An Irish protest

[Brennus]

Possibly wasting my time with this one but as it is Saint Patricks day I would like to protest against the decision to reduce EBII Ireland to a single province centred on Tara.

I would like to protest on the grounds that traditionally Ireland was divided into two regions during this period. Secondally the archaeology at Emain Macha/Navan is far more substantial than at Tara Hill. I know the team will not change their minds about Ireland but considering that there has been a longstanding difference between Northern and Southern Ireland (and im talking about a long long standing difference going back to the Mesolithic not just 1920) the decision to treat the island as a single culturally homogenous zone is innaccurate.

I just wanted to voice my thoughts.

[bobbin]

Errr...did you even read the Pritanoi preview?

1. Navan Fort is the capital of the region.
2. Ireland is not one province, the south and west are part of the Eremos province.

[B-Wing]

Well, while I don't really care how many regions they use to represent Ireland (due to its isolated position and lack of playable faction), I really doubt that representing part of it with Eremos, an unconquerable region, will satisfy this guy. :)

[Populus Romanus]

Saint Patrick, in all his holiness, knows that Ireland should be one province.

[Brennus]

Errr...did you even read the Pritanoi preview?

1. Navan Fort is the capital of the region.
2. Ireland is not one province, the south and west are part of the Eremos province.

Sorry, ive been a tit again.

Saint Patrick, in all his holiness, knows that Ireland should be one province.

Careful now, it's comments like those that get people into ALOT of trouble here in Belfast.

[bobbin]

Saint Patrick, in all his holiness, knows that Ireland should be one province.

Like Brennus said be careful about making such comments, there are a lot of people with very strong feelings on the issue.

[Leon the Batavian]

So Ireland the land of heroes is not unified ? Just curious.

Any subject should be and will be discussed. We live in a Democracy (or is the Netherlands the only country where you can do such things ? I am sure not) with freedom of speech even though it will rise some eyebrows.
Medieval times are over! And on top of that its was an Irishman who started this topic.

But what if the Romans decided to have look over there would all the Irish people stand United ?

[Ludens]

Any subject should be and will be discussed. We live in a Democracy (...) with freedom of speech even though it will rise some eyebrows.

Actually, this forum is just there to discuss EB2. If you wish to discuss politics, you can sign up for the .Org Backroom. You need to request access first (via settings > permission groups), but usually this is a formality.

That said: Freedom of Speech means the government is not allowed to limit your right to express yourself. It is not the right to a publisher, or to an audience, and it does not trump the right to private property. If you wish to use the .Org's website and bandwidth to publish your message, you need the .Org's consent. You cannot force us to host your message, because we too are free to publish what we wish.

With that in mind: please drop the subject of contemporary Irish politics. It may be welcome in the Backroom or the Monastery, but it definitely isn't here.

[Maeran]

To revisit a more EB'y point

But what if the Romans decided to have look over there would all the Irish people stand United ?

Most of the time, the Romans (and others) made use of local rivalries and ambitions to divide and conquer. So, I wouldn't expect the Irish tribes to have united against a common threat. Not 100% anyway.

[oudysseos]

Actually, if we had unlimited province slots, I'd put 4 or 5 into Ireland (and at least 12 into Britain) - and say 14 into Iberia, and so on, and so on. It's just the reality of the situation: adding one somewhere means subtracting one from someplace else, and the map is finalized, at least in terms of province allocations: we really have been over every possible option, and aren't going to reopen the debate.

traditionally Ireland was divided into two regions during this period.

Well, not really. Have a look at Raftery's Pagan Celtic Ireland or A New History of Ireland. There are a number of ways that you could divide up Ireland in our period, but a straight North/South line is not one of them.

the archaeology at Emain Macha/Navan is far more substantial than at Tara Hill.

Again, not so much, or at least, they're kindof apples and oranges. The Navan site is thought to have been more ritualized, while the Tara site could actually have been used/inhabited as a residence/centre of power, but frankly there is so little real historical information about this period to help us interpret the archaeology that you could probably come up with a plausible scenario for just about anything.

That said, even if we had unlimited provinces, I would not be in favour of an Irish faction: there are just not enough real facts to work with.

[Brennus]

Well, not really. Have a look at Raftery's Pagan Celtic Ireland

I intend to as soon as I have finished Cunliffe's "Iron Age" communities in Britain.

That said, even if we had unlimited provinces, I would not be in favour of an Irish faction: there are just not enough real facts to work with.

Neither would I. A Goidelic faction would be akin to a Scandanavian faction in terms of historical accuracy.

So Ireland the land of heroes is not unified ? Just curious.

Any subject should be and will be discussed. We live in a Democracy (or is the Netherlands the only country where you can do such things ? I am sure not) with freedom of speech even though it will rise some eyebrows.
Medieval times are over! And on top of that its was an Irishman who started this topic?

I must confess I am not Irish, I simply live here, I am British (and not in the Orange Order sense of the word, I am Scottish on my fathers side, English on my mothers and I was born and raised in Manchester). If you want to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland and Irish history in general feel free to PM me but as Ludens said no discussing Ireland outside of the timeframe EBII is concerned with.

Personally I don't think the Romans could have held Ireland, like Caledonia it did not posses the socio-political framework that the Roman state could graft its administration onto. Other Celtic area such as central transalpine Gaul, cisalpine Gaul and south eastern Britain did possess the necessary socio-political features to enable the Roman administration to latch on; Oppidum, increasingly complex and centralised governments, an economy based on crop production and trade etc. Ireland's reliance on pastoralism and lack of large settlements meant that, in my opinion, although the Romans would have had no difficulty beating the Irish in combat they would have found it very very difficuly to Romanise the Irish.

[Populus Romanus]

Like Brennus said be careful about making such comments, there are a lot of people with very strong feelings on the issue.

I think you are looking for a hidden meaning that isn't there. I was only only referring to EB.

[Olaf The Great]

The comment made me laugh, though I am feeling giggly anyway.

Anyway, I don't really like it being split up personally, but the EB team is a group of very intelligent people who must have replaced that province which is more important to the current local and world powers at the time.

I think of it this way, if you were a Casse leader who became the absolute ruler of Britain you wouldn't take over HALF of Ireland, you'd take over the whole dang thing.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Nah, you would claim that you would control the whole of Ireland. As I understand it, it was nigh impossible to fully control the area.

[Brennus]

Nah, you would claim that you would control the whole of Ireland. As I understand it, it was nigh impossible to fully control the area.

Like Agricola at Mons Graupius.

[HFox]

The irish stood united on Saturday and beat us into the ground......a rugby reference and lame attempt at derailing the thread

[Tyrfingr]

But if you're making Ireland unconquerable because no of the EB-factions held it during the timeline, then why don't we make the Baltics and Scandinavia the same? I'd would prefer giving Ireland some nasty "roving defenders", similar to the ridicolously strong Mrogbonna-guy (Rhesus, right?), making it nigh-impossible to claim Ireland. EB is all about historical accuracy, but the player is at the same time given the possibility to change the course of history.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

But if you're making Ireland unconquerable because no of the EB-factions held it during the timeline, then why don't we make the Baltics and Scandinavia the same? I'd would prefer giving Ireland some nasty "roving defenders", similar to the ridicolously strong Mrogbonna-guy (Rhesus, right?), making it nigh-impossible to claim Ireland. EB is all about historical accuracy, but the player is at the same time given the possibility to change the course of history.

I agree with the idea of making the Baltics and Scandinavia ungovernable - well, certainly Scandinavia, rather than making it 'possible' to govern somewhere like Ireland or Scotland. There just wasn't any central government of any sort in these areas to be able to conquer. I think the idea of the Eremos is a good one - if anything I would have it extended and have it produce (spawn) rebel stacks as an irritant to the faction holding neighbouring areas.

[oudysseos]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

[oudysseos]

Here's a great example from Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...=ILCNETTXT3487

[fightermedic]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

This could very well be the truth i think, as it reminds me very much of the situation in Chile, the natives living in the south had been as good as not conquerable as they were extremley decentralised and only when weapons were MUCH more advanced in the spanish north they were able to conquer the south

[Ca Putt]

for europe that may very well be true(I actually agree with you in that point) but it's certainly untrue for asia.

the other continents are much more mushy in that context.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Here's a great example from Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...=ILCNETTXT3487

Thanks for that link, it re-inforces what I have begun to suspect more and more; that the history Rome has handed down to us (of Rome 'civilising' the Barbarian world) is far from being an accurate portrayal of events. I get a little hot under the collar when I see documentaries just re-hashing that tale. I think that alot more work needs to be undertaken to understand the cultures that existed prior to Roman hegemony - I know that there is a fair bit ongoing (cmaq's great Lugione preview highlights a fair deal, and the discovery and works at the many Boii 'oppida', not to mention such places as Bibracte, Gergovia and Avaricum) but.....more could be done, and it'd be nice to see some of that work hauled together and publicised a little more.

[Kikaz]

Hm, I'm not particularly keen on making part of Ireland (or Scandinavia) unconquerable... If the areas had no government structure, then they should be made part of a nearby province; even so, it's not as though those areas didn't have a unique culture or didn't have people, that alone should make some sort of province justifiable, otherwise you basically have to sit there and look at a place that is, for all non-cartographic intents and purposes, not there. A simplification: A basic, generalized settlement being present, would be more realistic than nothing at all.

[antisocialmunky]

Could you in addition to the Eremos change make a PSF in each of the ungovernable areas and use a garrison script to spawn uber stacks of rebels if the PSF is attacked or held by the player?

[cmacq]

Not to draw too fine a point, yet if anyone here could please explain what the tree-rings of Irish Oaks tell us about the near total absence of any archaeological evidence of human settlement, of any significance in the LpRIA or early RIA, either in Erie or northern Alba, that would be really great.

And, I quote:

D Rumsfelt
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

May I add:

Yours Truely
There are those so-called known knowns we think we know, but all too often what we think are know as known, are in fact total BS.

I hope this may help.

[Brennus]

Not to draw too fine a point, yet if anyone here could please explain what the tree-rings of Irish Oaks tell us about the near total absence of any archaeological evidence of human settlement, of any significance in the LpRIA or early RIA, either in Erie or northern Alba, that would be really great.

And, I quote:


May I add:


I hope this may help.

I live with a Palaeoecology student, I will ask her and see if she can shed any light on it for you.

[cmacq]

I live with a Palaeoecology student, I will ask her and see if she can shed any light on it for you.

That would be for you as, much as for me. Please see your earlier posting titled: The East Anglian and Dutch Coasts. And please take a look at this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This graph provides only a very basic outline as seen from central Greenland. The temporal correlation is based entirely on radiocarbon dating, thus placement of the more remote samples are of course less reliable.

[Cyclops]

I'm sad the province limit has reared its ugly head again, the team is doing an impressive job with work-arounds (like the inspired Sardinia/Corsica split).

I see the point that there's mighty swathes of unsettle-able land in the EB period and this is modelled with the Eremos province. I had imagined it being used on the steppes and I believe I read a post suggesting it would be (although in a different way to what I suggested, I had thought of "island" or "pocket" provinces surrounded by Eremos so there were little settled patches or oases or whatever.

I wonder if the Irish province will have a "nomad camp" or a "city" settlement type at game start. Was semi-nomadic herding pretty common there? My memory is dim and vague on Iron Age Britain. Might be a way to model the more extremely non-urban areas culturally un-aligned to urban development, and needing a real culture shift to allow urbanisation?

[bobbin]

I see the point that there's mighty swathes of unsettle-able land in the EB period and this is modelled with the Eremos province. I had imagined it being used on the steppes and I believe I read a post suggesting it would be (although in a different way to what I suggested, I had thought of "island" or "pocket" provinces surrounded by Eremos so there were little settled patches or oases or whatever.

It's a nice idea but trade would not work at all if each province was surrounded by Eremos, and trade was very important in the steppes.
The most northerly of the steppe provinces have been made into Eremos, I believe that's what you were thinking about.