I do not think that an isolated example, removed from its immediate context, provides a sufficient basis for attributing to the authors a conclusion they do not themselves formulate. Other passages in the book show that their use of thorp does not necessarily presuppose a settlement composed of several houses or farms. A particularly relevant example occurs in their discussion of minor place-names in Leicestershire, where they observe that "at least one was a farmstead in the thirteenth century". The reference is to Thorp on le Toftis, identified in a source from 1278 as "a lost farmstead described in 1278 as a tillage". This demonstrates that, within the authors' own analysis, a place called a thorp could correspond to a farmstead or agricultural holding. It does not establish that every thorp had this form, but it does rule out the claim that the term necessarily referred to a group of several houses or farms. Upthrop provides a comparable example. The authors treat this throp as a distinct unit in a landscape containing several dispersed settlements. Drawing on the charter of 869, they describe it as a 'little estate' incorporated into a larger estate complex. That description is entirely compatible with a small dependent agricultural establishment and does not, by itself, imply a village composed of several households. This is consistent with their wider discussion of dependency. Some thorps recorded in the Domesday Book were classified as berewicks, meaning outlying farms or estates attached to larger centres. In another document, the dependent estates or appendices of Peterborough were translated as "þa þorpes". The category could therefore encompass subordinate agricultural or estate units, rather than only nucleated communities. The same caution applies to the linguistic evidence. The surviving record of the Old English word is extremely limited, and the authors explicitly acknowledge how little is known about its early form and usage. Nothing in their analysis establishes that thorp originally had to designate a settlement containing several households. Consequently, the possibility that it could initially refer to a single farm, agricultural establishment, estate unit, or even a building at the centre of such a holding is not excluded. The last possibility is not directly demonstrated by the evidence, but neither is it contradicted by the authors' argument. It is also important not to confuse the possible original meaning of the word with the particular historical form adopted by many medieval thorps. The authors' main concern is not the meaning of thorp at the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon period. Their analysis focuses primarily on the profound reorganisation of settlement and agriculture from the ninth century onwards, especially the spread of open-field farming and the movement from dispersed occupation towards more nucleated forms. This is the context of the 'thorp moment'. The term describes an intermediate stage in the reorganisation of the medieval countryside, when small dependent units or satellite settlements helped bridge the gap between earlier dispersed farmsteads and later, more concentrated village territories. As the article puts it, 'Þorps and þrops represent an intermediate stage in the nucleation process, as farming communities sought the best way to run new field systems from the developing centres of population.' The regular and sometimes nucleated layouts identified by the authors therefore belong to this medieval process of transformation. They do not prove that thorp had always meant 'hamlet' or 'village', still less that this was its only possible meaning in early Old English. A term that may originally have designated a farm, estate unit or agricultural establishment could later have been applied more specifically to the small dependent settlements created or reorganised during the thorp moment. Projecting that later medieval morphology backwards would turn the authors' historical hypothesis into a timeless lexical definition that they themselves never formulate.

Hello everyone! I'm excited to share more updates on the development of World Rising! This time, I've implemented two major improvements that bring even more realism and immersion to the battlefield. The first new feature is the burning and fire damage system! Archers can now use flaming arrows to set enemy units and buildings on fire, causing damage over time and making battles more intense and strategic. The second improvement is the visual injury system! When units lose more than 50% of their health, visible wounds and battle damage begin to appear on their bodies, reflecting the damage they've suffered during combat. This adds another layer of realism and makes battles feel more dynamic. I've also made several improvements to the game's main menu and interface, giving World Rising a more polished and refined appearance. Development continues to move forward as we introduce new mechanics, improve existing systems, and bring our beloved project further to life! There's still a lot of work ahead, but every new improvement brings us one step closer to the experience we want to create. I hope you enjoy these latest updates! Thank you to everyone who continues to follow and support the development of World Rising! 20261108-0752-10.0366960.mp4

Another concept that is present in Rome2 and the Wargaming figures. I requested a version with better resolution.

I've done this before. But I know I should do it again.   I am the copyright holder of original works I post in the Wildfire Games 0 A.D. Art Development forum. I hereby release all original works I uploaded to this forum in the past, and those I will upload in the future, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparabara Is Sparabara actually plural? If so, is there a singular form that could replace it?