Jump to content

Anaxandridas ho Skandiates

Community Members
  • Content Count

    287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Anaxandridas ho Skandiates last won the day on February 22 2019

Anaxandridas ho Skandiates had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

154 Excellent

About Anaxandridas ho Skandiates

  • Rank
    Duplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your Athena's face and spear and shield and helmet are very good. Thank you for your work. It is possible to use the pose you use now, just make the spear rather taller: X You can model drapes from one of these: https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-athena-48261 https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-athena-promachos-the-so-called-dresden-pallas-100902 https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-lemnian-athena-100909 - If you want to follow the other design, adjust arms (spear left, shield right) to fit this pose:
  2. I do seem to remember roughly what led me then to the other variant then - since it cannot be known exactly what kind of trading vessel is meant, I thought something more generic ("ship of commerce") would do best. That way whether the vessel was meant for coastal waters or the Nile or sea- or oceangoing trade, it was under all circumstances certainly a ship ΝΑΥΣ, of commerce ΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗ. I also found it in my Swedish and German dictionaries. This was because the ancients when placing orders at a shipyard for a trading vessel would not have "selected from a menu" like in the game, but here we need to have ONE button, "trade ship unit", "cost XX". But a dictionary is no attestation, and you are right that we should strive to find something closer to a category instead of inventing our own vocabulary. I kept finding ΠΛΟΙΟΝ ΣΤΡΟΓΓΥΛΟΝ - Arrian uses πλοῖον στρογγύλον repeatedly in several books of the Anabasis, also as a category in contrast to vessels of war: καὶ διέβησαν τριήρεσι μὲν ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα, πλοίοις δὲ ἄλλοις πολλοῖς στρογγύλοις (book I) τὰ μὲν δὴ στρογγύλα πλοῖα ὅσα καὶ ἔτυχεν αὐτῶν περιστραφέντα πρὸς τοῦ ῥοῦ, (book VI) ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἄλλαι τε προσγίγνονται Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τριακόντοροι καὶ πλοῖα στρογγύλα (book VI) also Demosthenes uses it contrasted with narrower war vessels in his speech against Leptines: οὐδέ γ᾽ ὁ νῦν ὢν Διονύσιος ἤλπισεν ἄν ποτ᾽ ἴσως πλοίῳ στρογγύλῳ καὶ στρατιώταις ὀλίγοις Δίων᾽ ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν ἐκβαλεῖν τὸν τριήρεις πολλὰς καὶ ξένους καὶ πόλεις κεκτημένον. I am thankful for this correction, and suggest based on Xenophon, Thukydides, Demosthenes, Herodotos and Arrianos: Ploion Stronggylon ΠΛΟΙΟΝ ΣΤΡΟΓΓΥΛΟΝ
  3. to (conduct) trade=ΕΜΠΟΡΕΥΕΣΘΑΙ trader=ΕΜΠΟΡΟΣ trading-post/-town/-place=ΕΜΠΟΡΙΟΝ trade-ware=ΦΟΡΤΟΣ ΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΟΣ / ΕΜΠΟΡΙΑ trade-affairs=ΤΑ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΜΠΟΡΙΑΝ trade-craft=ΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗ ΤΕΧΝΗ trade-ship/merchantman=ΝΑΥΣ ΕΜΠΟΡΙΑ - where I would correct myself to the better: ΝΑΥΣ ΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗ However also these variants could perhaps be fine, and are given by several of my dictionaries: ΠΛΟΙΟΝ ΣΤΡΟΓΓΥΛΟΝ ΝΑΥΣ ΦΟΡΤΑΓΩΓΟΣ Essentially I would have no problem with any correction - do we have any generic "merchantman-term" used repeatedly in the same work, by some of our major classical or hellenistic authors? I say then we go with that term. As for ΦΑΣΗΛΙΟΝ, sounds quite reasonable - Ptolemaic Egypt would however have needed and hence used plenty of sea-going merchantmen to cross indian and mediterranean open waters, for which those Nile vessels would hardly have been appropriate. Seems that the majority of seafaring in Egypt would have been on the Nile, so a bit of a tough choice.
  4. Xenophon is going to be our golden standard, and indeed there will be some easter eggs recording voices for first campaign. Everything should be ripe by release of next alpha (just needs to be possible to include triggered popup-boxes with audio files and simple illustrations)
  5. To present the evidence obtained by inquiry fairly in good order in front of discussion participants? The model of behaviour I should call it - and in addition, I do not ad hominem attack in my posts, but challenge established facts and conceptions. Drawing fire and brimstone, but there we are, my address is not in here so I can still open packages that arrive without getting out the bomb detector
  6. Expect one single reply with all of it, within a week or two. I want to finish the Ptolemaic library now. I was not passionate about this at all when I sounded the alarm and raised doubts, but after this whole charade I am now determined to firstly find out 100% whether I was right or wrong in my criticism and on what points specifically, and secondly to parade the evidence fairly in front of you. And not just such evidence as supports my own hypothesis, dear friends. If I am wrong then you have had even further substantiation, which can only be a good thing for you too.
  7. I have not even started to reply. Will you hear counter-arguments or have you already decided?
  8. @LordGood You are entirely right, informing opinions upon the grounds of 'feelings' will not do. But a 'feeling' something is seriously off is certainly enough to start a discussion, and now the arguments of Sundiata are posted, and it is time for me to reply to them. In a calm and orderly fashion. I continue to accuse several of you fellows in here of rooting against the doubts raised in my original post because of feelings. Your feelings - which emanate from all your replies, 'how dare he question something we believe in'? 'how condescending of him, to refuse to believe the truthful references we have posted'. The logic of the posted arguments serve the conclusion they are supposed to substantiate, in reverse-order. That is your academic standard for which you proclaim ΚΥΔΟΣ? Well as always I will return with a scholarly reply, explaining step by step why it is not wise to employ that method of argumentation. This thread is little more than a day old, and I maintain that it is right and meet that I should express my criticism in here when I feel there is something which seems sub-par or too-good-to-be-true. I think that is one of the main purposes of this forum. But in order for reasonable discussion to inform a process of shaping the game, it is required that we should be willing to consider that the counter-argument of someone we find 'condescending' could in fact be true. PS. There was also some suggestion here earlier that I 'also smeared the game' on the facebook page. That is the wrong order of events, I made a comment there when I saw the artwork in my news-feed, and then afterwards opened this thread in order to hear the comments and see any counter-arguments.
  9. Just working full-time on the 3D Ptolemaic library interiors. One of the glorious renders complete with golden busts of Ptolemaios I and II will make for a fantastic background once the scenes are finished. Unfortunately the interiors cannot really be used in the game, but with the improved models I will be able to make realistic Ptolemaic palace-scapes just using the scenario editor, once I've found out how to modify those colonnade-3d-models, to make proper courtyards. I just use 3ds max and it seems everyone else is using blender. I can only make the renders historically accurate and good with vray etc., how to make models suitable for the game with textures and optimized poly count will take some time to learn perhaps.
  10. If you give me the exact pixelsize for the ingame background I could move the balcony left in photoshop and crop it left a little bit with the result of a slightly less exaggerated impression. But I just have real respect for the artist who made the render and have no problem with it as an artwork. First of all though, you see what I mean when I say that the first post in this thread has a picture with the balcony far out the left, and the one I referenced just before, that was seen as "too fat", had the balcony cover that central part of the picture? @wowgetoffyourcellphone I expect strong arguments, a huge captain-picard-what-an-idiot-this-guy-is-facepalm-meme falls slightly short of that.
  11. Look, the city in that render is so awesome, that if a Roman emperor had walked out on that balcony he would have said "wow, I want the view of Rome from my palace to look like this - can you send up some of your expert Kushite engineers and architects up to us, please, so ours can learn from them." Hands up if you think that is realistic. I rest my case.
  12. But the whole central megatemple and massive central axis boulevard are missing (covered by the renaissance balcony) compared to the above one right?
  13. The people on the street there are still extremely small, and if they were a bit larger and the balcony were fixed, that could be a really nice background (was it already in? I seem to have seen it before, and do not feel the alarm bells go off as violently with it, as with the one above. Except for the balustrade.) This crop just seems a lot more reasonable. ( = not as exaggerated in the citysize it implies)
  14. The problem is not the ingame architecture of the kushites, it is a game and can look awesome. It is this fantastic artwork posted above, which looks so great. And its problem: It looks great because the structures are extremely large - see the humans -, the palatial structure between the temples looks like it is stone, but it should be mudbrick, and even then it should be the tallest structure in the whole cityscape. Instead the temples tower above the tiny people in many times the size, and the king stands on the majestic renaissance 16th century balcony showing "look this is the city we built." Except it was not. The artistic quality is extremely high. As a fantasy-scape it is 100% perfect. But players will say "those Kushites really built awesome cities on par with Rome and Athens in their glory days, and temples as large as the Hagia Sophia. Wow." But they just didn't right? So maybe, we should point out that this is a great work of artistic imagination.
  15. But even on other subjects, I do assume that I have a right to express thoughts freely. Also when they are critical. And in this case I stand by my original point: Some here really really want the Kushite world to have looked like that. It find it impossible to believe that it did. I see the elements in the references, but I do not see how in the wildest dreams of a historian that city could be even remotely extrapolated from the posted evidence. I see a tendency here of taking the large Egyptian temples constructed by Thutmose III and Rameses II and other pharaos, as evidence for Kushite mega-architecture and mega-cities, because Kushite rulers renovated or added features or courtyards to existing structures. This is certainly problematic in several ways, when speaking of a 'Kushite' architecture. It would be worth a discussion, but of course it is futile to discuss it if anyone questioning the status quo is a heretic who is insulted and ridiculed. I honestly think it looks like there has been an effort to deliberately exaggerate the architecture of the Kushites. And if the community decides that "meh, I will close my eyes to that pesky criticism, let's go with fantasy, looks way cooler" then that is what it is. Cherry-picked evidence does not make for evidence of a city-scape. In the same way that the mouseion at Alexandria does not allow one to claim that all Greek cities were full of men like Eratosthenes, Aristarchos and Archimedes, creating scientific revolutions. I open a thread to discuss the matter, instead get instantly attacked. We have full reconstructions by historians of Greek and Roman and Hellenistic cities, we attempt to make those cities resemble that to some degree. Here I see ruins of temples in Egyptian style, and a few unique features such as the pyramids and the unique mud-architecture. Then I see byzantine elements in later architecture of the region, which could date within the period of the game. Aithiopia is used here in its classical sense. Sundiata, you asked whether I was "talking about those Nubian Vaults? You might want to look up what a Nubian vault is". Indeed everything makes sense when the building is not built of stone. A clay-vault is the most reasonable of things. But since that structure has the same colour as the stone-structures, how is one to know that it is mud, clay and mudbrick: It is contributing to the feeling of inauthenticity. Two or even three storeys of mudbrick, accessed with latters, we can see evidence of such architecture still in use today. But essentially the humans in that cityscape posted are extremely small, giving the impression of a megacity. It looks fantastic - but it is fantasy.
×
×
  • Create New...