Less Civilized Factions

[The General]

To make it not entirely ot, two remarks:
I also have difficulties to play as the "barbarians", I just have the feeling they were not able to create a unified empire that early although they were good fighters.

Roleplay it then not as a unified empire, but as a confederacy of various tribes electing their leader, or a hegemony established by one tribe over others creating a complex web of vassalages, protectorates, allies and subjugated foes, for example.

[IrishHitman]

This entire thread is amusing....

The OP complains about playing certain barbarian factions, when the signature he has states that he plays barbarian factions to begin with!

Carthage and the Hai are not civilised, they are unspeakably barbarian...

[WinsingtonIII]

Who was so unsophisticated and unenlightened that he was talking about biologi? What I am talking about it the organism that a state is, the autopoietic system of The State. Read some Harste and Luhman and you will know what I mean. Harste has written a fine little treatise on the matter, but it is not easily digestible,

Harste, G. 2002, Krig vs. Fred - en kode i symbolsk generaliseret kommunikation, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet, Århus.

It is divided in both an English and a Danish version, so no worries, you can read it. But it is a challenge to understand if one does not have a background in sociology (which I had not when I had the good fortune to be taught by him back then).

My field of study is actually sociology so I am well aware of the structural functionalist view of society as an organism (the state is actually not the entire organism but just one of the social institutions that functions as a part of the greater organism of society). I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, and you are right that Herbert Spencer for one at least utilized Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest in application to the rise and fall of civilizations. However, the fact that he openly used the term survival of the fittest in regards to societies isn't regarded very well these days. Weber and Durkheim, whose ideas were really the beginnings of structural functionalism, didn't necessarily claim that because a civilization fell it was necessarily weaker, they were more concerned with how the institutions and processes maintained the system and reproduction of society as a whole.

Additionally, there are many other theories of sociology that criticize the structural functionalist approach heavily.

I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm just saying that it is my opinion that Darwin is not the correct name to invoke. Durkheim would fit better in my opinion, because then the idea of a "defect" or multiple "defects" in a society leading to its fall are considered in a sociological sense, not a biological one.

Do they print that work in the States? I will look for it if possible.

[chenkai11]

This entire thread is amusing....

The OP complains about playing certain barbarian factions, when the signature he has states that he plays barbarian factions to begin with!

Carthage and the Hai are not civilised, they are unspeakably barbarian...

First, the word "complains" doesn't seem to fit to what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread.

Second, can you explain your post with a more civilized manner? If Carthage and the Hai are barbarians in those time, who the more civilized people then? The Protoss?

[Cyclops]

Very unfair to call the Punics uncivilised, they had an urban culture older than Hellas.

Hai maybe is a semi barbarian province on the fringe of a brilliant urban cultural complex but doesn't that put them in a similar cultural boat as Rome in 272 BC? Certainly not the most savage faction in the game by a long shot.

...who the more civilized people then? The Protoss?

Well they had Archons...maybe they're on a par with KH?

[Macilrille]

Chenkai, I have three people on my ignore list, two of the Roman Haters for being incredible spammers and Irish for being rude enough to call me a liar (even after I defended him from personal attacks), which I am not. You figure if you can get sensible and civilised replies out of him.


Winsington, I am glad to hear it, few people here I guess has read much on such matters. Which is also why referring to Darwin makes sense, for few here would know Durkheim or many other sociologists I suspect; when discussing difficult subjects it is best to keep simple-ish enough that all can understand you.

I suspect harste's little work is not available in the US, but your university library might be able to get it for you. I personally like it.

[IrishHitman]

First, the word "complains" doesn't seem to fit to what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread.

Second, can you explain your post with a more civilized manner? If Carthage and the Hai are barbarians in those time, who the more civilized people then? The Protoss?

Oh dear, you've misunderstood entirely..

Has the sense of humour been sapped entirely out of this place?
I was joking from a Hellenic perspective.

[Ludens]

Oh dear, you've misunderstood entirely..

Has the sense of humour been sapped entirely out of this place?
I was joking from a Hellenic perspective.

Irony and sarcasm do not communicate well across the internet. The receiver cannot hear the tone of voice, so it's best to use smileys to make clear you are joking.

[WinsingtonIII]

Winsington, I am glad to hear it, few people here I guess has read much on such matters. Which is also why referring to Darwin makes sense, for few here would know Durkheim or many other sociologists I suspect; when discussing difficult subjects it is best to keep simple-ish enough that all can understand you.

I suspect harste's little work is not available in the US, but your university library might be able to get it for you. I personally like it.

That's a very good point Macilrille, it does make more sense to present the analogy in a way everyone can understand. I didn't think of that aspect of it at all.

I'm always glad to meet someone who has studied sociology though. I'll see if the library can tell me anything.

[IrishHitman]

Irony and sarcasm do not communicate well across the internet. The receiver cannot hear the tone of voice, so it's best to use smileys to make clear you are joking.

It's a pretty long running joke on here..

[Weebeast]

What you like about playing civilized factions? You want to conquer the world and built magnificent roads connecting China and Rome for example? You cannot build roads as barbarians but you can always build something else like soap maker. Interest stems from lack of information yet interesting in mysterious way. Expose yourself to some barbarian equivalents of "300" and you'll pick up some interests in barbs in no time..

[eddy_purpus]

I don't seem able to play those factions, well I did tried many times. Factions like Aedui, Arverni, Casse, Getai, Lusotannan, Saba, Sweboz and ... (Romani )

I mean it's not I dislike them in a sense they are "barbarians", and I do enjoy nomads factions (for ancient and medieval Chinese they are considered barbarians). I just can't seem to help myself play those factions. All of them, after playing a few turns results to quit. May be it's due to their buildings? Or their units are not consider professional army as a whole?

You may ask why the Romans too? I don't know, they still look less civilized to me during 272BC. But I love the AD Romans, especially helping the struggled WRE.

Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions.

Moar like the graphics of rome are a little outdated...
Clone armies can ruin gameplay (visuals) a little...

That wont happen in EB2

[Kevin]

You might find it hard to play them because of the limitations on the RTW engine and animations. I guess RTW is too old, I always pictured barbarians fighting differently than they are portrayed even in EB. Maybe EB II can use the M2TW engine to its advantage.

[Macilrille]

Just one question that is of interest for me: what makes you sure that the Cimbri and Teutones came from Jutland and were Germanics? Poseidonios searched the case and took them for Celts, Caesar was the first to see them as Germanics as far as I know, but perhaps for a personal reason in combination with his creation of the Rhine as a border and the new feature of the area east of it as "Germania".

I think it's better to be careful and let the case open because it is so difficult for this early time to decide of what culture people were. I personally think (and can of course not prove it) that the Cimbri and Teutones were a mix of people, perhaps some from the north, but mainly Celts from all the regions the trek went on its long way to the south.

If you scroll up a bit or do a Forum Search on "Cimbrii" you will see that my interpretation is that the Cimbric Wars started as parts of two Jutish tribes following charismatic leaders on a raid-migration S in Europe to claim loot and land. Much like the later Vikings, and much like them some warriors would return and others come to join, while others from the cultures they passed through would join too. We know for certain that this happened to the Goths after Hadrianopolis/Adrianople.

Now in addition to the argument you can find on Wikipedia for the Cimbrii and Teutons being from Jutland there is the fact that we suddenly find an increase in finds from the Balkans-Black Sea area in Jutland- not least the Gundestrup Cauldron which should be known to anyone with an interest in the area. This to me hints that all of a sudden there was an increase in contact for some reason, if you want a sort of analogue think of the increase in English Silver in Denmark around 1000 AD (I like Vikings).

However, what really counts with me is the fact that all our classic sources say they are from Jutland (Cimbrii Chersonesos). Why discount our written sources? Especially when they are in agreeance? What the Celtophiles have to present for them as Celts are the names of two kings. Names that may have been "Celtified" by Romans, by Gallic interpreters in Roman employ or even be Celtic versions of their German names, or Boirix for one may be the result of a political union between Cimbrii father and Celtic mother- such were not unknown amongst German tribes, in fact they were common. The names "work" as well in ancient German as in Gallic too, so I do not know how much "evidence" that is...

As for the German - Celt distinction we see a distinct difference in material culture and society between the areas we label Germanic and Celt/Gallic. One roughly concurrent with the ancient authors' distinction, the difference from them largely being that the border zone in Bohemia and the Rhine area has a mixed culture, we see the same later with the Limes. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hugh Elton has treated this problem of "Iron Curtain" interpretation and argued instead for a frontier zone with mixed cultures and influences.

You are right that before Caivs Ivlivs many authors did not distinguish between Germans and Celts. However, if Pliny The Elder quotes Pytheas correctly, he made it on his ~325 BC voyage where he might have identified the Gutones (Goths?) and Teutons as the first (it may be Pliny who makes it on his behalf). This however is easily explained by lack of knowledge. When the first Europeans arrived in The New World they did not distinguish much between tribes either, but as knowledge grew they started to.

Thus, IMO; Jutland was populated by people of Germanic ancestry (in fact it seems it is part of the original lands of Germanic culture back in the Bronze Age) and as the Teutons and Cimbrii was from Jutland (or in case of the Teutons might have moved from the Baltic Shore to there), they were originally German too. Scroll up to see my interpretation of how it then developed in a previous post.

[geala]

Ok, I see your points. I will however remain a bit sceptical. (like not few German scholars)

The archaeological evidence is problematic and not clear. More finds from the balkans on the one side (an area not to be reported as being touched intensively by the trek), no clear signs for a loss of population at the interesting time on the other side. That the Cimbri were recorded to settle in Jutland in the time of Augustus is not of so great help for the question wether the Cimbri and Teutones formed mainly a Germanic army or were in fact a mix of different tribes. Combine this with some of the common problems of archaeology, like the question whether the finding of certain artefacts coincide with people of a certain culture.

The first who recorded "Germanics" was Poseidonios about 100 BC, but he named so the population/tribe in a small northern area, not at all what Caesar made of it. The name was used in the 70s and 60s by others and the Suebes were identified as a Germanic tribe. Probably they were although it is nearly impossible to distinguish Germanic and Celtic elements in a wide area of today middle western Germany.

You cannot simply take conclusions from a behavior of the Goths in the 4th c. AD and transfer it to earlier perhaps-Germanics. The Goths had moved for a long time before and were surely a mixture of different ethnics at least.

Maybe you are right but I would like to put more "may be's" and "could be's" in the discussion. Just the same caution like for questions as these wether Britons or old Irish were Celts or wether Kalkriese has something to do with the Clades Variana or ...

[Macilrille]

Ok, I see your points. I will however remain a bit sceptical. (like not few German scholars)

The archaeological evidence is problematic and not clear. More finds from the balkans on the one side (an area not to be reported as being touched intensively by the trek), no clear signs for a loss of population at the interesting time on the other side. That the Cimbri were recorded to settle in Jutland in the time of Augustus is not of so great help for the question wether the Cimbri and Teutones formed mainly a Germanic army or were in fact a mix of different tribes. Combine this with some of the common problems of archaeology, like the question whether the finding of certain artefacts coincide with people of a certain culture.

The first who recorded "Germanics" was Poseidonios about 100 BC, but he named so the population/tribe in a small northern area, not at all what Caesar made of it. The name was used in the 70s and 60s by others and the Suebes were identified as a Germanic tribe. Probably they were although it is nearly impossible to distinguish Germanic and Celtic elements in a wide area of today middle western Germany.

You cannot simply take conclusions from a behavior of the Goths in the 4th c. AD and transfer it to earlier perhaps-Germanics. The Goths had moved for a long time before and were surely a mixture of different ethnics at least.

Maybe you are right but I would like to put more "may be's" and "could be's" in the discussion. Just the same caution like for questions as these wether Britons or old Irish were Celts or wether Kalkriese has something to do with the Clades Variana or ...

Personally I have believed for a couple of years that Kalkriese is not the Varus defeat, but rather the battle between Caecina and Arminus in 16 or 17 AD.

I will just try to clarify a few things.

You can always say "maybe" or "what if", but if the majority of evidence points to one specific interpretation, then that is likely close to the "truth". If you doubt all, we might as well drop the study of history. Source criticism is good, but as evidence mounts...

Poseidonois is as suspect as Pytheas, for we do not have the original, only the quote by Athenaios, who might have imposed his interpretation on it. Just like Pliny T Elder might have on Pytheas. Caesar, Tacitus and later authors agree and as their interpretation is largely consistent with the remains of material culture we have they may even be right-ish.

The lack of loss of population is not evident in AD 800- 1050 either, and we can agree that there was a large outward energy from Scandinavia then? If one migration did not leave archeological evidence, could another also not have? Especially as I do not "buy" the Ancients' numbers, there probably was only about 300.000 people in Jutland then at most. As I said in the original post I find it more likely that a core of warriors left, gathering followers and allies underway, just like Goths, Vikings and Crusades did. That is three "migrations" of and largely through cultures on the "Chiefdom" level and as they worked that way I find it likely the Cimbrii one did as well.

As for the Celtic element of the migration, it was there- as I said in the original post- I suspect it might have been as high as a third of the total. But the Ancients agree on where the original migration came from, the Balkan-evidence (Noreia is in that corner of the world...), and the population of Denmark then was undoubtedly Germanic, not Celtic... I believe that the core was still Germanic.
If we use another Viking Age analogy, "The Great Army" was mainly Viking (Danish according to our sources) for 33 years at least despite integrating allies (and some infighting) it still appears as such all the way through.


Anyway, this is nitpicking and I am annoyed by a coming cold (only 6 weeks since I had the Pig Flu, I hate Danish weather this time of year), so I will drink some tea instead.

[chenkai11]

Wow, what a ship, I mean boat. And it cost 2000 with an upkeep of 800.

[Macilrille]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

[Phalanx300]

The Cimbri came from the Germanic heartland so them being Celtic.

And Chenkai is that actually ingame? Never seen it.

[king of thracia]

I'm starting to come around to this point of view. Arche Seleukeia is holding my attention far too long.

[chenkai11]

And Chenkai is that actually ingame? Never seen it.

It is ingame. Never seen what? The boat?

[Intranetusa]

Playing the "less civilized" factions is fun since it's usually harder...ie, Saba having to train loads of crap infantry to defend your frontiers against full stacks of phalangites from Silver and Gold Death...

Even playing as civilized factions, I love training mercs and using local levies as the bulk of my armies in the frontiers...I can't count the times when my stacks of barbarian levies got annihilated by enemy elite units...

I find it extremely fun to lose with levy troops, especially after you've been kicking AI arse with your regulars...

[Kevin]

True, I like playing as Saba because it requires a lot of tactics I don't have to use on my Romani campaign.

[IrishHitman]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

There's rich pickings of independent states to the east and south, why the hell would you go mess with the Casse when you can leave them for later?

lol

[Kikaz]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

Speaking of which, I just tried that (used many 4chev Medjinikos, as well as a general mix of Baltic and Celtic units,) hasn't been as challenging as I'd hoped (except Cambria.) Casse had several full stacks of militia (which were mowed down with almost no casualties) pitted against the one full-stack that I sent there, plus my spammed Balroae from Attuaca, and recently my spammed Imannae from Caern-Brigantae. It's a fun experience.

Wow, what a ship, I mean boat. And it cost 2000 with an upkeep of 800.

I'm pretty sure that means you aren't supposed to have a navy... Which is unfortunate once the pirates start showing up in droves.

[Intranetusa]

Speaking of which, I just tried that (used many 4chev Medjinikos, as well as a general mix of Baltic and Celtic units,) hasn't been as challenging as I'd hoped (except Cambria.) Casse had several full stacks of militia (which were mowed down with almost no casualties) pitted against the one full-stack that I sent there, plus my spammed Balroae from Attuaca, and recently my spammed Imannae from Caern-Brigantae. It's a fun experience. I'm pretty sure that means you aren't supposed to have a navy... Which is unfortunate once the pirates start showing up in droves.

800 a turn for worthless rafts? =(

Almost as bad as those frekin 30+ minai stone projectors that are less effective than a single siege tower yet costs 5000 a turn to upkeep... >_<

[geala]

Personally I have believed for a couple of years that Kalkriese is not the Varus defeat, but rather the battle between Caecina and Arminus in 16 or 17 AD.

I will just try to clarify a few things. ...

To the Cimbri etc.: I think we are not far away in the end.

As for Kalkriese, have you changed your mind? Why? (0k, it's too much ot perhaps) Nevertheless, I don't believe it could be the battle at the pontes longae because it happened when Caecina left the meeting point with Germanicus and went back to the Rhine. The meeting point was in the area of the outer Bructeres, between the Lippe and Ems (don't know the English names of the rivers). It would have been very strange to march to the Rhine from there meeting the Kalkriese dip. There are some other arguments against the connection with Caecina. But also many things are not clear and problematic concerning Kalkriese and Varus, it is better to be very careful. What we can say is only that a bigger fight took place between Germanics and Roman legionary core troops which the Romans with high probability lost. I personally still believe it was a part of the Varus battle; but being not a historian I can be less chary.

[Macilrille]

It is probably mostly because I dislike believing what all others do and a quirk of mine ;-)
Geography is against me yes, but the description of the respective battles suits Varus' defeat the least. However, we know little of it in fact, so... I may be wrong, but that is healthy sometimes and it is not often I try that when I actually come out and claim something; if I know little of a subject I usually keep my mouth shot, so if I claim something it is mostly well-founded to be wrong occasionally curbs my arrogance