Genava55

There is a very good article wrote by Raimund Karl on the topic: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol5/iss1/1/

The rotating millstone, maybe not. The oldest finds are from North-Est Spain and Southern France, close to the Pyrenees. Hard to tell if this is Celtic or not, this is an area between several influence spheres. http://www.archeologiesenchantier.ens.fr/spip.php?article156 The scythe, yes it is really plausible. The oldest find, at my knowledge, is from the 3rd century BC in central France: https://www.images-archeologie.fr/Accueil/Recherche/p-3-lg0-notice-IMAGE-Faux-en-fer-retrouvee-dans-une-fosse-IIIe-s.-avant-notre-ere-Chevilly-Loiret-2006-2007.-Sur-une-surface-avoisinant-4-ha-un-grand-etablissement-ca_aeeae7f9c004d194d5b9c984a4ee7e74-31856147.htm?&notice_id=3022

Discovery of extraordinary Celtic vestiges in Bulgaria Extraordinary remains recently unearthed make it possible to trace the presence of Celts on the eastern margins of Europe, where the ancient Thracian kingdoms were located. https://www.nationalgeographic.fr/histoire/2020/09/decouverte-dextraordinaires-vestiges-celtes-en-bulgarie The destiny of the Celts: history and decline For seven centuries, this mysterious people reigned over vast stretches of Europe before being defeated by the Romans. Who were the Celts? And why did their remarkable culture decline? https://www.nationalgeographic.fr/histoire/2020/09/le-destin-des-celtes-histoire-et-declin Culture and industry: what we owe to the Celts Invention of the plough, creation of fortified towns, mastery of wood architecture, abstract art... Zoom on the contribution of the Celts in Gaul. https://www.nationalgeographic.fr/histoire/2020/09/culture-et-industrie-ce-que-nous-devons-aux-celtes

Ceremonial does not mean symbol (although the Labrys is both). Yes it is a functional tool for religious ceremonies like in every other indo-european cultures. We have the same issue with the Celts, we found a tremendous amount of axe-heads in settlements, but they are generally associated to ceremonies when they are outside a domestic context. Try to apply this hypothesis and this reasoning to other civs, the Romans use axe-heads in ceremonies too and it doesn't mean they commonly use axes on the battlefield. Seeing the "barbarians" as functionally different from other civ is a bias. More functional for the battlefield? Really? Did you have an idea of the weight of such an axe-head and the imbalance in wielding such weapon? Against something that fights back, this is suicide. Look at the evidences for KNOWN and ATTESTED battle-axes among other cultures and contexts, generally the axe-heads are smaller or thinner. Even the viking axes evolved to lighter forms to resolve this issue, even the two-handed axes tend to be lighter over time because that's really impractical. They made thinner heads or with a narrower blade to lighten and increase the balance of the weapon. The design of this Labrys is horrible, the blade is far too thick for a proper use on the battlefield. In comparison, a broadaxe is far more lighter because the head is hammered to have a thin piece of steel. So a fat double-bit axe, that's not credible as a weapon. Since Bulgarian archeologists are often involved in very unethical actions and claims, I will stick to a skeptical view unless there is a convincing evidence. That's generally an undesired effect of community-based projects. But I rose the issue with intent because I know this is a way to get attention. I want simply to avoid a common situation when someone took a considerable time to produce something for a project and people start expressing their opinion on the concept only at the end when most of the work is done. That's not a rule, this is simply a consequence of human behaviors. That's, I think, the core of the issue, finding something that could fit for both Hellenistic inspired structures and the common structures of the inhabitants. That's why I am reluctant about a design based entirely on wood because I see it as an impossible equation to solve. Ideally, if we want to honor the Thracian culture, we should be able to include a Royal tomb or/and a rock-cut monument. Either as a wonder or as a functional building. Personally I find interesting your references posted previously because it depicts houses built with bricks and stones as something in use for the commoners: My point was not about that, this is simply an issue with the iron age in general: a house is a house. The basic structure of any settlement can look very similar along different cultures. My point was on the design and on the variability of the references in the same culture. You have a few stones in Dacian structures, as there is stone for the Gallic structures as well. But that's not the point! I am trying to talk about the guideline, the general direction of a design, the features one should easily see*. There is no way the Dacians would not have their design based on wood. Yes there would be a few stones, but most would be wooden. This is a problem of texture and coherence in the visual representation of a civ in a game. Contrary to the Dacians, the Thracians had very contrasted urban centers. Creating nice looking design for the structures is not something easy and if there are several civs based on wood and wattle-and-daub, it could become challenging at the end. *illustration Anyway most of the game is inevitably depicting the elite oftener than the commoners. This is the case for all the civ currently.

No hay problema, estoy feliz de traer un ojo crítico. Como ya he leído gran parte del libro que he citado, tengo una buena idea de lo que parece plausible y lo que no. Como usaban espadas con hojas anchas y curvas, las hachas eran de poca utilidad.

I am not suggesting you should do all the factions, this is simply to remind the bigger picture. The issue of the Thracians was mainly the building design and the lack of both accuracy and cultural reference to the Thracian culture. I think it is better to keep a design entirely based on wood for the Dacians because there are less alternatives in their case. But as you are proposing to do two different sets, distinguishing the Thracians and Odrysians, and as nobody is complaining (silence means consent), I see my position as the minority and I will no longer express my position.

That's a Labrys. Labrys is a ceremonial axe. No doubt that Persians used axes but for the Thracians the question remains. This kind of shape for axe-heads is better suited for tools. You can find axe-heads everywhere, it doesn't mean it is a weapon all the time (obviously). The article from where the figure comes doesn't tell if those are weapons. Those are clearly medieval shapes. Probably Varangian. The Sagaris is a Scythian axe. It is plausible, we do find some in the North among the Getae but that's not something common for the Thracian infantrymen. Here what the book "A Companion to Ancient Thrace" (p.429) tells on the matter: Hasta la fecha sólo hay dos hachas de batalla de segura procedencia tracia, una de Sboryanovo, la otra de la rica tumba en el montículo III cerca de Kralevo. La fecha de ambos contextos es la primera mitad del siglo III (Stoyanov y otros 2006, 44-45, fig. 65). El inventario de la tumba de Kralevo sugiere que estas hachas fueron utilizadas por jinetes. Hachas similares, conocidas en el Cáucaso y en Escitia ya en el siglo IV, son armas típicas de la caballería del reino del Bósforo cimeriano del siglo IV y se representaron en artefactos del norte del Mar Negro (Melyukova 1964, 65-68, pl. 21.10-16, 21). That's another word for the Labrys.

That's not really war waggons but yes they used waggons on the battlefield at one occasion.

This is why I made a synthesis on the 7th page of this thread based on a few academic books and articles. To simplify the research for the others. I don't see the point in making two Thracian civ based nearly on the same material. Especially if there are the Dacians and the Illyrians as other potential civs. Is there any evidence for battle-axe among the Thracians? Just curious, I am genuinely interested by the topic.

Sure not fully Hellenized. But still they have access to artillery, walls, fortresses with a proper Hellenic design. Their units use hellenic weapons as well. This is why I suggested making a design that could fit a few Hellenized buildings. All woods make the Hellenic buildings super-ugly. Stones or stone and wood could be a better design. And when I mean stones, I don't necessarily mean Hellenic super polished buildings with cutted stones.** The two capitals were Helis and Seuthopolis, just sayin'... Edit: to be clear, I wish it could represent both the common people and the elite. I think they have more native buildings (rock-cut monument and royal tombs notably) based on stones. ** example from my country

Maybe it could work better for the Dacians, are you thinking about a design based on wooden planks, wooden beams and wooden tiles? Isn't it a problem for the heroes and the units? To miss the Hellenized counterparts of the Thracians?

Your welcome and thank you for taking the time for it. I think the biggest issue is finding a proper style and design for the buildings. Since the Thracians of the Odrysian kingdom were heavily Hellenized, I don't think a wooden design is suitable. Maybe something with more stones, even for the houses.

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/index.html https://tied.verbix.com/project/glossary/thra.html https://www.academia.edu/25248385/Studies_in_Thracian_vocabulary_I_VII_ https://sci-hub.st/downloads/2020-01-07/41/sotiroff1963.pdf#view=FitH zibythides for nobles, suras for warrior etc.

Developing the Odrysians would be really nice. This a lesser known civ with very interesting units.

Obviously the iconic Scythians should be really appealing. It is just more difficult to render a nomadic culture in the game (because historical accuracy). But I think Han China is in the most advanced state currently for an upcoming faction. So... yeah maybe there is the time to include it for A24.

The issue with radiocarbon dating are the plateaux and the period of interest here clearly falls in one of the worst plateau ever known. The variability is clearly visible in the table for the calibration, they analyzed each sample three times (this is what we usually do in geochemistry). However, from the two samples 4017 and 4052, even by accounting the variability they could be confident for a second half of the 7th century BC at least. Edit: An interesting intro on the topic of iron ore in Meroe: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0067270X.2018.1515922 Well, bones javelins are common in Danemark and in the British Isles during the iron age, so why not. Arrows are projectiles, consumables.

The article says: The references are: [20] R. Haaland, Iron production, its socio-cultural context andecological implications, in: R. Haaland, P. Shinnie (Eds.), African Iron Working, Norwegian University Press, Oslo, 1985, pp. 50–72 [39] P. Shinnie, Iron working at Meroe, in: R. Haaland, P. Shinnie (Eds.), African Iron Working, Norwegian University Press, Oslo, 1985, pp. 28–35. [55] R.F. Tylecote, Metal working at Meroe, Sudan, in: N.B. Millet,A.L. Kelly (Eds.), Meroitica, Proceedings of the Third Inter-national Meroitic Conference, Toronto, 1977, Akademic Verlag,Berlin, 1982, pp. 29–49 [59] N.J. van der Merwe, The advent of iron in Africa, in: T.A.Wertime, J.D. Muhly (Eds.), The Coming of the Age of Iron,Yale University Press, New Haven, 1980, pp. 463–506. [66] D. Williams, African iron in the classical world, in: L.A.Thompson, J. Ferguson (Eds.), African Classical Antiquity; Nine Studies, Ibadan University Press, Ibadan, 1969. So even according to these outdated references, the earliest iron objects known for the Kushites are from the early 4th century BC.

Gallic knife, 1st c. BC, Tavant Gallic knife from Bucy-le-Long, 5th or 4th c. BC

So there are evidences for spearmen, swordsmen, javelineers, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, slingers. The most common symbol for the Lusitanians is the lunula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanians#/media/File:Lúnula_lusitana_de_Chão_de_Lamas_(M.A.N._28589)_01.jpg

@Lopess @Duileoga Sadly I don't have the time to give advices on a new mini-faction, I just got a new job and I am really busy for the following months. Furthermore I am already helping Europa Barbarorum's team, which is time-consuming. In addition, Spanish is not my mother tongue and I am still learning it. Finally, I don't know enough the Iberian peninsula to rely on memory. So basically I could help mostly by relying on reading, for which I am not in the best position in this context. In the future, I can ask Trarco if he wants to participate here. I can simply remember you that the Iberian peninsula during the iron age is a quite diverse place. - There are non-indo-european cultures, three groups can be schematized: the Iberians, the Palaeo-Basques/Aquitanians, the Turdetani. The latter being heavily influenced by Punic civilization. - A growing Celtic presence, mostly driven by the Celtiberians. Their material culture is heavily spreading among the Vaccaei, the Vettones and the Gallaeci. - Another indo-european remaining presence, associated to the Lusitanians and probably also to the Gallaeci and the Vettones. Either it is an older Celtic culture from the Bronze Age, or a sister branch of the Celtic languages and cultures. They share heavy similarities with the Celts (notably with the worship of Epona, Endovelicus, Lugus) but their language suggests some important differences. The massive difference in the material culture is related to the culture of the castros or castreña: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura_castreña https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castro_culture You can find a lot of resources on the FB page of Celtiberia I already gave above, but also here in English: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/ There is an audio podcast at the end of this table of contents: https://www.despertaferro-ediciones.com/revistas/numero/arqueologia-historia-25-celtiberos/ There are a bunch of books you can find on library genesis: Los pueblos prerromanos de la península Ibérica Los celtiberos Prehistoria y protohistoria de la Península Ibérica There are some academic publication on the Western people of the peninsula: LAS COMUNIDADES DE LA EDAD DEL HIERRO EN EL OCCIDENTE DE LA MESETA “¿Guerreros o bandoleros? Las formas de combate de los pueblos de la Meseta Occidental a partir del armamento de los yacimientos abulenses (ss. V-I a.C.) Finding resources on the Vettones is quite easy: https://www.academia.edu/2981562/Nuestros_ancestros_los_vettones https://www.academia.edu/2053713/Los_Vettones_Arqueología_de_un_pueblo_protohistórico Edit: https://www.facebook.com/TANITdivulgacion/posts/1755140541304108 https://www.facebook.com/TANITdivulgacion

By the way, that the same for any civilization. Nobody uses a dagger to cut animal parts if they have access to a knife. Same for the Celts: http://www.arbre-celtique.com/etude/02-societe/sciences/outils3b.jpg

At least a knife not a dagger: https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/335940453439160489/ https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/335940453447051027/ https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/335940453446548736/

I am in favor of the inclusion of a Chinese faction (warring states or Han dynasty). I am simply expressing here my support in case someone is interested. Xiaolian: It is the concept of filial piety and incorruptibility introduced by Emperor Wudi (Han dynasty) and Dong Zhongshu for the election of high officials.