Rodmar
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Rodmar
-
-
Book seems very rare, I had no luck so far in finding a digital copy. I looked to purchase book but they are asking $60-200.
I translated from French a summary of this book, found at:
I hope my English is understandable.
We know that the Germans began a long period of migrations in the 190s B.C. In order to follow them, as well the Celtic peoples, in central and southern Germany, we have to get precise about chronology and cultural variants.
Historical sources have to be used with circumspection, because Caesar, describing trans-rhenanic peoples as Germans, builds up a political "bluff" that
will be successful until the 20th century A.D.
On the typo-chronology level, two traditional regards co-exist: firstly, the studies about Veltic oppida, particularly in fashion between 1950 and 1980, that tend to date the oppida's abandons either by the Roman conquest, or, for Bohemia, by the Marcomanni's invasion;
secondly, the typo-chronology of the cultures from central and northern Germany, which has its own references not so obviously linked to the southern groups.
To speak very schematically, the author tries and negate completely the traditional view according to which the oppida were destroyed by the Roman raids in 15 B.C., in particular that of Manching.
In the contrary, it is in the 70s and 60s B.C., during Ariovistus' reign, that the Celtic oppida are generally abandoned.
During La Tène D1b and D2, in a ruined land, builds up a mixed culture, influenced by both new Germanic infiltrations, and the Bohemian Celts. All the work is then about identifying cultural groups and their dia-chronical evolution, through ceramics at first then the garbs.
The author was questionned by the delves in a few little housings in the area of Regensburg. The ceramics found there didn't match with those catalogued in the oppida or the Celtic open housing in Bavaria and Würtemberg, of those Manching and Berching-Pollanten being best known.
The study is well conducted. Although some sites provided little material, proportion between both types of pulp clearly evidences two groups. The south-east Bavaria mainly provided crude ceramics with mineral degreasing, while the oppida provided fewer crude ceramics in proportion, with organic degreasing, graphited or comb-decorated ceramics, as well as painted ceramics.
Before assessing the chronological problem,the author points out that, while being both located south from the northern Germanic area where turned ceramics are unknown, these two groups are not influenced by each other.
According to a study about forms, it appears that the south-east Bavarian group probably originates from the central Germany and that it is influenced by the Czech oppida. One can follow the Germanic groups'penetration through the open housings, while at the same time oppida are still inhabited, in Bohemia for instance.
This first approach is complemented by a study of the garb, mostly fibulae, which allows to lay a chronology down.
The author uses data west to east from the Meuse to the Vltava, and north to south from the Wesphalian Gates to southern fringes of the Alps.
It is worth noticing that she adds to the oppida many trading or crafting open sites. As each type of fibula is thoroughly analyzed, this allows to both clarify a chronology and spot new groups' movements or exchanges with their neighbors.
Both tables are compared to the evolution of the Germanic furnitures in Bohemia, and the analysis of graveyards in Germany (Schkopau, Großromstedt) in order to set all those groups in the southern Celtic context.
Then, the author studies the dates from the sites in Basel: the "gaz factory" open housing and the cathedral hill's oppidum, both traditionnaly dated from 58 B.C., after the Helvetian defeat at Bibract.
Thanks to the progress made in the research in between, particularly in the area of Trier, it is not difficult to correct those dates. It is interesting to correlate them with those of the Schkopau graveyard and to precise the end of the occupation of the oppidum.
Fibulae's (and amphorae's) study shows that the "gaz factory" site was inhabited since the 150/130s B.C. and that the oppidum is inhabited from the 100/90s, at the end of La Tène D1b, to the middle of the century, before La Tène D2b.
With the same arguments, the author shows that the Altenburg-Rheinau oppidum, which abandon was correlated with the foundation of the Dangstetten camp in 15 B.C., doesn't survive the Basel oppidum.
Endly, the synthesis tries and link these new results with a renewed, and refined reading of ancient texts, that might close by even more to an absolute chronology.
We started with the south-east Bavarian group, influenced by Celtic La Tène cultures, but whose ceramics make him a Germanic group.
Funerary rituals are too diverse to suggest a cultural identity, and for that purpose, our opinion is that the scattered housing in hamlets and semi-buried houses are not pertinent features.
But is is also clear that this (those) group(s) don't participate to the oppida phenomenon. They come in between the oppida's end and the Großromstedt culture's beginning, and cover the same period as La Tène D2a.
It may have participated to the contacts between the Germans and the Noricum realm, as well as the Celtic "migrations" to the south-east.
Even if the "empty land" theory is hard to prove, the author points out that we have no solid archaeologic material concerning the peoples the Roman would have encountered when they settled there in the last decades of the 1st century B.C.
Oppida in Bohemia survived those in Bavaria, but after the Boii moved to Burgenland where they were vanquished by the Dacians between 60 and 40 B.C., the country is devastated.
Oh joy! The same author led me to this collective work:
http://books.google.fr/books/about/Studien_zur_Lebenswelt_der_Eisenzeit.html?id=TwPQkNPm2qQC
A page every other or three pages is missing and it is in German.
There are some pictures, including jewels of women (on the googlebook page).
One of the contributions is titled "Early Germanic Warrior Order (or warrior "exhibits" in graveyards?) and forms of societies in the Celtic Military" (p149). I translated its summary (p185):
Scientific German is too difficult for me, so I gave up.
The Germanic warrior armament ([or] display?) from La Tène shows several ([or] occasionally) Celtic influences.
The influence follows the Celtic regression since the middle 3rd century B.C., appears in ([or] spreads over) eastern Central Europe,
corresponds with ([or] touches) the construction of the group. and concerns the emphasis of the individual.
The "mix" of riders and footmen belongs to the representation of the small group, the riders being a lord and his temporary retinue [??].
The staggering of the warriors appears since the middle of the 1st century B.C. in weapon deposits at the Elb-Germanic graveyards in Großromstedt and Schkopau.
The arrangement in three ranks of the army, spear bearers and shield bearers corresponds to the construction of the Celtic ritual feast (table fellowship), as it is described by the Greek historian Poseidonios in the beginning of the 1st century B.C.
Could a German speaker be kind enough to translate page 184? It is about the origin of the term "German" (again!) and the relation between the Elb Germans and the alledged Nordwestblock (aka the Belgians and Cisrhenanic Germans). I became bored because the sentences are very long, are written in a scientific style, and the output is barely meaningful:
(...) so we see us again on the same line as the ancient observers, to whom we owe the concepts and precise contents _ and this in his/their own confusion, that makes for example Geographer Strabo (VII,1.2), influenced by Poseidonios, but using his own formulation, separate the "Germans" and the "Celts" from each other, as it seemed to him, in the Roman sense "true Gauls" (gnêsioi Galátai), an explanation that therefore only seems naive to us now, just because they wanted to see the related migrations proved by the names too (Birt 1917; Norden 1923; Feist 1927), namely with a people name allegedly derived from the Latin germanus _ "true".
It is not the place to bring up how, what, when and where encompasses the name of the Germans.
The fact that one has to start from the Rhine, is stated for certain by the first mentions. Relevant historical contributions to the "German" concept have been achieved in the last decade by Kraft, Hachmann, Dobesch and Timpe (Pohl 2000).
Although our action, that concerns the realm of archeology, encompassed only a bit, chronologically, spatially, and factually, namely the Elb-Germanic context and its forerunners, a clarification appears to be necessary.
-
Western Germania Magna circa 1 A.D.
(according to recent studies)
In purple the Elba Germans, who will be collectively known as the Suevi (Svebans).
Higher resolution here. -
Period 1 Mini-faction: the Germans
FACTION:
Name: The Germans
Historical names: The Cimbri, the Teutoni, the Suevan, the Harudi, the Marcomanni
History: The Germanic invasions of the 1st century B.C. are said to have two or three causes.Firstly, the climatic pejoration of the end of the 2nd century B.C. in northern Europe broke the balance between Germanic peoples as the inhabitants of the Cimbric peninsula came short of food.
Maybe an exceptional storm surge flooded those lowlands. The exceeding population had to migrate south.
Secondly, and paradoxically, technology advances of the late Iron Age have started to be fruitful, leading to better food production and better armament, and favored the expansion south.
Endly, both these causes may have provoked a increased pressure from the northern Germans that had gone to Scandia during the Bronze Age. While trade across the Baltic sea was common, it would be only a century later, the Gothars would invade the southern Baltic coast.
The Roman Republic witnessed three invasions of various scale:
- the Cimbri invasion (c.110-100 B.C.) that raided Noria, western Illyria, central and southern Gaul and northern Hispania, and came unto the Padavian valley in northern Italia.
- the Suevi invasion (c.72-58 B.C.) that raided and subjugated all the now southern Germany, and westward to Iura Mons in Gaul.
- the Trans-rhenan invasion (55-54 B.C.) that raided eastern Cis-rhenan Gaul.
The Cimbri and Suevi, at least, are constantly reported as being very tall (6 feet) and fair-hair.
The Suevi were a very large and loose federation of the Elba Germans, divided in at least 100 tribes or clans (cantons) such as: the Harudi, the Marcomanni, the Suevan, the Longobardi, the Semnones, even the Angles.
Later, two groups would emerge in the south: the Quadi and the Marcomanni.
The reputation of the Suevan was so high that every young warrior in the federation would bear the Suevan knot hairdress, although only in the Suevan tribe would the knot become more and more elaborated the elder the warriors.
The Suevans lived in quite poor lands and sent one part of their male population to raid and subjugate neighbor peoples, taking hostages and imposing annual tributes. At the same time the other men stayed at home would cultivate the meager fields.
The next year, these ones would go in turn for raiding party, in place of the former raiders. To the East, the Suevan kept a wild inhabited piece of land out of which they had pushed the former inhabitants, as a testimony of their valor.
To the West, several tribes, including celticized Germans or Belgians, were vanquished and kept as tributaries.
At a time, the central Hermunduri were assimilated, but every other southern Germanic tribe was proud enough to call itself as Suevan.
The Suevans are probably the cause of the population movement in the Rhine Valley during the 1st century B.C.Note: I would see the Germans as technologically less advanced than the Gauls: no mail, only breast cuirass, half cuirass or pectorals, few swords, small and rarer horses, no siege weapon (except crude batter ram), less gathering technologies.
INFANTRY
Spearman - Raider - Forester
CAVALRY
Spearman
SUPPORT
Woman - Priestess
NAVY
Fisher - Transport
CHAMPION (mercenary)
Gallic spearman
INFANTRY
Generic Name: Spearman
Specific Name: Gar... Har... (see such ethnonyms such as Harudi, Hermanduri, Cherrusci)
Classes: Infantry Spearman
Hacker Armament: Light Spear
Appearance:- Garb:
Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt
Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt, metallic protections
Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt, iron half breastplate or mail?- Helmet:
Basic: No helmet
Advanced: Bronze helmet / No helmet
Elite: Iron helmet / Bronze helmet- Shield: Oval
Figure(s): as Celts, without limed hair?
History:
In 101 B.C., the Cimbri are said to fight with light spears they could throw or use in melee, with a thin but sharp iron head.
In 58 B.C. the German tactic in pitched battles is to form "phalanxes" organized by tribes (or "cantons"):
"Then at last of necessity the Germans drew their forces out of camp, and disposed them canton by canton, at equal distances"
"(...) and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the javelins at them. Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above. Although the army of the enemy was routed on the left wing and put to flight, they [still] pressed heavily on our men from the right wing, by the great number of their troops."
Hand axe are reported to be used by the women, although the Alpine Gauls are know to use them sometimes in battle. They could be secondary weapons. Maybe the Romans didn't reported them because they didn't consider them real weapons?
Garrison: 1
Function: The mainstream Germanic military. The sword and mail would come later, maybe due to more contacts/subjugation with the Celts. If implemented, they could throw a spear before melee and still have one for melee attack. Maybe, like the Celtic Spearman, they could have a small (dagger) hack damage, too.Counters: melee cavalry
Generic Name: Light Infantry
Specific Name: (Raider)
Class: Skirmisher
Ranged Armament: Light spear (Javelin)
Hacker Armament: Hand axe
Appearance:- Garb:
Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt or half naked
Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt
Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt + leather armor- Helmet: None
- Shield: None
Figure(s): as Celt skirmishers, fair haired with a simple (young) suevan knot.
History:"Thither Ariovistus sent light troops, about 16,000 men in number, with all his cavalry; which forces were to intimidate our men, and hinder them in their fortification."
This is the only account for light footmen. We only know that the legions drove them easily. If they were light troops, the surely were heavier troops too (the "phalangists").
Garrison: 1
Function: a bit like the Velites with less damage and more range, but more able in melee. They could also be the first tier of the German only infantry unit (Spearman). Somewhat able to fight horsemen on 1vs1 (shooting, dodging and jumping at them). Very brave.
Counters: Support, Melee & Skirmisher Cavalry and Elephants, Buildings.
Countered by: Infantry, Cavalry archers, Chariots.
Generic Name: Archer
Specific Name: (Forester)
Class: Archer
Ranged Armament: Short (hunting) bow
Hacker Armament: Hand axe or Short Thick Spear?
Appearance:- Garb:
Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt
Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt
Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt- Helmet: None
- Shield: None
Figure(s): as Celts, without limed hair.
History:Hunting was very important for Germans as it seems that most of the soils were less fertile than in Gaul.
Also Cesar reports that the Suevan would like to be surrounded by wild depopulated lands, all of this is not in favor to a rich farming culture.
Compared to the Celts they were more Agro-Herders than Cultivators. We can see this as a remanent cultural habit (Hunter-Gatherers), or a survival way of life dictated by the environment (less fertile, more forested land, except ripuarian valleys).
Garrison: 1
Function:No large specialized archer units are reported, and the ranged combat may have been despised (as much as with the Celts?). Maybe, they could still have used such skirmishers in the thick Hercynian forest, but would never dream to use them in a pitch battle (whereas the much later Vikingar had archers). They could cost 100 Food 75 Wood to reflect their rarity, have a bit less HP than the Spearman (though enough for woodman), and have the worst pierce damage of all archers.
They could be forbidden to enter any formation (if this is possible). They would be SUPREME food gatherer. They could have a fair viewing range (more than the Germanic Spearman, at least).
Think a bit like the American Conquest Woodmen/Trappers.
Compared to Greek archers, who had access to Eastern technology: 1 less range (or 2 at first?), 20-25% less damage at first.
More HP, and a decent Hack and/or Pierce Melee.
Alternatively, we could see them as another Skirmisher: some would come with a bow, some with light throwing spears (javelins).Generic Name: Gallic Spearman
Specific Name:
Classes: Infantry SpearmanSee the Gauls faction
History:In 58 B.C., Ariovistus had subjugated several Gaulish and Belgian tribes on both sides of the Rhine. Against Caesar, they formed half his troops (in tribes).
Garrison: 1
Function: The difference between those Gauls and the German Spearman could be their availability (late game, special scenarios) and cost (no food). Also, they would have the superior armor of the Gauls.CAVALRY
Generic Name: Germanic Cavalry
Specific Name: (People of the Horse)
Class: Cavalry Spearman
Hacker Armament: Light Spear or Thick spear, hand axe?
Appearance:- Garb:
Basic: Trousers,tunic/shirt
Advanced: Trouser, tunic/shirt, metallic protections
Elite: Trouser, tunic/shirt, iron half breastplate or mail?- Helmet:
Basic: No helmet
Advanced: Bronze helmet / No helmet
Elite: Iron helmet / Bronze helmet- Shield: Round and smaller than round infantry shield
Figure(s): as Celts, without limed hair.
History:
- In 102 B.C., the Cimbri are said to have a 15,000 horsemen force, that was no match to the Roman cavalry (or did they ever participate to the battle?). We don't know however what was the part of the German cavalry, given the Gallic allies (Insubri, Boii, Santonii).
- In 58 B.C., Ariovistus had many Gallic (Belgians, etc.) tributaries/allies from the Rhine valley, but we don't know much about their cavalry.
We do know however that the Haeduan noble (leaders, senate, ...) cavalry had been virtually destroyed (maybe by the German cavalry?).
We do also know that Ariovistus had a many thousands cavalry, most of them being sent to raid and forage northern Gaulish and Belgian countryside (Treviri, Rhine valley).
"Ariovistus all this time kept his army in camp: but engaged daily in cavalry skirmishes. The method of battle in which the Germans had practiced themselves was this. There were 6000 horsemen, and as many very active and courageous footmen, one of whom each of the horsemen selected out of the whole army for his own protection. By these [footmen] they were constantly accompanied in their engagements; to these the horsemen retired; these on any emergency rushed forward; if any one, upon receiving a very severe wound, had fallen from his horse, they stood around him: if it was necessary to advance farther: than usual, or to retreat more rapidly, so great, from practice, was their swiftness, that, supported by the manes of the horses, they could keep pace with their speed."
As we see, the Germans had comparatively less horses than the Romans.
German horses are described as small and meager, but fast, sturdy and trained so that, they would stay on their ground when dismounted, waiting for a man to mount them again and move in or out of the battle field.
Typically, the cavalry was used to raid and forage, to pursue fleeing enemy, and to go faster close to enemy light infantry and cavalry, the rider could jump from his horse to any foe at range and continuing the fight on foot.
They were incredibly brave, 800 horsemen engaging all Caesar's cavalry and killing 70 of them and traumatizing the others at the beginning of the German campaign (55 or 54 B.C.).
" But as as soon as the enemy saw our cavalry, five thousands as strong, they came to it, being only eight hundreds ; because the foragers send beyond the Meuse river had not return yet. (...)[being surprised because of the truce], we were soon put in disorder by this attack. When we had rallied, the enemy, according to their habit, dismounted their horses, killed several of our horses, put down a few riders, repelled the others and scared them as much as they only stop fleeing when they saw our [footmen in battle formation]. 74 Roman cavalry were killed [surrounded and put down of their horses]"
We can see them as being mounted infantry (equipment wise) as well, that is alike lancers. They are not to be mixed with later Germanic cavalry hordes.In all texts, German cavalry is said to be no match for the Roman cavalry. It may suggest that they were less able to sustain a full scale cavalry charge.
Caesar used Germanic cavalry along with Gallic Cavalry during the Gallic War, but they don't seem to have separate use and both could have been Celts...
Also, Augustus had a Batavian cavalry regiment (or bodyguard).
Also, around 1 A.D. the Suevan (Alamanni) auxilliaries began to be used by the Roman in Britain.
We could say that they were not as noble warriors as Celtic cavalry (horse less costly, less armor, more speed, more HP?: medium cavalry).
Garrison: 2
Function: They are scouts in open areas, and anti skirmishers/archers. They could have a mixed hack attack to account for a hand axe. Could be faster than roman cavalry, but deficient in cavalry fights (no saddle nor blanket), but a match for any footman closed by (except spearman).Counters: Support, Skirmishers, Archers, Buildings, Cavalry.
Countered by: Spearmen, Melee Cavalry.
SUPPORT
Generic Name: Germanic Woman
Specific Name:
Class: Female Citizen
Hacker Armament: Light Spear or (to mix) Hand axe
Appearance:- Garb:
- Helmet: None
- Shield: None
Figure(s): as Celts?
History:In 102 and 101 B.C., Cimbri and Teutones women are said to collectively suicide and kill the helpless (children, elders, wounded) if not granted freedom upon surrender.
The Cimbri women were said to be as tall as their men (6 feet!) and defended toe to toe their chariot camp with spears and hand axes and when surrounded asked the Roman for a free and safe retreat that wasn't granted.
It seems that the Germanic woman's social status was (slightly) inferior to that of the Celtic one (?), outside of the family (even if later Germanic laws are derived from Roman Code).
In 58 B.C., Ariovistus used quite a related tactic to that Boiorix used 40 years earlier: put the wagons and chariots as defensive wall and have the women garrison them. Although in Ariovistus case, according to Caesar, it was to prevent the Germans from fleeing, they managed to do. Also Caesar doesn't mention fighting women, only killed ones during the chase.
"[They] surrounded their whole army with their chariots and wagons, that no hope might be left in flight. On these they placed their women, who, with disheveled hair and in tears, entreated the soldiers, as they went forward to battle, not to deliver them into slavery to the Romans."
"Ariovistus had two wives (...). Both perished in that flight. Of their two daughters, one was slain, the other captured."
Garrison: 1
Function: Food gatherer, Civil builder, Attack bonus for nearby men.
Special: Even harder to capture than Celtic women. Would fight back if attacked by a melee unit.Generic Name: Priestess
Specific Name: (Moon, Sky, Fire)Class: Healer
Hacker Armament: (ritual short swords/daggers)
Appearance:- Garb: White tunic, flaxen cloak, bronze girdle, bare foot (or soft shoes?)
- Helmet: None
- Shield: None
Figure(s): Grey hair (elder matrones)
History:In 101 B.C., the Cimbri are said to fight along with priestess in their ranks who would encourage the warriors.
Strabo: "Their wives, who would accompany them on their expeditions, were attended by priestesses who were seers; these were grey-haired, clad in white, with flaxen cloaks fastened on with clasps, girt with girdles of bronze, and bare-footed; now sword in hand these priestesses would meet with the prisoners of war throughout the camp, (...) would cut the throat of each prisoner after he had been lifted up; and from the blood that poured forth into the vessel some of the priestesses would draw a prophecy, while still others would split open the body and from an inspection of the entrails would utter a prophecy of victory for their own people; and during the battles they would beat on the hides that were stretched over the wicker-bodies of the wagons and in this way produce an unearthly noise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri
Garrison: 1
Function: Medic, Aura bonus (Better attack, better attack speed)NAVY
Not unlike the Celts: a fisherman, a trader (to account for Baltic exchanges), a transport for raiding parties.
However their design could be more oriented toward viking-style (that is: more slender, lower on the water) without being too much anachronistic (no dragon head, no shields).ECONOMY
No mining or no mining technologies. No quarrying.
No farming technologies.
Bonus for foraging and hunting.
Alternatively, those technology are a lot costlier.
The market place would be able to buy metal. The Germans would automatically receive a periodic small tribute in food and metal, to account for their tributaries and seasonal raiding parties (at the market place).
-
Should I post here my ideas about the Period 1 German mini-faction, or in the ad hoc thread ?
-
Yes, all in all, I think that the building style could graduate in complexity from: Germans > Britons > (Belgians) > Gauls.
It looks like the Belgians were a few decades (a century) late compared to the other Gauls, including in warfare (and thus more fierce), but the 1st century Belgians were still able to conquer part of Britain.
It's out of topic, but I'd give the Germans First Age building style (semi underground houses, etc.)Also, as a final note about the sanctuaries, I'd like to notice that very [few] swords were found in the Ribemont sanctuary, as if the vast majority of Armoricans were armed with spears.
-
An idea for the Gallic Wonder: the Sanctuary.
IV-) Gallic sanctuaries: Gauls (Belgian)
Since the 1970s, the modern vision of the Gallic religion has radically changed.
Formerly only known from the Roman point of view (Caesar, Pliny, Lucanus),
it was a matter of secret rituals performed in some deep primal forest, wild animals and human sacrifices.
No places of worship near the towns.
Paradoxally, Caesar, Diodorus and Strabo tell about "sacred enclosures", "temples", "propylea".IV-1) Sanctuary of Gournay-sur-Arondes (Bellovaci):
http://www.gournaysuraronde.com/histoire.html
Dated from the 3rd century B.C., probably the 280s, build over a smaller Second Iron Age fortified sacred enclosure.
The Bellovaci, upon their arrival in the area and subsequent settlement, will re-use an old worshiping place from the Second Iron Age.
A hypothesis is that when the Bellovaci decided to settle, they were already charged with the remains of those they had fought against to come here.
They now would honor their chtonian God of War (and Hell) with a large founding sanctuary.The Gournay-sur-Aronde's finding revolutionized the way archaeologists thought Gallic (and Celtic) "temples".
It gave the basic elements of a Gallic sanctuary, that now are found "everywhere" in the forest-free, few inhabited, open plains of Northern France and Belgium, thanks to aerial photography.
- The enclosure
The solid fence, made out of wood and cob, is to duly separate the sacred ground, the property of a given divinity, from the mundane world.
The Greek called this the temenos
A ditch reinforces the symbolic and physical separation.- The porch
The entrance faces outwards east the rising sun at Summer Day.
An ornate porch and a bridge would act as a ritual vestibule.
Given it has 8 plots, an upper "floor" and a roof, it could really be the Strabo's propylea, instead of the later Gallo-Roman gallery fanum.
On it, several hundreds of arms, as well as human and cattle skulls were found.- The altar
At first, the inner area is free of any building, except the altar pit (that is, the altar is the pit).
During the 2nd century B.C., a building is build over it, a simple roof and nine plots (maybe walls between the plots?).
The inner area was used for ceremonies and banquets.- The grove
Near the altar, an artificial (grown) grove of trees and shrubs represents the divinity.
Pre-Roman Celts don't represent their gods with anthropomorphic figures.
Neither statues nor icons are found. The "nemeton" (fucus) or sacred grove is both the temporary residence
and the visiting room of the divinity, and something material the faithful could easily conceive and approach.The findings:
- The trophies
During a century and a half, more than 300 complete warrior panoplies are laid down, for a total of 2,000 weapons.
The panoplies were hung to the entry porch or to the enclosure walls, until they fell down, because of corrosion, and that could take many tens of years.
Then they would be ritually broken and thrown away in the surrounding ditch.- The sacrifices
The animal sacrifices were two kind:
- the commensal one (feast, as in town temples); note that like the Greek and the Roman, they only offered herd animals, not wild ones, because the wild ones would already belong to the divinities (it's a few percents at most).
- the chtonian cult: far more uncommon (the Greeks used it too, cf. "Zeus O'the many flies", and also the early Romans). Cattle (Bulls, cows and oxes in equal parts) were offered in their whole. Their blood quenched the ground and they were left to rot in an open pit near the altar, and that could take 6-8 month. At least 50 cattle were slain for this purpose.
Nowadays, we know that the Gournay-sur-Aronde sanctuary belongs to the most important cult centers and sanctuaries in Gaul and those possibly structured the territory.One may ask why it was carefully closed at the end of the 2nd century B.C.
It is probably because of the first Germanic invasion, such as the Cimbri invasion.
The Bellovaci are the only Gauls to be successful in their resistance to the invader. But there might have been a price, such as a territorial shift.
A few decade later, a new sanctuary opened 6 km south from Gournay. After the Gallic War, the sanctuary reopened but on a smaller scale and without its warlike character. A small Gallo-Roman temple was then build and used until the 5th century.IV-2) Sanctuary of Ribemont-sur-Ancre (Ambiani):
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/aerien/fr/decou3-pg9.html
Maybe one of the largest in Gaul: a complex plan (terraces, houses, therms, theater... sanctuary), 800m long, this site is known from the 1960s, and considered at first as a large Gallo-Roman villa (farm estate).
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/aerien/imgs/4067-a.jpg
The sanctuary proper is as complex as a villa.But in the last 20 years, delves have revealed... many, many prepared corpses. As the site is not wholly studied yet, some numbers are extrapolations (as when you delves 12m of a 40m ditch).
Like in Central Asia, fallen enemies were buried to feed the gods, while the heroes were left to the carrion feeder (birds) and rotting in the open so that their soul could quickly go to the sky... (to correct Ansuz's assertion, above)
Here is the site map (see also Ansuz'z picture).
You see the inner square sanctuary to the vanquished, then the large trapezoidal esplanade at the center of which lies a smaller circular sanctuary, probably to the victor themselves.
This is currently the largest Celtic trophy-sanctuary known in Europe.
Description:
- The sanctuary to the vanquished
The usual square enclosure (fenced and ditched), porch and altar, and maybe a grove.
This drawing represents the porch as it could have been.
60 beheaded corpses were found with weapons, and their posture suggests they could have fallen from a height, such as the porch's wooden upper floor where they were hung in display.
Several odd ossuaries are also found, they are the cubic dots on the map.
Outside the enclosure, and in the ditch, several deposits and a path made of swords lead to a "mass grave" or maybe another ossuary.
- The ossuary
The main ossuary: weapons and 2000 sorted bones: 501 femurs, 246 humerus, iliac bones
5-6m diameter../ the remain of a 1,6mx1,6m cubic ossuary made out of walls of woven long bones and floors made out of coxal bones.
At the center, a vertical 3m long, 1 foot diameter post was buried 90 cm into the ground.
The inner cavity was filled with charred bones from human (and some horse) members.
The armament's typology allow a quite precise date. The weapons could have been placed on top of the ossuary.- The esplanade
Trapezoidal in shape, 1 square kilometer, enclosed by a fence.
- The sanctuary to the victor
Circular in shape, and probably ditched with a high fence at its bottom. This would isolate the 30 corpses of the Ambiani heroes who were left to rot on the ground and to the carrion birds. This is suggested by the fact that the corpses were not prepared the same, and that their armament was different.
Related translations:
Context: what happened?
In the 3rd Century, war is very important among the Gauls and even more among the Belgian, a new warlike people that is considered to have notice-ably settled northern Gaul around 280 B.C.
Northern Gaul is less densely inhabited than central and southern Gaul, and it's maybe because they only were Bronze and Early Iron communities, more or less celticized (Culture of the charioteers). The newcomers suddenly exhibit more settlements, more necropolis, use cremation and build sanctuaries. They came in waves rather than as a huge migration.
The economy was mainly centered on the war (how to forge weapon, how to feed horses).
In 260 B.C., one of the greatest battles in Gaul was fought between the Belgian Ambiani and Armoricans.The Ambiani came from the Rhine valley between the 4th and the 2nd century B.C. in several waves. But as they went closer to the Channel coast-land, they may have disorganized the local trade routes and the nearby Kéltes looked upon them. Strabo tells that the Armorican tribes had a monopoly over trade and transport across the Channel. According to the gold coins found in Ribemont, either the Lexovii or the Cenomanni (or both) marched north to defend their commercial interest. At least 650 of their fallen spearmen (and some horsemen) were brought to and ritually prepared at the sanctuary the Ambioni built to celebrate their crushing victory. This is the most important mass grave from this period found in Europe ever. Remember also that "Ar-mor" means "land by the sea" and that could apply also to the Channel coastal area.
In the 30s B.C., Gallo-Roman Ambiani cleaned the site and build a richly decorated temple (fanum), which will be enlarged (colonnades, porticos) in the following centuries.
About prepared corpses:
No skulls (and jaws and teeth) at all: they must have been personal trophies taken on the battle field and brought back to home, as it is now well known.
Mean data about the vanquished: 1m74 tall, young and muscular men. They should be well trained warrior.
A few pubescent boys (13-14 years) and pre-pubescent ones (10-12 years), the later seeming odd in such a place.
These could have been led to battle by their father, as was not unusual in such cultures.
The Gauls considered that the warrior (enemy and friend alike) was favored by the gods and thus sacred.
Violent death on the battle field was a door opened to the paradise or the reincarnation. This explains why the Celts did not bury nor incinerate their dead warriors, but had rather them left to the carrion birds. (only the other dead were buried/incinerated).
This horrified the Greek out of disgust.But maybe the enemy should be denied the possibility to return and haunt the living, and be reserved a special ritual (at least, symbolically for a few of them).
The preparation of the enemy could have been the following: the corpses are first laid on the ground just enough time for the articulations to become easy to separate.
Then they are dismembered and fleshed out for their long bones and iliac/coxal bones. Some ritually repeated strikes on the femur bones are spotted, but it's not sure whether this does only mean that a leg is relatively difficult to cut off when you are an unexperienced druid.The Gauls, the prisoners and human sacrifice
What prisoners? The Gauls are not known to take war prisoners until the early 1st century B.C.: they are killed on the battle field or the living are sacrificed because they belong to the divinity not to the tribe, as do their weapons which aren't looted at that time.A report from the Galatian Expedition:
A Hellenistic force was defeated. And killed to the last man. Basic troops where shot down with bow, maybe a shameful death? The best ones (the officer?) were sacrificed: Greek witnesses report it as if they had been throat cut and burnt (hekatomb?). The Galatian were Gauls coming from Gallia Cisalpina, and maybe Transalpina (southern Gaul).By the end of the 2nd century B.C. however, the central and southern Gauls may have gradually abandoned the ritual of the Trophy, as their society got "peaceful" and replaced sacrifice of dead enemies (or living war prisoners) by capital executions of criminals (such as burning them in wicker cages), even if those acts of justice were most certainly still ritualized, the judges being the druids too.
IV-3) Sanctuary in Mormont (Helvetii)
Discovered by chance in Switzerland in 2008 on a terrace 30m below the top of a natural, unsearched "oppidum".
http://www.artehis-cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/mormont_plaquette.pdf
(in French, but there are pictures)
Dated 100 B.C. by metal items and dendro-chronology, occupied during 2-3 decades at most.
This could rather be a place of cult instead of a "sanctuary".
It coincides with the Cimbri invasion and maybe a tsunami on the Neuchatel lake (as suggested by sedimentary studies).Offerings:
Many bronze, iron and wooden tools and furnitures, clothes and animal remains, all burried in cylindrical, 0,8-2m wide, 0,8-6m deep pits.
Human remains either complete (as if burried) or prepared (incomplete, dispersed).
No weapons: not a Trophy. Iron hindrances: slaves ?
Maybe evidences of ritual butchery and cooking performed on human corpses.
What is spectacular here, compared to the whole Celtic civilization, and even beyond, is:
the mass of the furnitures offered, the number and diversity of the animals sacrificed, and overall, the seemingly narrow time windows the site was used. -
III-) Gallic noble estates: Gauls (Belgians)
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/aerien/imgs/12017.jpg
When Caesar uses the word "aedificia" for such isolated, country noble estates, whereas he could had used
"tugurium" (hut) or "casa" (single house), it seems that they are sophisticated housings. They laid "amidst the wood to protect against summer heat", but that more probably means behind tree hedges.
It happens that such housings or derivatives were still in use in some place by the 20th century in northern France.
In short, the land just outside the buildings was divided and arranged into lots, whith a "courtil" or farmyard, and a "plant", maybe for vegetables, fruits and medium herd. The division were materialized by tree hedges which supplied further resources. Such estates would support horse(s) and henchmen.
Here are 3 pictures from a model.
I din't find pictures about the:
3rd/2nd century B.C. aristocratic estate (lat. Aedificia) at Monmartin (now Picardy).
A rich domain that could be characteristic of what Caesar calls the "Equites" warrior class.
Several buildings, a private fanum with enclosure, a public square (in which corpses were prepared).
From a research report (extract):
Ceramic:
Dishes from La Tène C2 to beginning of La Tène D1.(200-100 B.C.)
A few italian amphorae: poor trade relations with the Mediterranean.
Animal remains:
Dog and pig are treated the same in the housing.
From the final La Tène on, great horses are imported from the Mediterranean world.
Some horse remains witness hippophagia.
Other:
No coins, hence the last occupation should be around 100 B.C.
The sacred enclosure:
Large empty space, beamed fence, ditch that receive the wastes but also ritually destroyed armament, human prepared remains, and what fell from the wall when the whole was destroyed by fire.
Altar-pit (a pit in which sacrificed animals are thrown and led to rot). -
Now, on the Belgians, always looking for pictures, models, texture ideas...
II-) A Gallic village (Remi): Gauls (Belgians)
http://www.gaulois.ardennes.culture.fr/en#/en/annexe/intro/t=Introduction
This 20 hectares village was integraly dwelves, which is quite rare.
Click on the upper right image to start the virtual visit in English.
This website is awesome and contains plans (post holes), drafts and rendering.
For the hurry, here's the 3D plan:
The non-flash version, more convenient in my opinion, is in French only, sadly.
Translation of the village's foundation:
Around 180 A.D., like in other places in the area, a human group settles on the plateau, 40 m higher than the nearby Aisne river (celt. Axonna) meander.
The site was abandoned since 400 A.D. All the surrounding area seems depopulated (or at least its inhabitants dispersed in small communities) and this could be linked with the expedition into Italia.
The necropolis' biggest Bronze Age tumulus, surrounded by a 20 meters diameter circular ditch, is preserved and isolated; a grove is kept here and an ancestor cult is set on.
On the highest place, lies the communitarian square, completely fenced, lined by the religious complex on the west (the several 2-floor buildings in the 3D visit).
Its only entrance, on the south is materialized by a ten meters long fenced path that penetrates the square until a small grove.
The square is 3,500 square meters, enough to round a thousand of people up, even if the village's population never reached that number.
Now that the social and religious complex is set, the area can be geometrically organized around three vast, one hectare, rectangular yards.
Around each yards, temporary houses are build at first (4 circular raw pot holes each), and then replaced by solid housings (houses and annexes) (several squared pot holes), those plots divide the initial space.
(a bit like we would do in modern days).
The division into plots shows a very hierarchic society. For example, the craftsmen plots are identical, and the "nearly" the same buildings are build on each of them.
A housing (or domestic unit) is typically made of a large building (45 m2) with a round end (apse), two rectangular smaller buildings (9 and 13 m2), two buildings with 2 apses (17 m2 in total) (nearly circular), one granary and one pit.
In the same website, a large sacred site, dated from the 2nd century:
To keep with Gallic sanctuaries, it was used to see the fanum as a Gallo-Roman temple, but this was because stone fana were first found.
Firstly, their plan doesn't fit with Greco-Roman temples (no pronaos, square form);
Secondly, nowadays, several older wooden temples are found beneath Gallo-Roman temples. -
I'd like to support and complement Ansuz's post.
The current artwork is really really pretty good as compared as what we find on the Internet.
But you should really check the official website about the Corrent oppidum.
I-) The Corrent Oppidum (Arverni): Gauls (Cèltes)
http://com.cg63.fr/com/Corent/
(official website from the Puy-de-Dôme department (code 63))I translated the text of the 3D recreation into English (forgive some barbarisms and when I wrong the tenses!).
See also the research website in English:
http://www.luern.fr/index.php?mod=homepage&act=welcomeCirca 70 hectares (0.7 square kilometer)
Ideas for housing, temple, painted coatings- The crossroads:
In the city's very heart, at the crossing of two alleys, this place is a junction between the sanctuary, in front of which a great esplanade lies, the housing and the market square.
From north, clockwise:- Alleys:
Center-town is structured by alleys and streets. With a width of 5-6m, they allow for circulation between buildings.
They are cleaned on a regular basis. Shortly before the oppidum's evacuation, some of them are completed with a stone gutter to drain rain and used water away.
- Cistern:
Wells and cisterns, used to collect and store water are the only Gallic building made out of stone (except the city walls). Corrent's cistern is made with close-fitting volcanic stone facings.
Its location and dimension argues in favor of a public use. A 6 cubic meter capacity, it was used to store rain water, in complement to natural springs, out of the city.- Esplanade:
At the oppidum center, the space in front of the sanctuary's entrance is characterized by the total absence of buildings. It corresponds to a 50m long, paved area, totalizing 2,500 square meters. [The wiki page speaks about an area twice as large as the sanctuary, to a total of 4,000 square meters]
Obviously, this is a result of a public agreement. This central square allows for religious, political or commercial crowd gathering.- Amphoras:
Even when amphorae are found in mass on some Gaulish archaeological delves, they do not sign a common consumable.
The exotic Tyrrhenian wine comes from across the sea and is transported by river barges (smoother travel for an amphora), then by chariots.
It is sold a hefty price by Roman merchants.- Painted coating:
This rendering is purely speculative. Only red coating fragments were found, along with raw Egyptian blue pigments.
The motives evocate the Arverni pottery's and some vestigial painted coatings still visible in a few farms in central and northern France.- Trophy:
This military trophy, a wooden mannequin with real armament, commemorates some past victory. I will be destroyed and buried in some symbolic ritual when the sanctuary is abandoned.
The reconstituted trophy uses metallic items found directly below the sanctuary's wall.
In a space as small as 1 square meter were found: a complete mail (perfectly preserved), two couples of shields (that is four umbos and one handle in iron),
a metal plate from a sword sheath, and the bronze crest of a boar ensign. The umbos bears marks from the trophy's ritual dismantlement: torsion, perforation and cutting by an iron scissor.[it is the only trophy found, and it is because this habit had disappeared in the area at the time the sanctuary was redesigned, in the early 1st century B.C.]
- Building A:
The main building north to the sanctuary is build around a large courtyard closed by a wooden fence.
To the east, the entry porch is build with mighty posts. At this place and on the court's ground are found many items such as:
armament pieces, banquet wares, human skull and tools, that point this building out as linked to the nearby sanctuary; a meeting or ceremonial place or even the priests' housing.- The sanctuary:
At the beginning of the 1st century B.C. [in 80 B.C.], the sanctuary was completed with a large portico directly inspired by Greco-roman sanctuaries.
Its covered gallery and central yard witness sacrifices, banquets and libations offered to the gods by the aristocracy.
Maybe this can be linked to the Poseidonos' relation of Luernos, king of the Arverni's famous banquets.[Maybe, there were trophies at first, but already, this warlike habit was declining in Central and Southern Gaul, so there only remained those feast sacrifices]
The complex was a 60m square.
Outdoor, from west, clockwise:- The butchery pergola:
In front if the entrance, this wooden structure decorated with animal skulls is used to hang and burn (cook) sacrificed animals.
- The colonnade:
This mighty wooden post structure is closed to the Greco-roman architecture, and use Greek standard.
- Iron cauldron:
More than a cooking tool, it's a symbol, so strong many are found in aristocratic graves.
- Jaw garlands:
Those mutton jaws are hung on the religious buildings' walls in a testimony of the number of animals sacrificed and eaten during the banquets.
- Wine vats:
Four pits are dug at the sanctuary's entrance, clad in wood and surrounded with amphorae. Like in other cultures, such pits are destined to receive offerings to chtonian divinities.
- The pen:
In a corner, a pen keep ready the animal in store for sacrifice.
Indoor, from west, clockwise:- Preparation for banquet:
The feast is directly prepared in the kitchen under the portico.
Meat is grilled, hung by iron hooks, or boiled in earthenware or large iron cauldrons.
Other food that are stored and processed under the portico are: fish, backery, etc.- Sacrifice (ESRB-12):
As in other ancient civilizations, animal sacrifice is THE religious act.
The throat cut with a large knife made of iron or bronze, one chosen animal (mutton, sheep, pig, cow) is consecrated to the divinity.
Its blood is collected and then poured in a pit, as an offering to chtonian divinities.
Wastes (head, legs) are also offered: skulls and jaws are hung on the buildings and allow to count the number of sacrifices.
Noble pieces of meat are taken away to be processed and eaten by the faithful during the banquet.- The monetary workshop:
(...)
- The amphorae slashing:
A costly drink imported from Italia by several hundred thousands of liters, wine comes to the sanctuary in great quantity.
The amphorae used for the travel are "popped" out with a sword and the spilled wine is then not unrelated to the blood spilled during a sacrifice.
It is then poured in small wooden vats dug in the ground (not unlike barrels). Part of the liquid is naturally and symbolically "drunk" by the earth, while the other part
is consumed during the banquet in a shared vessel.- The housing:
In the neighborhood of the sanctuary, the public esplanade and the marketplace are several housing blocks.
One housing is often one main building, a courtyard and annexes (pen, cistern, dryer, granary, harvest store, small workshops, lean-to...).
So far, ten such units or so have been found. This regular city street map originates from the city foundation (no changes).
These units' plans show a mere transposition into the city of the rural housing model.- Courtyard:
The ground is hard-clay, often cleaned. Solid- or wattle-fence separates it from the city alleys.
- Domestic architecture:
The housing is a large main building, which superficy may reach several hundreds square meters.
Posts and beams are used, linked by earth walls. Red painted coatings are used.
The whole is sturdy enough to get an upper floor.
As early as the 80s B.C., Greco-roman architectural elements are borrowed: paved indoor floor, tile roof, entry porch.- Indoors:
Rooms are quite spacious and adorned with painted coatings. Wooden furnitures only left prints on the ground and iron hinges.
At least one hearth provides light, heat and a cooking mean.
Small craft is usually made at home (such as milling the every day flour, spinning and every-day cloth making).- The cellar:
Pits are dug deeply beneath the housing. Clad in wood, with small staircase, the provide a constant temperature storage place for food near the kitchen.
In one of them a human skull was found, that evocates the aristocratic habit to keep the head of vanquished foes in wooden crates.- Dryer or granary:
Around the houses are several dryers or granaries used to store hay, grains, and other food.
Their only remains are four pots holes.- The market:
In the heart of the city, several workshops and tradeshops are arranged around a large square.
Here one can buys meat, wine, jewels and other wares, most of them being produced in situ.
This craftsman and commercial complex is made out of four large halls build jointly and forming a 130 square meters central yard.
In those buildings are the workshops and they are completed by outdoor light porticoes.
This particular layout, so far unknown in Gallic delves, links to the Roman market (macellum) and its shops (tabernae).- Workshops:
The building are like 20 meters long, large market halls, and are divided into several spaces by partition walls and locked doors.
They were workshops for the butcher, leather-worker, bronze-smelter, metal and bone jewelers, joiner...- Yard:
The ground is paved with packed gravel (with a beam-like tool).
Here were found hundreds of bronze and silver Arverni coins, as well as coins from other parts in Gaul and the Mediterranean.
A vast number of cooked earth tokens were used for accountancy.- Shops:
A long the building, on the yard's side, light porticoes provide a shelter against sun and rain to the merchants.
Their ground concentrates most of the coins and tokens, as well as remnants from beam balances (beams, weights).
For some of them, the sold wares correspond to the ones fabricated in the nearby workshop.- The bronze-smelter workshop:
(not translated)
- The joiner workshop:
(not translated)
- The butchery:
(not translated)
- The tavern:
An atypical building lies near the market. It's a large 20m long hall build on top of a narrow cellar of the same length.
This feature is unheard so far in the Gallic world. The cellar was filled in at the same time the building crumbled.- The cellar:
On the ground more than 5 tons of crushed italian wine amphoras were found, along with tokens and coins.
A full gallic ceramic wine set (a large vase, jugs, tumblers, bowls) and bronze italian dishes prove that wine is also drunk in the cellar.Comments:
As you can see the Celtic temple in-game is really well designed and very similar to the Corrent sanctuary.
The Arverni tribe and federation is in contact with Mediterranean world since maybe as early as the 3th century B.C. and it could probably represent what the Central and Southern Gauls could be: on their way towards urbanization.
-168 Rise of the Arverni hegemony (read cultural, political and military supremacy, not empire!) in southern and central Gaul. They would control trade with the Greek and the Iberian.
-121 End of the Arverni hegemony, with their failure to oppose the Roman invasion of what would become the Provincia. Recognized as a "brother people" by the Senate, the Roman-allied Aeduan begin to grow as the next hegemonic federation.The sanctuary is the first building build in the later quarter of the 2nd century B.C., maybe due to the abandon of a former capital in front of the Cimbri invasion. Until 80 B.C. and its "hellenization" (portico, stone foundations,etc.), it was surrounded by a typically ditch+fence/wall on the bottom. The city seems to have been organized around it. It is now deemed as being the Arverni capital city until the Gallic War, and thus, Strabo's Nemossos (Luernos' capital), and Werkingetorix birthplace.
Just before the Gallic War, or at its beginning, the political power seems to shift to Gergovia.
After the Gallic War, a new capital is founded in Augustonemetum in 30 B.C., Gergovia is abandoned, and only the sanctuary in Corrent remains in activity for 3 more centuries.
Given that the Arverni had 3 oppida grouped into a tiny 7 km x 7 km area, inhabited at roughly the same periode (late La Tène, Gallic War), some authors think that it could be a huge urbanized complex with a religious center (Corrent), an economic center (Gondole), a military center (Gergovia) an in between, monumental (paved) linking roads and loose housings/farms. Caesar would have thus camped inside Nemossos, facing the city's citadel, known as Gergovia!
-
Greycat, I hope I bring you good news!
S.Rieckhoff
"Süddeutschland im Spannungsfeld von Kelten, Germanen und Römern, Studien zur Chronologie der Spätlatènezeit im südlichen Mitteleuropa."
1995I don't have the book, but I will try and translate some bit found on the Internet. At first glance, she tried and differentiate Germanic people in the Danubian area according to the pottery.
-
1
-
-
There is actually a theory about a Stone-Age small group migrating by chance to Northern America during the last Ice Age (through "coastal" navigation from Ireland, like modern Inuits could do). This theory was build on the account some stone tools found in America are very similar to those of the Solutrean culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean
You could have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
but I fear the redactors there are excessive. Imho, the theory isn't really meant to dismiss the Beringian hypothesis, just to explain a cultural influence.
But all of that is far beyond the scope of this game.
-
1
-
-
Leonidas, prueba por favor este motor de traducción en línea gratuita. Lo encuentro práctico y bastante preciso.
http://www.reverso.net/text_translation.aspx?lang=ESPuedes fácilmente someter a un test una retro-traducción para arreglar el texto original.
Y nada te impide utilizar también a un traductor analógico como Bing.Pero nunca trates de retro-traducir con este último.
-
1
-
-
According to what I read, Celtiberians were iberized Celts, still speaking Celtic, maybe even not a mix of Celts and Iberians, and certainly not celticized Iberians. We'd have to look after archaeological studies to precise whether their armament and/or building could be influenced by the Iberian culture.
Etruscans: Pfff... I don't know what the Republican Romans owed to them, but it should be... huge (navy, phalanx, armament, architecture)! Maybe an awesome starting faction, later dominated by powerful end-game Rome.
Dalmatians and Illyrians are the same, to oppose Macedonians, Gauls, Epirus, Romans and later invaders. In the 2nd century B.C., an Illyrian king loose its dalmatian lands to the Roman. Or if you want, the Dalmatian were an Illyrian tribe, like the Arverni were a Gallic tribe. Vastly contributing to the imperial auxiliaries, prone to rebel, but also the Western Empire last and formidable defense.
-
Then, I guess it is the privilege of the age.
As I finished the campaigns in AoE2, AoM, Age of Legends, Spellforce, all the same, I won't present myself as a beginner in RTS, however (still no Iron Man mode for me!).
-
1
-
-
DevynCJohnson, I'm not even a good RTS player, never played multi-player, etc., although I'm interested in tactical and strategy historical/fantastic simulation/recreation video games.
I figure that different civilizations would have different sensitivity towards enslaving and capturing/being captured; I lack references but as a first shot:
Roman: hard to capture, great enslavers.
Carthaginian: great at capturing.
Persian: easy to capture/enslave and great capturer/enslavers (diplomats).
Greek: hard to enslave but not so hard to capture, medium enslavers.
Celt: hard to capture, easy to enslave, poor enslavers.
I may be wrong here; it just to show that we could differentiate the civilizations and that some players would have to "escort" their citizen-soldiers and mercenaries by champions and mercenaries (!), while other could send their basic citizen alone to death without much fear to fuel their enemies' economy. These differences would play at the "very small chance to get a slave" level and to compute the actual ratio between surrounding/surrounded units.
I feel like those cultural differences (accepting to surrender or to be enslaved) come from the acceptance that a whole group of warriors could stop fight and surrender to greater opposition, or that a free man with no option to flee would better choose to survive instead of to die.
On the other side (proneness to capture or to enslave other units/people), some cultures had slaves on a large scale while other wouldn't have thought about enslaving free men (although a decimated enemy tribe, with barely any warrior spared, could well be just used as "free" laborers).
Note that late northern German used slaves (or were they only worker class attached to a warrior?).
-
1
-
-
Putzger, Historischer Atlas (1954), p. 24.
I was only reading this very map and what it says is : "all the southern yellow areas are still Celtic".
Provide another one, preferably more recent, and I'll try to read it as well.
I can't help myself.
-
I would suggest to rename the topic "Mezoamerican factions".
Here is a time scale to help choose.
The Nahuatl were at the Copper Age (melting silver, gold and copper) when the Spanish came and they had spread this metallurgy to the remnants of the Mayan post-classical civilization, so you should keep to Stone Age, a very sharp Stone Age.
In my opinion, this could only lead to a mod where we could have two or three Mayan cities fight against each other (Classical period).
This could also easily lead to fantasy confrontations such as between the Bronze or Iron Age Phoenicians and the Proto-Mayan, and between the Stone Age nomadic Innu/Mi'Kmaq and the Iron Age German/Vikingar. I'm figuring that once a Stone Age only civilization is devised, it is more easy to adapt for other ones.
By the way, although I have no ideas, why not adding a Sami faction to try and resist the northward Germanic and Slavic pushes in Europe, and even the Inuit against the Icelander in green Groenland (even if beyond the historical scope of the game)?
With Reverso.net (the translation from French to Spanish is better, however, see the two last sentences):
Los Nahuatl estaban en la Edad De Cobre (derritiéndose la plata, el oro y el cobre) cuando los españoles vinieron y ellos habían extendido esta metalurgia a los remanentes de la civilización Maya postclásica, entonces usted debería mantener a la Edad de Piedra, una Edad de Piedra muy aguda, de verdad.
En mi opinión, esto sólo podría conducir a un mod donde nosotros podríamos tener dos o tres lucha de ciudades Maya la una contra la otra (en el período Clásico).
Esto también fácilmente podría conducir a confrontaciones de ficción como entre los Fenicios de la Edad de Bronce o de Hierro y los Proto-mayas, y entre los nómados Innu/Mi'Kmaq de la Edad de Piedra y los Germanos/Vikingars de la Edad de Hierro.Supongo que en cuanto una civilización de la Edad de Piedra es concebida, es más fácil concebirlo otros.
¿ Al hecho, aunque no tengo ninguna idea para este sujeto, por qué no añadir una facción Sami quién trataría de resistir en Europa a los empujes hacia el norte de los pueblos germanes y eslavos ¿
-
1
-
-
A few words about the last map, just in case it might be used to devise the Germanic civilization.
I think it is largely outdated, mixing all the Proto-Germanic cultures in the same dark red one (and not accounting for the modern assumption that Germanic culture was less derived from the Danish Bronze Age as we thought). Also displaying tribe names in the same black colour, and the limes at its largest extension doesn't help. Although it accredits my posts, I'd rather dismiss it.
However, the second colour being really hard to spot on, I'll recall what we can see.
Until 100 B.C. the Germanic cultures is in contact with Volcae, Boii and Trans-rhenan Belgian.
During the first half of the 1st century B.C., the German come in the lower Rhine valley (Batavi, Frisii) and that's all. No Chatti yet. Where the hell are the Sicambri and all the Belgian's Germanii? (I mean, unless they are not counted as Germans by this map's maker). But even so, in other maps, Batavi and Frisii are not considered German so soon.
By the way, all the southern yellow areas are still Celtic, Pannonian (Illyric) and Scythian/Samartian areas in 300 A.D., while the northern ones are Sami, Uralic, Balto-Slavic and Samartian.
-
If I recollect (and complement a bit):
- Destroying an enemy building adds a new bought-able unit at your marketplace based on the type of building was destroyed. Call it "slave". This slave is cheaper than a citizen both to produce and to sustain.
- Killing an enemy unit has a very small chance to generate a slave at your market place. Killing a chariot or a war elephant or multi-manned siege units doesn't bring more slaves than a normal unit does (does it?). (However, how many low-morale people per catapult?).
- For slavery purpose, a warship is equivalent to some building as far as your warship takes time to collect men at see (this wasn't quite expected by this time). This could mean that a warship is immobilized as long as the wreck animation and remain is still visible. This requires a special button or a manual switch to stand-ground in the few first seconds the enemy ship is vanquished.
- The slave is a worker (whose gender is determined by his origin) without any attack who can specialize like citizens in some gathering techniques (does he?). He doesn't benefit from a citizen female nearby but from a male citizen-soldier nearby. Its gather value is less than a citizen's.
- The slave is also a fifth economic resource that can be exchange at the market place (but not with traders ?). That's mean that you can buy some without having captured any yet. This is a City phase feature.
- The number of slaves you can afford (as a unit or in whole, marketplace pool included ?) is capped according not only your maximum population cap but to the number of non citizen units as well. It is thought that the militaristic Sparta (say champion Spartan, even if Spartan citizen soldiers were Spartan military too) was partly caused by the need to control the number of hilotes. Champion mercenaries are counted, as well as elite citizen-soldiers (often akin to champions). I'm not sure about the ratio slaves/(champions+elites).
- Capturing an enemy formation automatically convert some of its units as slaves. The surrender/capture follows some rules as:
- must be granted/ordered by a hero unit or a formation commander (if implemented) by: selecting the hero, clicking on the capture button, and clicking on the nearby enemy formation.
- the formation must be surrounded and locally outnumbered 4:3 at least (see below in the spoiler).
- if a morale system is implemented, it should interface with the surrendering feature.
- this can't occur near fortifications or defended building: they keep shooting at the enemy.
- this can't occur while the formation is sustaining casualties.
- this feature is automatic (should really the enemy player be asked to accept this local surrender?) but maybe, the enemy player could prevent the capture either by ordering a stand your ground stanza, or "sacrifice" his unit by attacking and trying and break the surrounding. This could change should a morale system be implemented (to allow for a "stand your ground and fight to the death" and "surrender" at the same time).
A quite simple system:
I figure that a 6x6 basic infantry section could accept to surrender when surrounded on each side by a 6x2 champion hoplitic or swordsman formation, because they would know that they would soon shrink to a 4x4 (not so soon for the front side maybe) and this leads to a ratio of 4:3. Ideally, this should be pondered by unit types (swordsmen vs hoplites?). A formation level could be quickly computed as a mean (or pondered mean) of its units' level. You'd end with a level of 1,2,3 or 4 (champion).
So, level 4 vs 1 needs a 4:3 ratio. For better balanced situations, multiply the former ratio by 4:3.
So, level 4 vs 2 or level 3 vs 1 needs a (4:3)(4:3) or 8:6 or circa 2:1 ratio.
Level 4 vs 3, 3 vs 2, 2 vs 1 needs a 8:3 or circa 5:2
To capture a formation of the same level would require a 3:1 ratio.
Beyond that, it would prove nearly impossible in the scope of this tactical game:
Level 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 3 vs 4 needs a 4:1 ratio
Level 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4 needs a 5/6:1 ratio.
Level 1 vs 4 needs a 15:2 or 8:1 ratio.
While this system doesn't seem to lead to some historical stunning surrenders, it could do what it can without a morale system.
Other ideas related to capture/slavery:
- Captured citizen units (from captured formations, see above) are degraded:
Firstly, they loose one level of experience from shame! Secondly, they could be automatically change to skirmishers (of their own culture), a bit like Spartans would use light/medium infantry from subjugated states at their left wing to purposely absorb the much powerful enemy pressure there. This degradation could be seen as a preventive measure in case of revolt.
- Captured champions (from captured formations) are not degraded and are more akin to mercenaries, although more prone to be captured back by their former culture soldiers. Whereas this doesn't sound good regarding Spartans, let's consider Xenophon's Anabase.
- Killing a cavalry unit has a very small chance to act like a horse capture (decreasing cavalry cost as you gain horses).
- Raiding was normal warfare:
- Destroying a field earn you food directly to your pool. Destroying a mill/other resource deposit earn you an amount of resources.
- Soldiers (only citizen soldiers?) can ravage/spoil an area. In a enemy controlled area, you may lay waste of animals (bred, wild) and plants (fruit, lumber). It could be an option when only the town center is heavily defended and most of the economical zone is poorly defended. Retreating your workers to safety in buildings wouldn't be enough to save you from economical doom. This "ravage" could be ordered by selection a group of units or a formation and click on a button, to a visual immediate scattering to resources (except mines).
- Conversely, you could order your own troops to apply a scorched earth strategy in your own territory, destroying plants and animals all around them (without collecting them). Whereas 0 A.D. is not really a strategical game, this could still impede enemy advancement even before having to oppose his troops.
- Currently, like in AoE or American Conquest, you have to send forward gatherers near the enemy town to deny the enemy those resources. I'd barely call it a scorched earth strategy.
- Maybe you could still earn some resource while ravaging/spoiling.
- Ransoming instead of capturing a formation:
Should you accept to pay say one third of the surrendered units value (to be discussed), the whole formation would walk back to your first or main civilization center, managed by the AI until it reaches its destination. Although it is seen as neutral (no AI attacks), an enemy human player could still change his mind and manually order an attack on the ransomed formation on its way back to home. The formation would immediately revert to a controlled status but the treacherous human player would never be allowed to ransom anymore (plus huge diplomatic penalties). Remember the way the Spartan granted free return to home to the "Thousand", the Argian elite phalanx still intact and surrounded at Mantinee. Remember some Gaulish or Germanic commanders granting free return to Romans after a brave resistance (that was before the Roman's reputation would be tarnished).
- Ransacking/Spoiling convoys:
When your units perform one of the actions previously described (capturing, enslaving, spoiling, destroying, ransoming), instead the earnings go directly into your economy spool, they generates trader-like units who delay the use of those earnings until they reach a marketplace or a dock of yours. Call them slave traders, "baggage" units, treasury ships, .... Until reaching un-crossable water, they change to merchant ship and revert back to caravan when landing. Either they have to be managed or they are A.I. controlled. They are vulnerable to capture by skirmishing and raiding civilizations.
This doesn't apply to captured units, only to slaves of course.
As a conclusion, I know well that such ideas are more adapted to a greater scale strategy game, but who knows? One day the map and the unit cap could grow larger!
-
2
-
I happened to understand that a Hack/Pierce infantry stands for a sword+spear unit and that it would automatically use the best attack according to its enemy's armor.
I happened to understand it wrong.
Damage from different damage types are dealt simultaneously and checked again the target's respective armor, according to the game manual.
So, giving a Hellenistic peltast a hack damage to account for its sword is possible.
Furthermore, the ability to switch from ranged to melee attack can be somewhat emulated with the multipliers against unit types, but only if it is possible to complexify the system (not simply skirmisher/archer/spearman/swordsman).
Indeed, a swordsman can be more or less protected/trained and that would make the difference not only with the damage dealt by a skirmisher without missile going to melee, but with his very decision to engage on a death fight as well.
I mean a veteran light infantry (that had became the peltast by the Hellenistic times) without missiles anymore would still always avoid a hoplite, but could possibly try and hack a sarissa-less phalangist or an unarmored Gaul?
-
I can only but agree with you.
Topic closed, then?
-
Hello!
0 A.D.
Could someone tell me exactly when this year happened?
I know what are 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D.
I know what is the year 1 B.C. (which began circa 365 days before official C. birth.).
I'd guess that 1st year A.D. is called 1 A.D. by scientists and calendars.
I'm pretty sure the game's name won't change, and that's not a problem for me.
But maybe, we could make it clear to the newcomer and the outsider that we perfectly know how years are counted.
- So, I'd suggest that in in-game descriptions, we change the string "0 A.D." to "1 A.D.", first year of the new era. As an example, lets talk about the "500 B.C. - 1 A.D." period, that ended with C. birth.
- Let's keep "0 A.D." as the main title and let's take responsibility for it as a fancy that would allegorically represent the change of area, which the game is centered on (before: period 1; after: period 2), rather than a given historical year that isn't even the first imperial century stricto sensu.
A bit like a "ground zero" date, maybe the very one second between the day 1 B.C. ended and the day 1 A.D. began, maybe around the 6th stroke of midnight.
-
1
-
What if the German (the Suevan federation, the Frank league, the Anglo-saxons) were not those Germani?
Seriously, that was all the point in my post about the Belgian, above: read it again, please.Strabo was a child when Cesar named the Germania, and here is how he saw his world:
You wouldn't dare to say that there were no Celts outside of Strabo's Celtica.
I'll dare to say there were not only Germans inside Strabo's Germania.
-
Or by extending its territory.
I happened to understand that a Hack/Pierce infantry stands for a sword+spear unit and that it would automatically use the best attack according to its enemy's armor.
But is it technically possible to have a skirmisher/archer automatically defend himself in melee with a sword, or to have a formation manually switch from range to melee (and charge).
Germanic faction(s)
in General Discussion
Posted
First part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpEk5Ua20E
Second part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7VLTVR5VI
In the first few minutes, they credit the hypothesis the Teutoni were an Helvetian sub-tribe rather than a Germanic people from the Baltic shore (as shown on a map). They also recall some major civ. difference between the Celts and the Germans, or between the Gauls and the Transrhenanic Germans, if you like : nor roads, no towns (greatest housings are 25 houses villages), no organized aristocracy.