_viking

Re: Faction names.

we're going to learn, no matter how much we kick and scream.

after playing this mod youll be speaking classical latin.
10-25-2005, 16:26
Sheep

Re: Faction names.

I might add that the list in the first post is extremely old. There is now only one Roman faction and Thrace and Dacia have been combined as well. We await announcement of the last mystery faction!
10-25-2005, 16:42
Sarcasm

Re: Faction names.

...And these guys win awards? :rolleyes:
10-25-2005, 16:50
Moros

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheep

EB doesn't give a flip what the Romans called the Carthaginians, they are interested in what the Carthaginians called the Carthaginians. Factions are named (as best as possible) using the native tongue OF THE FACTION ITSELF.

That being said, EB has already scrapped the name "Tsorim" and I think they are now using "Karthadashtim" or something to that effect... basically "Carthaginians" in Phoenician.

Isn't Karthadashtim the name of the city? I believed the Phoenicians named it Karthadashtim and that it meant "New city" in phoenician.
10-25-2005, 17:04
Teleklos Archelaou

Re: Faction names.

If we want to just have a faction of Gauls that represent the places the Aedui controlled in 272 (instead of *all* "Gallic" lands), then we should name them what they called themselves (the group we are depicting) in 272, or what best represents that particular faction. Sometimes it's the area (Baktria) when no known political or ethnic grouping would be better. Sometimes it's a political entity when different regions and ethnicities are held together by a strong government (Arche Seleukeia, the Ptolemaioi). Sometimes it's ethnicity or even "sub-ethnicity" when we depict only a certain group of people who are tied together in a different way (like Aedui or Pahlava). It varies from faction to faction, but it is incredibly ignorant to barge in here and say "If you want me to believe your names are even close to historical reality, give me reference, authors, book titles etc." I, for one, could care less whether you believe it or not. But as a professional in this field, when I reflect upon the names we are using, and the rigorous and intensive process we went through to get them, I get plenty of good sleep at night. ~:)

edit: oh, Eleutheroi. Yeah, that one was tough. There's no word to refer to all other peoples. Nothing. They aren't "rebels" (lame term to refer to nomadic peoples, smaller "empires", ethnicities, etc. that are all lumped together). So "free peoples" is what we chose. What language to put it in? Greek is clearly the most common language, though it can't cover everyone. It's better than latin (a second choice maybe), in 272 though. So we put "free peoples" in greek and that's that.

edit2: Can't resist. This is now one of my favorite sentences! "Historically, Carthaginians were known as Carthaginians." Sweet!!!
10-25-2005, 17:06
Ranika

Re: Faction names.

As for the Casse; they were a small tribe. Individually. Technically, so were the Aedui; only a small percentage of those in the Aedui's confederation were actually members of the Aedui tribe specifically. However, the Aedui were politically in control of substantial lands and sub-tribes that get lumped into 'Aedui'. The Casse were little different. The Cenimages (proto-Iceni) were part of them, and most tribes in the region around them had yielded to them. Until they were replaced (non-violently, at that; it was a political movement) by the Catuvellaunians, none but the Brigantes had as much stability in terms of a kingdom in Britain, and the Brigantes hardly managed any expansion; the Casse, and then Catuvellaunians brought most of Britain under their control (though they dealt with rebellions, insurrections, and all other manner of treachery; culminating in the exile, or arrest and execution, of pro-Roman nobles, which brought the island to Roman intentions again, about 100 years after Caesar; pro-Roman nobles from all over the southern 2/3rds of Britain had to flee, so far stretched was the arm of the Catuvellaunians).

It would be incorrect to call them Britons; this they surely didn't call themselves; they adopted 'Pretan', and called themselves 'Pretannae' according to a few sources, from Greeks, and sometimes modified it as 'Pryten'; this was modified by Romans into 'Briton', but since the faction does not initially encompass all peoples known as 'Pretannae', this would be inappropriate anyway to call them; they had a specific identity.

In Gaul, again, the faction has a specific identity (I'm more or less going to take this chance to explain the situation of Gaul again). They aren't 'Gauls', they are the Aedui Confederation; a long-standing body of tribes with a senate-like governmental body adjudicated by magistrates who organize local chiefs and kings to the service of a central proto-federal body, not unlike modern republics (they even had elected officials at every tier of government; this isn't just Celtic bloviating, the Romans mention it, and it's part of the reason the Aedui and Romans got along originally; they were governed essentially the same way and had a cultural understanding); it's a specific political body that was vying for control of Gaul (and legally, at that; they technically did inherit control of the entire kingdom of Gaul from the Biturges, but poor efforts against the Belgae and Germanic tribes caused a massive loss of faith, and the region split into various warring kingdoms and confederations). They weren't 'Gaul'; there were numerous bodies that believed they had the right to control Gaul, specifically the Arverni; the most militant of those who broke away, under the leadership of a Verrix (literally 'super-king' or 'great-king'; it's essentially 'high king'), an elected office that was passed through tanistry (electing a replacement before the current official dies, usually, but not always by any means, from the current official's family). The Arverni were eventually edged out in power in this 'over-kingdom' (commonly called an 'alliance', but in truth, the 'allies' of whichever tribe was in control of the Verrix were more or less his puppets) by their allies, the Sequanes. Again, this is a political body. Other bodies included the Aquitanni Alliance; an alliance between the Basque-Celtic Aquitanni, and their king (the Aquitanorix; literally 'King of Aquitane') and the Lemovicians (and their vassals). They were less concerned with conquest of Gaul though, and more concerned with keeping themselves indepedent (which they failed to do; both, at different times, had to yield to either the Aedui or Arverni, and, of course, eventually to the Romans). There were also the Armoricans, a collection of partially Belgic-Gauls (Belgae had settled down there during their invasions of Gaul, after the invasion was put down by the Carnutes), but they had little concern for anything but trade, and again, personal indepedence (though they yielded to the Aedui).

With the Aedui and Casse, or any other barbarian factions, we aren't trying to represent a 'race', we are trying to represent local political bodies that were most influential in their regions during this period in history. Like the Germans; the Sweboz were a powerful confederacy. They are a logical selection for the region. It would be incorrect just to have the 'Germanic tribes'; they weren't all in cahoots; many of them flatly made war on one another. Again, a political body that was influential in the region.

While these were tribal names, they were also the names by which their whole lands were lumped. They are at once a tribal name, and a political name.

As for other names, we select names that are appropriate for the regions' language(s) (as best we can understand them in certain cases when their language is mostly lost). Carthage never called themselves Carthage. They will recieve an appropriate Punic name (though I believe with an anglicized spelling; Punic languages lack vowels, which would make it a right bastard to read if one is unfamiliar). Tsorim, if I recall, was the name Phoenicians called themselves, but I'm also pretty sure we've decided to change that to a political body name, or a somewhat recognizable, but appropriate name, so it'll likely be the Punic name of Carthage. It isn't just to be different from the vanilla game; we want the game to feel immersive. If you're playing as the Aedui, your generals aren't 'Gallic' generals, they're chiefs and chief-magistrates of the Aedui confederation. Hell, they spend a lot of their time fighting other Gallic generals. It's impossible to be immersive as we want, but we aren't going to throw up our hands and determine it's best just to leave it alone when there is something we can do to make it any more immersive for ALL players. Using Roman or anglicized names for all factions breaks a lot of that immersion, unless one is playing Romans (and even the Romans tended to address others by their proper names in their company); Caesar himself spoke Gallic because it was impolite of him to ask his Gallic friends (of which he had many; he didn't just fight the Gauls, he was an ally of numerous Gauls) to speak Latin (which most Gallic aristocracy spoke, in addition to Greek) while they were in Gaul.

Also, I agree with the use of Eleutheroi. No language was in wider use than Greek. Even Celts, who controlled a substantial amount of territory, did not have as wide-spoken a single language; they had numerous languages. However, almost all Celtic aristocracy spoke Greek (it was considered improper not to) and had an appreciation for Greek language. That alone causes the Greek language to stretch in use over most of Europe, even far from any territory that was ever under a Hellenic nation's control.
10-25-2005, 18:22
Steppe Merc

Re: Faction names.

Our names were based on as much as we could get possible to what they would have spoke. The Parthians did not call themselves Parthians, they (as far as we can tell) called themselves Pahlava.

For the groups of peoples, we have selected the most powerful tribe to occupy that tribe's lands, not neighbouring tribes. The exception is the Sauromatae, who were put into one faction do to the extremely fluid nature of their people. If we had an Aorsi faction, that faction would also include Scythians, Roxolani, and other peoples. By having one Sauromatae tribe (but not giving them all of the land controlled by the Sauromatae), we can represent one tribe that, as they expand, would incorporate the Aorsi, Roxolani, and other tribes without holding the land that all of those peoples controlled.
10-25-2005, 18:24
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

edit2: Can't resist. This is now one of my favorite sentences! "Historically, Carthaginians were known as Carthaginians." Sweet!!!

Let's do a survey shall we?

You go out and ask people what they think Kadasthim (I don't care how it's spelt) represents, and I'll go and ask people what they think Carthage represents/was.

Fine, put it in the native language, but does the native language mean anything to anyone anymore? I think not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

...And these guys win awards? ~:rolleyes:

Are you saying I don't deserve an award because I don't like EB? Because I don't share the opinion of just about everyone else?

Let's stop talking about historical proof, because we've just got proof that you're a ********.

Thank you everyone else, my questions have been answered.
10-25-2005, 18:44
Sarcasm

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

Are you saying I don't deserve an award because I don't like EB? Because I don't share the opinion of just about everyone else?

Let's stop talking about historical proof, because we've just got proof that you're a ********.

Nope. It's your attitude that sucks, you're entitled to an opinion just like everyone else. Did it even cross your mind that some of these guys have knowledge you don't even have access to?

As for the second phrase. Heh. Go play somewhere else.~:wave:
10-25-2005, 18:47
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

I've searched most of these names on Google (amongst other search engines) and I've also been to the library. I have never heard of any of them. Neither has the library, so it seems. :book:
10-25-2005, 18:55
Teleklos Archelaou

Re: Faction names.

Just go away. You have nothing other than "this is what people call them today"... "I think".

I teach latin and greek for a living. As it concerns this mod and this game, I could care less if some schmuck on the street doesn't know what "Romani" are. That is what the Romans would have referred to themselves as (among other names as well - but never "Romans"), and as we have long decided on using native names for immersion, that is what we will use too. This mod is fun, historically as accurate as a mod for a game can be, and it's very educational too. If you don't want to learn things about these ancient peoples and their civilizations and styles of war, just keep playing vanilla RTW. Why come over here and harass us and our choices to make the game immersive and educational? Did the ancient Romans kill your dog or something? Or did the Greek language burn down your treehouse?
10-25-2005, 18:56
jerby

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

Let's stop talking about historical proof, because we've just got proof that you're a ********.

there is historical proof the "carthaginians" refeered to themselves as "Karthadasim" (if i'm not mastaking) btu for the rest..

it's just a matter of perspective.
the faction-workers on Carthage just don't liek to refer to their "favorite" faction in the Latin way....

by calling each faction in their native tongue it gives a nice feel to teh faction, showign their cultural differences etc.

Might be a longshot: if we woudl call them all in Latin/Greek...why wouldn't we call each Unit "greek phalanx guys" "Germanic javelineers" and "parthian horse archers" what would be the difference?
10-25-2005, 19:51
Steppe Merc

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

I've searched most of these names on Google (amongst other search engines) and I've also been to the library. I have never heard of any of them. Neither has the library, so it seems. :book:

Google is a very poor search engine for historical research.

And why is using the real name worse than bastardized English versions? If someone can't figure out that Romani means Romans, then they shouldn't be playing EB...
10-25-2005, 20:04
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

I thought EB was supposed to be for everyone.
It seems very specific as to who can play and who cannot... ~;)

Fair enough, I understand your views and reasons, and I hadn't seen the latest version of the map..
10-25-2005, 20:17
Kralizec

Re: Faction names.

Why is the faction of Makedon named as such and not Antigonids (in Greek, of course) like the other diadochi states, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies?
10-25-2005, 20:23
cunobelinus

Re: Faction names.

u can all shut up except craterus .We are right .U are trying to be big and clever and are not .So shut up and listen.
10-25-2005, 20:24
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

I thought EB was supposed to be for everyone.
It seems very specific as to who can play and who cannot...

How is anyone being stopped from playing?
10-25-2005, 20:27
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Mercenary

How is anyone being stopped from playing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

then they shouldn't be playing EB...

Point proved...
10-25-2005, 20:42
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

i think what Steppe Merc meant, was that they wouldn't be interested in the mod not that they wouldn't be able to use it
10-25-2005, 20:50
cunobelinus

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranika

As for the Casse; they were a small tribe. Individually. Technically, so were the Aedui.

do we have to prove our point anymore than that they were not the hole country!!!!
10-25-2005, 20:54
Ranika

Re: Faction names.

It doesn't matter that they weren't the whole country; they were the main political body with any substantial amount of power in the region. And by your argument, it's still incorrect to call the Aedui 'Gauls' or the Casse 'Britons'; because they aren't the whole body of Gauls or Britons either (in fact, they make up a substantially smaller portion in those cases).
10-25-2005, 20:56
cunobelinus

Re: Faction names.

exactly we were right.
10-25-2005, 20:56
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

right? how!!
who would you use to represent the gauls then?
10-25-2005, 21:00
cunobelinus

Re: Faction names.

But did they own the country and were all the britons and gauls called that ?

I DONT THINK SO!!!!!
10-25-2005, 21:01
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

yes but they are the nearest your gonna get
10-25-2005, 21:03
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranika

It doesn't matter that they weren't the whole country; they were the main political body with any substantial amount of power in the region. And by your argument, it's still incorrect to call the Aedui 'Gauls' or the Casse 'Britons'; because they aren't the whole body of Gauls or Britons either (in fact, they make up a substantially smaller portion in those cases).

On RTW, it was fine. They had all the Gallic territory under one faction. Which is fine by me. And they called the faction by the collective names of all the tribes. Which, again, is fine by me.

I was under the impression that you had given the whole of modern-day France to the Aedui. This was the point I had a problem with.
10-25-2005, 21:05
cunobelinus

Re: Faction names.

how About Gaul And Briton That Sounds Good Dont It
10-25-2005, 21:08
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

yeah and we could arm them with bannanas!

takeing this into account i present a new unit for EB
Genericus Barbarionous, it can replace all barbarian units!
:viking:
that sound good dont it
10-25-2005, 21:09
Ranika

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

On RTW, it was fine. They had all the Gallic territory under one faction. Which is fine by me. And they called the faction by the collective names of all the tribes. Which, again, is fine by me.

I was under the impression that you had given the whole of modern-day France to the Aedui. This was the point I had a problem with.

I understand; my complaint here was not directed at you. It is the inanity of referring to the territory we have given the factions as 'Britons' or 'Gauls', when this is grossly inaccurate; this is being pushed by littlegannon, not you, and I did not mean to imply that this was directed at you.
10-25-2005, 21:13
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

i am confounded by your deeply philosophical arguments
10-25-2005, 21:13
Teleklos Archelaou

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

u can all shut up except craterus .We are right .U are trying to be big and clever and are not .So shut up and listen.

Ahhh. It warms my heart to see someone who disagrees really pull out all the stops and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are... well... to prove *something* to everyone. This thread is going to become an EB favorite I think. ~D
10-25-2005, 21:14
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

This thread is going to become an EB favorite I think. ~D

I hope it does... ~:grouphug:
10-25-2005, 21:23
Ranika

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

WHY DONT U SHUT THE HELL UP AND STUFF EVERYTHING U HAVE SAID UP YOUR A***

The arguments of others are totally broken before the might of your massive letters (which I've discarded here to lack the obnoxiousness).
10-25-2005, 21:25
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

how am i wrong?

Im just pointing out that your hurling insults about rather than actually making sense
10-25-2005, 21:26
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

He's not the most diplomatic of characters...

~:argue:
10-25-2005, 21:27
Byzantine Mercenary

Re: Faction names.

i agree
10-25-2005, 21:28
Steppe Merc

Re: Faction names.

Why? It's our forum...

Quote:

Why is the faction of Makedon named as such and not Antigonids (in Greek, of course) like the other diadochi states, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies?

Good question, and I have no idea. I do know we considered calling Pahlava Arascids (or Ashkani, or something like that), but decided that they would not refer to themselves as that, despite the fact one ruling dynasty (pretty much) stayed in power.

Quote:

i think what Steppe Merc meant, was that they wouldn't be interested in the mod not that they wouldn't be able to use it

Well yeah, but it doesn't take long to get used to the new faction names, even the unit names. Heck, at first I couldn't keep even my own faction's units apart, but in time you figure it out.
10-25-2005, 21:29
Teleklos Archelaou

Re: Faction names.

Well, it was pretty intriguing up to a point (sort of like an episode of Cops). Then it just turned into a cry to be banned from the site.

edit: Makedonia - This one was somewhat close, but in the end the fact that there was a place called Makedonia that was the center of the kingdom and which was where the kings were buried and they claimed as their "homeland". That other kings even tried to claim they were the king of Makedonia at almost this same time seems to give much more weight to what that meant (Pyrrhus minted coins and claimed this title) than just who the ruling family was. It also wasn't stretched across such a vast area that calling it "Makedonia" would seem silly. The ruling family will be that of Antigonus, but since this *could* have been more of a toss up (in the end it wasn't), we did put this before more people inside the mod for opinions. The votes clearly were in favor of going with "Makedonia".
10-25-2005, 21:32
Craterus

Re: Faction names.

Banned for expressing your opinions? Didn't perhaps express them in the politest possible manner, but I don't think it's a banning offense.

Maybe just ban him from posting in the Hosted Mods section...
10-25-2005, 21:36
the_handsome_viking

Re: Faction names.

I don't see the major problem really.

I'm sure the mod's faction and unit information scrolls will be loaded with information that justifies their reasoning behind using the names and words they use.

Though I do hope that the scrolls contain enough informaton that allows you to know that factions like say the Sauromatae are infact the Sarmatians.

I remember someone suggesting that there should be Europa Barbarorum section in Wikipedia, and to be honest, Even though the idea got a lot of flack, I think it would work.

I mean theres lots of real hardcore historians here and obviously they have done heaps and heaps of intense research and I think wikipedia would benefit from the massive influx of information on the time period Europa Barbarorum is set in, but thats another subject all together...
10-25-2005, 21:39
Teleklos Archelaou

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

Banned for expressing your opinions? Didn't perhaps express them in the politest possible manner, but I don't think it's a banning offense.

Maybe just ban him from posting in the Hosted Mods section...

Um. Telling the mod members who are trying to explain everything (and who have done so in a manner not at all hostile) to shut the hell up and to stick what we say up our... ahem... Yeah, I think I'd ask that someone be banned for that. Doing it in enormous letters doesn't help. I'm perfectly content with this person never being allowed on the site again if it were up to me (obviously it's not).
10-25-2005, 21:39
Zero1

Re: Faction names.

Remember everyone!, history is boring and stupid and makes a bad game, everything needs to be watered down and generalized for it to be playable because what people know now overrides what really was back then, I mean ITS NEWER!, AND THERFORE BETTER!

To hell with all these fancy roodypoo phooey names, GIMME GAUL, AND BRITTIAN AND CARTHAGE CUZ I KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOMFGZORS!!!PWN3D!!

~;p
10-25-2005, 21:41
The_Mark

Re: Faction names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

how is it your forum ?
stop acting like you own the guild .

Look up. It has our name written on it.

Quote:

The Guild > Totalwar Series > Hosted mods > Europa Barbarorum

A part of The Guild is (partly) under the moderation of EB, thus practically belonging to EB where moderation is considered.
10-25-2005, 21:49
the_handsome_viking

Re: Faction names.

His profile says that he is 14.
10-25-2005, 21:49
Zero1

Re: Faction names.

Damn, I was under the impression he was 9
10-25-2005, 21:59
khelvan

Re: Faction names.

I'm going to be closing this, as its purpose is only trolling now. So I will explain things in depth before I do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

The Aedui were the largest Gallic tribe, I'll give you that. But just because something is the largest, does it mean you refer an entire race by it's name?

As explained nicely, it would be incorrect for us to create "factions" out of tribes that were not united, historically speaking. We have chosen the most influential tribes, or in the case of the Gauls, confederacies or alliances of, c. 270 BC, rather than create an ahistorical faction throwing together all people of a particular race. This would imply that in 270 BC there was some greater nation, which there was not.

In the case of the Gauls, the Aedu were in control of the greatest portion of the Gallic territory and number of tribes. If we were to add the other Gallic lands, and the lands of the descendants of Gauls, we would have Galatian lands, all of Gaul, even perhaps some of Britain under control of the "Gauls." This is silly and ahistorical, and makes no sense for us.

So, since we are not representing these people as a race, but as tribes or tribal confederations forming smaller, actual nations, we name them as those tribes or nations would call themselves, as best we can determine. Just as we name the larger nations in their native language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

Historically, Carthaginians were known as Carthaginians. I have read a few history books about Carthage and I've never heard the term Tsorim. The Romans referred to them as Carthaginians, so why aren't you?

Absolute bollocks. The Romans referred to Carthage as Carthago, and they referred to the nation of Carthage as "Dominium Poenum," or "the domain of the Phoenicians." If you have read a few history books about Carthage, as you claim, you should know this. Making errant claims doesn't really support your argument.

Tsorim comes from Dr. Charles Krahmalkov, the leading Punic scholar of our day and the one who published the information about how the people named themselves. The political entity will be named differently from the people. Just as the political entity of Rome is "Senatus Populusque Romanus," and the people are "Romani," so the two will be different for Carthage. From our personal interaction with Dr. Krahmalkov:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Charles Krahmalkov

Regarding your question, I actually know the answer, because I'm the one who found and published this item of information. The Carthaginians called their republic Safot Softim biQarthadast "The Rule of the Softim in Carthage" or,
more informally rendered, the "Suffetic Regime in Carthage." The Softim (singular: Sufet) were the two annually elected presidents of the Republic. By the way, the Israelites called their government in the pre-monarchic period (before Saul and David) Shafot hash-Shoftim biYisra'el ("The Rule of the Shoftim in Israel"). Hope this helps you. Best regards and keep me informed.
Charles

So, the formal name of Carthage will be "Safot Softim biQarthadast" (possibly affected by the transliteration format we have chosen), and the people will be one of: Tsorim, Ponnim, or Qarthadastim, all of which were used by the Phoenicians to describe themselves according to Dr. Krahmalkov.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

Why do you feel it is necessary to change the name of every faction?

You forget, this is a total conversion. We're starting from scratch. We're giving each faction the name they gave themselves. CA's choices are completely and utterly different from ours, and they obviously did not have the same goals.

Our goals are immersion and education when it comes to our naming conventions. CA's goal was recognizability in English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

If you want me to believe your names are even close to historical reality, give me reference, authors, book titles etc.

I am afraid we don't answer to demands made in this way, and have no responsibility to do so. Thanks for your interest, though. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

To add to that: CASSE, as far as I0 know and i have read a few books on briton and the celts, was only a small tribe and was not the name of the whole country.

You're correct. They were, however, to grow to control all of southern Britain, and were the tribe that came closest to uniting the entire island. They were the most influential, which is why we chose them over other tribes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

Also the rebels were not called Eleutheroi by any stretch of your imagination.

You really are just searching for something to complain about, aren't you? Well, troll, we came up with a Greek name to encompass the free people of the world, who are not members of the depicted factions. Greek because it was still the most influential language of the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

Also, the Parthians were not called Parni. They were called Parthians. I could understand if you called them Persians, but not Parni.

Then your understanding is borne of ignorance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craterus

I've searched most of these names on Google (amongst other search engines) and I've also been to the library. I have never heard of any of them. Neither has the library, so it seems.

We always enjoy people who say they can't find things on the Internet - no offense, but you shouldn't expect to find serious academic research on the Internet, unless you have access to JSTOR (or whatever it is called - the academic network). I would wager a lot of money that your local library is not the best place to find in-depth research, academic publications, and the publishing of archaeological and textual evidence, either. That is usually reserved for detailed educational libraries or specialized libraries.

Though I would also wager you didn't actually bother to read any books in the library, but at best asked a librarian (good luck with that) or did a title search for "Tsorim" or something. I have no evidence for that, call it a hunch. You won't find "Tsorim" in anything outside of an in-depth publication on the Punic language, by the way. Good luck finding that in your local library.

Quote:

Originally Posted by craterus

I thought EB was supposed to be for everyone.
It seems very specific as to who can play and who cannot...

EB is for everyone. Not everyone is willing to cast aside old prejudice and misconception enough to play, though. Not everyone is open to learning new things.

Steppe Merc is young, and really has to learn to watch what he says, because he knows damn well that what we say in public, no matter how innocuous, will be thrown back in our faces. He does not represent all of EB, but rather his own opinions, and even then I think it reasonable to assume he misstated his own opinion. The reasonable person would not hold up his statement as some sort of evidence against EB; are you a reasonable person? Obviously EB is meant to be played by everyone. Not everyone will enjoy it, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlegannon

But did they own the country and were all the britons and gauls called that ?

I DONT THINK SO!!!!!

Try to wrap your brain around this, troll: There was no group of "britons" who controlled all of the island; they didn't even share the same culture, much less form a nation. There was no group of "gauls" who controlled all of Gaul. Thus, you're wrong, as there would be no name for this "nation;" it did not exist.

Casse is the name for the most influential tribe in Britain, and the Aedu were in control of the largest Gallic tribal confederacy. Your arguments make no sense nor do you, and because of you and your childish actions I must now close this thread. Please troll some other forum.