Genava55

New anthem?

The Caledonians are considered to be part of the Britons. Besides Brochs and Crannogs, there isn't a lot of information. There is a book called Celtic Scotland by Ian Armit. During the period 500 BC - 1 AD ? I don't know much about Pre-Roman Sweden. I don't think I can help you with those.

for inspiration

What place names can tell us (Was Ortsnamen uns erzählen können) Selected excerpts from this article: https://nationalatlas.de/nadbeitrag/was-ortsnamen-uns-erzaehlen-koennen/ I translated them from German to English. Here: The oldest settlement names in Central Europe date back to pre‑Germanic times. They are of Celtic or Romance origin and appear above all in the western and southern Germanic regions of the Germania Romana. The earliest Germanic names occur somewhat more frequently; they often end, for example, in ‑lar or ‑mar. After the Migration Period, beginning in the 4th century, the first major wave of land appropriation took place, during which fertile and easily cultivable areas were settled. Typical place‑name endings from this period include ‑heim, ‑ingen, ‑stedt, and ‑stetten. In the Merovingian era (6th–8th century), the settlement area was expanded (early period of development). Settlement names ending in ‑dorf, ‑hausen, and ‑weiler generally date from this time. The greatest expansion of settlement in Central Europe occurred during the clearing periods beginning around the 8th century. The old settlement landscapes were largely populated; people then began to push into the low mountain ranges. At first, the edges of the mountains and the valleys were settled (e.g., ‑bach, ‑born, and ‑brunn). From about the 10th century onward, and throughout the High Middle Ages, the forest was increasingly pushed back and new settlements were established. Typical place‑name endings from this period indicate the clearing process, such as ‑roth, ‑rieth, ‑reut, ‑brand, ‑schwand, ‑hau, ‑schneid. – dorf The most common place‑name ending of the Middle Ages is likely ‑dorf (in northwestern Germany also ‑trup and ‑drup). Settlements of this name type first appeared during the early development phase (5th/6th century) in the Rhine–Moselle region. They then spread throughout the entire German‑speaking area and remained in use throughout the Middle Ages. As in most early place names, the determining element is usually a personal name or the name of a kin group. – ingen Place names ending in ‑ingen are, alongside the ‑heim names, among the typical settlement names of the Germanic land‑taking period (from around the 4th century). Although modern scholarship rejects the earlier ethnic interpretation—‑ingen in Alemannic areas, ‑heim in old Frankish regions—the distribution map clearly shows a strong spatial concentration of ‑ingen names in the southwestern German Alemannic‑Swabian area. In the Bavarian region, the corresponding ending is ‑ing. The linguistic adaptation in French is ‑ange. Place names as sources for settlement history using the example of Northwest Switzerland (Ortsnamen als Quellen für die Siedlungsgeschichte am Beispiel der Nordwestschweiz) I'm posting a translated excerpt from the article; the original is available here: https://toponymes.ch/Texte/Siedlungsgeschichte.pdf 6.6. ‑heim and ‑dorf Names, Other Alemannic Settlement Names The ‑heim and ‑dorf names in northwestern Switzerland are not entirely easy to interpret. ‑heim names are usually assigned to the oldest naming layer. In our region they occur only twice (Arlesheim and Riehen) and are generally regarded as outliers of the numerous Alsatian ‑heim names. ‑dorf names are likewise rare here; apart from Rodersdorf, all of them lie near the Hauenstein route. Niederdorf and Oberdorf are clearly secondary. They were introduced in 1285, after a massive landslide, to designate the remaining parts of the village of Onoltzwil. Frenkendorf, Füllinsdorf, and Arisdorf—since they lie in the middle of a zone with demonstrably unchanged Romance names—are hardly to be counted among the oldest Alemannic layer either, but should rather be attributed to the period of territorial expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries. The remaining Alemannic settlement names, which all belong at the earliest to the period of Alemannic territorial expansion, are distributed fairly evenly across our region. Gothic Online - Lesson 6 - Todd B. Krause and Jonathan Slocum https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/gotol/60 Interesting article on the Gothic Social Organization, using both etymology and semantic analysis of the Gothic bible to interpret the structure of the Gothic society. The introduction explains correctly why etymology alone is not a solution to understand ancient societies. háims: the organized village. This is the basic center of agriculture and commerce. weihs: essentially equivalent to the háims as the organized village and basic center of commerce. Schwarz, Ernst (1952). Die namenkundlichen Grundlagen der Siedlungsgeschichte des Landkreises Regensburg. Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Oberpfalz und Regensburg 93, 25–64. PDF: https://www.heimatforschung-regensburg.de/1636/1/1355091_DTL1354.pdf Ernst Schwarz’s 1952 article offers one of the most detailed onomastic analyses of early Bavarian settlement in the Regensburg region. It pays particular attention to the rare and archaic suffix -weichs, documenting its limited survival in the oldest settlement zones south of the Danube and its rapid replacement by more productive suffixes. Here is a summary of the information concerning the toponyms in -wihs or -weichs in Ernst Schwarz’s document: Etymology and meaning Linguistic origin: The suffix derives from Old High German (OHG) wihs meaning “village” (compare Gothic weihs, which means “hamlet” or “settlement”). Link with Latin: The text specifies that this term is cognate with Latin vicus (“village”), but stresses that it is not a borrowing from Latin; it is a native Germanic root. Semantic distinction: This root must not be confused with the word wih meaning “sacred” (as found in Weillohe or Weihenlinden). Chronology and period of colonization Oldest layer: Names in -weichs are classified among the earliest foundations, dating from the initial colonization period (Landnahmezeit) in the 6th century and the expansion phase of the 7th century. Reference group: They are systematically associated with toponyms in -ing, -inghofen and -heim as evidence of the primitive Bavarian settlement in the Regensburg region. Specific examples identified to illustrate this type Weichs: Mentioned around the year 881 in the form ad Uuihsfo. Schwabelweis: Attested since 821 in the form Suabiluuis. The text explains that this name is a compound of the root -wihs and the personal name Swäbilo. Geographical distribution and decline Geography: These names are found in the oldest settlement zones, notably along the Danube and south of the river. Disappearance of the suffix: The use of wihs remained very localized and ceased early. It is not found in later colonization areas (such as the Upper Palatinate or Austria). Linguistic competition: The term eventually disappeared in favor of other synonyms or semantically related words such as bur, heim, hofen, hausen and especially dorf, which became far more common for designating villages in the subsequent phases of settlement history.

Sure. It pretty straightforward for those. Teutobod = *þeudō (people, tribe) + *budô (voice, message, command) = Þeudōbudô Lugius = *Lugi- (of the Lugii) + *-jaz (equivalent to Latin name ending in -ius) = Lugijaz Boiorix = *Bajā-/*Boio- (of the Boii) + *-rīks (king) = Bajārīks

By the way, your own source supports my point: "Similarly Go. þaurp 'land, lived-on property' is the translation for Gk agrós 'land', much like ON þorp 'farm, estate'; only in the later West Germanic texts does its cognate mean 'village' as in OE þorp, OHG dorf." And when he writes "It is found only in the accusative plural in Gothic, where haimos in Matthew 9:35 translates the Greek word for village, and in Mark 5:14 the word for country;", I just proved above that there are mentions in singular forms. Just see Mark 11:02, Luke 9:52 and Luke 19:30

Boiorix and Lugius are probably Celtic but we can Germanize their names. So it would be Þeudōbudô, Lugijaz and Bajārīks.

Good. It is easier then.

A first draft, some names are quite difficult to interpret in Proto-Germanic (PGmc) Historical names Etymology Meaning PGmc reconstruction Claodicus *hlūd- + *īk- "Powerful through his fame" *Hlūdagīkaz Caesorix *gaizaz + *rīks "King of the spear" *Gaizarīks Teutagonus *theudō + *gunthiz "People's battle" *Theudagunthaz Cotto *kath- / *kott- "The fighter (diminutive)" *Kottō Deldo *dal- / *del- "The shining one or the sharer" *Deldō Atès / Atas *attō "Father (honorific title)" *Attō Nasua *nas- "The one who has a (large) nose" *Nasuō Cimberius *kimbra- + *-jaz "The one of the Cimbri" *Kimbarjaz

I'd like to return to this point because I've noticed my message wasn't understood. When I say that Euler represents a school of thought from the mid-20th century, I don't mean that he originated from that era, but rather that he is associated with that methodology. Wolfram Euler is a German linguist specializing in Indo-European languages, whose work is rooted in the tradition of classical philology. An independent but prolific researcher, he distinguishes himself through an approach based on traditional comparative analysis, the study of hydronyms, and internal reconstruction, rather than the multidisciplinary methods that dominate the field today (such as phylogenetic modeling, computational linguistics, or historical sociolinguistics). This methodological orientation, rigorous yet conservative, gives his publications strong internal consistency while placing him on the fringes of mainstream theoretical trends. His best-known contributions concern the history of Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages, where he defends several minority positions: a prolonged cohesion of West Germanic, a location of the Germanic Urheimat in Central Germany rather than Scandinavia, an internalist interpretation of Germanic innovations, and a critique of the existence of a unitary Proto-Balto-Slavic language. He also adopts a late chronology for the formation of Proto-Slavic, following the thesis of Georg Holzer. While these propositions are rigorously argued, they stand in clear opposition to the prevailing consensus and are regarded as heterodox contributions rather than authoritative reference models. For these reasons, Euler cannot be presented as a representative of the general scientific community's viewpoint. His work is respected for its erudition and precision, but it does not form the basis of the reconstructions accepted by the majority of Indo-Europeanists. His adherence to an ethno-historical lens, which explains linguistic shifts primarily through population movements and ethnic continuities, stands in sharp contrast to the modern archaeological and linguistic 'caution' (notably due to the rejection of the Siedlungsarchäologie). Coupled with his ties to conservative intellectual circles (like the Bibliothek des Konservatismus in Berlin), this methodological stance consigns his work to the margins of mainstream academia, even as the erudition of his research remains recognized. Personally, I don't think this is a figure to be put forward as an absolute reference in a debate.

I know, I saw the repo. This is a good idea but again I want to advise you that you should really avoid carving up certain civs just to force them into one side of the fence. For example, with the Germanic peoples, I find it clumsy to restrict oneself to representing either the period before our era or the period after our era. You will have this problem with other civs like the Dacians and the Parthians. It's best to put these kinds of civs in Empires Besieged rather than Empires Ascendant. Since Empires Besieged is a kind of expansion, it is less of a problem to have a civ that includes some of its elements that date back to the period before our era. I understand that you did not want Empires Ascendant to extend into the period of our era. It seems that this is the key point of contention. So it's better to accept some overlap in the other direction. If the mod includes civs with characters and references that span both periods, it's much less of a problem than if it were the base game.

It's good to return to a more reasonable position. I would remind you that in 2021, there were proposals to replace Boudicca in order to respect this cutoff. Especially if the team members decide to make Empires Besieged an official mod that simply adds content (notably new playable civilizations), it has to be flexible. Historical cultures that fall on both sides of this arbitrary boundary will pose a problem otherwise.

In any case, it's you and @real_tabasco_sauce who decide. Noted.