Genava55

A recent revision proposed by @borg- is under review and its goal is to provide an upgrade of the female citizen, for the Gauls and Britons, to a female warrior. The description of the revision is the following: I expressed my concern about the revision, due to the absence of evidence provided. The phrasing above is also very bold and very affirmative, which is bothering to me. @borg- answered with this message: I have several issues with this answer and I will challenge different aspects he mentioned. From his answer, I see the following key-points: In Celtic societies, women warriors were not uncommon. Many women in Celtic societies were trained to fight. The patch is made to bring women as a last line of defense. @borg-does not provide evidence, does not know any reference supporting the claim and says the counter argument, which he phrased as "women couldn't fight", is as difficult to prove. I will start with the point n°4 because I think this is an important issue and I think @borg- need to understand the problem with this kind of attitude. What you are doing @borg- is shifting the burden of proof to me while you are the one making a claim and you are following a fallacious reasoning known as the argument from ignorance. Furthermore, you are expressing another fallacy known as the strawman argument, by saying the counter-argument is to prove that women couldn't fight. The issue is not to know if women could or not fight. I will say it directly, all women could fight, whatever they are Celtic, Roman, Greek etc. My issue is that you are making a patch that would enable the possibility to upgrade all women as warriors for the Celtic civs. By asking to prove that women couldn't fight, you are asking for an impossible challenge which is irrelevant to your claim. And the problem I have with this attitude is that it is disrespectful to others in a debate. I know you didn't mean to be disrespectful, I don't think it was intentional on your part. But I want you to understand that despite everything, this is not a healthy attitude. Remember Brandolini's law and consider the time I am taking to answer here. Now let's start with points n°1 and 2. By saying the women warriors were not uncommon in Celtic societies, you are saying this was not rare and not exceptional. As if it was something the Celts were used to see in their societies, even if it was not the majority. The same about the training of women, if they were many. By looking at my favorites books I use as references, I don't find any support to this claim. For example in The Celtic World edited by Miranda Green, it deals a lot about the women, it mentions the quotes from the Romans about their aggressiveness and stature, it mentions that we know several burials of wealthy women suggesting they had access to political power etc. but at no point it is written or even suggested that the women fought as warriors or were trained to use weapons. The Celtic World is a massive book of 800 pages with 40 contributors, all historians or archaeologists. Yet it is not mentioned. In Barry Cunliffe's 2nd edition of The Ancient Celts, he doesn't mention any evidence for female warriors, females fighting on the battlefield or females training with weapons. Quite the contrary, he mentions that during the Galatian raids, the people following Leonorios and Lutorios were mentioned by the classical authors as being constituted of 20'000 persons from which half were non-combatants, because those were the children, the elders and the women. He also mentions that during the last battle of Boudica's revolt, the bagage train and the chariots were uphill and the women and children stayed with the bagage train to have a good view on the battlefield. I have the same struggle to find any reference about female warriors in the literature written in French (books written by Jean-Louis Brunaux, Venceslas Kruta, Luc Baray etc.). In the commentaries of the Gallic Wars written by Caesar, there is no mention of any fight including women, or only as passive victims. So I am really sure of myself when I am saying there is no mention of female warriors. The only mention of the aggressiveness of the women is from Ammianus Marcellinus (4th century AD): Ammianus Marcellinus is not a contemporary of the description he is writing. It is obvious he is mixing different references, notably from Diodorus Siculus, Strabo and Caesar. Although the whole account about the women is unique and does not exist in the original sources, it is also heavily exaggerated and scatty. But even in this account, it doesn't say the women use weapons to defend themselves or their husband. Quite the contrary, the animal strength of the women is compared to catapults. So in conclusion, the evidence concerning directly the Celts are lacking. Let's see what is said about their neighbors. There is one interesting account during the Cimbrian invasion, at the Battle of Vercellae, when the Romans defeated the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones. Plutarch also mentioned the women at the battle of Aquae Sextiae against the Ambrones: Strabo also mentions the role of women before and during the battlefield among the Cimbri: Plutarch and Strabo are considered as reliable enough in general. I will now show you the account by Orosius, a Christian priest of the 5th century AD, generally considered as unreliable [he is also dub enough to confuse the Cimbri as Gauls]: @borg- this is an interesting case where the women weren't trained as warriors, didn't fight in the battlefield but could have been aggressive after the defeat of their men. Just an example of a different interpretation from the aggressiveness described by the classical authors. If you want a real account describing women carrying arms and fighting, there is one by Appian. He describes the wars in Lusitania against Viriathus: In this case, this is a very explicit account. The kind of evidence which is lacking for the Gauls and the Britons. ( And before reading moldy arguments like saying that the Lusitanians are Celts so it's as if we could extrapolate to all the others, no the Lusitanians are no Celts: https://academic.oup.com/book/36477/chapter/321084624 ) The women of Salmantica, a city of the Vaccaei, they set a trap and hid weapons in order to protect the city against Hannibal, they fought against his soldiers. During the siege of Iliturgi, an Iberian city of Southern Spain (nearby Cordoba), the women helped the men to defend the city by providing ammunition: Concerning the martial arts, there is a mention of such training through a description of Cynane, half-sister of Alexander the Great and half-Illyrian from her mother Audata : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynane An example of women defending their cities with their husbands, the Aetolians, a Greek people, who were besieged by the Galatians: Otherwise, is there anything in the archaeological record? Yes. There are at least two burials of Celtic women with weapons. One is the "Rigana of Oleggio". A burial nearby the Lake Maggiore in Northern Italy and dated to the 2nd century BC. A woman was buried in an individual tomb, n°53 of the necropolis, with a complete panoply of weapons and several wares as her grave goods. One of the plate has the writing "Rigana". The term refers to the feminine counterpart of the Latin regulus and of the Celtic rix. And one is a burial in Bryher/Scilly, recently analyzed genetically and it appeared it was a female: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/old-iron-age-female-warrior-scilly-iburial-rcna96595 But in both cases, those burials suggest noble women, with a lot of prestige. It is not clear if those were proper warriors or mostly leaders.

Technically there is no issue with that. The only challenge is finding someone willing to model the advanced houses and making new icons and finding people editing the xml files, testing and pushing the patch.

Because the project is inspired by AoE. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0adStory The concept has been chosen a very long time ago: Alpha 10 (2012) Alpha 5 (2011):

Athens Spartans Macedonians Ptolemies Seleucids Romans

That's not correct.

Maybe we should limit even more the right of new accounts, such as prohibiting the creation of threads, removing hyperlinks in their posts (displaying only the raw url), limiting their posts to a few threads (a general thread for bug reporting, a thread for welcoming new members, an off-topic thread...), etc. 24 hours after their first post, we could lift a few limitations and give the possibility to post anywhere. 24 hours after their 5th post, we could authorize the creation of threads. etc. There is also the possibility to create a trap thread. Those fake accounts are generally robots who don't understand the context. We could have a thread that freeze any account for a few hours if it posts something there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delium https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/ancient-warfare-blog/euripides-and-the-battle-of-delium One of the first use of cavalry in battle

We should add chariots to the Greeks too, see the following evidence: To the Romans too! A four-wheeled chariot!!! Dating to the 2nd century AD furthermore, in Roman Thrace! That's perfect!!! It must have been incredibly practical on the battlefield! Just add two more wheels to the 3D model and we could add a second chariot unique. One with two-wheels and one with four-wheels! Look how cool it would be... ... A big chariot with four-wheels: ... a small chariot on two-wheels:

Age of Noob made a rebuttal video on the matter... we need to wait for more content:

https://topostext.org/work/194#Mar.25.7

https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP23781

An article from Rock Paper Shotgun. Full story here: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/unity-to-start-charging-some-developers-money-every-time-someone-new-installs-their-game Other related news: Video-Game Company Unity Closes Offices Following Death Threat: https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/unity-received-death-threat-from-one-of-its-employees-claims-report-3498506 Unity bosses sold stock days before development fees announcement, raising eyebrows : https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows

That's indeed a common issue for people working with databases, when we need to interpret a string variable as an integer or a float number... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator

International articles on wikipedia have metric first. Since we are dealing with the history of Europe, Africa and Asia, it is better suited to have metric first at least. For example, on the wikipedia page of ancient rome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome

Due to historical and archaeological evidence, the rotary mill has been removed for the Gauls and Britons.

New alpha of Pax Augusta

I have given my opinion based on the evidence but adding the onager is only a slight divergence from historical accuracy. It is not that bad. So yes. Thats ok. I am not sure an imperial civ will happen in vanilla, due to stubborness, but we can accept this solution.

Reposting this article about different color and shade resulting from various alloys of bronze and different patina. https://exarc.net/issue-2017-2/ea/colour-palette-antique-bronzes-experimental-archaeology-project I made a table with the RGB conversion from the munsell code, this shows the natural colors of different alloys:

Translating ancient Greek precisely is difficult, the exact meaning is often uncertain. Horace White (1899) gives: "Archelaus planted another great tower on the wall opposite the Roman tower and these two assailed each other, discharging all kinds of missiles constantly until Sulla, by means of his catapults, each of which discharged twenty of the heaviest leaden balls at one volley, had killed a large number of the enemy, and had so shaken the tower of Archelaus that it was rendered untenable, and the latter was compelled, by fear of its destruction, to draw it back with all speed." While Philippe Remacle (2010) gives : "Archelaus placed another large tower on the wall opposite the Roman tower, and these two towers fought each other, throwing all sorts of darts incessantly until Sulla, thanks to his catapults which launched twenty leaden balls very heavy each time, killed a large number of enemies and caused the tower of Archelaus to wobble, which it rendered unstable, and Archelaus was obliged, for fear of its collapse, to withdraw it quickly to the rear." It is unclear from the original text if the catapults are throwing twenty balls each time as a whole (one volley of all the machines), or if each catapults are throwing twenty balls every time they are firing (one volley of each machines). However, from the context, I think it is more coherent they are firing 20 lead balls together (one volley of all the machines) as they are weakening the tower.

The argument from Rihll is that the glandes would have been associated to the onager because it looks like a sling and glandes are the name of sling ammunitions. But I strongly disagree. I think it is simply Sulla using lithoboloi with lead projectiles. As Appian could not say that Sulla threw "lead stones" against the tower, he used a word he was familiar with for ammunition made out of lead. Two-armed torsion catapults are generally much better and more precise. It can throw projectiles of more than 70 kg.

Thats not only you, I would prefer an additional Principate faction too. With distinctive features like the segmentata and the onager for them.

You can include two reforms, one from Marius and one from Augustus. The last one introducing the lorica segmentata and the onager. Happy?

The whole article is reviewing the claims of Rihll and is concluding there is little support for it. Personally I am not convinced by the idea that 'glandes' could only have been thrown by Onagers. Honestly I think you are having a confirmation bias in this case, cherry-picking anything supporting its use. While most specialists on the topics expressed the opposing view.