Possible Britain Map

[Ranika]

I'd say the Brigantes are fine as is, then. Trinovantes is fine, would serve the same purpose as Iceni, really, in my mind, I'd just like to see the large province divided a bit more, because, if we want Britons to be more confined, realistically, we'll need to have a number of provinces, with strong rebels. Not saying all the tribes, mind you, but some key areas from Celtic Britain in multiple periods would give the Britons some room to fight before needing to invade the mainland.

And I think that marking for the Belgae is a good idea, as they did have a presence in Britain, and that'd be a nice touch. Not of huge importance, clearly, but, a nice touch all the same. Ordovicii and Mona, I have no complaints there at all. I had some other cities rolling around in my head, but Mona, I think, would be best. For the Dumnonii, I'd have no objections if Ictis is chosen, nor if Isca would be chosen, either would be a fine, believable settlement. I'd opt for the earliest settlement though, if it's closest to 270 BC.

Is this set up acceptable for Dead Moroz, as well? A solid concensus between any mappers is a definite necessity.

[eadingas]

Looking at the map again, I think we can squeeze one more province in this setup: Catuvellauni or Coritani (depending on which one is more historical for our period) taking up the middle part of England - cut a northern bit off Trinovantes and southern bit off Brigantes. This would make Trinovantes in the south, Catuvellauni/Coritani in the middle and Brigantes in the north. With Caledonia, Ordovicii and Dumnones this makes 6 provinces for Britain, plus two for Hibernia and one small 'quasi-province' area for Belgae.
Actually, we can make 7th province out of Belgian area: south of Thames and west of Cornwall. There were several tribes there that called themselves 'Belgiae'... and if we learn how to add new factions we could give this province to Belgians.
Perhaps make Brigantes also into a rebel province? They were warlike and independent...

Ideally, the map would look something like this:

But perhaps this is too divided...

[Ranika]

If that won't cramp it too much, I think that'll be a fine set up, compared to the campaign map, that shouldn't look too small, it'd be akin to the Greek provinces, small, but, enough space to manuever. It's not like the Gauls, who had a few united kingdoms, so concievably could control a large spaces, and allow us to overlook some of the major Gallic cities and provinces, as the Gauls will have plenty. The Britons, on the other hand, are not unified in any major way, and so using the largest or most important tribes as regions would serve us well for giving the divided sense of being a Briton tribe at the beginning of the game, and building a unified Britannia.

Having the Britons start cramped onto the island will give a more realistic (stressing more, very realistic would be giving them only a single province, but that'd be TOO difficult, I think) sense of the British struggle. The rebel British provinces should be fairly strong and difficult to conquer, occupying the Britons for some time.

I do think the Brigantes should definitely be rebel, their strong indepedent streak should leave them a strong, difficult to conquer rebel province. If you think that their is enough space for a Belgian division, I'd say go for it, but seeing it in my head, that would be a tight squeeze, but not impossible. However, we can't add too many provinces, either, as others need go elsewhere, especially in the new east, but we do have, I think, a little under 100 new provinces open to us.

The early Irish city in the south is supposed to be, supposedly, Milidh, which is supposed to be in the west, around modern day Galway. A good port would be at Tain, which would be around modern day Waterford, I believe. Like the British rebels, I think these should be hard to conquer rebel provinces, occupied by Tuatha Da Danaan Rebels, not Hibernian Rebels. I am aware of Irish legends speaking of the Tuatha Da Danaan as giants or magic beings, I am Irish. However, the historical chronicles of the Irish were fairly seperate, and give an imagine of the Tuatha Da Danaan as likely being Pict-related, a black haired, short warrior race.

[eadingas]

Well, the belgian province is optional, but I think this area should be distinguished from the rest if only by making it part of Belgiae province using the same color, the way I described above. The more research I'm making the more I see how people living in this area considered themselves 'different' from the rest of the Britons...
With separate Belgians it's 4 new provinces, without - 3 new provinces. So it's not that much, I think we'd manage below the limit.

[Ranika]

Right. I understand, just worry about being overzealous in the creation of the British provinces, maybe making too many, or that we may end up strapped for provinces, or that we simply cramp Britain too much. However, if the room is present, and their is enough historical basis for this Belgians, in your assessment, to be apart from the Britons, then I'd say definitely go for it. I'll likely continue throwing ideas out until we get an agreed upon concensus, though I do think I like this map, and think it will work well.

Also, please note the edits to my previous posts, I've added a few addendums.

[Ranika]

If we went with the map displayed most recently, or even with the Belgians added, what would the Briton provinces be? I assume Ordovicii, Dumnonii, and Coritani, and maybe Trinovantes (giving them their original number of provinces)? I recommend three provinces for starting if we go with a 6 province Britain, or 4 if we go with a 7 province Britain.

I have no idea why I didn't just edit my former post.

[eadingas]

I think four would be good. Coritani would be easy to control anyway, they were a peaceful tribe, according to the records, so even as rebels they should be weak and possible to capture within two turns. Trinovantes should have the Briton capital, I think, and Ordovicii and Dumnonii provide important resources and trade income (definitely give the Dumnonii a port from the start, there was a port there even in Homer's times), so we get a fairly balanced but not too powerful faction with three possible expansion directions (north, west into Hibernia or east into Belgia).

[zakalwe]

Sorry for the upcoming long post - i know some of it is a bit off-topic!

Essentially alot of this is 1) anal bitching 2) putting Picts in is historically incorrect 3) Traprain Law would be a good scottish capital. Incidentally, while there were close links between Belgium and SE England in the iron age, these days archaeologists tend to think that they are separate groups, so it's supported by current research to have Belgium as a separate province. (the migration theory is only based upon a population movement in the 1stC BC, so there's no reason to have it as part of Britain in 270BC). So ...



Thank you very much for the replies. I hope I didn’t sound too rude in what I said earlier. I am an archaeologist by trade, have excavated on sites in Scotland, England (a little!) and Ireland, and specialised my archaeology degree in iron age and early historic Scotland (and the British Isles). I still work in a related field and try my best to keep up with current academic thinking.

As far as I’m concerned with something like rtw it is impossible to get historically correct. We can say a lot about the people who inhabited iron age Britain, but are still left with massive gaps in our knowledge. Iron age studies, particularly in Atlantic Scotland, have been at the fore-front of the discipline in this country since the early 1980s, and we are learning a lot all the time. But even for the whole of Britain our only contemporary written texts are politically-motivated fragments from a foreign power. If we are to take them at their face value, we’re closing ourselves to a rich regional diversity and the constantly changing society we see in the archaeological record.

Many of the comments I read in threads and on different sites about rtw, clash dramatically with what academics in the field think about the period - People using outdated theories and backing them up with out of date sources. A lack of knowledge of the basic chronological and geographical framework. An over-reliance of single classical quotations to prove something was or wasn’t true. CA is often blamed are being inaccurate, but I see similar mistakes and fallacies written on the boards. Often the only sources that are quoted are internet sites, and there has been very little basic reading of the key text-books and articles.

I did find a site for this a while back that quoted a Roman source. I can't remember if it is Caesar or tacitus, but the Southern tribes of Britons were described as being more "like the Gauls" than their northern counterparts, who were always in a constant state of war with each other.

Sounds like Tacitus. Can’t for sure remember him saying that they are always at war. But Tacitus would be fairly suspect in any case, since he is promoting Agricola’s acitivities against someone he wants to portray as a fierce enemy

In addition Scotland is known for its unique Iron Age defences.

Certainly not more so than Wessex

... such as Brochs and Crannogs. (a Crannog being a settlement that was literally built in the middle of a Loch, a broch is a round almost tower-like structure made of stone suspected to be used as a store and defensive structure to prevent raids)

Most people view brochs today as a regional variant of the round-house, built in areas where (as you say) there was a lack of stone. They clearly have some defensive qualities, but militarily are rather vulnerable. They were certainly inhabited permanently though, rather than being a temporarily inhabited structure. (incidentally my first ever excavation was on a broch site – wonderful dig!)

Also some areas of Scotland had far less wood and Celtic hillforts were also made of Stone when that resource was nearby

Occasionally, but more usually earth and rubble core with a wooden palisade

But we do not have much information about the Northern Celtic tribes other than what Tacitus tells us about the Battle of Mons Graupius …

I’m not sure if you mean the actual tribe and place names or not? If so I agree. If not, we do know a hell of a lot about the people, their landscape and their lives from archaeological digs.

… and given he was related to Agricola the General who commanded the battle his account is bound to be exaggerated and flawed.

True

At any rate the Romans declared that all of Britannia was subdued after victory at Mons Graupius, in reality the surviving Caledonni and the Picts melted away into the countryside …

Picts in late ad1stC ?

after their defeat while the Romans chose to pull back south rather than hold on to the North... Presumably there was no resource of value to keep them interested in maintaing a garisson that far North.

Many, many reasons for it – I would recomment David Breeze’s ‘The Northern Frontiers of Britain – for a good synopsis of them. The wider situation throughout the Roman empire is particularly important at this point – the romans needed to shift some troops around the empire at that moment and Scotland was low priority. From the archaeology though, it seems that they were initially planning to stay permanently, but they changed their mind.

The Picts

I really disagree with having a Pictish unit in a game that runs from 270BC to AD14. It is just completely historically wrong. It’s almost the same kind of mistake as having the Egyptians with Pharonic headdresses. I mean come on! This is the kind of thing that people would be modding out if CA had done it.

The first mention of the Picts in history was only in 297ad – that’s 283 years after AD14 - almost the whole length of RTW!

Unfortunately until the Roman commentaries we have no knowledge of the named socio-geographical units in Scotland. The most detailed reference is the mid 2ndC AD Ptolemy map, which is of course mentioned elsewhere on the forum. It referred to the people living in Scotland by tribal names – eg. Venicones, Votadini, Cornavii. etc, etc

In the 1stC AD Tactitus refers to the people Agricola fought against as the inhabitants of Caledonia – this can be seen as either a single tribe or the conglomeration of tribes in a loose alliance, triggered by the southern presence of the Romans

In c.200ad Cassius Dio wrote about the Severan campaigns and to quote him:

There are two principal nations of the Britons, the Caledonians and the Maeatae, and the names of the others have been merged in these. The Maeatae live by the wall which the island in half and the Caledonians beyond them …’

Note that in none of these cases, do the Romans refer to the people north of H Wall as by the nickname ‘picti’ or ‘painted people’. Surely we can’t dismiss the above names and instead skip forward in history to the term ‘picti’

The ‘picti’ or ‘painted people’ are first mentioned in 297 by eumenius. The ongoing conglomeration of tribes which Cassius Dio refered to probably formed into the close alliance/league/? of the picts. Over the next 600 years, this group (refered to by some outsiders as picts) had a variety of forms – regional groups (which would later become be ruled by ‘mormaers’ and then ‘earls’ in medieval Scotland), a south/north division, and the eventual merging with the Scots of Dal Riada to form the kingdom of Alba.

I say the Picts are not like their Celtic neighbors, as, physically, they are described as quite different. They were shorter, with black hair.

what source are you using for this?

I'm aware of the anachronism of using the later capitols of the Pict areas (and it's Cat, not Cait, Cait is a later spelling and has a different pronunciation).

I know that they’re spelt differently at times. What’s your source for 'Cat' being the earliest spelling? And since we don’t know the pronunciations the Picts used how do you know that they were both pronounced differently? The earliest I can think of is the famous one about the seven sons of Cruithne, including ‘Cait’. Most quotes seem to say 'Cait', but I haven’t been able to find the original untranslated version anywhere? You know where there is an original version?

However, they are minor anachronisms, as the later Picts in Athfotla, Cat, and Fibb, all claimed their kingdoms to be at least a thousand years old, and based on old tribal regions.

Yes, and the medieval Scots claimed they were descended from an Egyptian princess called Scota. The king lists only go back accurately (-ish!) to c.400ad. all nations and peoples claim to go back far into the past and have their foundation myths. It doesn’t mean it’s true though

And if you're going to not divide up Scotland a lot, at least divide it in half. The Caledonii were of Celtic extraction, but the Picts were simply not. They were a completely different race of people, and lumping them all together is a bad inaccuracy.

I’m sorry!!! The picts were a different race? Please back this up with some decent sources. I have studied the picts a lot and this is simply wrong. I can’t think of a single reputable academic who considers the picts a different ‘race’? yes in the past there were some bizarre theories linking the picts to Finno-Ugritic peoples, the Basques or a pre-Celtic people, but there's really no evidence for any of these

To quote Martin Carver, one of the leading Pict experts

‘’… for most modern scholars, the Picts were Britons, just like the Britons of Wales. In this view, there is nothing particularly strange about their customs: they were not matrilinear, they just fell back on female heirs when necessary like the rest of early medieval Europe. Their weapons, forts, social organisation, marriage customs and clothing were not radically different from those of the other communities who occupied Britain and Ireland then…. The Picts were not a race, although they may have been briefly a nation’’

While the Romans would sometime say they were the same people, every description of the Picts, including the Roman ones, is that they were a short, black haired people, while the Britons were tall and fair-headed.

Can you quote me these? We have very only occasional Roman sources for people in Scotland’s appearances. It is similar to someone going to Greece today and saying that everyone has black hair. Could you give me Roman sources that say the Picts were short and black haired, while the Britons were tall and fair-headed

In addition to quote Tacitus, Agricola, 11

‘’Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is as usual among barbarians, little known. Their physical characteristics are various, and from these conclusions may be drawn. The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin. The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts. Those who are nearest to the Gauls are also like them, either from the permanent influence of original descent, or, because in countries which run out so far to meet each other, climate has produced similar physical qualities. But a general survey inclines me to believe that the Gauls established themselves in an island so near to them … The Britons, however, exhibit more spirit, as being a people whom a long peace has not yet enervated. Indeed we have understood that even the Gauls were once renowned in war; but, after a while, sloth following on ease crept over them, and they lost their courage along with their freedom. This too has happened to the long-conquered tribes of Britain; the rest are still what the Gauls once were.’’

Actually possibly that was the quote you were referring to Emperor?



But, then again, the main wish to divide up Britain is so the British can be confined to it, and have to fight to control ALL of Britain, so I'd like 6-7 or so divisions in Britain.

And to finish on a positive, i couldn't agree more! I would love this. I’m not sure if it could be done in this mod, but I really would loved to have CA do this in the game. The struggle for the Britons should have been to start as a single province and fight to unite them all, rather than start as a superpower. Sadly, for gameplay and practical reasons it wasn’t done

Capital

As for a capital of the Caledones – I think Traprain Law is probably the best bet for the period involved – it is about 15 miles east of Edinburgh. As for a original name who knows?

Some sources

David Breeze – The Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain

Martin Carver – Surviving in Symbols

Richard Hingley – Settlement and Sacrifice

Ian Armit – Towers in the North: The Brochs of Scotland

Smith and Banks – In the Shadow of the Brochs

Sally Foster – Picts, Gaels and Scots


Thank you very much and sorry for going on so much!

[Ranika]

Picts by the name of Pict may be historically incorrect, but they are clearly a seperate people. The Romans DO state they were shorter, and while I'll need to find the exact qoutes, Michael Lynch, a very prominent Scottish historian (his finest composition is the Oxford Companion to Scottish History, an excellent source), states so, and the Irish and the Dal Riatans, in later periods, describe the Pict people as not being of the Gaelic race. However, they called the various Welsh, the Strathclyders, the people they called Caledonians, and most of the southern British tribes of Celts Gaels, but they likened the Picts to the Cruithe. It is an accepted fact in Irish history, that the Tuatha Da Danann were Cruithe, and they were also short black haired people, they were described by Saint Patrick, who dealt with the last Irish Cruithe in the north of Ireland as "a people totally unlike the Gaels, but claiming of proper rights to the island, stating they were before the Gaels". The Irish didn't argue that they weren't, either. Rather, the idea that these people were there first is a key note in the earliest of Irish history.

Saint Donan, who went on mission to the Picts, called them Celts, but said of them "They are shorter than the Gaels, but have longer heads, and whiter skin" in his letter to the monastary at Iona (shortly before he and his 52 missionaries were slaughtered at Eigg). The letter also includes references to their religion (worship of rocks, trees, rivers, and sometimes, bastardized versions of British gods, though the former, animism, was generally more popular). Donan, like Patrick (a Cumbrian), declared himself a member of the race he was trying to convert, but was of Gaelic extraction (Donan was from Dal Riata), and, even if the Picts were Celts, was not of the same race (as if the Picts were Celts, they were Brythonic, not Goedelic). Supposedely, Saint Columba would not be anamchara (soul-friend) with Saint Donan, because he was 'of the Pict race', who Columba thought of as irredeemably pagan, and actually likened them to monsters, and used their PHYSICAL APPEARANCE (notably, their size, their gait, as well as non-natural things, such as hair styles and tattoos) to spread propaganda that they were in fact the children of demons during his early missions, before changing his mind after Donan's martyrdom. only after Donan's marytrdom did Columba speak with Brude, the Pict king, who he'd originally called 'a little bile spat up from hell'.

A common theme in all of the statements of the interactors with the Pict regions is that they were a shorter people (not necessarily SHORT, but compared to their neighbors, they were generally shorter). The Gaelic races all say they (the Cruithe) were there before them, and that they weren't related to them remotely (until the assimilations of the Picts into the people of the kingdom of Dal Riata, then Alba).

The sources I'm using, I know, are post Roman, but they talk a lot about pre-Roman eras for the Picts, and provide a clear description of the northernmost as being a different people. The southern Picts would surely be interbred heavily with actual Britons, but I think it would be foolish to assume that the Picts are purely Celtic, based only on Roman sources, when the Romans did not interact that heavily with them. They fought them, and saw them, but they did not engage in long diplomacy with them, nor study them as Saint Donan did. Unless you're willing to believe a massive invasion of totally unrelated people flooded into Scotland without anyone, British or otherwise noticing, or that by some genetic anomaly, the northernmost Britons looked totally different than their southern cousins, there is no way the Picts can be of the same race.

[PROMETHEUS]

I think that Caledonia should be divided in superior and inferior , since there are two valla build there and separated the two regions.....

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Sorry for the upcoming long post - i know some of it is a bit off-topic!

Essentially alot of this is 1) anal bitching 2) putting Picts in is historically incorrect 3) Traprain Law would be a good scottish capital...

Extremelly good post. Some very good points. I totally agree on the Picts question. If they weren't mentioned before 297AD, why include them in an Historical correct MOD? No logic in that.

But, then again, the main wish to divide up Britain is so the British can be confined to it, and have to fight to control ALL of Britain, so I'd like 6-7 or so divisions in Britain.

And to finish on a positive, i couldn't agree more! I would love this. I’m not sure if it could be done in this mod, but I really would loved to have CA do this in the game. The struggle for the Britons should have been to start as a single province and fight to unite them all, rather than start as a superpower. Sadly, for gameplay and practical reasons it wasn’t done.

Yes. The map of the British Isles can be subdivided up 8-9 provinces. We have a maximum of 200 and there are currently a little more than 100. It shouldn't be a problem if kept to that number.

Thank you very much and sorry for going on so much!

No problem. Keep these posts coming.

BTW, interested in cooperating in historical information or too busy to do it?