Possible Britain Map

[Ranika]

I'm wondering if anyone would mind if I start throwing ideas out for new British provinces. Dead Moroz plans to have the map include all of Scotland, I will include that in the map, as well as Hibernia.

Firstly, I think an Iceni province would be proper, as well as Dumnonii (the lower peninsula of the current Tribus Siluri province, since it's so large). I only know the Latin name for the Iceni capitol, Venta Icenorum. The Dumnonii province could be cut in half, if it's still too big, or more British provinces are possible, with the west half as Dumnonia, and the east half as Durotriges. Once again, only know Latin capitols, Durotrigas was Duronavaria, Dumnonia's was Isca Dumnoniorum. In the west of north Wales, the very west, would be the Ordovices, with a capitol at Caernarfon. They're a notable possible add due to the unique Ordovicii hammer warriors, who would surely make an interesting addition to the Britons.

Hibernia should be divided into half, the north belonged to the Gaelic king Heremon, the south, to his brother Eber. In the north east and south west, respectively, were Ir's and Lughaid's lands, but they were both subject to either Heremon or Eber, and were more local lesser kings, so those divisions are unnecessary.

At 270 AD, Gauls from Armorica began to 'invade' Ireland, though it was fairly peaceful, compared to the invasions into Britain. This is largely because Gauls, along with Celts from Iberia, are who took the land from the Tuatha Da Danaan; also called the Cruithin, or Picts. The two halves would be called 'Connachta' (the northern), and Eoganachta (the southern). Their capitols would be at Tara, in the north, and Milidhi (named after Milidh, or Milesius, the 'father of the Gaelic race') in the south. These two halves, however, are speculation from Irish legends. The first comfirmable halves are the north as 'Leath Cuinn', Con's Half, and the south as 'Leath Mogha', Mogha's half. Tara remains the capitol in the north, but Diseanach, then, is the capitol of the south, near modern day Cork.

Scotland, I'd divide into three. Cat, the land of the north Picts, encompassing a little less than 50% of the upper portion of Scotland, Athfotla, the land of the south Picts, taking up most of the southern section, and Caledonia, the Britanno-Pict lands, taking up the remainder, as well as a portion of northern Britain. While the Romans called the whole of the lands Caledonia, Dark Age records from various monastic sources insist that Pictland was once three or four kingdoms, a north and south Pict kingdom, and an indepedent Briton kingdom, called Caledonia, which was overrun by the Scotti Gaels, founding the kingdom of Dal Riata. The capitol of Cat would likely be Argyll, but the Pict name would be different, possibly Arust, or Arst, and the capitol of the south Picts would likely be at Dumbarton (the later capitol, in the south of Monmouth), or possibly the earlier capitol of Kilna in Fibb, but that city is a legend, as, if it were real, then it was burned to the ground by the army of Kenneth Mac Alpin to suppress a rebellion.

I do not know a good capitol for a province of Caledonia, and any suggestions would be good.

[The_Emperor]

The Iceni themselves controlled most of East Anglia at around this time. I would also be tempted to put in some region specific units. Such as Caledonii or Pictish Warbands, or basic celtic Cavalry in the Southern Briton provinces (to reflect trade of horses with Gaul)...

Some Iceni specific units would also be great.

[Ranika]

I think we should definitely see at least a single Pict mercenary or rebel unit. And sorry I forgot to mention the placement of the Iceni, only in retrospect do I realize I've overlooked it.

And while I do agree some region specific units would be great (Gaelic Fianna!), I think it'd be asking a bit much at the time, with the current constraints of how many units we can have, though, it would be fun to dream, though I'm not certain what Iceni uniques you may have in mind. But either way, a Pict unit, at least one, is a necessity, I think, to properly convey the Pictish people, as they were of no resemblance to their Celtic neighbors. Also, as mentioned, I'd like to see hammer warriors for the Ordovices.

[eadingas]

This is similar to how I modded Britain... I think 6 provinces is maximum for Britain, otherwise the Britons will be too overpowered.
I added Dumnonii in Cornwall, and Caledonia. I was thinking about adding Icens in the east, but I'm not sure if that's not too many. And were Icens that important a tribe in the 200s BC, before Trinovantes were annihilated by Romans?
I'm not too keen on dividing Caledonia and Ireland. They're real outskirts of civilization at the time, and not that important. It would be too much small provinces - if we divide Caledonia in two, how many provinces we'd have to give to Galia and Germany - 20 each?

BTW Britain - should Silurii be Ordovicii instead? Ordovicii were more important in Wales at the time, Silurii came to power in post-Roman times...

[Dead Moroz]

Pictures, please!

[eadingas]

It looks like this:


Although don't pay too much attention to placing of settlements, it's not very historical at the moment... and my latin grammar is VERY rusty

[The_Emperor]

Ok from what I know of the Iceni, their territory comprised of all of Norfolk and about half of Suffolk.

As for a unique unit, I am not entirely sure what would be best for them. Maybe a unique swordsman unit... While the caledonii get a fanatic/raider unit. (the fighting between the northern tribes was considered to be a lot fiercer, as they had fewer resources and raided each other a lot more).

[eadingas]

Check this page for a good resource:
http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes/tribes.htm
But! This is a map for post-roman invasion times, with Catuvellauni powerful in the middle because of their cooperation with Romans, and Trinovantes all but removed. Best to click and read descriptions for each tribe to learn what was their starting position.

[eadingas]

Eh...okay, scratch that, it was the Trinovantes who cooperated with Romans. Something's happened to my reading skills :)

[The_Emperor]

Ok from what i have found, the Iceni Capital is roughly where Norwich is today (near where I live) , they also had settlements near modern-day Caistor (Great Yarmouth), Thetford, and Camebridge.

[zakalwe]

Keep in mind that all these tribal names are not historically correct for a starting time period of early C3rd bc. It's only around 100bc that we really start to see these areas coalescing into regional units - even later in the case of the Caledones.

Essentially, the names are not going to be historically correct and the areas are not going to delineate actual political units for 270bc. Can’t really be helped though J So I suppose most of what is suggested above is as good as its going to get. If you get a chance Barry Cunliffe’s ‘Iron Age Communities in Britain’ has a good breakdown of the different areas and settlements of Britain. But to find a ‘capital’ for an area like modern Scotland is obviously a bit of a joke!

As for the post at the top regarding the division of Scotland, I’m sorry but that is not really based upon any historical or archaeological evidence. There are a number of rather strange statements – eg ‘’The capitol of Cat would likely be Argyll’? I’m sure you know that the first mention of Picts is 297ad. It is making a mockery of Scottish iron age archaeology to use our 1st mill ad early historic evidence in a 3rdC bc context. Sorry Ranika if I sound like a bit of a dick, as i know this is only a starting point for discussion

‘’I think, to properly convey the Pictish people, as they were of no resemblance to their Celtic neighbours’’ – please explain this?

‘’I'm not too keen on dividing Caledonia and Ireland. They're real outskirts of civilization at the time, and not that important.’’ I thought the point of this mod was to get away from a romano-centric view of civilisation? Maybe not though? Is this not like the Romanophiles who say that the Germans and Gauls are on the outskirts of civilisation and are not that important?

‘the fighting between the northern tribes was considered to be a lot fiercer, as they had fewer resources and raided each other a lot more’ interested to know what your evidence is?

Sorry if I sound a bit narky by the way. I wish you luck

[eadingas]

‘’I'm not too keen on dividing Caledonia and Ireland. They're real outskirts of civilization at the time, and not that important.’’ I thought the point of this mod was to get away from a romano-centric view of civilisation? Maybe not though? Is this not like the Romanophiles who say that the Germans and Gauls are on the outskirts of civilisation and are not that important?

Don't get overzealous with all that anti-Roman phobia... Let's be frank, you don't get much more peripheral than Ireland and Scotland in ancient Europe. For the continental Gauls and Germans they were also far away lands. Do you want to divide them into several provinces just to get more 'barbaro-centric'? I see no point in that. I'm not the member of the team, so I can only give my wishes on how this mod should be developed, but the way I see it, continental Germany and Galia should be the key factions in the North, with Britons only slightly more diversed than they already are... The 'barbarians' were divided into many small tribes, to try to represent all of them as separate provinces makes little sense for a game that spans in scope from Spain to, hopefully, Indus. The british peripheria weren't that important not only for the Romans, but also compared to the rest of the continent...

And as for the romano-centric view...we only have all this info on Gaulish and Briton tribes because of the Roman chronicles. I, for one, would love to see more diversity in the north-east part of the map, but because Romans weren't interested in those regions, we don't have enough information to reconstruct these lands. So if you will concentrate on diversing Britons and Gauls, while leaving the north-east for 'big empty steppe provinces', you _will_ introduce romano-centric view of Europe no matter what.

[zakalwe]

eadingas, i actually meant to say that i'm not too bothered about keeping them as single provinces, but somehow forgot to put that in .

Roman-phobic - i'm not sure how you got that? i just don't like the idea of Romans = civilisation Rest = Barbarians . The game is Rome:Total War, so i'm not bothered about the stress being on Romans. you get what it says on the tin!

I pretty much agree with most of what you say - in historical terms i disagree with the view of britain as on the outskirts of civilisations - but for rtw in terms of empire-building gameplay, the regional conglomerations of iron age britain can't really be considered in the same league as Rome

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

...for a game that spans in scope from Spain to, hopefully, Indus.

Sorry. Not Spain, Iberia.

[The_Emperor]

‘the fighting between the northern tribes was considered to be a lot fiercer, as they had fewer resources and raided each other a lot more’ interested to know what your evidence is?

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.

In addition Scotland is known for its unique Iron Age defences... 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) Also some areas of Scotland had far less wood and Celtic hillforts were also made of Stone when that resource was nearby... But we do not have much information about the Northern Celtic tribes other than what Tacitus tells us about the Battle of Mons Graupius, and given he was related to Agricola the General who commanded the battle his account is bound to be exaggerated and flawed.

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 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.

When Hadrian's wall was built later, Pictish raids on the wall were commonplace, and the Romans often engaged in strikes north of the wall and has some success in limiting the raids. But the Pictish problem remained a constant threat until the year the Romans left.

[Ranika]

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

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). 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.

As for Hibernia, it IS important to the Gauls, Iberian Celts, and the Britons, enough to be split in half, if you're not going to do anything to Scotland, as all of them had some legend about it being some kind of promised land (it's why they were so adamant about killing, not conquering, all of the natives). Hibernia itself was rich in silver and iron in the north, and cattle and farming in the south, as well as the mytho-religiosity intents of the Celtic invaders make Hibernia, at least Hibernia, very important.

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. 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.

[eadingas]

What exactly is known about Picts at the time of the game? Shouldn't they just be included as 'rebels', instead of having a province all of their own? They may claim to be there for centuries, but frankly, so do all invaders after a couple generations...
Okay, I'm almost convinced about splitting Hibernia in two by now, it's big enough, but I'm still against splitting Scotland.

[Ranika]

Alright, I'll concede splitting Scotland, if Hibernia is split. And yes, they should be rebels, at the time, as they didn't really form into anything remotely akin to a kingdom until the middle of the Dark Ages (the Dal Riatans reported that they were still almost totally nomadic for nearly 200 years after invading Caledonia, with only a few established cities, which were more like weigh stations for the nomadic tribes, who'd come in, rest and barter for what they might need, then left). Only when they percieved a real heavy threat from the Dal Riatans did they coalesce heavily into effective kingdoms, but they were, even before that, divided in north and south tribes, that fought one another.

My main wish to at least divide Scotland in half is so there can be a Pict rebel province (using a Pict mercenary unit, possibly, or a unique Pict rebel unit) in it, with a British Caledonian province.

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.

As for Hibernia, I reiterate, then, that it WAS very important to Gauls, Britons AND Iberians. The north of Britain I'll concede, as, I admit it was not that important to any of the main factions, I only wish the Picts to be present in some respect, and, if not divided, I would content myself to a Pict mercenary or rebel unit. Hibernia, however, was a focal point of Celtic religious and myth culture, especially for the Gauls. While little can be confirmed about the earliest divisions, it is accepted as history due to numerous confirmable sources, like what the Britons had to say about the Gaels, and what is taught as history in modern day Ireland (it's what I was taught, in and out of school). In any event, it is known to have been split, originally, into a northern and southern half, then in three parts, then four. However, by 270 BC, it'd only be the two halves, with sub-states in the northeast and southwest, so just splitting it along the middle horizontally would accomplish a proper divide fine.

[Dead Moroz]

Sorry. Not Spain, Iberia.

In Caucasus.

[eadingas]

We can, IIRC, quite easily manipulate how often and how strong the rebel forces appear in the province. So we could simply make the Picts appear in Caledonia very often and very strong. This would give them a strong, constant presence on the map, and make them a constant threat to anyone who controls Caledonia (they could even succeed in sacking its capital, if we make them strong enough), but not having permanent province. How's that?

(BTW, I'm planning to check out the 'founded in:' in descr_strat later today, - or has anyone checked if it's worth the bother? It would be fun to make Caledonia unconquerable for a while because of no cities to conquer...)

[Ranika]

I like that idea, it'd give the Picts a presence, but not take up a province. That sounds very good. I think, however, then, Caledonia should start rebel, and the Briton provinces should be around Wales/Cornwall. Anyone want to take a stab at dividing up Britain into some logical regions? I know I asked for an Iceni province, and know it's not correct to the period, just saying it should be one due to the importance to the Romans, but I'm not adverse to more proper divisions either. However, Tribus Siluri should definitely be divided between the Dumnonii and Ordovicii, possibly the Silurii in the very south of Wales, but they took up a TINY area, it'd have to be a bit of an exaggerated area of control (but then, all of the British provinces will be)

[eadingas]

Oh, Caledonia definitely Rebel, no doubt about it... As you can see several posts above, I did pretty much what you ask for: Dumnonum and Ordovicii instead of Silurii. Now it's only a matter of cleaning up the details. Do you agree that the capital of Ordovicii should be in Mona? And what about the capital of the Dumnons: according to his: http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes/dumnonii.htm , we have at least two possible places, either Isca Dumnonum (Colchester, but it's later period) or Ictis...
The northern province of England in my map is Brigantes... is this ok? Or should it be Coritani with Brigantes as rebels?

BTW, if we consider the Iceni (although I think Trinovantes are enough for the period, they were more important in the earlier years and had similarly significant role in Boadica's uprising) what about Catuvellauni, in their original settlement north of Thames?

Oh, and another thing. There is simple possibility to mark the presence of Belgae on southern shores of Britain (as reported by Caesar). Just use the same RGB color as Belgian province to mark some area on the island. This has no significant effect on gameplay, I think, but would be a nice historical touch...

[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!