Casse

[lobf]

Will they be back in EB2?

[Taliferno]

EB team has said all factions in EB1 will be in EB2-so yes.

[blacksnail]

With chariots that fire wardogs from mounted cannon.

[pantsukki]

With chariots that fire wardogs from mounted cannon.

And those chariots are pulled by Indian cataphract elephants..?

[blacksnail]

No, don't be silly! It's purely for technical reasons. The chariots launch the wardog units across the Channel, which is how the Casse AI is alerted to the existence of regions beyond the isles. It kickstarts the AI into seaborne invasions.

[eggthief]

And those chariots are pulled by Indian cataphract elephants..?

U forget the flaming berserker pigs that are equiped with LS, who are used as mounts for the arcani.

[mlc82]

And those chariots are pulled by Indian cataphract elephants..?

The chariots in turn will be fired from the rocket launchers on the backs of elephants that were included in vanilla MTW2. Thank CA for this historical travesty.

[lobf]

Based on blacksnail's reply I assume the faction is "under review?"

[Xtiaan72]

Wow some of the ideas in this thread have the makings of a killer mod

[Cartaphilus]

Don't forget to include some berserk uruk-hai in the mod.

[Krusader]

Based on blacksnail's reply I assume the faction is "under review?"

You can't see a joke now can you?

We have stated all EB1 factions will be in EB2 as well.

If you feel Casse should not be in EB2 then say it straight out and please, come with solid arguments for why they should not be in.

[Cartaphilus]

And what about another faction in the British Islands?
Do you have news to report?

[Krusader]

And what about another faction in the British Islands?
Do you have news to report?

Maybe there will be a faction there.
Maybe not.

We could tell you our selected factions (we havent selected all of them). But we'd rather wait and use them as previews later on.

[General Appo]

We could tell you our selected factions (we havent selected all of them). But we'd rather wait and use them as previews later on.

9 out of 10 if the EB team is to be believed. So more likely about 2 out of 10.

[lobf]

You can't see a joke now can you?

We have stated all EB1 factions will be in EB2 as well.

If you feel Casse should not be in EB2 then say it straight out and please, come with solid arguments for why they should not be in.

Well, I searched the forums for Casse Historical Info, and the best I came up with is this, which contains no sources, only un-cited speculation by Ranika.

Someone on Wikipedia recently tried to change the Cassi page to be more like EB, but the people there wouldn't allow it in, as it was all speculation, no sources.

It seems to me like maybe there isn't enough verifiable info on these people to warrant a faction. Don't bite my head off, I'm just throwing it out there.

[Irishmafia2020]

Uh oh... I see where this is going... I am going to warm up my popcorn! Maybe we could get a promoter to bring in Elmeticos (sp) and have one final blowout, winner-take-all, championship of the world, battle royale, cage match of the Celtic "experts" to decide once and for all if the EB team is above criticism in their endeavors on this topic (I myself have no opinion, in spite of my forum name). Or this topic could be closed.... or this Celtic interpretation insurgency could continue for months, years, perhaps even decades! The popcorn is ready...

[blitzkrieg80]

Well, I searched the forums for Casse Historical Info, and the best I came up with is this, which contains no sources, only un-cited speculation by Ranika.

Someone on Wikipedia recently tried to change the Cassi page to be more like EB, but the people there wouldn't allow it in, as it was all speculation, no sources.

It seems to me like maybe there isn't enough verifiable info on these people to warrant a faction. Don't bite my head off, I'm just throwing it out there.

Well if I typed Sweboz i wouldn't find much either- because much information does not have the tribe(s) we're looking for as a topic, or have a different form of the name so it doesnt search, or sometimes the information is just plain buried in things that were researched by people who had no interest in them but happened to write on them

our stance on some of this has never been that we're 'above criticism' that is insulting if you ask me, where we take the time to read this spam that has no value than 'weeee!' - 'popcorn'. if you want to have a discussion on evidence [not lack of evidence], we're happy enough to participate if we have time. if you just complain, what do you expect? make a case of who is better than the Casse as a faction on the British mainland or why the Casse have been misportrayed... we DO want to hear it, because we admit we're not perfect. Criticism is much different than trolling and complaining. Give us constructive criticism if you expect people to listen. Use evidence, as is required of us. We cant just say 'oh we changed the Cassi because someone on the forum told us it is x y z'

[Meneldil]

It seems to me like maybe there isn't enough verifiable info on these people to warrant a faction. Don't bite my head off, I'm just throwing it out there.

Obviously, the EB team will be glad to know you decided there's not enough informations available to justify having the Casse as a faction.

[lobf]

Well if I typed Sweboz i wouldn't find much either- because much information does not have the tribe(s) we're looking for as a topic, or have a different form of the name so it doesnt search, or sometimes the information is just plain buried in things that were researched by people who had no interest in them but happened to write on them

The Sweboz are the Suebi, right?

if you want to have a discussion on evidence [not lack of evidence], we're happy enough to participate if we have time. if you just complain, what do you expect?

I'm definitely not complaining. As for evidence on the Casse, it looks like there's little of it, and that's the point I'm making. Forgive me for using Wikipedia, but this article has gone back and forth recently and based on the fact that it now cites book sources (albeit ones I don't have, thus can't verify) I think it reasonable to rust it's validity.

The Cassi are one of five tribes encountered by Julius Caesar during his second expedition to Britain in 55 BC when he crossed the Thames at Kew.[1] and who became became his allies after the Trinovantes joined him. The archaeologists Graham Webster and Barry Cunliffe both agree that nothing more is known about them.[2][3] but it has been suggested that between Caesar's second invasion and the invasion of Claudius in AD 43 that the Cassi along with other tribes such as the Ancilite and Briboci merged to form the Catuvellauni, and that Cassivellaunus may have been a member of the Cassi tribe.[4][5]

The earliest info from them apparently comes from Ceasar's invasion, which is itself way off from the start of the game.

make a case of who is better than the Casse as a faction on the British mainland or why the Casse have been misportrayed... we DO want to hear it, because we admit we're not perfect.

Maybe the Isles should be filled with Eleutheroi stacks? As for how they have been misportrayed, the main site has a whole history on them that, as it seems, is not supported by evidence.

Criticism is much different than trolling and complaining. Give us constructive criticism if you expect people to listen. Use evidence, as is required of us. We cant just say 'oh we changed the Cassi because someone on the forum told us it is x y z'

Is this directed at me? I'm sincerely not trolling or complaining. I think every point I have raised has been reasonable and respectful.

[Hax]

Try looking for Catuvellauni, I believe it gives better results.

[lobf]

The article I posted references them. It seems they formed between the invasions of Caesar and Claudius.

[Elmetiacos]

Uh oh... I see where this is going... I am going to warm up my popcorn! Maybe we could get a promoter to bring in Elmeticos (sp) and have one final blowout, winner-take-all, championship of the world, battle royale, cage match of the Celtic "experts" to decide once and for all if the EB team is above criticism in their endeavors on this topic (I myself have no opinion, in spite of my forum name). Or this topic could be closed.... or this Celtic interpretation insurgency could continue for months, years, perhaps even decades! The popcorn is ready...

It doesn't involve having to wear luminous shorts and weird padded gloves does it?

Bearing in mind that we basically know zip about the British political map in 272 BC, there's nothing wrong with using the Cassi, although calling them "Casse" probably is wrong; -e is not a legitimate plural for any stem, at least as far as I know. I just wish that the people who created the faction, which seems to be PsychoV and Ranika, had said that, instead of pretending to have all these kewl Celtic scholar powerz. All we know about the Cassi is their name and that they were on the side of Caesar and the Trinovantes against Cassivellaunus and (probably) the Catuvellauni - and that's two centuries after EB starts.

I'm sorry, this is going to get long now...

On the discussion lobf links to, PsychoV provides a big long list of books. That's great, but apart from Cunliffe, most of them are very general, introductory, almost "pop" books, dare I say it. Peter Berresford Ellis is always dodgy because he's such an extreme nationalist, with all that that implies (he thinks Catullus was a Celt) It seems that at some point, as is being discussed on Wikipedia, they both decided to take Daithi Ó hÓgain's speculation on the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses one step further and include the Cassi... that would be fine if they'd admitted that it was pure conjecture (as apparently Ó hÓgain himself does) but they don't. Instead we're told "We aslo know the Casse had strongs ties to the mainland. It is believed they intermarried with continental tribes and enjoyed extensive trade with the Gallic Venellii, Lexovii, Veneti, and the Belgae (Menapi, both on the continent and later in Ireland by early 1st C BC and Morini, by early 2nd C BC). It appears they also crossed the channel to give support to the Belgic confederacy eg againt Rome (Caesar 1st C BC) and Veneti alliance eg against the Tarbelii and Lemovicii (late 3rd C BC) and against Rome (Caesar 1st C BC)." We don't. We know nothing at all about the Cassi before they join Caesar. We don't even know where they lived, except that it was somewhere in South East England - therefore, even if any archaeology were to support any of this, there is no way to link it to the Cassi.

Ranika then says "the Casse were a Gallic, and then Belgic influenced tribe. We don't know them by name till a little later, and they're called the Casse/Cassae/Cassi. They're later refered to as the Catuvellauni, but that appears to be more due to the name of one of their old rulers (Vellaunus). The name is known actually from this figure, the ruler Vellaunus, who was called 'Cassivellaunus' (Vellaunus of the Cassi), mentioned by Caesar. The Casse either developed into the Catuvellauni or were displaced by more Belgic Celts in terms of rulership, but the area of influence remains the same, so any such displacement was political, and likely non-military; either way, the faction developed into the Catuvellauni; in fact, one possible meaning of 'Catu' is 'Smiters' (a euphemism for soldiers), so it'd be 'Soldiers of Vellaunus', so this figure would then have been heroic or important to the point of renaming the tribe after him" No. They get one mention in Caesar as Cassi (which suggests Brythonic *Cassi or *Cassoi) and they're not "later" referred to as the Catuvellauni; there's nothing but guesswork to make the link. They were never ruled by a Vellaunus - there's a Vellaunus recorded in an inscription in Latin, but he's a Roman Auxilliary cavalryman on the German frontier (read the inscription at L'Arbre Celtique). Catu- does not mean smiters or soldiers; it means "battle" - something almost universally agreed on because of modern Irish cath and Welsh câd. Catuvellauni means something like "Lords of Battle", "Masters of Battle" or "Best in Battle".

The main Casse page is terrible. It's just about all fiction, but I won't go into even more lengthy detail except to say that here the meaning of catu- has been changed again so now "Catuvallanorix" is supposed to mean "King of the Islanders" which it clearly doesn't; it means "Powerful Battle King"

Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with picking the Cassi as a faction, given that there's to be a faction in Britain - we know more or less as much about them as any other British tribe in 272 BC (i.e. nothing) but the material used to validate their inclusion is bogus.

[lobf]

But seeing as we know next to nothing, wouldn't it be more accurate to not include a faction there, but rather some unique units in big stacks? It could be a prize for later-game gauls/germans perhaps.

[Irishmafia2020]

Well, that was less exciting than some of the Celtic discussions have been, but I would tend to support the idea (as an EB player mind you) that there should be a faction in Britain. In fact I would prefer a hidden land bridge as well so that the faction has to interact with Gaul to survive... I am actually surprised that there is not more archaeological information about exactly who was in Britain in 272 BC.

[Elmetiacos]

There's plenty of archaeology in the form of large forts and so on, but the problem is we have no way of knowing what faction they belonged to at the time. If you wanted to be meticulous, we do know from the Romans which tribe lived where and what their capitals were, so if one that had had 300 years of continuous occupation on the same kind of scale were found, it would be a fair bet that the tribe in question had been around since 272 BC. Camulodunon apparently wouldn't be one of them, though; it was inhabited for a long time but only became a capital when Addedomaros started minting coins there at the very end of the EB period.

[azzbaz]

I got a question, whats the history behind the Cassis capital, Camulosadae? I can find nothing on it anywhere. Elmatiacus any answers

[Elmetiacos]

Camulodunum (modern Colchester) was the capital of the Trinovantes. For a while it seems to have been captured by the Catuvellauni. The Celtic form of the name would have been *Camulodunon. Whether Camulosadae is meant to be an alternative Celtic form of it (it seems to be in the right place) or whether it's supposed to be another capital I can't say. I don't know what Camulosadae is supposed to mean... there was thread here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ht=camulosadae but no explanation of the name. Can't find any sad- roots on proto-Celtic pdf and the online proto-Celtic database is down just now but EDIL (www.dil.ie) has Old Irish or Middle Irish sadbae which it says is a poetic term for a dwelling and adba which means a dwelling place. Maybe this is the origin, but I don't know why a piece of mediaeval Irish was bolted onto an Iron Age British placename. Can't find a Welsh equivalent in Y Geiriadur Newydd.

Colchester, although famous, isn't a good choice for anyone's capital in 272 BC. Although it was in use and some high status burials have turned up from the EB period (e.g. Philip Crummy, Stephen Benfield, Nina Crummy, Valery Rigby and Donald Shimmin Stanway: an Elite Burial Site at Camulodunum) Romans-in-Britain.org reckon, presumably on the basis of coin finds (http://www.serendippy.me.uk/academic.../coins_ia.html) that the Trinovantes' capital was probably at Braughing until Addedomaros moved it at the end of the EB period. Of course, what the team were likely really after was the capital of the Catuvellauni which was probably either at St Albans (Verulamium), Wheathamstead (Celtic and Roman names not known), Water Newton (Durobrivae) or Dropshort (Magiovinium)

[lobf]

the only problem I see with a British faction is who are they? I mean, yes, it's fun and exciting to play that part of the map, but how can you create a historical experience when there's so little info on these folks?

[The Persian Cataphract]

I see a nasty slippery slope in this discussion of discarding factions on the basis of "early obscurity". I do not claim myself to know anything about the Celtic peoples. I only have some modest knowledge on the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures, which I acquired from a boring Mickey Mouse course on early European history. That's it. No pretensions, no nothing. The rest is just Asterix and Obelix.

But your rationale may verily be applied to Parthians, or indeed, the dominant Pârnîg/Parnioi/Sparnii tribe, because we have no data whatsoever about their whereabouts or how their geo-political situation looked like in 272 BCE; In fact, we know much more about the post-Alexandrian Medes and the Atropatid dynasty, as a Persianate culture, in symbiosis with the Orontids in Armenia, the Perseids of Pontus and the Ariarathids of Cappadocia. The Parthians in 272 BCE? They didn't exist. Back then they were some obscure tribe, a part of some larger confederacy which dominated Caspian affairs. The same pretty much goes for the Sacaeraucae or Saka-Rauka. The earliest information about the Parthians, starts with Arsaces I and some obscure passages of him being the son of Arsaces, who was a son of a Phriapatius. That's it. Nisa? Chorasmia? Forget it. Nisaya was probably a Seleucid dependency and the Kat/Khiva was a city belonging to the Chorasmians, among about dozen others. Influenced by the Parthians, and perhaps even scourged by them, but not under Parthian rule. The same goes for the Sacaeraucae who were mysteriously pitted in Wusun lands, in some fictional abode called "Chighu". But they are there, and putting them elsewhere without fore-thought would be a foolish move.

All we know is that omitting two of the world's upcoming super-powers because information about the earliest possible data is lacking, would be a fatal flaw. Therefore, what we did was to pick the strongest of tribes, and simply give them enough guide-lines to direct them into becoming their historical name-sake. The Pârnî therefore becomes the same Parthians lead by the great Arsacid monarchs, and the Sacaeraucae thus becomes the same "Sakas" lead to an illustrious campaign into Bactria, and India by Maues and the subsequent Indo-Scythian kings.

I imagine, more or less, that it would apply to the British Isles as well; Some dominant tribe takes enough action to lead the development of a more unified Briton state. You may dispute historical links between tribes and future nations, but I do not buy into the argument of "insufficient early data"; By the time the Parthians had annexed Medea, they had found that the Medean and Atropatene military, especially the heavy cavalry was similar to their own. The Atropatids and Arsacids later merged into a single house by political marriage, a fate which would later seal Artaxiad Armenia and the Arsacids, into the formation of the cadet Arsacid branch in Armenia.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I think thats just right!

Maybe their exact situation in 272 b.C. is unknown, and how they developed into the major future briton societies is unsure, but the impact of a british faction on the world would get completely lost if they were omitted.