Genava55

By the way, Rome 2 Total War also got its inspiration from EBII for the Suebi Edit: you can find more info and images there: https://gelmir.com/compendium_item/gold-bracteates/

https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2025/05/evidence-of-the-use-of-a-polybolos-the-mythical-greek-repeating-weapon-at-pompeii-in-89-bce-discovered/ Evidence of the Use of a Polybolos, the Mythical Greek Repeating Weapon, at Pompeii in 89 BCE Discovered A team of Italian researchers has discovered markings on the walls of Pompeii that could be the first known evidence of the use of an ancient and sophisticated weapon of war: the polybolos, a type of automatic crossbow capable of launching multiple arrows without needing to be reloaded, similar to modern machine guns. Its invention is attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria, a Greek engineer who worked in the arsenal of Rhodes in the 3rd century BCE. It wasn’t a crossbow in the traditional sense but used a torsion mechanism based on bundles of twisted sinew, and we only know about it from the description left by Philo of Byzantium, who wrote between 280 and 220 BCE. Philo recounts how one of these weapons was found and provided a detailed description of the gears that powered a chain drive to position bolt after bolt into its firing groove. This is the earliest known application of such a mechanism. The study published in the Nexus Network Journal focuses on a section of the northern wall of Pompeii near the gates of Vesuvius and Herculaneum, where the researchers, led by Adriana Rossi from the University of Campania, found and analyzed small holes in the stones. These marks are square or diamond-shaped and do not match the impact patterns of stones launched by conventional catapults. Instead, they appear to have been caused by arrows or metal projectiles. They appear in groups of four or five, as if the projectiles that caused them had been fired in bursts, something difficult to achieve with handheld weapons or traditional crossbows. The precision and frequency suggest the use of a repeating machine, the researchers assert, believing that they could be the work of a polybolos used during the siege of Pompeii in 89 BCE, when the troops of the Roman general Sulla conquered the city. Although no physical remains of the weapon have been found, the markings on the walls would match its historical description. To confirm their theory, the team used 3D scanning techniques and digital reconstructions. Through virtual models, they calculated the speed and force of the impacts, estimating that the arrows that could have made the marks reached a speed of around 109 meters per second, a rather surprising speed for the time. They also confirmed that the depth and shape of the holes matched models of Roman arrowheads kept in European museums. Why Shoot Arrows at the Walls? But why would the Roman army besieging the city have fired arrows at the stone walls instead of at the defenders? The researchers offer two fairly evident theories. The first is that they simply missed their shots—that is, they were aiming at soldiers on top of the wall but missed, perhaps because the weapon was hard to handle or simply wasn’t as effective as it should have been. And the second is that they were simply testing, practicing and calibrating the polybolos before using it against the enemy. In this regard, an episode of the popular show MythBusters aired in 2010 built and fine-tuned a replica of the polybolos based on Philo’s description, concluding that its existence as a historical weapon was plausible, despite being prone to constant mechanical failures. The team now plans to analyze more sections of the walls of Pompeii and collaborate with museums to cross-reference their findings. They also hope this discovery will attract interest to Pompeii not just as a city frozen in time, but also as a battlefield where Roman military engineering left its mark. SOURCES Rossi, A., Gonizzi Barsanti, S. & Bertacchi, S. Use of Polybolos on the City Walls of Ancient Pompeii: Assessment on the Anthropic Cavities. Nexus Netw J 27, 243–272 (2025). doi.org/10.1007/s00004-024-00803-x Reconstruction of a polybolos. Credit: Diels and Schramm 1919 / AR and archives of Archeotecnica / archeotecnica.com

Probably not, currently because 0 A.D. - Empires Ascendant is focusing on 500 BC - 1 BC. Have you watched the video? Nothing suggest a link to Marius. The first account of the Lanciarii is from the 1st century AD. By the way, the Marian reforms are the result of a misconception. Qualified scholars generally don't support the existence of a huge reform enacted by Marius.

But it has to be consistent and coherent with other civilizations. Too often, there's the immature temptation to want to put everything in every new civ, and this quickly becomes absurd and unbalanced. The Kushites underwent a similar development. I think it is something to keep for a later version of the Germans. Currently, it is based on the Cimbri. When there will be the later Germans, we could add the Cherusci pikemen. But in the meantime, let's focus on the Cimbri.

Cimbri/Teutones/Ambrones raiders could work. Marauders too. Otherwise, axemen, clubmen... It is possible for some of them to have a bear skin as a cloak, just avoid the bear head.

I don't think there was a specific troop wearing wolf skin and wolf head. Tacitus, Cassius Dio and Caesar don't mention it. The only place with a depiction of a sort of warriors wearing such items is on the Trajan column, but it is unclear if those are Germans or not. Those men are Roman auxiliaries in full armor, while the actual Germans fighting in front of them with their native weapons are bareheaded. Furthermore the current design is focusing on the Cimbri and pre-roman period. The berserkir/ulfhednar is mostly attested during the viking and post-viking period, in the Norse mythology and Norse laws. And nothing suggest they were a specific battle unit. So for the moment, leave them aside.

So what's the plan about it?

Ok. I don't think a ramming ship is mandatory

If we accept the rock art is sufficient enough evidence, we must at least accept it is a minority of the boats. Most don't have sails.

Well done. If we want more color, we can also add a few shields on the sides. Maybe on both ends.

Hémistatère au « bateau glaive », série GRH 3f – classe III, groupe de Normandie (Calètes ?), 3e siècle av. J.-C.

Nydam boat also had a carved wooden beam: https://www.bricksite.com/nydam/nydam-boats https://boudicca.de/the-nydam-boat/

This is simply to emphasize, based on historical references from the time period, what I explained earlier. The most appropriate designation for a civilization of the same rank as the Gauls or Britons would be the 'Germans'.

I'm no specialist, but it seems to me that it's extremely difficult to do both at the same time. Sail is not viewed as a supplemental propulsion, it is something used for long distance. My personal opinion is that Bronze Age and Iron Age warriors favored the mobility and portability of boats. It should not be forgotten that there are no indications that they had ports of any significant size. Maybe we can make an exception for the merchant ship, since it is a case really inappropriate for rowers. Maybe decorations or stempost size? Here a few ideas (the outrigger is maybe a bit excessive but why not):

Caesar, book 1, ch. 1: Caesar, book 1, ch. 2: Caesar, book 6, ch. 24: Tacitus, Germania:

I don't think so... https://blog.turbosquid.com/turbosquid-3d-model-license/#Games-Usage

Yes, it looks good, that's similar to the miniature replica in the museum:

More probably a religious symbol. I don't know how plausible this could be they fixed shields on the side. It is certain the vikings and normans did it* but I don't know if the older shields from the Iron Age could be tied in the same manner. Maybe. Adding those would not be an issue. *https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/66056/did-viking-longboats-in-fact-have-shields-on-the-side-of-the-ships Yes it is plausible. At least I know the Celts did have such carved animal on the stems of some of their ships:

Yes I know, I debated with some people about this paper. The problem is that the use of sail should have triggered a major change and become widespread. As was the case during the Viking era, when all large ships eventually had a mast and a sail. It's very likely that even if sailing was known to Bronze Age populations, it didn't arouse the same interest. Perhaps they preferred to navigate rivers and coastlines. Not to mention the fact that having a mast and a sail required building ships that were a little wider. Which could make them less transportable on land.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/baitaz https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/skipą

Probably longer, but as nimble, versions of this boat existed too. Maybe you can use two sizes of the same boat type. Yeah the merchant ships are probably too large.

First, of which civ are we talking about? The Cimbri ? The Suebi ? The Germans ? The oldest evidence we have for boats is obviously the Hjortspring boat (around 350 BC). But this is a more nimble boat, carrying approx. 20 men and without any sail. The other major find is from the Roman (imperial) period, circa 320 AD, the Nydam ship. This is larger, for 30 men, but without sail as well. The first evidence for a sort of longship with a sail could be Kvalsund II, but it is not certain, it is disputed. Anyway it is dated around 780 AD so clearly too late. The first undisputed ship with sail and looking like a Viking ship is the Oseberg ship, circa 830 AD. I looked what the literature says on the topic, it seems to be in agreement with the few I know: Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-archaeology/article/earliest-wave-of-viking-activity-the-norwegian-evidence-revisited/C2A3AB5F0C962CFB700EEAF24970BE49 Not compatible with 0AD. The EB team requires the explicit permission for each asset and for each use. It is not open source.

This is what Europa Barbarorum did for the Suebi, they took inspiration from one of these bracteate to make a simpler version (top right):

Gold Bracteates from the migration period: