Genava55

Britons only. Do you need anything to work on it? Well done! If I may make a comment, there must have been Gauls and Germans with long hair but no beards as well.

Well, am I the only one having this opinion about it? It doesn't seem so: https://bosworthtoller.com/31961 þorp, þrop, es; m. Perhaps the idea at first connected with the words is that of an assemblage, cf. the use in Icelandic: Maðr heitir einnhverr ... þorp ef þrír ero, Skáldskaparmál; þyrpast to crowd, throng: þyrping a crowd: later the word may have been used of the assemblage of workers on an estate, and also of the estate on which they worked; all three ideas seem to be implied in one or other of the following glosses - Tuun, þrop, ðrop conpetum, Txts. 53, 557: Wrt. Voc. ii. 15, 7. Compitum i. villa vel þingstów vel þrop, - Þrop, fundus, i. - The idea of an estate belongs to the word in Gothic: Þaurp ni gastaistald, άγρόν oύκ έκτησάμην, - In the end the meaning came to be hamlet, village, in which sense it remained for some time in English, e.g.: Ic Ædgar gife freodom Sce Petres mynstre Medeshamstede of kyng and of biscop, and ealle þa þorpes þe ðærto lin: ðæt is, Æstfeld and Dodesthorp and Ege and Pastun,

Not really, you're just trying to use an appeal to authority. You're simply incapable of thinking for yourself or applying any critical thinking to what you read. At this point, you’re not even trying to present a line of reasoning anymore; you’re just repeating the same appeal to authority over and over. I’m just going to show why blindly following a source without critical thinking is unwise: You started by relying on this dictionary: Indeed, the first source cited for interpreting "thorp" as a village is the Épinal-Erfurt glossary. But the glossary itself doesn't say anything about a village. It compares "thorp" with "conpetum" and "tuun". That's all. So let's see what the same dictionary says about the word "town" which derived from "tuun": https://wehd.com/96/Town_sb.html Remarkably, both definitions of the word "town" draw on the same source to argue that it refers to both an enclosure and a village. Thus, another entry in the Épinal-Erfurt glossary allows us to unambiguously translate the word "tuun" as "enclosure" based on its correspondence with the Latin "Cors," while, in a completely illogical manner, another entry in the same glossary, where there is the correspondence with "thorp" and "conpetum", translates "tuun" as "village" according to this dictionary: To be honest and objective, the interpretation that "thorp" refers to a village in the Épinal-Erfurt glossary is based solely on circular reasoning. The only way to gain a clearer understanding is to examine the word "compitum", since this glossary is specifically designed to establish a correspondence between Latin and Old English. Fortunately, we have a contemporary who explains exactly what this word meant in his time: Isidore of Seville. Here the quote from his Etymologiarum sive Originum: Conpita sunt ubi usus est conventus fieri rusticorum; et dicta conpita quod loca multa in agris eodem conpetant; et quo convenitur a rusticis. Translation: Conpita are the places where farmers usually gather; they are called conpita because many country roads converge there (conpetant) and because that is where the farmers meet. So, once again, it’s a place, a courtyard, or an enclosure. It makes so much more sense with the word "tuun" that I don't understand how you can't see it. If, in the same glossary, the word "tuun" is also translated as "enclosure," it cannot mean anything else in this context. There is another glossary which supports this interpretation of a courtyard: ‘competum .i. uilla, uel þingstow, uel þrop’ (from The Harley Latin-Old English Glossary published by Robert T. Oliphant) Once again competum is translated by 'villa' (farm), 'þingstōw' (place of assembly) and by 'þrop'... And this is what other experts think: "In early glosses þrop is associated with Old English tūn ‘farm, estate’ and Lat villa ‘farm’ and fundus ‘farm, estate’ (also, and more challengingly, with Old English þing-stōw ‘place of assembly’ and Lat competum ‘cross-roads’). For another, it is not as clear to us as it was to Smith that the known place-names in þrop date from the earliest centuries of Anglo-Saxon settlement." (Richard Jones, David N. Parsons and Paul Cullen, 2009) "Subtle differences were also noted in their meanings. OE throp was noted in early documents as glossing terms such as tun, compitum (a cross-roads), fundus (estate) and villa (farm), and in one instance thing-stow (a place of assembly)." (Richard Jones, David N. Parsons and Paul Cullen, 2011) "The word appears in five Anglo-Saxon glossaries, although four of them ultimately derive the relevant item from a single source, which rather reduces the witness-count. The exception appears the most straightforward instance. A list copied in the first half of the eleventh century contains the gloss ‘fundus, þrop’, where fundus is a term defined by Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary as ‘a piece of land, a farm, estate’. This clearly sits within the range of senses we might expect for throp/thorp. The other group of glosses seems more challenging. Here throp appears in association with Lat compitum, which primarily means ‘cross-roads’. In one instance it is additionally combined with OE thing-stow ‘meeting-place’. These senses are rather different from what is generally suggested by Germanic cognates and later English evidence, but they have been admitted into the dictionary definitions of throp, have been sought in some place-names and have coloured discussions of the Germanic term’s ultimate etymology." (Richard Jones, David N. Parsons and Paul Cullen, 2011) The current theory regarding the Anglo-Saxon period is that “þrop” referred to an estate acting also as a gathering place for peasants who collectively managed land, and that there was a semantic shift in its meaning to refer first to the entire community and then to a village. Danish colonization likely accelerated this process, as the Danes themselves used this word to refer to the establishment of new subsidiary farms attached to a main village. Again quoting Stefan Brink, a renowned philologist on Norse studies, who said the following in the book The Viking World (2011): "The medieval element torp, however, must be seen in a context of the huge colonisation in northern Europe during the high Middle Ages, within a new ‘feudal’ agrarian system with a ‘manor’ and dependent tenant farms within an estate. In Germany these tenant farms often had the name dorf (< þorp), and the word for such a dependent farm was spread with the new colonising strategy to Scandinavia. Early on, the element torp must have developed into a meaning of secondary farm, a farm detached from a hamlet etc., hence not always denoting a tenant farm within an estate."

@manowar seems good @Vantha @real_tabasco_sauce @wowgetoffyourcellphone what are your opinions?

It is the not really the name of the civ the topic, but the nomenclature used to name the files. For the in-game name, Achaemenid Persians or Persians (Achaemenids) could be used.

That's why it's important to pull our heads out of the sand.

Vannius, Veleda, Maroboduus, Arminius=> yes Segestes is the father in law. Thusnelda is the wife. Cniva is a gothic king. Cunnius and Catti, never heard of them. More context please. Or check the info and the spelling. Maybe consider Ballomar, Ariovistus, Catualda and Gannascus.

What is your solution for the Germans in the case of Empires Besieged as a mod?

I proposed something similar with coalitions: Personnally I would prefer something enabling the possibility to have unique units, techs and buildings through the tribes chosen. Coalitions are how historically the "barbarians" and the small nations were able to defeat massive empires.

I know, I saw it. And it is really a great idea you had. The idea is good. You are pointing out the issue about the Persians, but we could have the same issue with other civs no? Romans and Germans notably.

The only issue with Neapolis is that it is a very Hellenized town. There are some similar situations with the Saka (Eastern Scythians), notably Chirik-Rabat, a fortified town with Chorasmian architecture.

I don't think this is a problem to have various designs, and I believe the proposal of @wowgetoffyourcellphone is justified. We need to have a flexible concept, sometimes we'll want to represent a people or a civilization from a specific period, sometimes a nation, sometimes an empire, and sometimes a dynasty. We just need to be clear about it and explain it well in the civ's design. Edit: And it’s really good to finally start thinking about what comes next. I felt like this 'Empires Besieged' expansion was constantly being put off until tomorrow, and that people were refusing to give it any thought. It’s clear that not thinking about it creates problems for the expansion’s design, and that we really need to lay the groundwork now, despite the lack of leadership.

This is indeed a better example and a good question/remark. Just adding food for thought, the Gallic Wonder based on the Sanctuary of Corent is not clean and fresh: So maybe it is a general issue in how 0 A.D. portrays the ancient civilizations.

This is an absurd comparison and you know it. On one hand, the Colossus of Rhodes fell due to an earthquake, and the Rhodians refused to rebuild it because of an oracle. On the other hand, the overgrowth of a kurgan with grass is a natural process that occurs in all cases if the monument is not maintained several times a year. In your example, the Colossus of Rhodes is completely destroyed. In the case of the kurgan modeled with grass covering it, it is still functional. We are comparing a natural disaster with an ordinary process. Furthermore a process that was difficult to stop. A kurgan is not something similar to a Greek monument. First of all, this stone covering is not found on all kurgans. Multiple kurgans are simply covered with clumps of earth. One should not assume that it was standard practice to cover a kurgan with a stone shell. In fact, this is most common in certain regions. But even when vegetation had overgrown the gravel surface, this was a common occurrence in the Scythian landscape. Most of the kurgan mounds still standing were in this condition. In any case, I’m not opposed to using a gravel surface. I also think it will look better. Once again, I’m criticizing a specific line of reasoning.

I didn't. If you look closely the other mounds are green. That's my point, after a few generations it look like this. I am not against a pebbles/stones covering. I am just saying your reasoning, claiming that the people of one's 'civilization' were necessarily maintaining such structures in the long term, is wrong. Only one of the design is historically inspired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_A.D._(video_game) "The historical accuracy of game elements has been the highest development priority. Unit and building names are shown in the original language of the civilization they belong to, and they are also translated into the language in which the user is playing the game. There is also a strong focus on attempting to provide high visual accuracy of unit armor, weapons, and buildings."

A kurgan is a tomb. I understand your reasoning, but it's not supported by evidence. It was very common for tombs and burial sites to be looted or damaged a few generations after their construction. These kinds of monuments weren't venerated by the whole of society; it was a form of ancestor worship. It is, in a way, an expression of power. If the ruling clan changed, the monuments associated with the previous clan weren't maintained. I understand the criticisms regarding the aesthetic aspects; they are valid. However, any historical or sociological interpretation must be supported by facts and observations. If we want to add objects and decorations, there has to be a meaning to it.

The first one doesn't seem to be based on real-world examples from the Scythian period. But in your mod, you can do whatever you want. Do you have any suggestions for improving the second one?

Several civilisations had fortresses, notably the diadochi. The Greeks seem to practice the epiteichismos, which was about fortifying key settlements and outposts. In some cases, we can truly speak of fortresses, so much have the sites been modified by the process. However the Romans do not seem to have proper forteresses, with permanent structures, during the Punic Wars. Regarding the Celts, the boundary between fortresses and fortified settlements is rather blurred. Hillforts and oppida sometimes have relatively few civilian structures and seem to have specialized in a military function. The alternative I can imagine would be to have specialised CC. Some CC could be converted in a more military or defensive structure. The issue with the current system of walls and gates is that the IA is not using it really and it is quite a challenging project to improve the IA in this aspect. A single massive defensive building is far easier to handle. The Germanic faction currently lacks historical depth. It's actually an initiative that started as a mod and then spilled over into the game. Many buildings were designed without necessarily having an archaeological or historical basis to rely on.

I entirely agree. Capturing buildings should be difficult but rewarding. And the buildings should be tied to the territory. I find it absurd when someone loses his CC and he destroy every buildings before the capture. A fortress should be also able to create a new territory but smaller than the CC, to have a territorial anchor. True. We don't want a bland AoE clone. The difficulty behind virtual combat is how to make it good with only calculation because the player would not control which unit are getting the hits. People can get frustrated if the damage are distributed evenly and they would get frustrated as well if we give the damages preferentially to specific types of unit. There is also the issue of calculating the damaged of ranged and mounted units. People will complain.

It doesn't seem correct. The earliest account is in the Épinal-Erfurt glossary. Which is generally dated to the end of the seventh century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Épinal-Erfurt_glossary "From the foregoing, it should be clear that Épinal-Erfurt Glossary was compiled in the last quarter of the seventh century, likely at St. Peter and Paul’s Abbey (later St. Augustine’s Abbey) in Canterbury, where the school of Theodore and Hadrian was established." - Herren & Sauer In Épinal-Erfurt glossary the mention I am referring to is the following: ‘conpetum, tuun uel ðrop’ So in this glossary: Compitum = Tūn = Throp. The three terms are equivalents. The Latin compitum was generally used to designate a cross-road during the Roman period, but Isidore of Seville explained that in his day, it referred to a place where people from the countryside gathered. And tūn/tuun at this time still meant enclosure, farmland or yard: the Laws of Æthelberht (L. Ethb. 17) show that "running into a man's tún" (breaking into his yard) was a punishable offense. At the best, it was used for estate. In this case tūn would have the same meaning that the Gothic thaurp. The meaning of throp in the Épinal-Erfurt is obviously not of village. So in the end, the earliest account for throp in Old English doesn't seem to designate a village but a gathering place.

Well if it was an innovation from the Gothic language, why the meaning as a farm or an estate is observed in other Germanic languages? It is the case in Old High German with the word Dorf, which referred to both a farm and a village, furthermore it appears that early glossaries translated it primarily as 'farm' or 'estate' rather than 'village'. It is also seen in Norse languages as well. It is not like þorp meant only 'village' or 'hamlet', it was applied to a farm and to an estate as well. And in Old Swedish, it seems to have retained only its meaning as a farm and not its meaning as a village, see again: So again, not an innovation peculiar to Gothic. There is a body of evidence suggesting that the word came to be used to refer to a village over time. As you can see, I have no problem using another Germanic language. As I said, there are also elements in the Nordic languages that support my criticism of your viewpoint. It is clear that the old Swedish þorp has retained its original character as a single farm. I have shown you the evidence. But I’d like to quote an expert in the field to show that my point of view isn’t some oddity that only I share. Stefan Brink, a renowned philologist on Norse studies, said the following in the book The Viking World (2011): "The medieval element torp, however, must be seen in a context of the huge colonisation in northern Europe during the high Middle Ages, within a new ‘feudal’ agrarian system with a ‘manor’ and dependent tenant farms within an estate. In Germany these tenant farms often had the name dorf (< þorp), and the word for such a dependent farm was spread with the new colonising strategy to Scandinavia. Early on, the element torp must have developed into a meaning of secondary farm, a farm detached from a hamlet etc., hence not always denoting a tenant farm within an estate." Once again, I feel like I’m the only one taking into account the evolution of Germanic society, which underwent profound changes as a result of the great migrations. The Germanic peoples inherited urbanized territories and institutions that were foreign to their customs; century after century, they had to adapt to their new reality. Stefan Brink emphasizes once again that significant shifts took place that altered the meanings of various words. The Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch and the other works dedicated to the study of place-names demonstrated the same. These semantic shifts were related to important changes in laws and in institutions. The naming of the settlements followed different periods of naming, with clear preference from a period to the other. These different naming dynamics are a reflection of the changes in the meaning of words. The entry from Cleasby & Vigfusson Old Norse dictionary (1874) you are referring to says exactly what I said, in Old Norse the meaning as 'farmland' or 'estate' remained. Once again, it is not an innovation from Gothic. And if þurpą is mentioned only once in the entire Gothic bible, this shows that it wasn't a term that was used very often by ancient Germans. It appears only in an agricultural context, referring to the ownership of a farmland. It would be good to be consistent throughout your argument. You went on at length over several paragraphs to explain that the Germanic peoples lived in scattered dwellings surrounded by fields that separated them, only to now argue that the term þurpą refers to settlements where houses are clustered together and built side by side without their own enclosure. You initially assumed that þurpą referred to the scattered dwellings of the Germanic peoples; are you still able to defend that view by arguing that þurpą refers to a cluster of closely spaced buildings? I am referring to this message you posted:

The issue with building a system revolving on different archer types, is that for balancing, it would be necessary to give it to most civs. No matter what historical justifications one might find. Personally, I feel like the current system, with archers, slingers, and javelineers, isn't being used to its full potential.

I think there is a misconception here. Country (or countryside) doesn't equate to farmlands. The semantic flexibility of the Greek ἀγρός (agros) hinges on the shift from a functional unit to a geographical zone. The meaning diverges based on the narrative focus: it either refers to "farmlands" as a collection of tangible assets and wealth (emphasizing what a person owns), or it refers to the "countryside" as a rural region (emphasizing where a person is, which is often the case in the New Testament). This distinction is most visible when the singular is used to describe the "open country" surrounding a settlement; in these instances, the word ceases to be about farming specifically and instead serves as a spatial contrast to the urban center. Essentially, the word transitions from a private asset (singular field/plural estates) to a public landscape (the rural surroundings). See: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a)gro/s In the Gothic Bible, there are several references to fields, contexts that unambiguously refer to fields in an agricultural sense, whether in the plural or singular. For example, in Matthew 6:28: "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin." In this passage, the Gothic Bible uses haiþjos, the singular genitive of haiþi. It is the ancestor of the English heath and heathen. https://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/01/06/28.html#S1097 Therefore, I insist, weihs designates either a village or the country in its geographical sense. Not farmlands. If weihs was translating the word 'farmland' or 'field', it would have been used at least once in that sense. There are about ten instances where the Bible unambiguously mentions one or more fields. Similarly, that's why current translations of the Bible distinguish between country and fields.