Genava55

The Sarmatians are very closely related to the Scythians. They share a similar language that belongs to the Iranian language family. The real differences between the Sarmatians and the Scythians stem from the fact that the Scythians dominated the steppes between the 8th and 3rd centuries BCE, while the Sarmatians dominated the steppes between the 3rd century BCE and the 4th century CE. From an archaeological point of view, the material is divided chronologically into different periods: The Sauromatian period (6th-4th century BCE). The Early Sarmatian period (4th century BCE-1st century BCE). The Middle Sarmatian period (1st century BCE - 2nd century CE). The Late Sarmatian period (2nd century CE - 4th century CE). There is one iconic site for the first two periods: the Filippovka kurgans. As you can see below, it is quite close to the Scythian material culture. There are two known characters from the early period: Tasius, a king of the Roxolani (Strabo, Geographie, 7.3.17) Amage, a queen of the Sarmatians (Polyaenus, Strategemata 8.56)

https://built-heritage.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43238-025-00191-2 Inner Asian and Eurasian nomadic camps comprise different types of guyed tents, mobile wood-framed dwellings and carts of various forms. One of the first available depictions originated from the Arjan Bowl, which was found in an Elamite grave in Iran and was dated 800–500 BCE (Majidzadeh 1992). It shows a rib tent (which would be dismantled for transport) with struts and a roof hoop (Fig. 3-D). Greek sources mention Scythian nomads residing in carts, e.g., Hesiod (eighth century BCE), in which Phineus is carried by the Harpies ‘to the land of the men who live on milk and who have their home in wagons’ (Hesiod, The Poems and Fragments (1908, 89, frag. 54). Aeschylus (525–456 BCE) mentioned ‘wattled dwellings, poised high on true wheeled carts’ (Aeschylus 1922, i, 278–279; Andrews (1999, 14) interpreted this passage as indicating that the dwellings were made of a frame woven from twigs or sticks (probably from willow), which was then fixed to the cart and covered by felt. The latter fact was noted by Hippocrates (ca. 460 to ca 377 BCE): Comparison of the shapes and sizes of tents and tent carts from historical finds, depictions or photographs. All tents are scaled to the same size (as far as it was possible to determine the exact size). A Pazyrik cart, real find; (B-C) after clay models; (D) rib tent from the Arjan Bowl; (E-F) Xiongnu carts, birch-bark container in Tsaram; (G) Xiongnu carts, Shancheng coffin painting; (H) Sarmatian tent, tomb of Anthesterius, Crimea; (I) cart from a Tuoba coffin in Datong; (J) Tuoba tent from a grave in Datong; (K) Tibetan tent from a coffin painting in Delingha, Qinghai; (L) Khitan tent from the Wen-Chi scrolls; (M) Cuman carts, Radziwill chronicle; (N) Genghis Khan´s tent, Persian miniature; (O) Kalmyk, 1806 Bertuch Bilderbuch für Kinder; (P) Nogay cart, engraving; (Q) Turkoman tent in Afghanistan, drawing by William Simpson; (R) Chomchugh, refer to the text and Andrews (1999); (S) Kyrgyz kibitka (yurt) drawn by painter Vasily Vereschagin; (T) Avsar tent in Kayseri, photo by Gertrude Bell; (U) Kazakh tent, photo by Owen Lattimore; (V) Mongol yurt/tent, photo from the 1920s; (W) Mongol yurt/tent near Kalgan, photo by Stéphane Passet (1913); (X) Shasavan rib tent, Mount Sabalan, photo obtained in 2010 ‘There too live Scythians who are called nomads because they have no houses but live in wagons. The smallest wagons have four wheels, others six wheels. They are covered with felt and are constructed like houses, sometimes in two compartments and sometimes in three, which are proof against rain, snow, and wind’ [refer to Hippocrates Vol I, De Aere xviii, translated by Jones (1923, 119)]. Models of four-wheeled wagons with tent-like superstructures dated to 600 BCE were found in Kerch in East Crimea. These were made of clay with small windows in their lower structure. The author´s reconstruction is based on such a clay wagon mock-up (Figs. 4, 5). Hippocrates also stated that women and children lived in carts, whereas men spent most of their time on horseback and tended to flock. No depictions of Scythian dwellings (apart from clay models) have been discovered, although in the Pazyrik Kurgan (third century BCE), a complete wooden ceremonial wagon was found. The wagon was preserved exceptionally well and is now on display in the Ermitage in Moscow. Reconstructions (1-2 b) of a Scythian wagon (1) and Mingachevir cart (2) drawn by the author after clay models (1-2 a) Reconstruction of a Scythian wagon camp The first suggestion of tents that represent separate entities and are not part of carts is given with respect to Sarmatians. Strabo (53 BCE to ca. 21 CE) reported, ‘As for the nomads, their tents, made of felt, are fastened on the wagons in which they spend their lives, and round about the tents are the herds which afford the milk, cheese and meat on which they live, and they follow the grazing herd, from time to time moving to other places that have grass…’ (Strabo 1960), vii, 3, 17). Whether these tents fastened to carts were frequently removed and placed on the ground, as the tent components of tent carts in later times would have been, is unclear. There is only one known depiction of a Sarmatian tent, which is set on the ground. It was depicted in a wall painting in a grave chamber in Kerch on the Crimea Peninsula. Unfortunately, it does not exist anymore. Relevant documentation can be found in Minns; Wajnstein (1996) attempted a rectangular reconstruction of the tent. In this work, the author aimed to reconstruct rectangular and round variants, as no definitive hint regarding the ground plan is given in the depiction (Fig. 6). A structural system was also reconstructed, with the following options: A: rectangular variant, 4-post inner structure; B: round variant, woven/wattled structure; C: round variant, rib-tent structure. Depictions of a Sarmatian tent on a wall painting in Crimea (Source: Minns 1913). Shown below are reconstruction possibilities (Source: the author). It is possible to reconstruct the shape as a rectangular (A) or a round tent. For the round variant, a woven/wattled structure (B) or a rib-tent structure with a roof hoop (C) is possible According to Priscus of Panium, who was a diplomatic envoy and therefore eye-witness of the camp of Attila the Hun, Attila’s wife Hereka lived in a circular building with a wooden frame covered in skins or leather. This passage is the only reference in which Hunnic dwellings are described as circular and possessing a wooden frame. However, this passage has been debated as the text is not clear, but recent work (Carolla 2019) supports both the circular shape and skin/leather covering. Elsewhere in the text, Hunnic buildings are described as huts (Greek: kalube), which indicates that they are semipermanent buildings. Alternatively, although they comprise a wooden frame, they could be covered with reeds (mats) or similar material (but not felt or skins). However, no indication of their shape is given. Later, sixth-century Greek emissaries to the Western Turk ruler also described framed tents as huts (kalube) (Andrews 1999). Thus, it is not completely clear what type of building or tent (?) Priscus had observed. The building of Attila was described as being made of wood, but again, no definite indication of the ground plan form was given, only of its material (‘it had been fitted together with highly polished timbers and boards’ (Priscus of Panium in Gordon 1960, 84). The dwelling of Hereka is described as follows: ‘Inside the wall [of the compound of Attila], there was a big cluster of buildings, some made of planks carved and fitted together for ornamental effect, … the other [houses were made] of leather polished and cut straight/upright, put into some wooden circular basis. I gained entrance through the barbarians at the door and came upon her lying on a soft spread. The floor was covered with mats of felted wool’ (Priscus of Panium trans. Carolla 2019). Please also refer to Fig. 7. The extensive use of felt inside Hereka’s dwelling indicates a nomadic building context in any case. The custom to cover trellis tents in skins or furs and not felt exists ina nomadic historical context, e.g., there is a trellis tent of the Mongolian Bogd Khan from the 19th century covered in snow leopard skins (furs) on display in the Winter Palace of the Bogd Khan in Ulaan Bataar. Highly hypothetical drawing containing all the elements mentioned by Priscus of Panium, as observed by him in Attila’s capital during the fiveth century. 1, Attila’s compound with gate doors and wooden palisade with towers; 2, Attila’s dining hall/house at an elevated location; 3, Hereka’s tent; 4, buildings made of carved wood; 5, porticoes; 6, Onegesius' compound with a wooden enclosure without towers; 7, Roman bath built of stone by a captive architect from Syrmium In East Asia, there are several depictions of Xiongnu dwellings from the first century. To date, three scratched drawings/decorations of birch-bark containers show Xiongnu dwellings. These depictions all show the same dwelling type (Fig. 8): a round, domed hut with walls made of diagonally crossing lines (probably twigs or sticks). In some cases, this diagonally crossing structure extends to form the dome of the building. The dwelling comprises vertical walls, which, in every case, terminate in a horizontal band spanning the whole dwelling (a textile band holding the hut together, as in the case of modern trellis tents?). If there is a drawn door, it also reaches this horizontal band. The dome is often covered with what seem to be vertical stripes of different materials. At times, the walls are additionally wrapped with crosswise textile bands, and the walls can contain windows. An opening at the apex of the dome-like roof is not shown in any depiction (But its presence cannot be ruled out either). There are always two vertical sticks connected by a horizontal stick above the roof. The function of this construction is described later and is very similar to that in Tuoba Xianbei depictions (Fig. 9): very likely, an awning spanned above the dwelling to shade it (However, there is no Xiognu depiction were we actually can see such an awning in the drawing itself). The dwellings are often shown placed on carts. Moreover, the cart wheels encompass spokes, and the cart type is a two-wheeled cart. Written sources support the conclusions drawn from the images: The Xiongnu also employed ‘domed huts for homes’ (Huan 1994, 38) and ‘woven branches to make houses’ (Huan 1994, 52; Miller 2012). Depictions of Xiongnu carts found on a birch-bark container in Tsaram (after Minyaev (2009). Shown below is a line drawing of the scratchings and a reconstruction by the author. The awning above the cart was added as an analogy from fifth-century Tuoba Xianbei cart depictions Tuoba Xianbei cart depictions from coffin planks from Zhijiapu (Source: Liu and Gao 2005) @wowgetoffyourcellphone@Lopess I highly recommend to read the entire article.

Herodotus and the Scythians, in Olbia 5th century BC. Artist: Evgeny Kray

The Forsaken Gods fantasy and art by Didrik Magnus-Andresen are really nice

There was a mod with an interesting campaign, but it needs to be updated to work with the latest version: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/28303-campaign-macedonia-rise-to-power-balkan-campaign-into-asia/page/9/

The position of project leader is vacant for two years.

Total War est très différent d'un RTS comme 0 A.D. ou Age of Empires. Je conseille plutôt de regarder comment sont réalisées les campagnes de jeux similaires: Ce que tu voudrais faire ressemble à ce qui a été fait dans le jeu Warhammer Mark of Chaos, mais pour ça il y a beaucoup trop de choses à changer pour que se soit réaliste.

I would find that odd. Finishing a building already damaged doesn't make any sense. Furthermore I think it is good that the enemy can prevent you from building. Otherwise it is too easy to build a fortress or towers to defend yourself.

It's a mod. There is no update for more than a year. It hasn't been included in the base game yet.

I am pretty sure some Slavic Macedonians have been playing with Macedonians for some time.

I think they are in the nightly build now. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/NightlyBuild

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7104 Most of the changes are not discussed in the forum.

Otherwise a kettle or a bull?

There is a hypothesis that Porus was a title rendered in Greek and that the original title was more like 'Puru'. Anyway Porus was the king of a regional kingdom with a moderate size. It is difficult to categorize his kingdom. Taxila seems to be related to the Gandhara people but nothing suggests Porus was from Gandhara. His association to the Puru tribe is purely based on the name, as the Purus were mostly known from an area further in the East, since they lost a considerable chunk of their territory according to the Rig Veda. They did controlled the area at some point but it was at the peak of their hegemony. The Pauravas are from the same area as the Purus after their loss. They are mentioned in later poems and myths. So they have mostly the same issues than the Puru tribe.

Introducing the Thracians in Age of Empires II: DE - Chronicles: Alexander the Great! Turn carnage into coin as Thracian raids become both brutal and lucrative. • HP regeneration for Skirmishers in early ages • Techs that grant gold from damaging buildings or defeating enemies • Rhomphaia Warriors: new anti-cavalry infantry Launch devastating raids with your swift Rhomphaia Warriors, and profit from them with unique technologies that generate gold from combat. A variety of bonuses and technologies turn Thracian skirmishers from neglected trash units to deadly fighters!

A map showing the different hypotheses about the origin of the Cimbri and the routes taken during their migration or wandering:

I will share interesting maps and threads from @Maptysk from twitter. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1970760638709354543.html https://x.com/Maptysk/status/1970760638709354543 Here a copy paste of his thread on the Suebi / Elbe Germanic people : Map of Archaeological Finds of the Suebi/Elbe germanic Groups and the Alamanni, with Quotes from Tacitus. The Suebi were the largest and most powerful tribal confederation in Germania, constituting of the Hermunduri, Semnones, Langobards, Warini, Markomanni, Quadi, Naristi, Marsingi and Buri. High resolution map below: The Suebi first appear under Ariovistus, invading Gaul in search of new land, possibly leaving the Suebi homeland due to pressure from the Vandals. A group of finds of the Großromstedt Culture (early Elbegermnaic) along the Rhine possibly allows tracing the Suebi of Ariovistus in the material record. The Großromstedt Culture also briefly settled large parts of Western Germany, where they possibly contributed to and were later replaced by the Weser-Rhine Germanic Groups. The Markomanni, prior to their migration to Czechia, most likely lived in the Main area, where they were defeated utterly by the Romans under Drusus that they were forced to migrate. It was after this point that they came to be ruled by Marbod, a man that parallels Arminius in almost all aspects. Marbod grew up in Rome, just like Arminius, where he learnt Roman ways, culture, and most important military strategy and organization. Marbod returned to the Markomanni after their defeat to assume leadership, although probably not with Roman consent and sanctioning. Marbod would lead the Markomanni to settle Bohemia, the land which was previously inhabited by the Celtic Boii... Or was it? Archaeological Evidence actually suggests that Bohemia had been settled by the Großromstedt Culture (Early Suebi) in 40 BC already, 30 years prior to the Markomanni migration. This early Suebi group is called the Planany Group (Plananska Skupina) in archaeological literature. It is plausible that they were the early Quadi. Comparing the early Suebic Settlement and Celtic Settlement, it is clear that the Celts were far more populous and settled than the Suebi, and the sites of the Planany Group are much fewer than those of the Boii of the La Tène Culture. The claim that the Markomanni drove out the Boii is also false. The Boii abandoned their settlements together with the Helvetii to embark to Gaul, and these early Germanic settlers found largely completely abandoned land. This is also visible for Southern Germany, where Germanic Groups moved in around 60-40 BC to find largely empty land, with no reuse of La Tène sites, and far sparse habitations. Around 10 BC, the Markomanni proper arrive into Bohemia, the time of Marbod's Empire is called the Dobrichov Group in archaeological literature, and during this time the southern part of Bohemia was temporarily abandoned. Around 5-3 BC Marbod expands his empire also toward Moravia and the Quadi. It is unclear when exactly the Quadi arrived in Slovakia, but I find it plausible to be between the times of the Markomannic arrival and the expansion of Marbod's Empire. The full extent of Marbod's Empire was massive, including the Hermunduri, Langobardi, Quadi, Semnones, Lugii, and possibly the Gotones. The Markomannic empire contested with the federation Arminius had forged, where the two men who both grew up in Rome, to both return to their ancestral tribes to lead them to greatness came to war. Marbod and Arminius were as much parallels as they were inversions of another, as Arminius was a staunch enemy of Rome while Marbod was friendly to Rome and sought alliance with them, and refused Arminius' initial offer for an alliance against Rome. After Marbod's defeat by Arminius, he was usurped by another Markomanni called Catualda, who was exiled by Marbod in his youth to live amongst the Goths until he returned to his home, probably with Gothic military support, to dethrone Marbod and assume the throne for himself. This did not last long however, as quickly after the Quadi under Vannius along with the Vandals declared war on the Markomanni and Catualda was dethroned by Vannius, who ruled over both the Markomanni and Quadi until 51 AD. Vannius himself would be deposed by the Hermunduri under Vibilus, who conquered and then settled Markomanni territory in Northern Bohemia and Moravia. The other constituent tribes of the Suebi do not have a history as well recorded as that of the Markomanni, but here are what Tacitus had to say on them. I do not wish to paraphrase Germania, as the original text is amazing and worth a read yourself: Back to the origins of the Suebi and the Großromstedt culture: The Großromstedt culture developed on the basis of the Late Jastorf "Seedorf" phase, with influence from the Celts to their south, but seemingly under occupation by the Vandals since either 150 or 100 BC. The presence of Przeworsk Culture sites in Central Germany is characterizing of the period 150 BC - 50 BC, the "Origo Gentis Langobardorum" possibly mentions this Vandalic presence in speaking of the Langobardic origin myth, in which they were previously called "Winnili", until winning a battle with the Vandals, after which they assumed the name Langobards, which was already recorded in the 1st century AD. Indeed, we do see evidence of elements moving from the North, in the Langobardic homeland, to the south, mainly the situlae of the Großromstedt Culture, although its other elements develop in Central Germany. Sometime in the 3rd Century, the Alamanni start appearing, from where they moved southwards and invade the Agri Decumates of the Roman Empire and force the Limes back to the Rhine and Alps. Around this time in the 3rd Century, another Suebic Group moves Northeast, driving out the Goths and the Lubus Culture. This group is called the Debczyno Culture, and its unclear what tribe they could be linked to. The Hermunduri and Semnones would later evolve into the Thuringians, who also settle Bohemia and as such end the Markomanni. The Langobards would migrate south and take Moravia, then Transdanubia and finally Italy, becoming the Lombards. The Quadi hold out, surviving as the "Danube Suevi", while other Suebi cross the Rhine and invade Iberia, forming the Suebi Kingdom. It is also likely that the Bajuvari, later Bavarians, develop out of the Alamanni. That concludes the thread.

In the new Chronicles DLC for AoE2

Women and the Army in the Roman Empire The presence of women in Roman military contexts has been established beyond doubt by scholars in recent decades. Nevertheless, very little sustained attention has been paid to who these women were, how they fit into the fabric of settlements, and what their contributions were to these communities. This volume offers new insights into the associations, activities, and social roles of women in the context of the Roman army, emphasizing the tangible evidence for the lived realities of women and families at different social levels. The various chapters adopt dynamic perspectives and shed new light on archaeological and historical evidence to provide novel conclusions about women's lives in antiquity. Histories of the Roman army can no longer ignore the women who lived and worked in its midst and histories of Roman women must acknowledge their important military role. The first volume to provide a sustained and comprehensive treatment of women and the Roman army Employs archaeological and textual evidence and incorporates work by a range of scholars to provide a variety of perspectives Significantly advances discussion of women and the Roman army by examining social roles rather than simply the presence of women in military spaces

I've already given my opinion and I understand perfectly well that there is confirmation bias at work, so I'm not going to be a pain in the neck and start a crusade over such a minor detail. I'll let others debate if this is an important topic for them.