Possible Britain Map

[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on different sites about rtw, clash dramatically with what academics in the field think about the period - People using outdated theories and backing them up with out of date sources.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.

[Ranika]

eadingas, need to have member status before editting posts. I'd use Coritani, just to give the Britons a province. It'd be nice to include the really indepedent tribes, but that'd leave the Britons with few 'united' provinces.

[Ranika]

Also, I'm aware I think Hibernian rebels should be the Tuatha Da Danaan, and I know the Gaels saw them as the Cruithe race, but they called them the Tuatha Da Danaan. It's like...rebels in Athens would be like Athenian rebels, not Greek rebels.

Further, I'm aware using Dark Ages sources is working backwards, but we'd have to work backwards, cause no one actually knows what was present in the far north during 270 BC, but the general concensus by Dark Ages researchers, who were a lot closer to that point than we are, is that the Picts were there, and were not the same people. To further hammer that point, Kenneth Mac Alpin, called the Picts 'The wretched race of cruithe'. He didn't call the Irish or Welsh 'a wretched race', he called them 'wretched lands' (Kenneth wasn't a very nice guy, he didn't like many people).

[eadingas]

BTW, the guys at Medieval Mod have divided Britain into six provinces (of course in a completely different way, because they're doing different time period) and it looks OK - not cramped or squeezed at all:
http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...pe=post&id=845

That's a good info on Picts. I don't know what other name should we use for them, Picts are at least easily identifiable by anyone, we could perhaps note in the troop description that it's a later name.
Were the lands of Caledones and Picts separated, or were they mixed in the same area?
PS: Yeah, I know about the need to be a member, I just can't find how many posts it takes. I hope it's 50 :)

[eadingas]

Cruithni seems to be a celtic name for Picts. We could use that, maybe.

[Ranika]

Well, it is true we can't know exactly what the Picts were. In such a case, I think a generic 'Caledonian' unit would be best, if that's agreeable, but I ask, at least, that they have black hair (some Celts did, so that'd be fine for a Celtic unit anyway). It seems, at least to me, a reasonable compromise. And the area of the Picts and Caledones is, as such, a twisted bag. Can't really say where they had 'borders', or if they had them at all (the Picts were likely largely nomadic, or very loosely tribal). Any borders or cities I've suggested for them are all based on later sources when they coalesced into defined kingdoms, but in 270 BC, they'd probably not be nearly as developed.

As for that map, then it seems good enough, can put a fair number of provinces in, it seems, enough, anyway, to make Britain feesably realistic. I'm glad we all agree on that, the CA version of a 'unified' Great Britain was a bit upsetting, and just plain stupid. However, the map in your link if of France (Gaul).

And Cruithni is the 'new' Irish spelling, after 1100 AD, prior to that, it is Cruithe. Cruithni is after some Latin influences got into Gaeligh. If we use the name the Gaels called them, the earliest known name would be Cruithe (Croo-da), not Cruithni (Croo-nee, in An Mhumain, Crot-nee in the Connacht, not sure of the other dialects, my Ulster is just terrible). Cruithe, I think, would be an okay compromise, if we don't wish to apply the later Roman title (and they were likely called Cruithe or a similar name before Picti anyway). However, I've shyed from it for the same reason I didn't want to use it for Hibernian rebels, but if we do use it, then using it in Hibernia would work too.

As for dividing Caledonia, I think we've come to a compromise of some sort to not divide it.

[zakalwe]

[Bollocks there's been some more posts since i wrote this - apologies if i contradict what some of the most recent ones say]

Some more comments

The Romans DO state they were shorter, and while I'll need to find the exact quotes …

Fair enough, I’d be interested

Michael Lynch, a very prominent Scottish historian (his finest composition is the Oxford Companion to Scottish History, an excellent source), states so ...

If you say so, though Michael is an excellent historian, but he is not a Pictish expert or prehistorian. While he is a great all-round historian (I’ve attended his lectures a couple of times), he specialises in 16th and 17th century Scottish history

But, since you brought him up, here is a passage from him.

Some quotes from Michael Lynch -

‘’The first mention of the Picts was made by a Roman observer in ad 297 … Its occurrence at that point when the main periods of both Roman invasion and occupation of a southern pale were already over, may suggest that the name implied a new power grouping in the north rather than indicating a tribe newly arrived from elsewhere. A hundred years before the name Picti appeared the eleven or twelve northern tribes which Ptolemy had earlier described were already being subsumed into two great peoples, the Caledonni and the Maeatae bound together in an alliance against the Romans. The Maeatae explained Dio Cassius c310 ‘live close to the wall that divides the island into two parts’ but the Caledonni are ‘beyond them’. The dividing line between Roman and hostile territory would have been the Antonine Wall and the likely border between these two cognate peoples was the natural barrier of the Mounth. From this point until the sixth century, it is noticeable that there are consistently said to be two main groups of peoples north of the Forth/Clyde line: in 310 there is a reference to the ‘Caledones and other Picts’; by 368 Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Dicaydones (obviously related to the Caledones) and the Verturiones’ and Bede, in dealing with the 6th century distinguishes between ‘northern Picts’ a pagan people first touched by Columba in this mission in the Great Glen, and the southern Picts who, he asserted, had been converted to Christianity much earlier by Ninian’’ [incidentally he mixes up some of his authors here ]

‘’the rediscovery of the Picts as a Celtic people has encouraged closer comparison with practices in contemporary Ireland’’

Some quotations by some Pict experts

Sally Foster (Historic Scotland)

Re: Picti ‘it seems to be a generic term for peoples living north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus who raided the Roman empire’

‘’The appearance of the term Picti cannot be used to infer that the Picts were a ‘nation’ or uniform people prior to the end of the 3rd century, nor that the people to whom this term was applied had suddenly changed in any way’’

‘’… we can be confident that all these people were simply the descendents of the native Iron Age tribes of Scotland’’

‘’Current learned opinion largely favours Leslie Alcock’s 1987 view that the Picts were ‘a typical northwest European barbarian society, with wide connections and parallels’ and that they were thought of as such by their neighbours’’

Martin Carver (Professor of Archaeology at York Uni)

‘’The people beyond the walls were known at first by typical British tribal names – Venicones, Decantae, Cornavii – but by the 300s they had acquired a nickname: the Picts or ‘the Painted People’



Ranika

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

I’d be interested in seeing the Irish and Dal Riatan sources where they describe the Welsh, Strathclyders and Caledonians as Gaels

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".

I’ve studied some Irish prehistory and early history, and I’ve worked there as an archaeologist. I would not say that this is an accepted fact all. I don’t want to start another discussion about this, but for the moment I’ll just dispute that it is an accepted fact.

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).

I don’t think anyone was arguing they were Goedelic. Most people think there spoke a P Celtic tongue

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.

I agree. I don’t like the use of Roman literature without being backed up by other evidence

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.

IMO The Picts and Strathclyde Britons were simply the descendents of the same people who lived there during the early Roman period and during in the Iron Age. Yep with interbreeding from all their neighbours, but they were not 2 different races. The iron age was regionally very diverse, and the development in the 3rd to 6th centuries of several regional proto-states which had their own identities is not surprising. It doesn't have to imply that because there were two proto-nations that there were two different races

Regarding their different looks, plenty of people at the time failed to mention significant differences. Flicking through the books I have on Pictish and Iron Age period here at the moment, it is barely even considered for more than a paragraph or 2 that the Picts could have been a different race from the Caledonians

‘the general concensus by Dark Ages researchers, who were a lot closer to that point than we are, is that the Picts were there, and were not the same people.’’

Who do you mean by this? Are you honestly saying that rather than modern historical scholarship we should just go with what Gildas, the Pictish king lists and Bede say?

Kenneth Mac Alpin, called the Picts 'The wretched race of cruithe'. He didn't call the Irish or Welsh 'a wretched race', he called them 'wretched lands'

What is your source for this quotation? I’d be interested as there are very few historical sources for MacAlpin.

Were the lands of Caledones and Picts separated, or were they mixed in the same area?

The Caledones were around the great glen in Ptolemy's map. Tacitus talks about Caledonia mainly when he's north of the Forth-Clyde. Cassius Dio says that the same thing - beyond the Antonine Wall. As for the Picts - the northern grouping was north of the Mounth - sort of Buchan - Moray - Ross - Caithness, while the southern Picts were south of the Mounth - including Mar - Angus - Atholl - Fife - Strathearn. Pretty much the same although Ptolemy's map is very dodgy about exact places adn locations.


Anyway, a lot of this discussion comes down to a later period.

But, since the term Caledones is used closer in time to the RTW period, I think it is far better to use the term 'Caledones' or 'Caldonii' ??, (or for some units - – the names of the tribes in Ptolemy maps - eg Votadini, etc ) for the mod.

If it was to be divided - Caledonia Inferior./ Superior would probably be best with a split on the Forth/Clyde - Traprain Law southern capital - Tap o Nort in Aberdeenshire probably best for the north?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

That's a good info on Picts. I don't know what other name should we use for them, Picts are at least easily identifiable by anyone, we could perhaps note in the troop description that it's a later name.
Were the lands of Caledones and Picts separated, or were they mixed in the same area?

If they weren't known as Picts until the 2th century AD, they aren't going to be called that in the MOD. They will be called what they were called in that specific age - 3rd century BC.

PS: Yeah, I know about the need to be a member, I just can't find how many posts it takes. I hope it's 50 :)

Nope. It has nothing to do with post count. Only with a certain amount of time and contribution to the forum. It can be sooner or later, but generally it doesn't take too long. Maybe less than a month.

[eadingas]

If they weren't known as Picts until the 2th century AD, they aren't going to be called that in the MOD. They will be called what they were called in that specific age - 3rd century BC.

Okay, okay, I get it all ready, no need to get all caps-locky on me :)
The problem here is we don't know for certain how they were called in 3rd century BC...but the Picts didn't appear out of nowhere in 2nd century AD, they must've been there before? Not including them just because we don't know the proper name for them doesn't seem to fair... But we've moved from using the name of 'Picts' later on, as you can see if you read the thread carefully.
How about 'Pretani'?

Nope. It has nothing to do with post count. Only with a certain amount of time and contribution to the forum. It can be sooner or later, but generally it doesn't take too long. Maybe less than a month.

A month?? Good gods.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Okay, okay, I get it all ready, no need to get all caps-locky on me :)

I didn't.

The problem here is we don't know for certain how they were called in 3rd century BC...but the Picts didn't appear out of nowhere in 2nd century AD, they must've been there before? Not including them just because we don't know the proper name for them doesn't seem to fair... But we've moved from using the name of 'Picts' later on, as you can see if you read the thread carefully. How about 'Pretani'?

That is not up to me to decide. That is for the Briton research group to decide.

[khelvan]

Okay, okay, I get it all ready, no need to get all caps-locky on me :)

Don't worry, I thought that Aymar was yelling at me all the time until I realized he just says MOD instead of mod, whenever talking about EB. :)

[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?

[eadingas]

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.

You mean 8-9 provs for _both_ Britain and Hibernia? Then it's what we already got working on here... The provinces proposed are - north Hibernia and south Hibernia, Caledonia, Brigantes, Coritani, Trinovantes, Ordovices, Dumnoni, british Belgians... that's 9 already, without dividing Caledonia. Alternatively, we could get rid of Belgians and split Caledonia, but I think it would be more fun to have 'Belgian foothold on British soil' in the beginning...

Zakalwe, care to share your opinion on this proposed division? I've been using only online sources for this so far, maybe there's something wrong with it...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

You mean 8-9 provs for _both_ Britain and Hibernia? Then it's what we already got working on here...

Yes. Up to 8-9 for the entire British Isles - Britain and Hibernia.

The provinces proposed are - north Hibernia and south Hibernia, Caledonia, Brigantes, Coritani, Trinovantes, Ordovices, Dumnoni, british Belgians... that's 9 already, without dividing Caledonia. Alternatively, we could get rid of Belgians and split Caledonia, but I think it would be more fun to have 'Belgian foothold on British soil' in the beginning...

That is up to your groups to decide (Briton Factions research group and Campaign Map group).

Just remember that we need names for provinces, cities and for the tribes ocuppying them. Not just name the provinces by tribe's names.

[eadingas]

Just remember that we need names for provinces, cities and for the tribes ocuppying them. Not just name the provinces by tribe's names.

I don't get it... the province can't be called the same as the tribe? Why? What names should we use then, geographic regions? But the names of regions are modern inventions... Surely not 'Britannia Superior' or 'Caledonia Inferior'...

The settlements names won't be a problem, there's plenty of info available, except maybe for Caledonia but even here we have some options already.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I don't get it... the province can't be called the same as the tribe? Why? What names should we use then, geographic regions? But the names of regions are modern inventions... Surely not 'Britannia Superior' or 'Caledonia Inferior'...

Ok, ok. Try your best. We'll sort out any remaining designation problem later.

The settlements names won't be a problem, there's plenty of info available, except maybe for Caledonia but even here we have some options already.

Good. I like that.

[zakalwe]

Cheers Aymar, I’ve lurked on the EB threads for the past 6 months, but couldn’t seem to get an account working here at the org until now . I’ve had discussions over at .com, usually around people arguing about the lack of ‘civilisation’ of those north of the Mediterranean, and took part in a rather long thread with Pyscho about the bearded Britain leader

I’ll keep hanging about, but I’m afraid I’m rather sceptical about getting things historically accurate for this time period in Britain. In my job I often work with illustrators doing historical reconstructions and there is only so much you can say for sure without getting into speculation. Then you really just have to go with instinct. I think that while CA have made some screw-ups, that they are faced with a near impossible job portraying iron age Britain and Ireland. In archaeological papers, reconstructions and exhibition text, you can qualify things and say things like ‘this is an example of …’ , ‘some people may have worn …’ and ‘Archaeologists think that people may have …’ . You can also show the artefacts and say that ‘We found this at … , but no other … have ever been found, so was it rare or did no others survive?’

For CA developers and modders though, you have to take one find and give it to entire units. The object may have been a unique object or it may have been one of many, but you can’t qualify this. A single quotation like the German phalanx one becomes a huge argument, because it really affects the way the whole faction’s gameplay. But if I was writing an exhibition about the same thing, I could simply present the quote and translation, show some German spear- heads and say something along the lines of ‘Some people think that this method of fighting shows that the German tribes had a sophisticated method of warfare. Others disagree and … ‘

So I find it very difficult to comment on a lot of this, because a computer game can never accurately represent RL, and we do not have enough information to provide for iron age Britain

At the same time, that’s not to say that you can’t do some things correctly or show the most likely way things were done. Unfortunately, I usually end up saying ‘yeah, but …’ or ‘we can’t say for sure’ or ‘either way would be correct’ or ‘we only know that for a certain place at a certain time’ or 'it doesn't matter as it's incorrect either way'. So I’m unlikely to really be much help except for bitching at other people.

But I’ll certainly be interested to see what you guys do. It’s all very interesting and enjoy discussing these issues with people who are both enthusiastic and knowledgeable .

Provinces for Britain is very difficult. I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least. Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Commuities might be able to help but even then you'd be left with regions just showing distributions of settlement types - no names and no personality. It is incorrect, but i think it's best to go for tribal names. Sadly you can't get them all, but at least you can get in some of the big names.

[eadingas]

Provinces for Britain is very difficult. I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least. Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Commuities might be able to help but even then you'd be left with regions just showing distributions of settlement types - no names and no personality. It is incorrect, but i think it's best to go for tribal names. Sadly you can't get them all, but at least you can get in some of the big names.

Well, the same is problem for most of northern Europe... we only have evidences of 'cultures', not of 'tribes' for the period we want to talk about... I don't think it would be a good idea to name a faction or province 'Striped Urns' or 'Thin-necked cups' or something like that :) So we'll have to go with later evidence, I think, where we can't find anything proper for the time period...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Cheers Aymar, I’ve lurked on the EB threads for the past 6 months, but couldn’t seem to get an account working here at the org until now . I’ve had discussions over at .com, usually around people arguing about the lack of ‘civilisation’ of those north of the Mediterranean, and took part in a rather long thread with Pyscho about the bearded Britain leader

I’ll keep hanging about, but I’m afraid I’m rather sceptical about getting things historically accurate for this time period in Britain. In my job I often work with illustrators doing historical reconstructions and there is only so much you can say for sure without getting into speculation. Then you really just have to go with instinct. I think that while CA have made some screw-ups, that they are faced with a near impossible job portraying iron age Britain and Ireland. In archaeological papers, reconstructions and exhibition text, you can qualify things and say things like ‘this is an example of …’ , ‘some people may have worn …’ and ‘Archaeologists think that people may have …’ . You can also show the artefacts and say that ‘We found this at … , but no other … have ever been found, so was it rare or did no others survive?’

For CA developers and modders though, you have to take one find and give it to entire units. The object may have been a unique object or it may have been one of many, but you can’t qualify this. A single quotation like the German phalanx one becomes a huge argument, because it really affects the way the whole faction’s gameplay. But if I was writing an exhibition about the same thing, I could simply present the quote and translation, show some German spear- heads and say something along the lines of ‘Some people think that this method of fighting shows that the German tribes had a sophisticated method of warfare. Others disagree and … ‘

So I find it very difficult to comment on a lot of this, because a computer game can never accurately represent RL, and we do not have enough information to provide for iron age Britain

At the same time, that’s not to say that you can’t do some things correctly or show the most likely way things were done. Unfortunately, I usually end up saying ‘yeah, but …’ or ‘we can’t say for sure’ or ‘either way would be correct’ or ‘we only know that for a certain place at a certain time’ or 'it doesn't matter as it's incorrect either way'. So I’m unlikely to really be much help except for bitching at other people.

That is no problem for us. You're not making a doctoral thesis. Just helping out with your knowledge. Call it a fail-safe net. Like trapeze artists in the circus. Your contribution will avoid or reduce the possiblity of Historical mistakes.

But I’ll certainly be interested to see what you guys do. It’s all very interesting and enjoy discussing these issues with people who are both enthusiastic and knowledgeable .

Good. Then keep reading and posting. And checking the MOD development.

Provinces for Britain is very difficult. I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least. Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Commuities might be able to help but even then you'd be left with regions just showing distributions of settlement types - no names and no personality. It is incorrect, but i think it's best to go for tribal names. Sadly you can't get them all, but at least you can get in some of the big names.

Preciselly. This phrase says it all:

I don't think they can ever be historically correct for the game, but you'll be able to get something better at least.

That is preciselly what we're trying to achieve. In a MOD for a game, there will always exist certain aproximations that don't correspond to real life and Historical fact, but we intend to reduce them to an almost invisible minimum. And we will prevail...