Trees & Vegetation

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

OK, as far as I know there are four types of trees in EB:

- mediterranean pine trees (nice)
- "armenian" mountain trees (at least I only saw them there) (ok)
- palm trees (beautiful)
- barbarian fir trees (ouch)

1. Are you really sure that the complete flora of areas like Babylonia consisted of palm trees? No pine-style trees like in the mediterranean?

2. If you fight a battle at the bridge over the Orontes river, just NE of Antiocheia, you will notice that the vegetation there is not mediterranean, but northern-like.
2a. Also, there's not only the bridge, but also a ford a few hundred meters upstream. Is that a bug or a feature? Not all crossings have both bridge and ford.
3. Why are the barbarian trees so unbelievable tall? I know that's a vanilla issue, and it always got on my nerves. They look like these Giant Redwood trees from California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia. I don't think that this would be very realistic for Europe. Is there any chance the EB team could give them a more reasonable size? Currently it's quite impossible to properly move your army around in theese woods because you can't see anything and only get headache instead.

[kalkwerk]

Currently it's quite impossible to properly move your army around in theese woods because you can't see anything and only get headache instead. [/SIZE]

Which would be the point, I guess.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Before man, most of the world was covered in giant trees. Just because there are not trees in Europe right now, doesn't mean there never were. Due to the fact that nobody has ever seen these giant forests, it is general belief that they only occur in rare places, such as the Redwood. This is not true. The Redwoods are only the third or fourth largest trees in the world (based on capibility).

The largest trees of all time (by height, girth, and volume) were the Cedars of Lebanon (and related cedars) then maybe the Douglas Firs of the Pacific Northwest. Europe's trees were not comparitively huge, but they grew to great size when left to do so.

All of Syria, Lebanon, and Judaea were covered in a pine forest. You look at "The Holy Land" today and thing 'land of milk and honey?' But back in the days of Moses etc the area was a fertile combination of forest and plains. It is also likely that at some time Mesopotamia had a pine forest. By the time of the Iron Age, most of the forests in the Mediterranian and Middle East had been leveled by man to build all of the great Empires you hear about. By 272BC only little bit of the massive Cedars of Lebanon were left. Over the years the Phoenicians had built a trade empire out of the export of lumber and depleted their forests.

Remember to not judge forest based on what you have seen in the modern era. I doubt anyone here has seen a real forest. Because, remember, a tree plantation is not a forest.

(Sorry for the rant, no offense intended)

[mAIOR]

Na. The point of EB is realism and there are no such trees in the northern Europe.


Cheers...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Na. The point of EB is realism and there are no such trees in the northern Europe.


Cheers...

Not in AD2007...

[mAIOR]

I find it hard to believe earlier there were such trees... well, if there were I don't think they'd be pine trees or something of the sort. Still, fighting there is really troublesome. As you said should there be such trees they would be rare so I don't believe an entire map covered in such trees is realistic.

Cheers...

[Watchman]

Seriously ancient and dense forests used to be the norm over much of the subcontinent not too many centuries ago; they were nasty enough that most armies just plain went around them if they could, for example. Increasingly populous humans with their axes have rather reduced them since then, and some climatological shifts back and forth did their part, so there's very very few patches of those antediluvian woodlands that once covered the land almost from coast to coast left now - and natural forest fires, pollution and the like in part keep them in check.

Up here in the north even the biggest trees tend to be more on the tall than massive side - probably an effect of the climate and snow - but I recall seeing some fairly imposing examples of flora in for example France so the huge RTW trees certainly are not a terrible stretch for the virtually untouched woodlands of over two millenia ago, even if they do seem a bit overblown at times.

[Geoffrey S]

I'd agree about the size and density of trees to some extent, but the trees in RTW really are too big even when unspoiled vegetation is taken into account.

[Seyduna]

I dunno about historical accuracy of that trees but when I zoom they make me feel good. Mmm I love nature

[MiniMe]

I doubt anyone here has seen a real forest.

Well, we do have some real impassable forests in our country =)
However, they do not resemble vanilla "barbarian" forest at all.
I believe if Canadians and Brazilians are present here they would say the same.

[Salinoc]

Before man, most of the world was covered in giant trees. Just because there are not trees in Europe right now, doesn't mean there never were. Due to the fact that nobody has ever seen these giant forests, it is general belief that they only occur in rare places, such as the Redwood. This is not true. The Redwoods are only the third or fourth largest trees in the world (based on capibility).

I'm really interested in that. Have you some reference/bibliography about it ?

[Sakkura]

I doubt anyone here has seen a real forest.

The thing is, old growth forests still do exist in Europe even if 99% of it is gone due to fleet construction, industrialisation etc.
The biggest trees in them are indeed bigger than in other forests, but nowhere near as huge as RTW shows them. And of course, a stable natural forest will have a broad mix of tree ages as well as dead trees.

The problems for armies passing through would probably be just as much from the so-called pit-and-mound topography that is formed by falling trees (and ant hills I guess), as well as any fallen trees that may be blocking movement now and then. Also, some of the original European forest types tend to have boggy, wet areas inside them. Floods of the forest floor in broadleaf forests were common especially in spring.

[I of the Storm]

I'm pretty sure that in Europe north of the alps there were large forests of really huge trees. Primeval forest, you know. REAL primeval forest. It had been there since the ice of the last ice age withdrew to the north, i.e. some thousands of years, and the few people living there couldn't do much about it. It wasn't only large and tall but impenetrable.
From space, Europe would - in general - have looked like the Sahara, only the other way round. A vast desert of trees and vegetation with only some "oasises" of habitable areas.
It was only during the middle ages that this changed (earlier in the west, later in the east). The travel accounts we have from northern french 10th century clergymen are terrifying. You had to know the area or have a good guide who did, else you were lost and never found again.

[Incongruous]

Here in NZ we have some really ancient forests, really stunning.

I believe in Cornwall they still have very ancient oak forest.

[I of the Storm]

There are remnants of these old forests, but they are few, unfortunately. A tiny rest of that european virginal forest can be found in Poland:
Bialowieza

[Pharnakes]

My problem with the vanilla trees is not the size, although they are too big, if maybe not by much, but it is mainly the complete lack of variation, and the density of the trees. Natural woodland, (or atleast broadleaf woodland) is fairly open, and the vannila rome barbarian forests to me look more like a horribly scaled up sitca spruce plantation than anything else.

[QwertyMIDX]

Yeah, the size isnt really an issue, but the uniformity is to some extent. There should be a lot more variation in shape and a bit of variation in size (not too much, old growth forest tends to kill off most of the non-moss/fungus vegetation on the forest floor, blocks out all the light) and some dead trees too. Still, EB isn't exactly swimming in 3D artist, and it would make loading times and battle speed even slower.

[Watchman]

Plus, I understand most of the time the big trees weren't much of a problem for movement. It was the tangled undergrowth plus all the dead branches and so on littering the ground that made the forests such a total pain to move through - which alas the RTW forests don't really show much.

[QwertyMIDX]

In a really old growth forest there tends to not be too much undergrowth, but there are a lot of dead branches and trunks littering the group, covered in fungus and moss.

[Sakkura]

I had to resort to a non-English wikipedia, but found a picture that can illustrate some of the problems organized formations would have had moving through woods in ancient time.

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billede:Naturskov.JPG

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Well, we do have some real impassable forests in our country =)
However, they do not resemble vanilla "barbarian" forest at all.
I believe if Canadians and Brazilians are present here they would say the same.

Yeah, you're right. I was saying that from a Western (US & Europe) point of view. Sorry. There are still forests in Russia and Brazil (if you go fifty miles from a navigable river). All of the large forests of Canada have been hit by man at least once though. There are some in northern Canada that haven't been cleared but they are a different type of forest that isn't as large due to the climate.


And, there are some forests, scattered around the world that are considered old growth, that can be several hundred years old. But remember, many types of tree can continue growing until they are several thousand years old.

[Samurai Waki]

If You've ever been to the Cedar Forests in Northern Montana and Idaho you would know how utterly impossible it would have been for an Army to move through, not only are the trees monstrous (about RTW Sized), but the undergrowth snags you every couple of feet, coupled with the fact that you can only visibly see maybe 20-50m ahead of you at any given time, its no small wonder why somebody could get lost so easily. In Fact, every so often hikers will still find the remains of people who died there from getting lost several years previous. I imagine it would be a great place to hide a body

[Roman_Man#3]

Yeah, you're right. I was saying that from a Western (US & Europe) point of view. Sorry. There are still forests in Russia and Brazil (if you go fifty miles from a navigable river). All of the large forests of Canada have been hit by man at least once though. There are some in northern Canada that haven't been cleared but they are a different type of forest that isn't as large due to the climate.

Of course trees have been hit all over Canada, but we still have a lot of forest. North-West Quebec especially. Its basically all over below the Tundra. I too have definitaly seen a real forest. Besides, Canada has 10% of the world's forests.

EDIT: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/statistics/forestry/default.html

Check out that site, especially the map at the bottom, for info on Canadian Forest:P

RM3

ps. Of course I cannot talk, so that made no sense.
pps. That was combining stupidity with lack of common sense. And being very Patriotic.
ppps. Canada RULES!!

[blank]

We have plenty of forests here in our country, some of it is rather old (woodcutting never really caught on here for some reason), but nothing near the size of the giga-hyper trees of RTW. Seriously, if there were such gigantic trees in Europe 2000 years ago, surely some would have survived?
In these weird RTW forests with 100-meter trees growing side by side (how the hell could they get enough nutrition this way?), you can't see s**t and that can really be annoying, especially if you can't afford many casualties.

[Samurai Waki]

The Reason why none of these trees might not be present could be quite simple, obviously deforestation is going take care of most of these trees, then you get Wood Beetles and various diseases, and then drought. I remember when I was a kid we used to have quite a few Quaking Aspens where I lived, and then there was a Disease that literally wiped out a good 99% of them, seventeen years later, and you would never know that they ever existed here in the first place. I mean you can't even find traces of them above the soil in the mountains where there used to be large thickets of them.

[Salinoc]

Again, I don't want to say it's wrong, but like blank says, it's difficult to imagine that there were giant trees like that 2k years ago in Europe. In France we still have 27% of our territory filled by forests, and not planted ones ; maybe some have regrowth since the middle ages, but some must be older.

I have seen many pre-medieval-deforestation 1000 years trees around here (in France), mostly oaks. So if thoses trees have passed over the centuries, why not a single giant tree of the ancient times have do so ?

So, if you're sure about the existence of those giants in the antique times, maybe someone have a source, link, or bibliography to prove it ? Someone must have find a fossile tree, an antique description, or something... I would sincerly be very interested.

[Nabaati]

What kind of tools did they have for cutting down trees during EB's time frame? I don't know when saws were invented, but if they only had iron or bronze axes, I imagine it would have been very difficult to fell large diameter trees using such tools and not worth it unless there was some timber trade.

Of course, such a line of thinking only tells you why large trees would have been there at the time, not necessarily that they were there in the first place.

[Puupertti Ruma]

Axes made of all types of materials were used with a certainty. Bronze, iron, steel and even stone axes when none of the better materials (ie. metals) were available. I'd argue that well motivated and capable men could fell quite a large diameter trees without too much effort.

From wikipedia I gathered that axes were invented in mesolithic period and saws around neolithic. That's about ca. 6000 bc for axes and around 3000 bc for saws, so they have both been around for a quite bit.

[blank]

Axes made of all types of materials were used with a certainty. Bronze, iron, steel and even stone axes when none of the better materials (ie. metals) were available. I'd argue that well motivated and capable men could fell quite a large diameter trees without too much effort.
.

Maybe right, but looking at those trees with their 10? meter diameter, it would take a long time to even take down one of them. Not to mention, seeing how closely they are situated, the falling tree would probably get entangled in the neighboring trees, requiring extra effort to actually get it to the ground.

[mAIOR]

Actually, if you have ever done a lumberjack job (cutting down trees) you'll see taking a medium tree down with an axe is no easy task. you sweat a lot and it's hard. And if you have to take down a stronger wooded tree you'll feel shaking from the tip of your fingers up to your teeths.


Cheers...