Proposed Sauro Rules Change

[Kival]

Why not just give Sweboz Horse archers as mercenaries then? It should be able to work the other way around .

Because it's meant to represent slavic units. Sweboz never used HA.

[Arjos]

BTW rework the 2 gallic rosters, making Aruernoi more south-eastern and Aeduoi more north-western: for example factional Belgae for the former feels just weird...

Dugundiz would represent Slavic retainer infantry for them which the EB team did not include in the game.

Put it that way maybe, but really the Sauros didn't go that far north-west; Bastarnae are one thing, they were employed all over the Balkans as mercenaries, but slavic troops so far south :S

[gamegeek2]

Put it that way maybe, but really the Sauros didn't go that far north-west; Bastarnae are one thing, they were employed all over the Balkans as mercenaries, but slavic troops so far south :S

OK, let's see how many units we can cut from the KH roster using this criteria...

And by the way; Sauros lived in southern and eastern Ukraine. Slavs at this time lived in Western Ukraine generally, East Balts would live around the same area plus in Belarus and Western Russia. I wouldn't call that distance TOO far.

(Would you care to argue this point? I'd be glad to)

[Arjos]

First of all, I've read so many possible genesis for the Slavic people, I'm not even sure which one we should consider...
Are there episodes of recorded slavic contacts with the Sauromatae? Afaik Bastarnae and keltic groups took over the western Ukraine, forcing the Slavs to fall back further north (they would return later in the 6th century AD)...
And as I said before, of archaeological evidences that I know of further north-west, we have only scythian hoards dating several centuries before the EB start date...

[-Stormrage-]

First of all, I've read so many possible genesis for the Slavic people, I'm not even sure which one we should consider...
Are there episodes of recorded slavic contacts with the Sauromatae? Afaik Bastarnae and keltic groups took over the western Ukraine, forcing the Slavs to fall back further north (they would return later in the 6th century AD)...
And as I said before, of archaeological evidences that I know of further north-west, we have only scythian hoards dating several centuries before the EB start date...

where do you people come up with this stuff, i must say i envy your knowledge.

Now spill it how do you know so much about this. Directed toward all you wannabee's :D

[Arjos]

Now spill it how do you know so much about this. Directed toward all you wannabee's :D

Pick one, then another and another and another XD

[-Stormrage-]

Pick one, then another and another and another XD

lol this is crazy, thanks man

[gamegeek2]

First of all, I've read so many possible genesis for the Slavic people, I'm not even sure which one we should consider...
Are there episodes of recorded slavic contacts with the Sauromatae? Afaik Bastarnae and keltic groups took over the western Ukraine, forcing the Slavs to fall back further north (they would return later in the 6th century AD)...
And as I said before, of archaeological evidences that I know of further north-west, we have only scythian hoards dating several centuries before the EB start date...

http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbu...-contents.html

A few highlights:

The changeless life of the, eastern Baltic tribes in the Dnieper basin was disturbed in the second century B.C. by the appearance of the Zarubincy, assumed to be Slavs (the name “Zarubincy” coming from the cemetery of Zarubinec south of Kiev on the River Dnieper, excavated in 1899). They invaded the lands possessed by the Milograd people along the River Pripet and up the Dnieper and its tributaries, and the southern territories inhabited by the Plain Pottery people. The Zarubincy were a peasant folk on a cultural level similar to that of the eastern Balts, but their archaeological remains contrast in every detail with those of the older population...

The intrusion of the Zarubincy must be interpreted as the first Slavic expansion northward from the lands lying in the immediate neighborhood. Their movements may have been prompted by the expansion of the western Baltic tribe, the Pot-covered Urn-Grave people, in the fourth–third centuries B.C., and the subsequent Celtic expansion to eastern Europe. The Milograd culture persisted alongside the Zarubinec throughout all the centuries of the occupation, from the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. A certain revival is discernible around the third–fourth centuries A.D., when Milograd sites appeared again on the Dnieper as far as Kiev in the south. Dating from around the third century A.D., finds of the Zarubinec type disappear and by the fourth–fifth centuries are replaced by another Slavic branch, pushing up the Dnieper from the south.

So yes you are right about the Slavic move north, prompted by the Urn-Grave expansion (we can assume those to the the Bastarnae, who replaced the Alazones as the main group in the region) and Celtic expansion eastward.

Here's a wiki map of the Zarubincy location (in red, the West Baltic Przeworsk are in green)



Now that doesn't seem very far from the Sauromatae does it?

[gamegeek2]

I also propose that we nix the 8x max limit for these units:

Sarmatian Horse Archers
Parthian Horse Archers
Saka Horse Archers

[Arjos]

Now that doesn't seem very far from the Sauromatae does it?

To their south were the remnants of the Skythioi; east of these the various groups of the Bosporos and north, north-east of them the Sauromatae: there was some relative distance...
But the proximity wasn't the point here, there aren't archaeological, nor written evidences of Sauros living in that area (or Slavs so far south); what exactly would justify the factional status for the slavic units?

[The Celtic Viking]

Yeah, I don't think proximity is enough for factional status. For example, Appea Gaedotos are very close to the Arverni, but they're still considered mercs for the Arverni, likewise with Arabians for Ptollies/AS. The proximity has put them on the roster, but I don't see it as a reason for making them factional as well.

[Kival]

OK, let's see how many units we can cut from the KH roster using this criteria...

If you view KH really as KH you have an argument but if you take KH just as "greek city-states + all their colonies relatively independent but still strongly influenced by their founders" I can't see a big problem here. If you make that strict criteria all factions who had not been world powers would be heavily reduced in their possibilities of units.