Genava55

Even though I love archaeology, we shouldn't treat it as the ultimate source of truth. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For one thing, very few Iron Age graves have been discovered in Ireland, and what we do find inside is always subject to bias. We find bows and arrows in Celtic princely graves in Central Europe, but these are hunting weapons; objectively, we shouldn't interpret them as weapons of war. The reason I support the Gauls having archers and not the Britons is simply because we have historical accounts of archers deployed in the battlefield for the Gauls. There is no such account for the Britons for our time period.

As Thalatta explained, Irish epic tales were significantly altered by external influences, in this case Christianization and the medieval historical tradition. For one thing, oral tradition is inherently timeless, oral narratives are constantly adapted to the changing realities of society. Consequently, these stories had almost certainly undergone changes before being fixed in writing. Furthermore, when monks committed the tales to writing, they adapted them even further, drawing inspiration from the Bible, the writings of Jordanes and Gregory of Tours, and other sources from their medieval context. Irish tales contain a great many anachronisms and stories that are implausible for a pre-Christian society. It is essential to analyze them with a critical eye and sound methodology in order to extract useful information. In this case, scythed chariots are voluntarily added to further enhance a supposed link between Ireland and the Near East. The Serians represent a conflation of the Syrians and the Seres (of Central Asia).

Furthermore, the Old Irish carpat (ˈkaɾ.bəd̪) for chariot can only be derived from a Celtic language. A borrowing from Latin would have resulted in a completely different form and pronunciation.

No I don't think so. Pomponius Mela is the first to mention this implausible description but he was a notorious armchair geographer. Later on, several poets mentioned the scythed chariots but they were fabricating things. Thus, no scythed chariot. The reliable primary sources do not mention scythed chariots.

Petrie crown already shared by @Ultimate Aurelian

Yes I think it is better.

There is no consensus. Experts have been debating this subject for a long time without reaching a consensus. The problem is that it is difficult in any case to explain the presence of chariots in early medieval Irish myths if we assume that they did not exist during the Iron Age. Experts are sometimes disingenuous, going so far as to claim that the chariots never existed and that the myths were fabricated from scratch by Christians, drawing on Roman writings. Objectively speaking, that’s complete rubbish, but I don’t feel like debating the issue.

There is no iron age halberds. I don't know what @Duileoga meant by Alabardero. Battle chariots are attested through the finding of horse bits (snaffles), yoking fittings (such as terrets/rein-rings), iron tire fragments and bronze axle-caps. I think several items of those categories have been reliably found in Ireland.

Andrew Martz, a former senior software engineer at World's Edge, confirmed in a separate LinkedIn post that the studio's next project was cancelled as part of its reorganisation under Activision. People made a meme about the future:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iverni https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iverni or Iverni? The earliest evidence of the Ogham is dated around the 4th century AD, it is the Silchester Ogham stone, it features an epitaph written in Primitive Irish dedicated to Tebicato maqi Memor ("Tebicatos, son of Memor"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon Okay for me if we mentionned it is a legacy of an oral institution

Only in the name. The structure itself is a plausible interpretation of what an important sanctuary could have been in the British Isles. Not based on a particular site but a synthesis of several sites.

A ram (animal) association is plausible since the Greeks and the Celts did the same. Rammabukkaz could be the proto-germanic equivalent to the High German Rammbock. I would use something with *warō ("wares, goods, merchandise"). Maybe *Warnaweraz or *Warnamannoz.

Do you really need to know that for a unit?

Personally I prefer not presuming the etymology of those tribal names. It is easier to interpret the personal names as a reference to their tribes.

@Lopess I think you both need to talk and come to an agreement.

It is only archaeological, based on the pottery. Are the pots the best way to describe a people? The Goths seem to came from Scandinavia but their material culture is not really from Scandinavia. Furthermore, as I said, the Rhine-Weser Germanic culture is appearing at the end of 1st century BC. So, where are they coming from? Is it a local evolution or the spread of the Germanic peoples?

Elbe Germanics or Herminones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic The relationship between the Vandals and the Lugii is a mystery but modern scholars generally assume they are the same people. Maybe Vandalic was the name of the branch and the Lugii were a specific people. The manuscript from Pliny seems corrupted on this part. The Istvaeones are not listed. It seems Pliny considered the Cherusci were Elbe Germanics. The Cherusci are not listed as a contribution to the Franks by Gregory of Tours. There is only Venantius Fortunatus (c. 530–600 AD) suggesting that but he is considered dubious because he mentions the Saxons as well.

Cherusci, Franks, Alemanni, Goths, Marcomanni. They all appeared before 300 AD.

A bunch of videos on the topic

I know three important accounts about them: Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC), Battle of Delium (424 BC) and Battle of Nemea (394 BC) In the three, there is no mention of their panoply. The best we have is Thermopylae where Herodotus does not detail the Thespians' armor separately from the rest of the Greeks. He describes the Greek forces collectively using long spears and shields. During the final stand, he notes that after their spears broke, the remaining defenders (including the 700 Thespians) fought with swords (xiphē), and eventually with their bare hands and teeth.

Maybe when the encyclopedia will be available within the game we could explain the context and the nuance around the concept of Marian reforms.

I think they can keep their black-and-white shields. We can also let them keep their black chiton. I think the most important thing is to stop calling them “black-cloak” or “Melanochitone.”