Genava55

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.”

In this case no, it is purely an archeological category. The Frisian pottery is unique to the region and cannot be grouped within the Rhine-Weser or the Elbe traditions. Frisian pottery has its own features and it is spanning a period from the 7th century BC to the 4th century AD. It is highly probable that the original Frisian people has been replaced culturally during the 3rd and 4th century AD. Probably by migrants from the Lower Elbe and Jutland. It is entirely possible that the earliest Frisians spoke an orphan language since it is naive to believe that we are aware of all the linguistic branches of the Indo-European family. It is very likely that some branches disappeared without leaving any traces or legacy. However, it is important to realize that the Nordwestblock theory has its critics. Many of the arguments in this theory are based on an overinterpretation of onomastics. Several experts have already pointed out that many examples presented as impossible to explain using Celtic or Germanic languages are highly debatable. Furthermore, other experts have pointed out that certain features presented as representing a unique substrate in this region are in fact found in other distant regions. Furthermore, it is quite inconceivable to imagine a language that would serve as an intermediary between the Celtic and Germanic languages. The two language families likely diverged several thousand years ago, well before the Iron Age. The most likely scenario is simply an exchange of words, borrowings from one language to another. But that does not fundamentally alter the structure of the language. If it is a linguistic isolate, there is a good chance that it is a language derived from the Italo-Celtic languages. It is also simply possible they spoke a orphan Germanic dialect. We don't know much about them before the 3rd century AD so the question is open.

Archeologically, the term Rhine-Weser Germanic is used after the Roman conquest and the creation of the Roman empire. What you have in mind are the Ubii, the Usipetes and the Tencteri but their identification is uncertain. Materially they are Celtic. The Ubii had the oppidum of Dünsberg.

If you want to stay focused on the period between 500 BC and 1 AD, I suggest to choose the following: - Cimbri (Jutland) - Suevi (Elbe-Germanics) - Lugii (East-Germanics) - Bastarnae (East-Germanics?) The Cimbri could be based on material from Jutland and the events of the Cimbric war. The Suevi could be based on material from Jastorf and Grossromstedt cultures and the events related to Ariovistus: Iron-Age-in-northern-Germany.pdf The Lugii could be based on material of the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures. The Bastarnae could be based on material of the Poienesti culture and their invasion of the Balkans between 200 and 100 BC:

Ah sorry, I thought you said the enclosure outside the temple. The enclosure outside the settlement/village is the necropolis I think.