Sundiata
-
Posts
2.332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
60
Posts posted by Sundiata
-
-
2 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
What part of the building should the cc be ?
Here's a very simple quick mock up I made loosely based on the Pâture du Couvent at Bibracte
What do you guys think? Terracotta roof tiles are known from a number of Celtic sites, but they are rare, so wooden shingles (and perhaps planks) would be better roofing material.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:
It doesn't look like it on the picture but it's already pretty big.
I was wondering that, since I haven't actually seen it in perspective
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:I could try with red pillars though I don't know if it would make sense considering we do not do that anywhere else in the gaul civ
True, I was just thinking, since it's a potential wonder it could be a little punchier. If you or someone else decides to make the sanctuary of Gournay sur Aronde as a new temple, the red pillars could be repeated there. In Genava's image of the marketplace, it also has a red band running across the lower part of the outside walls.
If you magically suddenly have nothing to do, a new Gallic CC based more on de Pâture du Couvent at Bibracte, you could also incorporate some reds there?
Spoiler
Just suggestions though. I know you're a busy man. I don't consider these things all that important, just some personal preferences of mine
-
Perhaps the pillars could be a tad bigger, rounder, and painted red, like the wall, also extending the red colour to the supporting logs of the superstructure above the gate? And sizing up to fit the footprint befitting of a wonder?
-
@stanislas69 Really cool! Good enough as wonder material? It has my vote
What's up with the green walkway though?
-
@Genava55, very nice pdf...
Let me add a few artists' interpretations (feel free to scrutinize)
SpoilerManching (Germany):
Corent
Bibracte:
Entremont :
Parisii Oppidum
With Corent Sanctuary??
Heuneburg (Germany, mostly Halstatt):
.thumb.jpg.1afcac9d724d64891b5592898533c477.jpg)
Others:
@stanislas69 Didn't you already make the sanctuary at Corent?? Since Stonehenge is such a terrible choice for the Gallic wonder (don't get me wrong it's a gorgeous model, just totally wrong), wouldn't the Corent sanctuary be a much better choice?
SpoilerSince monumental architecture wasn't much of a thing in Gaul, I elect the Corent sanctuary for Wonder:
I really think the sanctuary of Gournay sur Aronde should replace the current Gallic temple... This one looks way more authentic.
This would indeed make for a really lovely market place
-
1
-
1
-
-
https://www.strategygamer.com/articles/age-of-empires-4-0-ad-game/
"Even though the developers claim 0 A.D isn’t complete yet and that there are still a number of things to add; the community is there, the game has enough polished content to rival commercially released titles, and matchmaking hasn’t dropped me out once. Whether you need something to tide you over till Age of Empires 4, you’re just looking for a fresh AoE style game or even just a good RTS, then you can’t go wrong with 0 A.D.
Also, just listen to that soundtrack."
-
2
-
-
I kind of see what you mean... They were indeed more of an intermediate/flexible unit. Armoured, but not as heavy as the phalangites.
Hypaspists needed to be highly mobile, fast and needed unencumbered vision and movement. Metal cuirasses seem like overkill, generally speaking.
The bronze and iron muscle cuirasses in 0AD's "Hypaspistes (Macedonian Shield Bearer)", indeed seem out of place. The fellow on the right in his linothorax seems perfect though. A band of bronze scales along the abdomen is an acceptable variation to reflect their elite status.
-
I'm enjoying reading this discussion
Could you all please define what you understand as "light" armoured and "heavy" armoured /armed? I think that would help understand what everybody exactly has in mind, because right now I'm just guessing at what you mean exactly (show me some pics
).
-
1
-
-
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-meme-war-article-13-regulation
1 hour ago, Nescio said:People should keep in mind the only thing that has been decided Wednesday is that the proposed articles will go to the European Parliament to be discussed and voted upon, probably in about six months.
Unless there is a massive public outcry, it will most likely be voted into effect, so there is an actual need for concern.
It's like the whole net neutrality thing... These draconian regulations keep coming back in new forms, with new names and different packages, but at the end of the day, the power-balance shifts in the same direction. All can work in tandem with each other, and can be applied selectively, targeting/benefit who-ever certain corporate or political lobbies deem to be acting against/for their interests, whatever those may be. Say, for example microsoft files a false copyright complaint against 0AD ("the directive does not provide penalties for abuse"). The game needs to be taken down, even though 0AD didn't do anything wrong, because, protecting copyright holders from "potential" infringements is more important than protecting actual content creators who may not be able to pay legal fees, or even understand how to get their own work "un-flagged". It's a worst case nightmare scenario example I'm giving here, but these directives create the legal framework to do this.
1 hour ago, ffffffff said:move 0ad to international waters
Agreed! I was thinking somewhere in the South Pacific... Something like this place should serve 0AD's interests well:
Spoiler
First we just need to geo-engineer a tropical island in the middle of the ocean. Then we could found an RTS commune there. WildFire Land...
No copyrights... Generic everything... We'll grow rich farming lush fields of... Lettuce... And we could offer gaming spa's to North-Korean elites, just for the lol's
(and protection...) We'll ask Elon Musk for some help launching a few satellites to set up our own 0AD-net, (world wildfire web). After declaring ourselves the world's newest country, we should go for a permanent seat on the UN security council and force sanctions on the EU for their bafoonery . Can't go wrong...
-
1
-
1
-
-
Sharing links, memes, images and even quoting articles all become subject to EU copyright directives. No exception for fair use. It's only one of many similar assaults on internet freedom, and the full effect will only be felt in a few years from now, creating a false sense of "oh, but it's not so bad". This is what fascism looks like (sorry, but that's what it really is). They're creating the architecture to stifle all "undesirable" content. Which is basically anyone that isn't big business. It will create an environment were politically, socially or economically sensitive information can be prevented from ever even being published (think of sites like WikiLeaks, or even Wikipedia)
Our "leaders" are clueless, self-serving crooks that have sold out to faceless oligarchies a long time ago... In my eyes, most policy makers the world round have systematically proven themselves unworthy of our approval, and they delegitimize their own authority through the immoral nature and effect of their actions. We shouldn't accept this. No one should. I don't want to sound like some out of touch revolutionary or something, but International Civil Disobedience is the most appropriate way to respond to this.
We have power in numbers. 3.5 Billion internet users worldwide. If we say NO, it's NO. They can't arrest/sue/fine us all over some darn memes (or videos of American attack helicopters shooting up wedding parties in Iraq)...
Did I just commit a crime by making that meme? According to the new directives I did... Bite me, EU.
-
6
-
-
14 hours ago, Genava55 said:
Thank you for your message. The misinterpretation is normal since the knowledge is not free and accessible. There is only a few peoples that are doing historical mistakes with a bad intention behind. I don't have a grief against good peoples doing mistakes but against scientists that often didn't share their works. It is why I'm a huge supporter of science hub and affiliate platforms. Especially since I went to poor countries where students didn't have access to a good library. Osprey is often the only accessible source for amateurs but their work is sometimes of mediocre quality.
Yeah, I also get annoyed by not being able to access juicy information sometimes, especially when dealing with obscure or controversial histories where quality research really matters. I'm a strong believer in freedom of information, as I believe it's a basic ingredient for the universal development of the human race on a whole. The real difference between have's and have not's is often simply access and exposure to information.
Some ramblings about bad intentions:
SpoilerYou'd be surprised about people having bad (or questionable) intentions when it comes to history writing though. I have a broad interest in African history, among other things, and it's downright shocking what some people write. Some of it is simply (academic) ignorance, but on all sides of the "political spectrum" there are individuals and organizations dedicated to re-wrriting African history in a way that benefits their own political narratives, and the deliberate mis-information spread by these people often starts living a life of its own. For example: from a black supremacist perspective there are people spreading the idea that all the ancient civilizations of the Romans, Greeks, even Chinese and Native Americans where actually built by black Africans, and evil white devils came along, killed all the black people and erased every trace of them from the records in a monumental cover-up. Socrates was black. The Roman Emperors were black. Even the Celts were actually black people... Yeah... On the other end of the spectrum, there are white supremacists that claim black Africans never left the stone-age, never achieved anything, and every trace of civilization in Africa was actually built by white men, who were later murdered by the evil blackies... Africans never invented writing, the wheel, architecture, agriculture or animal husbandry... Yeah... It's scary how active these people are, but what's more scary is that not every falsehood they spread is as obvious to spot as the blatant examples given. Some of these guys are actually intelligent, and mix falsehoods with real facts in such a way that even intelligent people start believing them, and this misinformation starts entering the mainstream... You even see these things in Europe, when ancient histories are used to construct national narratives, look at the situation between Greece and Macedonia. Some of these narratives are "innocent, like the naming of Belgium (one of my home counties), after the Belgae "the bravest of the Gauls"... My other home country (Ghana), is named after the Ghana Empire, which was actually in Mali and Mauritania... But other narratives are not so innocent. e.g. the Aryan race vs the Untermensch. Growing up in Belgium, the dominant narrative around the colonization of Congo, for example, was one of a civilizational mission, and the school curriculum said nothing about the more than 10 million Congolese people that perished as a result, and completely omitted the history of previous states that had existed in these area's. My high-school history teacher didn't even know about the horrors, and was visibly shocked when she found out... In fact, all African history was omitted from our curriculum, and pre-Colombian and East-Asian history was merely glossed over. Many "situations" around the world, like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Rohingya crisis, Kashmir, American race-relations, Crimea, Sunni-Shia divide, to name a few are steeped so deeply in politicized historical narratives that the need to be aware of these political dimensions becomes a necessity when assessing history writing on these subjects. Everyone has an opinion, even if they're not aware of having it, or where it comes from, and these sometimes subconscious opinions influence the way we digest and recall information.
These guys could definitely be interpreted as round shields:
But as you indicated, it's more of a matter of interpretation. The 2 on the left could almost be interpreted as some kind of highly stylized solar wheel (the shields seem kind of off-set from the rider, while the other proportions are alright, and other similar coins depict solar wheels in a variety of styles). I saw the one on the right before, but didn't share it because I was having difficulty identifying it... It's definitely a round shield. But who's?
What do you think about a few round shields for the Britons in-game, to differentiate them from the Gauls? Do you have any clear visualisations of the wicker shields? What are your opinions on the small square and small rectangular shields?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:
This one made me laugh, but not because of you. I tell you why. [...]
You seem to be right... This publication http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2000/0093/pdf/dms.pdf ? It does indeed talk about runden schildbuckel and not rundschild. Interesting...
Yeah, a lot of misconceptions and inaccuracies are spread through popular culture like games and movies and even mistranslations or misinterpretation of academic sources like we see here. Thanks for pointing it out, and taking your time to explain. That's one of the reasons why I like 0AD so much, because people here at least try to keep it as historical as possible, but as you can see, it's a work in progress.
I don't really disagree with anything in your response, and I have to admit you do seem to have a decent grip on Celtic history. I can understand better where you are coming from, and won't further oppose your opposition to round shields among the La Tène period Gauls (unless I actually find something
). I'm still not convinced about a total lack of round shields though, but I get you. There is no concrete evidence we know of to support the notion.
What are your thoughts though on some of the (obscure) coins seemingly depicting round shields? I know some are Roman or Greek/Macedonian replica's, but the presences of Hellenic armour like the linothorax among some Celts might suggest they're more than just replica's, no? The way that the Thyreos entered the Greek world or the Gallic helmet entered the Roman world, light round (skirmishing) shields (think of Velites or Cretan archers) may have entered the Gallic panoply, as archery did by the time of the Gallic wars? I know, I know, pure conjecture, but entertain me..
As @stanislas69 said, sharing quality references is always appreciated, and good visual references are extremely useful for artists to work with, especially primary stuff. You could also share your interpretations of historical illustrations, discussing what is accurate and what is not/should be changed and how. I'm particularly interested in the architecture. I think it looks pretty good right now for a rural setting, but I feel like the proto-urban feel of the oppida is lacking. I collected a few artists' renditions of various oppida, ready for scrutiny (should post them soon) then I'll give you a ping.
-
1
-
-
This is a really sweet suggestion though
Personally I'd love to see more:
4 hours ago, elexis said:depcition of decapitated, halved bodies, gore and intestines, the worst things a human could possibly see.
Just for the sake of realism,
But a semi-official PEGI 6-mod (or in-game setting) would indeed be really nice for the little ones as well
-
1
-
-
Quote
"La tombe à char de Boé, située à 5 km de l'oppidum de l'Ermitage d'Agen, est une découverte capitale. La fosse dans laquelle ont été découverts des restes de planches est une immense chambre funéraire de 70 m2, datée du dernier quart du Ier siècle avant J.-C.1. Des destructions modernes et un probable pillage antique avaient malheureusement fortement dégradé le mobilier.
Un mobilier riche et abondant se trouvait dans la tombe. Un équipement de guerrier, comprenant un casque conique à ornements d'émail, les fragments d'un bouclier rond et d'une cotte de mailles, attestent du très haut rang du défunt.""Rich and abundant furniture was found in the tomb. Warrior equipment, including a conical helmet with enamel ornamentation, fragments of a round shield and a coat of mail, attest to the very high rank of the deceased."
http://media.agen.fr/culture/musees/beaux_arts/mini_sites/gaulois/dossier_presse.pdf
A vague yet direct reference to a round shield from the 1st century BC Gauls at Agen. As I said, actually finding intact shields from this period is very hard, no matter the type, but apparently a round shield has been found in a La Tène context at Agen.
Nice quotes, but I don't understand how they refute what I said... I said Belgic influence in Britain begins in the 2nd century BC (perhaps not 200 BC, but 120 BC is still 2nd century BC...). I also indicated that La Tène style probably predates Belgic influence. The point is that La Tène came from the mainland...
22 hours ago, Genava55 said:It doesn't mean they are peoples coming from the mainland.
I didn't say that. We're talking about the material culture here. My whole point from the beginning is that the La Tène period equipment from Southern Britain gives us clues about the equipment used by mainland Celts as well, because La Tène was so widely spread (not identical, but similar)...
22 hours ago, Genava55 said:You missed my point. I wanted to highlight the fact that round shield were never used by only a class of skirmishers but by the whole warrior class. And I don't understand why a oval shield should be more complicated or more ornate, neither more expensive, to produce. In these cultures, even the elite warrior were using round shield. I think the practical argument that the round shield is better for skirmishing is a paralogism. The argument that the round shield is less expensive and more affordable is a paralogism too. An oval shield doesn't need an umbone, and this piece is the most expensive part. If we want to make a really affordable and cheap shield, why not making something that is proved by some sources, like the wicker shields mentioned in De Bello Gallico.
Maintaining the round shield for skirmishers was just a suggestion to differentiate them from the more prestigious noble warriors or dedicated warrior classes carrying oval/hexagonal shields in-game. I was obviously referring to the more complicated and ornate oval and hexagonal Celtic shields more commonly depicted, often with umbone, as opposed to what non-nobles would have used. The Celtic round shields depicted in historical reconstructions and seen among the Golasecca and Castro cultures are clearly smaller than the oval and hexagonal types. They use less material and are less cumbersome to put together (and handle) simply because they're smaller. Not a paralogism, just common sense. That having said, I'm not opposed to wicker shields...
22 hours ago, Genava55 said:Quote"The vitality of Celtic societies in the fourth and third centuries is expressed by the standardization of craftsmanship, [...]"
That's 2 centuries, as I said, not a few decades. Regional evolutions might have happened fast, but that doesn't mean La Tène became uniform across Europe with a snap of the fingers. Also, standardization in craftsmanship doesn't mean uniformity in distribution of equipment. The way equipment is distributed is not equal across the Celtic world, not even in La Tène period. There were clear and noticeable differences between those Celts living close to the Mediterranean, vs the ones in the interior, vs the Belgae vs the Britons. Environmental differences, accessibility to raw materials, proximity to non-Celtic groups, etc, result in differences in material culture, even if they were wearing the same helmet or whatever. But again, this is besides the point. My point from the beginning is that they were actually similar enough, to draw inspiration from various mainland Celts to create the Gallic faction in 0AD, e.g. round shields are ok (they just shouldn't be overly prominent)...
-
1
-
-
So, do we agree that olive green is the wrong color for brown hair? Or?
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone, hmmm, the brown 120 114 35 definitely looks greenish on my monitor. Kind of like puke-green (green-yellow), almost the color of the ground texture, which is why felt the need to comment. Those ladies need to wash their hair... With detergent, ASAP...
Spoiler
38 minutes ago, Nescio said:only the left most and perhaps the one in front could be called blondes.
Yeah, that's what I see. The 2 blondes looks fine.. I don't see any grey haired gals though.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:
Actually, the Wandsworth shield is dated before the beginning of the belgian influence in Britain.
Actually it's not. That particular Shield is dated to the 2nd century BC, and Belgic influence (even settlement) is proposed to begin around 200BC, only becoming more explicit during/after the Gallic wars. But that's kind of besides the point. My point was that it's in La Tène style, which is Celtic, and that style does indeed predate the Belgic influence (we think). Either way, La Tène culture originates from the mainland...
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:Well there is a problem with considering the round shields as something regularly used by La Tène skirmishers and in the same time justifying it from Castros, Celtiberian and Italic cultures. Because in these cultures the round shields were never used by skirmishers, it was used by all the warrior class. It was a common shield used by warriors using javelins, spear and sword to fight in close combat. They are not skirmishers.
I Never said it was regularly used. There seems to be a contradiction in what you wrote. How can it never be used by skirmishers, and used by all the warrior classes at the same time? And what about warriors that simply can't afford a sword or even a spear?? Javelins, slings and a simple wooden (round) shield are way more accessible than metal weapons or the more complicated and ornate (therefore more prestigious) Celtic oval shields. The Celtic oval/oblong shields depicted in Roman art are clearly ornate spoils of war, and not necessarily indicative of the equipment used by peasant levies, for example.
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:Therefore, why a round shield should be mandatory for skirmishing?
Again, I didn't say it was mandatory. It's just generally simpler and cheaper, therefore more accessible for poor warriors or levies in a Celtic context.
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:For the simple reason there was no united formation of slingers and archers. Archers were used only during the Gallic Wars by Vercingetorix but never before. The archeological record of arrows in La Tène battlefield only start with the Gallic Wars. There is a huge increase of traits weapons during this period (stones and javelins mostly). But before this moment, there is no indication of specialized archers.
The civilizations in 0AD depict around their height, as well as the periods that they had the most contact with other civilizations in-game. For Gauls that would be roughly from the 4th Century BC up to and including the Gallic Wars... You're also making absolute statements about a historical period with a very incomplete archaeological and written record, at best...
and
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:The stones from slings are mostly found in siege battle, therefore it is hard to know who have throw it against the enemies. It could be regular warriors too. Cuchulainn in the irish tales used regularly a sling, thus no reason to think it was forbidden for the warrior class.
I never said it was forbidden for the warrior class. We don't have secondary attacks for units in 0AD yet, so this point applies to all civilizations with units with only 1 attack, but actually had a few weapons at their disposal... I understand that some civilizations fielded specialized slingers, and the Celtic ones may not have been "specialized", but they used slings, so they were given slingers in-game. Are you suggesting specialized slingers should be removed from the Celtic unit rosters?
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:There is actually a very sharp transition between Hallstatt and La Tène culture, even in the same archeological region. The weapons changed a lot in a few decades. And if there is that much survival from the previous culture, why the innovation in the La Tène weaponry are spreading so fast all the time? There is typology for the sword, the scabbard, the umbones and the helmets, with specific period when they were used. Not a bunch of mixed innovation accumulated through several centuries and across different iron age culture.
I think you're oversimplifying a very complex period in Celtic history, which doesn't even necessarily have any bearing on the question of round shields, rather about how they would be decorated or fitted.
1 hour ago, Genava55 said:Interesting read... Should take my time to read through it again more thoroughly, but I didn't read anything relevant to the discussion on round shields, neither anything about a sharp or sudden break from Hallstatt Culture, but rather a gradual expansion across Europe that may have lasted as much as 200 years, not decades.
-
@Genava55 I do appreciate your position, and the difficulty to defend it. My own position isn't rock solid either considering the relatively random nature of material remains from this place and time. The archaeological record is not complete and the ancient sources can be ambiguous, conflicting and incomplete. So lets agree that the question of round shields among La Tène period Celts from Gaul is not one we're likely to find a definitive answer to.
What I get from you're commentaries on the Bormio stele is that a c. 5th century BC reference from the (9th -4th century BC) Celtic speaking Golasecca culture from Cisalpine Gaul is not an acceptable reference for the Gauls in 0AD, because it's not La Tène. I think this depends more on how "Gauls" is defined in 0AD (seems to be defined quite loosely: "The Gauls represent the Celtic tribes of Continental Western Europe which currently encompasses most of modern day France during the times of before and Roman conquest"). I understand that these are all distinct cultures, but there is also clear continuity (also in material culture). Celts were more similar to each-other than they were to anyone else. Considering the incomplete material record, borrowing ideas from related Celts in the same geographic region doesn't seem so bad to me.
16 hours ago, Genava55 said:Moreover, the Bormio's stele poses a second problem. Is it a standard-bearer and a corn-blower? Because we know that the peoples in these roles wore different uniforms and weapons than the usual warrior. It wouldn't be very smart to generalize from them.
There was little standardization in Celtic armies. Especially not across tribal lines. Different types of equipment were distributed differently according to the specific tribe being discussed. Because of a lack of wealth in primary sources on this subject, these kind of inferences are difficult to make.
Castro culture is definitely Celtic, related to Hallstatt, with pre-Celtic influences. They're not La Tène, but they do have influence from them. It's the same as with the Golasecca, in that it's not an absolute reference for La Tène period Gauls, but it offers a good clue. Again, it depends on how "strictly" Gauls are defined in 0AD.
16 hours ago, Genava55 said:Thirdly, for the Wandsworth shield, I explicitly said that the insular Celts could have potentially used round shields. Saying that the Celts of Thames's region comes from the mainland is very difficult to prove, the evidences are always late (between 150-50 BC). There is a speculation that the Belgians invaded this region but it seems it was during the time of Diviciacos, king of the Suessiones around 100BC.
The Britons in 0AD are Celts: "The Britons represent the celtic tribes of the British Isles around or before the times of Roman conquest. They are similar to the Gauls, but have slightly divergent specialty." All Celtic culture came from the mainland at some point, including La Tène culture, which locally developed into Insular La Tène style. The Belgic presence in Britain may have been exaggerated, but it's not disputed, and is very relevant to the time-frame for the Britons in-game (which are actually more like 1st century BC to 1st centiry AD, I know, an anomaly I've addressed before). The Wandsworth shield is indeed associated with the Cantiaci, but that area is within the Belgic sphere of influence. Either way, my point is that they were Celts, and that they probably used round shields. Considering the proximity and interaction with Gaul, that isn't trivial. Again, I'm not saying it's absolute either.
16 hours ago, Genava55 said:Furthermore, the Wandsworth shield is known to have been applied on a wooden backing. We have absolutely no idea of the shape of this wooden backing, since it was fixated with rivets. Don't forget that the Witham shield have bronze parts applied on a oval wooden shield. Don't forget the Battersea shield is made of different pieces, all fixated with rivets...
Hmmm, interesting... You might actually be right about this... Not going to dispute this too much, but as with almost everything in this discussion, it's not certain either.
16 hours ago, Genava55 said:Finally, if the round shields were regularly used by the mainland Celts (the Gauls), why there is no depiction of round shields on the Orange's arc? Or on any Roman relief?
Because they probably weren't common among (elite) heavy infantry units. I think (small) round shields would have been used primarily by light skirmishers (speculation on my part), and their equipment probably wasn't prestigious enough to be depicted in either Roman or Celtic art. Gallic archers aren't depicted anywhere to my knowledge either, but they are still mentioned in de Bello Gallico. Slingers are not depicted either, but we know they used them from the piles of "sling-bullets" found at Celtic fortifications. You wouldn't expect to find wooden shields of this period intact either, further compounding the question.
16 hours ago, Genava55 said:We can't speculate only because there was round shield during the bronze age in Europe, it is anachronistic.
Not only... Round shields were used by the Celts of the Castro Culture (during the Iron Age), by the Celts of the Golasecca Culture (during the Iron Age) and by the Celts of the British Isles (during the Iron Age), as well as by other contemporaries they regularly came into contact with, like Italics, Greeks, non-Celtic Iberians, Germanics...
What you're suggesting is that there is a sudden absence of a piece of equipment among the Gauls of the La-Tène period, that was used by all their contemporary neighbors, as well as their predecessors, as well as their successors. It's possible... But is it likely?
-
1
-
-
@wackyserious, wow really nice!
Question about the hair colors. What's up with the greenish tint? Shouldn't most of the Celtic women have either red or blonde hair?
-
1
-
-
@Genava55, nice references!
The Osprey images are sometimes a bit of a mash up of references indeed, and some are a bit outdated, but generally speaking they're quite decent, as far as historical art goes... The Gauls in 0AD are essentially a mash up of many celtic tribes anyway. I agree however that explicitly Bronze Age equipment has no place among the Iron Age Celts.
About the round shields, I'm not familiar with mainland La Tene period primary references, but mainland Celts did use round shields, they were just not as common as the oval ones.
That Bormio relief you mentioned actually depicts a beautiful mainland Celtic(-ish) round shield (perhaps Golasecca culture):
Celts of the Castro Culture in North Western Iberia also depicted warriors with round shields in some of their statues:
Celts from the British Isles also used round shields. You may think this isn't relevant in terms of what mainland celts used, but one of the most famous British Celtic round shields, the Wandsworth shield, is actually decorated in La Tène style... Many Celts from this region (river Thames) actually came from the mainland...
SpoilerWandsworth shield, British round shield with La Tène style decoration:
Round shields were also used by virtually all of their contemporary neighbours, as well as their Bronze Age predecessors. I think there's also some (relatively obscure) Roman coins depicting Gallic round shields. They were indeed not common, it seems, but they were present. Remember that Gaul was populated by a very many tribes, each slightly different from the next. They were very divers in the type of equipment they used, and many influences seeped into their culture, be it Italic, Greek, or pre-Celtic European etc. The material record on Celts is by no means complete, so what could be considered rare finds today, may once have been much more common. Not saying that the absence of evidence means we can do what we like, but the existence of a few primary references, combined with the circumstantial evidence merits at least a limited use of round-shields among mainland Celts. Perhaps only for some skirmishers?
-
@Trinketos, I think your model for the Aztec Civic Center looks pretty cool. The thing is that it reminds me a lot more of Mayan palatial buildings than Aztec. It looks particularly reminiscent of the Mayan palace at Palenque. Aztec elite residences used extensive use of white lime plaster, with some bright red highlights, like a red band running along the lower part of the building (maybe even the occasional red floor). They had flat roofs, inner courtyards and decorated colonnades. Oddly, they have an almost Minoan feel to them...
This rendition of Moctezuma II's palace in Tenochtitlan is the finest reconstruction I've seen to date, and provides you with an excellent idea for Aztec palaces (which should ideally be your reference for the Aztec CC):
I understand that that structure is little bit too huge for a CC, but since it's modular, you could use either the courtyard structures in the foreground, or the elevated part in the middle as you're reference for a CC.
I shared some of the following images in the previous reference post, but I'll share them again here, as the above image of the palace puts them in context:
Spoiler
-
5
-
-
The Aztecs: Visual References of Architecture and Units
Architecture:
Mostly Tenochtitlan, pyramids, palatial stuff, some rural stuff and idea's on trade and marketplaces
Spoiler
Units, Warriors, Royals, Traders, Commoners and others:
Spoiler
And then the Spanish happened:
Spoiler
-
1
-
-
I remembered drawing this in high school for a presentation on Aztecs over a decade ago:
SpoilerNot the most impressive piece, but it's something... I forgot the exact context of the reference image, but the guy on the right is Aztec. Guy on the left is a local enemy.
-
4
-
-
Spoiler
The notches on top of the helmet could be a tad bit more pronounced, and the neck piece could curve just a little bit towards the back.
.jpg.f1e142c71cf9f6d5947cc067a9669738.jpg)
celtic reference
in Tutorials, references and art help
Posted
Just scale it down to the size you need, lol! Shorter walls, smaller courtyard, whatever you like..
It was just a suggestion though
I think it has a more noble/princely/oppidum feeling. The current CC looks more like a (somewhat well off) farmstead.