Casse Rivals- A proposition

[Subotan]

I fought a 20 year war over Sicily with Carthago as Rome with EB Alex and some house rules(max high taxes unless enemy in Italy, 12 unit armies).

Quite competent at keeping armies in the field and ever over seas... as in whole 20 unit stacks + reinforcements + elephants.

Ha, nice. But then, I don't use .alex.

Guys stop talking about EB Naval invasions unless you have some historical or archaeological information to add about Celtic shippping. No offence intended but this how threads go off track.

Celtic Shipping

[Brennus]

Celtic Shipping

lol Thats gotta take some skill to operate.

[Macilrille]

Ha, nice. But then, I don't use .alex.

Celtic Shipping

Ha ha ha, yet they seem to have reached Iceland in the 7th-8th centuries in such contraptions... The Vikings found monks there when they arrived, Vestmannaeyer is named for them if I recall correctly. Of course they proceeded to cut them down or enslave them.

One must surmise that their patron saints were watching over them on those trips across the N Atlantic ;-)

[Brennus]

Ha ha ha, yet they seem to have reached Iceland in the 7th-8th centuries in such contraptions... Atlantic ;-)

Surely a coracle wouldn't survive such a trip. A curragh would, although considering the very shallow draft of a coracle they could have simply risen above waves rather than sail through them although i think the logistics would have prevented a human from travelling that far in a coracle.

Yes I agree it does look like the Boii or continental Belgae would make a more likely addition to the faction roster (i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys), i think we are all in agreement that there is no chance of a Goidelic faction.

[antisocialmunky]

It is fun to learn something everyday. Now I want to make one...
[/stuff]

For my two cents I think a continental faction would work better gameplay wise. Having a faction stuck on an island is somewhat of a waste from a gameplay standpoint.

[Maeran]

Curraghs and coracles are really just for pottering around and fishing. It's like saying the Romans and Greeks had nothing better than fishing boats.

Boats are rare however, so the nearest I can find you is a Bronze age boat.
http://www.dover.gov.uk/museum/bronze_age_boat.aspx

[bobbin]

(i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys)

You better hope Moros doesn't read that

But seriously the Saba are a stronger faction choice than the Casse, we know far more about them for one thing and they were more powerful. The criticism usually put against them is that they are "too isolated" which I never understand as they are always pretty active on the map in my games (constantly fighting the Ptolemaioi and even attacking the Baktrians at Persis in a few campaigns) which is more than could be said for the Casse (who I have seen only once capture a city in the continent) .

I'm not suggesting either be dropped as I love playing them both I just think its a little unfair that people pick on the Saba so often.

Back on topic: I think a Belgae tribe such as the Suessiones or Atrebates would be the best choice for a rival to the Casse as they historically showed considerable intrest in Britain and we know about them more than other British tribes.

Curraghs and coracles are really just for pottering around and fishing

IIRC someone sailed a Currach across the atlantic so they were perfectly seaworthy, although one would imagine for longer journeys they would use bigger ships, these could still have been Currachs mind you.

[antisocialmunky]

It would probably be more accurate to say non-ideal. After all Thor Heyerdah has pretty much shown that its not that hard to sail ancient vessels not thought to be able to do ocean crossings across oceans if you have skill, a whole lot of guts, and the weather on your side.

[WinsingtonIII]

(i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys)

I think anyone who says there is no point in the Saba should really try playing a campaign as them. It is a very fun, very unique campaign experience that is both challenging and provides great roleplaying opportunities. The same can be said for anyone who says the Casse are useless. I have found that due to their isolated starting positions and generally unique units, they both have a very interesting feel to them in campaign that cannot be replicated by any other faction, and for me that alone is reason enough to keep them (although of course historical accuracy is paramount). So, I guess my answer to you is, play a campaign as the Saba, and that will prove to you that they have a point.

I'm not trying to change the direction of this thread, I just have noticed that every time we start talking about either the Casse or the Saba, inevitably the suggestion is thrown out there that they should be dropped as factions (which the team has said they won't do anyways if I remember correctly), and I'm just putting my two cents in on that subject.

[Ibrahim]

(i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys).

well, if was going to change your mind by myself, I'd have to resort to illegal means (like burning your house or throwing a dead horse on you bed).

besides, Saba is awesome; what is better in EB than trying to take on to world-class empires, the ptolemioi and seleukids, using a motly band of light infantry?

it has a star wars quality to it, come to think about it.

[athanaric]

@EB team, please can you make a sticky saying something like "Saba will NOT be removed" (unless you guys decide to of course)?
The request for removing Saba has become more frequent and annoying than the one for the inclusion of LS.

[Elmetiacos]

There seems to be more continuity in Central Britain/Northern England than in the South; Sutton Bank hill fort dates from around 400BC, and Almondbury was apparently burned down shortly before that, as if [warning: conjecture follows] there had been an unknown ruling group prior to that date, succeeded by new rulers centred further North, who can be identified with the Brigantes. After that things seem to have stayed fairly stable, with the proto-Brigantes extending their rule over a large part of the region until we arrive at the situation of Cartimandua vs. Venutius in Roman times. In the South, things seem to have been less stable. Most of the major centres are much younger. Aylesford and Swarling have been mentioned and opinions are always changing, but the tendency seems to be to move dates later: where once there was a conjectural "Belgic Empire" in the Southeast opinion now seems to be shifting towards the view that changes in material culture are largely due to direct Roman influence from Gaul. In EBI's version of history, Caesar's Cassi are associated (per Ó hÓgain) with the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses and made a major power, but that's only one man's view in the end. What was really going on there is anyone's guess...

[Moros]

Noone start dissin' my sabaean homies okay?

[Brennus]

Ok a must confess I do take guilty pleasure by playing the Saba in custom battles, so there you are Arabophiles. Whats the addiction with the Sweboz?

Aylesford and Swarling have been mentioned and opinions are always changing, but the tendency seems to be to move dates later: where once there was a conjectural "Belgic Empire" in the Southeast opinion now seems to be shifting towards the view that changes in material culture are largely due to direct Roman influence from Gaul. In EBI's version of history, Caesar's Cassi are associated (per Ó hÓgain) with the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses and made a major power, but that's only one man's view in the end. What was really going on there is anyone's guess...

Precisely.

The key problem that has been raised (correctly) by many people here is the fact that the Belgae migrations (if they did even occur, Cunliffe claims that the Aylesford-Swarling culture is the result of trade not migration, i don't agree) cannot be dated any earlier than 130BC at the very very earliest (based on Allen's numismatic evidence). However an insular Belgic tribe could be included if it can be proven that the Casse (Catuvellauni) can be proven to be Belgic and not Marnian Gauls, as Harding suggests. We know the Casse were present in Britain by 272BC as Ó hÓgain points out, now if they were Gauls then there is no case for Belgae in Britain at this time, if however they were Belgae then it is feasible that another tribe (Possibly the Trinovantes) could be included as Belgae rivals. Once again we have the problem of a lack of evidence with no coinage in Britain till 130BC (Gallo-Belgic A stater) and no named Belgae individuals till either Diviacus c.100BC or Commios 54BC, and certainly no Belgic pottery till c.60BC.

If the Casse are Belgic then there are grounds for a proto-Atrebates or other such tribe, if they are Gallic then once again we are stuck with the first Belgae arriving in the 1st Century BC. It all depends on your interpretation of Caesar's commentary on Britain and whether the continental Casse (the Catalauni) were Belgae or Gauls from the Marne region.

Sorry if that bored everyone, im gonna go an build a mini curragh and test it in the bath.

[oudysseos]

There seems to be more continuity in Central Britain/Northern England than in the South; Sutton Bank hill fort dates from around 400BC, and Almondbury was apparently burned down shortly before that, as if [warning: conjecture follows] there had been an unknown ruling group prior to that date, succeeded by new rulers centred further North, who can be identified with the Brigantes. After that things seem to have stayed fairly stable, with the proto-Brigantes extending their rule over a large part of the region until we arrive at the situation of Cartimandua vs. Venutius in Roman times. In the South, things seem to have been less stable. Most of the major centres are much younger. Aylesford and Swarling have been mentioned and opinions are always changing, but the tendency seems to be to move dates later: where once there was a conjectural "Belgic Empire" in the Southeast opinion now seems to be shifting towards the view that changes in material culture are largely due to direct Roman influence from Gaul. In EBI's version of history, Caesar's Cassi are associated (per Ó hÓgain) with the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses and made a major power, but that's only one man's view in the end. What was really going on there is anyone's guess...

Not quite: the major centres that the Romans found were much younger- Camolodunum, Sorviodunum, etc. There are plenty of 3rd century BCE and earlier sites in the South; Maiden Castle, Uffington Castle, Old Oswestry, The Wrekin, the Bigbury-on-Stour hillfort close to Durovernon- and many many smaller sites, mostly unexcavated. Some of these are late Hallstatt-era foundations that seem to have been continued into the Middle Iron Age, and some might have been late 4th/early 3r4d century sites. There seems to be a general pattern (with regional variations) of the smaller hillforts falling out of use in favour a few, bigger sites, until the 1st century BCE (give or take 50 years) when a whole crop of new sites spring up and the older hillforts close down. It is hard not to associate these late pre-Roman sites with some kind of Belgic migration, but there are pefectly plausible alternative scenarios.

Ó hÓgain might believe that the Cassi were in Britain and known by that name as early as 272 BCE, but he can't prove it, for as Brennus points out the earliest numismatic evidence is much later. Given that all but one or two of the tribes reported by Caesar had disappeared by the time of Claudius, it is possible that tribal identities were more changeable than is often assumed- and in fact, we have to consider the possibility that tribal names themselves, as an idea, were not universal in the 3rd BCE: the large number of smaller sites certainly is suggestive of smaller political and ethnic identities, similar to our notions of clans or families. The very notion of a tribe might only have been forming in the 3rd century.