.jpg.4d575d1d330147616620e755ddb4c44a.jpg)
Genava55
-
Posts
2.067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by Genava55
-
-
-
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=144555277660492&id=100063180612630
Produced on the Arebona archaeological center with Les Ambiani, historical reenactment group, this album depicts the traditional and military life of a Celtic tribe, belonging to the Ambian people, in the first century BC.The Ambiens, who left their name to the city of Amiens and its region, were a Celtic people of Gaul Belgium who occupied the Samara valley (the Somme river in Celtic language), from the lower area of the river to its mouth.Far from the clichés that often describe them as savage and bloodthirsty barbarians, the Celts were, on the contrary, a learned, refined people with a culture close to nature and master of a high quality craft.
Spoiler
-
21 hours ago, Carltonus said:
My initial suggestion was that the Battersea shield be a prop addition to the Brythonic temple or other structure.
It could be too. I interpreted your message as saying this is a ceremonial item. But as a prop it is also plausible.
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Not helpful.
The idea of beautiful clothes?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Stan` said:
But it still has to be enclosed by wooden walls doesn't it?
I would say yes, this is THE feature of those sanctuaries, there are walls separating it to the outside world. And those walls weren't in stones. It can be wooden planks or clayed wattle and daub walls.
-
12 hours ago, wackyserious said:
@Genava55 How about this one?
Much better. The fibula with the lambda is a bit odd but that's a minor issue and a great improvement
8 hours ago, Stan` said:I wonder if the fortifications are mandatory.
The ditches are unnecessary. In fact, most sanctuaries simply follow the concept of an enclosed perimeter, many have ditches but not all have it.
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Right, but what kind of religious props could it have*?
*That would be "obvious" to players.
Well, there are some examples there:
Wooden statues and other wooden figures, weapon trophies, small shrines... I am pretty sure that something like Roseldorf's experiment would be obvious to the players:
On 11/03/2021 at 7:37 PM, Genava55 said:I added in a post above a translation of a German article about a semi-academic reconstruction of a sanctuary in Austria with the addition of elements from other sanctuaries.
The original article with the references and the bibliography (I scrapped them for readability):
You can find a critical review in English of their work:
https://exarc.net/issue-2012-1/aoam/roseldorf-rekonstruiert
Some pictures to give you some motivation to read it:
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Maybe something like this?
A chainmail would be more accurate or even unarmored but with beautiful clothes.
4 hours ago, Carltonus said:Thought the Battersea shield was made around or before the time of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain? Isn't that used as a votive offering?
The site of La Tène with its dozen of swords, shields etc. is also a votive offering.
Votive doesn't mean non-functional. The old school interpretation of nonfunctional and ceremonial weapons isn't favored anymore. First of all because we are finding more and more decorated items with visible marks of use.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/celtic-shield-warrior-grave-1725090
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Carltonus said:
The Britons still await a complete overhaul.
See:
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Carltonus said:
The Gallic heroes are still a bit fantasy [and the] temple is still not really accurate.
Boudicca has a bronze girl-chested armor which is both fantasy and inaccurate:
Caratacos has the weird belt from its concept art, which is conan the barbarian -like stuff:
http://images.gamedev.net/columns/spotlight/0AD/big02.jpg
http://images.gamedev.net/columns/spotlight/0AD/big02.jpg
Cunobelin is less problematic but he has weird leather straps (purely decorative) over the body and with buckles (belt buckles are actually something the Romans popularized, the Celts used belt hooks and rings), there is also a Roman fibula on the shoulder (the penannular fibula appeared during the Roman empire) and the wooden scabbard that should be in metal and on the other side:
Vercingetorix still has a round shield (which isn't accurate), the scabbard on the wrong side and a weird belt:
Viridomarus uses the Battersea shield (which has been found in UK), a bronze fantasy cuirass, a weird animal pelt and the same problematic wooden scabbard:
Finally the temple... isn't really looking like a temple:
Honestly, you could use it for anything else and you wouldn't see the issue. There is nothing telling you it is a temple or any building with a religious function. This could be a storehouse, barracks, a noble house, a military camp etc.
The building isn't bad, except for the round shields, but it is super generic and unspecific.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Carltonus said:
Kindly expound.
This evening I will explain. I am working now.
-
1
-
-
-
11 hours ago, TKogumelos said:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/research-iberians.247627/page-3
(Yo soy John-of1999) Vuelvo a copiar el mismo enlace aquí porque, después de leer fuentes con mayor seriedad académica ("Armas de la antigua Iberia" de Quesada y el suplemento "Guerreros de la antigua Iberia" de Despertaferro), he cambiado la mayor parte de imágenes que publiqué y también he añadido información.
(*Todo en inglés porque es el idioma en el que hablan los modders.)
(*También aclarar que no copio y pego aquí la información directamente porque me llevaría mucho tiempo.)
It's nice that someone is checking the literature for references, well done.
In case, I added a few links there:
-
-
-
3
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Stan` said:
Political discussions alway tend to digress and turn into a fight but if this discussion continues to be insulting and demeaning I will close it.
If you think this way, I don't see the point to wait. Close it.
There will be always one guy coming over and starting to be insulting/offensive.
Even if you are 10 people debating in good faith, there is always someone coming over to troll or to release his rage and frustration. Either you consider the topic as being the problem or you consider it is the guy.
Edit: to illustrate the issue, how do you deal with this:
1 minute ago, artoo said:I am not even sure I can call Greta a girl tbh.
-
2
-
-
Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I think you full well know that the Soviet Union was not what Marx had in mind.
But is it really possible to get what Marx wanted without having it transformed into a corrupted and authoritarian state? Pardon my rhetorical question, but all the political party actually referring to marxism have the tendency to derive into authoritarian governments, limiting free speech and democratic rights.
I am not against social protection and such things. But the whole anti-capitalist rhetoric, I cannot understand it nor approve it.
-
8 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
@Lion.Kanzen what more than this is needed to change you into a marxist?
By marxism you mean centralized state capitalism? I always thought that Chernobyl and the Aral Sea were enough to remember that marxism isn't better for the environment.
-
1 hour ago, artoo said:
The idea that humans would basically be undesirable "useless eaters" as eg Kissinger calls t it, that humans would ruin the earth by contributing C02, so that allegedly sea levels rise, is preposterous and ridiculous.
In 2021, you should have noticed by now that you don't need a doomsday scenario to have a huge socio-economical problem. Is COVID a threat to the very existence of humanity? No. Just like the Spanish flu or any other pandemic, humanity has never been threatened by those. But still, pandemics are huge issues that have enormous impact on our lives. Climate change doesn't need to be a doomsday scenario to be a threat to our society and our lifestyle.
-
29 minutes ago, artoo said:
Biggest contributor of C02 are the oceans at ~75%, do you want to cancel oceans? Human contribution is insignificant, and earth is not a closed system like "climate change" postulates.
I see you need to learn some basics about the carbon cycle.
Let's start with a simplified figure, on this one you can see the size of the "reservoirs" (the quantity of carbon stored in different parts of the Earth from a systematic pov) and the scale of the fluxes (the annual fluxes from a reservoir to another):
As you can see, the arrow on the far left represents the burning of fossil fuels, a flux of carbon towards the atmosphere. The natural fluxes between the ocean and the atmosphere are indeed bigger than the burning of fossil fuels, however you should also notice they almost balance each others. And that's the difference I mentioned before, our contribution to the atmosphere is not balanced, we don't cause a flux in the other direction. While natural fluxes are going in both direction, photosynthesis and respiration are balancing each other, for example.
Some people still doesn't get how a smaller contribution can cause such a problem even after seeing this figure, so I will use an analogy to make it clearer. Imagine a bathtub with a tap contributing for X liters by minute and imagine the drain open evacuating the same amount, X liters by minute. The water level should be at equilibrium. The human contribution is like turning on the tap to release more liters by minute. If the drain is flowing slower than the tap, then the level rises.
And finally, can science prove it? Yes. Actually we can. Because not all CO2 is exactly the same. There are isotopes. Some isotopes are radioactive, most people know radiocarbon (14C) but there are stable isotopes as well (13C and 12C for example). And isotopic ratios varies between the reservoirs because chemical and biochemical processes discriminate CO2 made of certain isotopes (because different isotopes have different chemical bond strength). For example, inorganic carbon in the ocean is much richer in 13C isotopes than inorganic carbon in the atmosphere (CO2). So an increasing contribution from the ocean would make not only the atmospheric CO2 increasing but also the ratio of 13C isotopes. But we actually observe the reverse! Which is coherent with an increasing contribution from fossil fuels.
If you want more information on this topic, check this website: https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/
There are quite a lot of evidences supporting the idea that humanity is the cause of the increase in CO2. Maybe you should give the scientific community the benefit of the doubt and dive more in the literature.
-
21 minutes ago, artoo said:
That said, please do yourself a favor and research C3 and C4 plants, bottom line, most plants starve, they came to being when CO2 levels were much higher. More CO2 means greener earth, means more food to grow for example in eg desert like areas.
I have a master degree in Earth science, I studied plant ecology in my curriculum and even plant histology. But thanks.
Every scientists know that CO2 facilitate photosynthesis and limitate water loss in plants. This is explicitely stated in IPCC reports. However, plants rely on other things to grow properly, notably nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium etc. And they also need water, light and a good range of temperatures. We know that climate change will impact those parameters as well and we know that in some cases the gain from CO2 fertilization won't be greater than the losses from water scarcity, interspecies competition etc.
This idea of CO2 being always good for plants comes from a kind people that have a relationship with plants exclusively through greenhouses. If you have a basic knowledge of plant ecology in natural system, you wouldn't make such gross generalization.
You mentioned C4 photosynthesis but this pathway has evolved to cope with lower CO2 during the last millions of years. This pathway gives a benefit to the plant in scarce situation. However in a world with higher CO2, this pathway is less suited. C4 plants struggle against C3 plants during higher CO2 levels because the latter are better to use the increase in CO2. They are outcompetiting the C4 most of the time. So it is not that simple, saying CO2 is good for plants is a no brainer claim from people believing they know better than those studying the topic.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Thales said:
Carbon neutrality and climate change are faux issues since they are meant to detract the gullible from the real environmental issues that we are facing.
So climate change is not a real environmental issue? All the scientists and all the institutions (national, international, NGO etc) warning us on the issue are untelligent people and you have figured what are the real issues of our world?
56 minutes ago, Thales said:Each person, through their mere existence, is a carbon consumer. That means that carbon has to be produced for them to exist. Reduce the number of people, then you need to produce less carbon to serve those people.
Good story. But practically how do you apply it in a real world? Let's take the USA or China, how do you manage to make them halving their populations in a few decades?
I agree with the idea of stopping world demographical growth to not make the issue more complicated but your idea of solving the issue by reducing the population is just silly and you didn't give it much thought. It is pure fantasy.
56 minutes ago, Thales said:The current strategy of using existing and as yet undiscovered speculative technology to reduce a person's carbon footprint is actually cannibalization. That will also mean "rationing" resources generating carbon.. At some undefined (future) point, that will eventually mean a reduction to the standard of living and significant loss of freedom.
Food for thought, nature found a way to do it. What you call "carbon consumers" in human societies have their equivalent in natural ecosystems. Every living beings rely on carbon for energy, they are consuming carbon all the time to live. But some living beings learnt to capture it and to store it from the atmosphere (photosynthesis). Natural carbon fluxes are much bigger than ours, the difference is that they are balanced. Ours are not. From an ecological pov, what we are doing right now is using the atmosphere as a landfill for our wastes (CO2, CH4).
And your argument looks like you are saying that we want to compensate all our emissions with unproven technologies, but in reality that's only for the last percents of our emissions. Because we know that reducing the 10 last percents would be really difficult. However the first percents are quite easy to reduce. An example, almost 35% of world emissions are due to burning coal. You won't make me believe there isn't an alternative to coal.
56 minutes ago, Thales said:As a minor amusing editorial followup to the paragraph above, the production of food takes energy plus a variety of other resources, obesity is a common first world health problem. A while back, I recall seeing this headline: TAKING THE PIZZA Restaurants set to shrink sizes of pizzas and pies after health officials set new targets. Today, this is humorous, but it carries future troubling implications, suppose farming becomes restricted in its food production in the name of carbon neutrality and we also have health officials "protecting" us by limiting our caloric intake.
Second food for thought.
Let's imagine the following crazy assumptions:
- The problem won't solve itself magically.
- The emissions will continue to rise, making our dependancy to fossil fuels higher, making the problem harder to solve and reducing our carbon budget quicker.
- The time left to solve the problem before reaching a dangerous threshold of warming will shorten itself.
- The more time passes on, the more the general public will notice the effects and consequences of climate change.
- The more time passes on, the more we will talk about climate change in society (media, politics, scientific research, family)
And once those assumptions are understood, what are the odds that they will increase the possibility to have a dystopian policy in the future?
And if you don't understand my point, I will be more explicit. The idea that the problem will fade away is naive and there are much more chances we would live in a dystopian society when politicians are making last minute policy. Doing nothing today is the best you should do if you want to live in such societies.
-
5 hours ago, Thales said:
Want to solve the faux issue of climate change, reduce the number of people.
The goal is carbon neutrality, how do you think we should reach this by controlling the number of people?
And what do you mean by saying climate change is a faux issue?
-
Celtic Tumulus like Lavau
Statue like Glauberg
Stelae/pillar of Kerviguerou
Roquepertuse
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
It is not all negative. If AoE4 fans had to wait until 2022 for it to finally release that wouldn't make them happy either. So releasing a half finished game allows the players to play it earlier.
or to finish it piece by piece, like with DLC...
Honestly this is simply to please the shareholders, they want to see short-term benefits.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 31/10/2021 at 9:30 PM, LetswaveaBook said:
That seems to be very common in the industry.
Sadly people accept to pay for unfinished games. They even pre-order games they know will be buggy and unfinished.
Edit: back to the topic, another video about AoE4 gameplay system
-
1
-
-
===[TASK]=== Current issues with Celtic units and guideline for the next
in Official tasks
Posted
http://vandervaart-verschoof.com/coloring-the-iron-age-oldest-dress-in-the-netherlands-was-bright-red-and-blue/
And about the adornment, bear tusks pendant are plausible for Britain:
Glass beads too: