Page 258 of 259 FirstFirst ... 158208233248249250251252253254255256257258259 LastLast
Results 5,141 to 5,160 of 5174

Thread: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

  1. #5141
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,678

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by NapoleonMaster View Post
    I like the new unit and what are their actual horses meant to be?
    They're supposed to be half-barded. We don't yet have a model for them, so they got unarmoured Sakan horses instead.

  2. #5142
    tomySVK's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    1,733

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Merry Sakamess

    Great units, thanks for previews!

  3. #5143
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar I am your sovereign now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,952

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    I'm digging the new Mazsaka heavy cavalry. They look fantastic in their suits of armor, with scale, lamellar, brigandine, and even manica/cheires varieties going on there. I find that the heavy cavalry from the steppe is usually the best in the game, especially the bodyguard units for the Scythians and Parthians who can shoot you to pieces from afar and follow it up with an equally devastating heavy charge. The Scythian nobles are also a great regional unit available to various factions.

  4. #5144
    _Tartaros_'s Avatar "Harzschütze"
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    kvet.lɪnˌbuʁk
    Posts
    4,155

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    maybe a good reason to hire heavy javelincav
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post
    "But I don't know how to mod!!!!"
    Learn. I didn't know how to do anything when I got this game, and now I know how to do quite a bit. Volunteer. Struggle. Figure it out.
    There are lots of cool mods that never see the light of day because people don't realize that mods need workers, not watchers, or realize it but continue to watch anyway.

    The Great Conflicts
    872-1071
    public alpha 15.01.2020
    The Great Preview 01.12.2019 + Special 06.12.2019

  5. #5145

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Blessed are those that preview new units.

  6. #5146

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Question regarding the rise of the Montefortino helmet in Iberia. I have noticed that the current Callaeci infantry have Montefortino helmets right from the start. However, the remade Celtiberian/Lusitanian units only seem to get them after the armor upgrade. Were the Callaeci some sort of helmet pioneers or can we expect them to be remade as well?
    Quote Originally Posted by NapoleonMaster View Post
    I don't know when you get armor upgrade in the game but I remember reading that Sertorius gave Roman equipment to the Iberian tribes and they sort of adopted them. As for the Gallaeci, they're a Celtiberian tribe so it makes sense that they had the Montefortino at the start of the game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    I believe that the Iberians will get the Montefortino around the time Carthage currently gets it. We will see. As far as I know, the Gallaeci are a Celtic people in Iberia, not Celtiberian one - apparently, there's a difference. If they get Montefortino helmets right from the start, why do the Celtiberians only get them after the armor upgrade?
    Quote Originally Posted by NapoleonMaster View Post
    Well, the only answer to this is that EB team has made a mistake.
    As Rad says, the Montefortino helmet wasn't adopted in the Iberian Peninsula until the Barcid arrival. It's also true that the Gallaeci belong to the Hispano-Celtic group but not to the Celtiberian group. Celtiberians show important differences (material culture, architecture, probably language, etc.). Also, unlike several Hispano-Celtic peoples like the Gallaeci, Celtiberians were organized in supra-family structures that played an important role in the private sphere. In the case of the Gallaeci world, as it is attested by the epigraphy, the most important unit of social organization was the castro (the hillfort).

    In regard to the Montefortino helmet, the Gallaeci weren't any sort of helmet pioneers, however, they did develop a unique local helmet from a late typology that had been the result of an evolution of the Montefortino helmet. I am referring to the cheap Buggenum helmet used in the Casears's time and that was the result of the simplification of the Montefortino helmet. The Gallaeci transformed the cheap Buggenum helmet into unique expensive local aristocratic helmets very decorated. Here you can see some examples of the native version of this helmet:










    In regard to EBII, like other units of the Iberian Peninsula, the Gallaeci need a small modification.
    Last edited by Trarco; February 02, 2020 at 06:11 AM.

  7. #5147

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Thank you Trarco!

  8. #5148
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar I am your sovereign now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,952

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Hispano-Celtic...Celtiberian...don't these things mean the same thing? Hispania versus Iberia. In either case, while I have read this and that about northeastern Spain/Portugal's Castro culture and fortified architecture, I didn't fully understand the regional distinction or its exclusion of Celtiberians from this group. I wasn't fully aware about the prominent cultural differences between the Gallaeci and the Celtiberian peoples, or how local Iberian varieties of helmets developed from the Montefortino model, so +1 rep. Those helmets almost look like the shape of Mycenaean Greek & Nuraghic Sardinian beehive tombs or even the somewhat conical helmets worn by some Hellenistic Greek and Persian units.

  9. #5149

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Hispano-Celtic...Celtiberian...don't these things mean the same thing? Hispania versus Iberia. In either case, while I have read this and that about northeastern Spain/Portugal's Castro culture and fortified architecture, I didn't fully understand the regional distinction or its exclusion of Celtiberians from this group. I wasn't fully aware about the prominent cultural differences between the Gallaeci and the Celtiberian peoples.
    In this case, "Celtiberian" and "Hispano-Celtic" are just modern terms that refer to different academic concepts. All the Celtiberian peoples are Hispano-Celtic peoples but not all the Hispano-Celtic peoples are Celtiberians (think of Cantabrians, Vacceans, Vettons, Celtici, Gallaeci...). Anyway, the concept of "Celts" is constantly evolving, currently, due to the lack of consensus, it is not easy to know what "Celtic" means. IMO, and due to the historiographical current I follow, the concept of "Celt" refers to a sense of heritage, it's also the fruit of an ancient need that humans have always required to develop an identity. However, this old need needs constant reevaluation by part of the modern historiography. In the 18th century, the concept of "Celt" gained value when the modern Celtic languages were connected with the ancient Gallic language. However, the term Celt doesn't have a sole meaning, for example, it has been used to refer to the characters that appear in "The Adventures of Asterix", the Scotts of the highlands or the ancient druids indiscriminately. The terms of "Keltoi", "Galli" and "Galatae" of the ancient written sources, as well as the ethnonym "Celtici" of the peoples of the southwestern Iberian Peninsula have been also put in relation with the Celtic world. Also, since the 19th century, the first archaeological studies gave birth to the archaeological groups such as the La Tène culture that allowed several researchers to link linguistic concepts and historiographical perceptions with archaeological data eventually. One of the problems of the classical studies about the Celtic world is that the concept of Celt has been strongly associated with the La Tène culture, in other words, the Celts of the Iberian Peninsula have been systematically ignored (the Hispano-Celts had their own material culture with only a few elements that belonged to the La Tène culture). At best, they have been understood as a mere extension of the Celtic world of temperate Europe. Nowadays, this is starting to change, especially in the French academic and research works and in a lesser degree in the English ones. However, modern academic clarification about the meaning of the word “Celt” is still needed.

    It’s important to note that recently, Barry Cunliffe's and John T. Koch questioned the traditional model of the Celtic world that supported the idea that the Celts originated from Central Europe and then, they migrated to other areas (British Isles, Iberian Peninsula, etc.). Regarding this matter, see, for example, the series of Celtic from the West of the above authors:

    -Koch, J. T.; Cunliffe, B. (Eds.) (2012): "Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature". Oxbow Books, Oxford.

    -Koch, J. T.; Cunliffe, B. (Eds.) (2013): "Celtic from the West 2: Rethinking the Bronze Age and the Arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe". Oxbow Books, Oxford.

    -Koch, J. T.; Cunliffe, B. (Eds.) (2016): "Celtic from the West 3: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages: questions of shared language". Oxbow Books, Oxford.

    It's also interesting:

    -Jean Manco (2015): "Blood of the Celts: The New Ancestral Story". Thames & Hudson Ltd.

    “Celtic from the West” speaks about a new theory supported by the last archaeological, language and genetic studies that are proving the idea that the origin of the Celtic world is in the Atlantic world (from the north of the British Isles to the south of the Iberian Peninsula). Some ideas synthesized in the following maps:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






    Definitely, this is a new revolutionary model that will be enriched in the future thanks to the genetic studies. According to these modern theories, the origin of the Atlantic Celts can be dated back from the 3rd millennium BC. This was the time when the Bell Beaker culture arrived and occupied some of the traditional areas that were populated by historic Celtic peoples eventually. This doesn't mean that the Bell Beaker started the Celticization of Europe but the fact that some groups of this culture might have spread some proto-Celtic traits. This is, for example, supported by some historians such as Martín Almagro Gorbea.

    Map of the Bell Beaker culture and the local pottery traditions:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Regarding the Iberian Peninsula, we must start to abandon some old ideas such as the basic belief that the Celtiberians are the sum of Celts and Iberians. The main archaeological Celtic groups of the Iberian Peninsula (Celtiberian, Vetton, Vaccean, the Castro Culture of the northwest, Asturian-Cantabrian, Carpetanian and Celtici of the southwest) can be seen in the following map:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    The main modern hypothesis about the genesis of these Hispano-Celtic groups is based on the Almagro Gorbea's idea that speaks about a Celticization of the Iberian Peninsula through a cumulative process that follows a "mosaic model”. This hypothesis is well represented in the following map and diagram:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






    The basis of this hypothesis is the belief of the existence of an Atlantic proto-Celtic substratum originated from small groups of the Bell Beaker culture that reached several western regions (British Isles, Brittany, Iberian Peninsula). These Atlantic proto-Celts of the Bronze Age are the ones that occupied the Hispano-Celtic Iberian Peninsula, in other words, the Inner Plateau, as well as the north and the west of the Iberian Peninsula excluding the eastern Mediterranean area. Among their cultural traits, it should be noted the existence of solar beliefs, development of warrior stelae, the rite of depositing weapons in caves and in the water (a cultural trait that was preserved until the Roman arrival to the Iberian Peninsula) and the absence of the rite of cremation. This proto-Celtic substratum evolved in the 1st millennium BC coming into contact with the Tartessians of the south and the Celtiberians of the east. These peninsular interactions are one of the main reasons that explain the differences between the Hispano-Celtic peoples and the Celts from beyond the Pyrenees.

    The Celticization or "Celtibericization" of the Iberian Peninsula, that can be detected in the archaeological data, would have started since the 6th century BC due to the fact that the dynamic Celtiberian society was experiencing an expansion during the Iron Age. The Celtiberian ethnogenesis was the fruit of the common proto-Celtic Atlantic substratum and the contributions and interactions with other archaeological culture from the Ebro valley, the so-called Urnfield culture. This archaeological culture would have been formed by Celtic peoples originated from Central Europe, some groups settled themselves in the Ebro valley at the start of the first millennium BC and introduced some urban patterns and the funeral rite of cremation in the Celtiberian nuclear area giving rise to the historical Celtiberians of the Iron Age.

    Expansion of the Urnfield culture in the Iberian Peninsula:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    The Eastern Inner Plateau (Celtiberian homeland since the end of the 7th century BC- 6th century BC) is the nuclear area from which the Celtiberian culture was spread to the west (middle Douro river), to the north-west and east (upper and middle Ebro river) and to the south (Tagus basin) reaching the Celtici lands in the south-west. The result of this process favoured the urbanization and included the introduction of a "Mediterranean market economy" and the dissemination of Celtiberian material culture (weapons, horse-shaped brooches and painted pottery). This Celticization of the Iberian Peninsula, that came from the Celtiberian nuclear homeland through a "mosaic model" of a cumulative effect, contributed to the development of the different Hispano-Celtic historical groups of the Iron Age (Vettons, Vacceans, Cantabrians, etc.) and it also explains the reason why each group had unique traits (heterogeneous material culture and languages) but at the same time shared several features due to the shared Atlantic proto-Celtic substratum that additionally would have facilitated the Celticization. It should be noted that the idea of this Celticization/Celtibericization does not necessarily include large displacements of people/migrations, instead, acculturation would have played a more important role.

    The Hispano-Celtic peoples don't show a homogeneous culture, while in the Atlantic lands there are no known necropoleis, Celtiberians, Vacceans and Vettons practised funeral rites based on cremation. Celtiberians, and probably other peoples such as the Vacceans also practised the exposure of the corpse to the vultures (a rite only for warriors killed in combat). The original simple Celtiberian hillforts became complex oppida/cities (between 20-70 hectares). It highlights the cases of Segeda and Contrebia Carbica. The famous Numantia was more modest (about 8 hectares) while the biggest Hispano-Celtic oppida, called Ulaca, has been found in the Vetton lands. The architecture also varied depending on the regions. The Castro culture of the north-west was based on hillforts with roundhouses of Atlantic-type while the rest of Hispano-Celtic peoples developed rectangular-plan houses, being the clay predominant as a building material in the Celtiberian and Vaccean lands while the Vettons developed a real "Granite Culture". A common trait of most of these peoples was the development of oppida that worked as city-states that controlled their hinterlands formed by farms and villages where most of the population inhabited. In the case of the Vacceans, each oppidum would have controlled a political territory of about 400-500 square kilometres according to the last archaeological data. These city-states, as it's shown in the written sources, were managed by councils of elders, magistrates and assemblies of freemen.

    Heavily synthesized: in regard to the Gallaeci and Astures, unlike the traditional studies say, the Castro culture of the northwest was very well connected with both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean worlds. Currently, new studies focus their efforts on remark the Atlantic connections between different places of the Atlantic coast (British Isles, Brittany, North-western Iberian Peninsula) since the Bronze Age and fruit of the local naval activities.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    New Archaeological data also show the existence of sites of Punic nature that would have worked as ports of trade in this north-western cultural context.



    ---

    Recommended bibliography (in English) regarding the Celts of the Iberian Peninsula. Note that all the following papers can be downloaded for free:


    -Lorrio, Alberto J. and Zapatero, Gonzalo Ruiz (2005) "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview," e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies: Vol. 6 , Article 4.
    Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol6/iss1/4

    -Álvarez-Sanchís, Jesús R. (2005) "Oppida and Celtic society in western Spain," e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies: Vol. 6 , Article 5.
    Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol6/iss1/5

    -Almagro-Gorbea, Martín (2004) "War and Society in the Celtiberian World," e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies: Vol. 6 , Article 2.
    Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol6/iss1/2

    -Gamito, Teresa Júdice (2005) "The Celts in Portugal," e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies: Vol. 6 , Article 11.
    Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol6/iss1/11

    -Sopeña, Gabriel (2005) "Celtiberian Ideologies and Religion," e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies: Vol. 6 , Article 7.
    Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol6/iss1/7

    -Garcia Moreno, Luis A. (2006) "Celtic Place- and Personal-names in Spain and the Socio-political Structure and Evolution of the Celtiberians," e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies: Vol. 6 , Article 14.
    Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol6/iss1/14

    -Mozota, Francisco Burillo (2005) "Celtiberians: Problems and Debates," e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies: Vol. 6 , Article 8.
    Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/ekeltoi/vol6/iss1/8
    Last edited by Trarco; February 04, 2020 at 11:26 PM.

  10. #5150

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Atlantic Celtic or "Celtic from the West" is very much a minority view, most of whose proponents seem to be working in Spain or the UK, so it could almost be seen as nationalist history. Don't get sucked into thinking that this is the "new" idea replacing the "old" one centred on the Hallstatt culture. Koch is well respected in the field of Early Welsh, but his attempts to show that Tartessian inscriptions are Celtic haven't convinced many other people active in the field of Celtic languages (and that includes me, for what little it's worth)
    Resident Language Geek
    Baseless Assertions on the Celts Since 1996

  11. #5151
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar I am your sovereign now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,952

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Trarco View Post
    In this case, "Celtiberian" and "Hispano-Celtic" are just modern terms that refer to different academic concepts. All the Celtiberian peoples are Hispano-Celtic peoples but not all the Hispano-Celtic peoples are Celtiberians (think of Cantabrians, Vacceans, Vettons, Celtici, Gallaeci...).
    Thanks for the followup and further clarification, and this absolutely impressive array of sources you've cited here. I'll have to investigate some of these.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmetiacos View Post
    Atlantic Celtic or "Celtic from the West" is very much a minority view, most of whose proponents seem to be working in Spain or the UK, so it could almost be seen as nationalist history. Don't get sucked into thinking that this is the "new" idea replacing the "old" one centred on the Hallstatt culture. Koch is well respected in the field of Early Welsh, but his attempts to show that Tartessian inscriptions are Celtic haven't convinced many other people active in the field of Celtic languages (and that includes me, for what little it's worth)
    I'm very curious about this now, because I was always under the impression that Indo-European peoples and later cultures spawned from proto-Indo-European groups always came from the east, emanating from the Caucasus, Pontic Steppe and the Baltic. I wasn't even aware of some new debate about Celtic cultures springing forth from Western Europe and filtering towards the east from the opposite direction. Isn't the Bronze Age Urnfield culture of Central Europe still considered by a majority of scholars to be the first proto-Celtic speaking culture, preceding the Hallstatt of the Iron Age?

  12. #5152

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmetiacos View Post
    Atlantic Celtic or "Celtic from the West" is very much a minority view, most of whose proponents seem to be working in Spain or the UK, so it could almost be seen as nationalist history.
    Nationalist history? that's a serious accusation. Nationalist point of views was a major problem during the Franco Regime in Spain. It promoted a lot of misconceptions and lack of research. Fortunately, modern historiography has strongly fought against Nationalist historiography through a scientific model. I invite you to find nationalist history in the Spanish papers I quoted in my last post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmetiacos View Post
    Don't get sucked into thinking that this is the "new" idea replacing the "old" one centred on the Hallstatt culture.
    I know that currently, it's not the majority point of view but you can't deny that concepts such as "cumulative celticity" or "proto-Celtic substratum" are being recently adopted as an alternative to the models that propose simple migrations of one or more Celtic peoples (a model that is rooted in nineteenth-century point of views).

    Personally, in spite of the fact that "Celtic from the West" is interesting, I don't support it. I spoke about it in order to show the constant evolution of the Celtic studies and the lack of consensus of what the word "Celt" means.

    That said, I do support the "cumulative celticity" concept to understand the development of the different historical Celts. And of course, as a supporter of the mosaic model to explain the Celticization of the Iberian Peninsula, I do support the arrival of Proto-Celtic/Celtic peoples from Central Europe, and more specifically I'm referring to the Urnfield culture that introduced both the cremation rite and the house of rectangular plan (two important traits of the Celtiberian culture) in the Ebro Valley and the inner Plateau.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmetiacos View Post
    Koch is well respected in the field of Early Welsh, but his attempts to show that Tartessian inscriptions are Celtic haven't convinced many other people active in the field of Celtic languages (and that includes me, for what little it's worth)
    As a close follower of the Eugenio R. Luján's research, I perfectly know it. It may surprise you to know, but the vast majority of Spanish philologists don't support Koch's theory at all. Anyway, Koch's theory finds more credibility in the archaeological results.

    As an archaeologist, I believe in the importance of interdisciplinary research. Archaeological theories about the genesis of the Celtic world must be combined with other studies such as anthropology and ethnography (for example, recently, several Celtic cultural elements have been detected in the medieval poem of Mio Cid after an intelligent analysis). Of course, the analysis of the written sources and the paleo-linguistic are fundamental for these interdisciplinary models of researching. Regarding this and the Koch's theory, the new and future genetic studies will shed light on the matter. For the moment all of these theories are in an embryonic state.
    Last edited by Trarco; February 06, 2020 at 05:18 PM.

  13. #5153
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    892

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmetiacos View Post
    Atlantic Celtic or "Celtic from the West" is very much a minority view, most of whose proponents seem to be working in Spain or the UK, so it could almost be seen as nationalist history. Don't get sucked into thinking that this is the "new" idea replacing the "old" one centred on the Hallstatt culture. Koch is well respected in the field of Early Welsh, but his attempts to show that Tartessian inscriptions are Celtic haven't convinced many other people active in the field of Celtic languages (and that includes me, for what little it's worth)
    I agree, there are several flaws in Cunliffe and Koch narratives, moreover their stubbornness about alternative theories for IE origins is quite irritating. I also feel like it's misplaced chauvinism.

    Nevertheless, I appreciate their efforts aimed at putting the role of the Atlantic zone back on the scene. I think that the opposing view Celtic from the East vs Celtic from the West is as much BS as was the Corded-Ware vs. Bell-Beaker debate before recent discoveries. In the end, both Corded-Ware and Bell Beaker horizons are the key to explain the IE spread. Even if the latter began as a non-IE culture.

    Their idea of cumulative celticity is not new but I think this is the key of the problem. No single culture corresponds to the Celtic world as it was established early in the Iron Age.

    And more researchers are now focusing on the Atlantic zone:
    Pierre-Yves Milcent. Premier âge du Fer médio-atlantique et genèse multipolaire des cultures matérielles laténiennes.
    Pierre-Yves Milcent. Le temps des élites en Gaule atlantique. Chronologie des mobiliers et rythmes de constitution des dépôts métalliques dans le contexte européen (XIIIe-VIIe s. av. J.-C.).
    Jon Henderson. The Atlantic Iron Age: Settlement and Identity in the First Milennium BC.
    Thomas Hugh Moore, Tom Moore, and Xosê-Lois Armada. Atlantic Europe in the first millennium BC: Crossing the divide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trarco
    I do support the arrival of Proto-Celtic/Celtic peoples from Central Europe, and more specifically I'm referring to the Urnfield culture that introduced both the cremation rite and the house of rectangular plan (two important traits of the Celtiberian culture) in the Ebro Valley and the inner Plateau.
    A problem with the Urnfield culture is the fact it is not a culture in a strict sense. It looks more like a horizon or a complex of cultures like were the Corded-Ware and Bell Beaker. I doubt the people from the Lusatian culture was speaking the same language as the other cultures adopting the cremation burials.

    A second problem is the lack of deep spread in the British isles and in Western Iberia. Clearly there are Celtic cultures without any influence from the Urnfield horizon. But you already noticed it in your previous message.
    Last edited by Genava; February 08, 2020 at 09:45 AM.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  14. #5154

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Props to the team for the Late Celtiberian champions!
    They are lighter than expected, though. Were Iberian elites noticeably less wealthy than their Gallic counterparts?

  15. #5155
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar I am your sovereign now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,952

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    I'm not sure that would be the case considering the sheer proliferation of large fortified settlements among the Castro Culture at the very least. These were clearly a people and civilization with not just manpower but resources on their side, an aristocratic class like most other advanced societies at the time, and their material culture produced some fine metalwork from what I've seen here in this thread and others. Celtiberians weren't exactly a bunch of filthy rotten poor people looking for handouts, using food stamps, daring to breathe clean air within a mile of gated communities, smelling like the inside of one of those pedestrian/plebeian metro trains and looking to Bernie Sanders to provide them with Medicare for All. Eww! That's gross!

  16. #5156

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    So, some of them elected to fight without body armor?

  17. #5157

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Props to the team for the Late Celtiberian champions!
    They are lighter than expected, though. Were Iberian elites noticeably less wealthy than their Gallic counterparts?

    No, not exactly. In the early Celtiberian period the local elite buried themselves with costly panoplies formed by long thrusting spears and bronze cardiophylax. In EBII time frame (Middle-Late Celtiberian periods) these Celtiberian warriors aristocracies are becoming an urban equestrian elite. According to the archaeological record, the costly panoplies disappeared and were replaced by new material culture used by the new urban elite as a symbol of status (specialised pottery, fine jewellery in the shape of horses, etc). So, definitely we are not speaking about a poor aristocracy, but about a more refined elite that is starting to adopt the Iberian alphabet to write the first Celtiberian public texts and are developing new cultural symbols associated with the rise of the city-states. Romanization boosted this phenomenon.


    In regard to the defensive panoply and unlike the offensive one, we can't find it in the archaeological record. It may be due to a cultural pattern (the deadman was not buried with the armour) alternatively, most of these armours could have been of organic nature like it is attested in the written sources. It would also be possible that many warriors fought without armour as a symbol of bravery. The written sources also say that only a few locals (Lusitanian context) were able to have chainmail armours although they also describe Celtiberian aristocratic warriors with golden armours which glittered in the sun (maybe a reference to the archaic cardiophylax?).


    The concept of this unit is based on the above ideas but additionally, you should think of this unit as a unit formed by two types of warriors: on the one hand, we have the warrior/urban aristocracies (formed by the armoured men) on the other hand, the unit also represents their retinues (the famous devotii warriors) that you can associate with the relatively unarmoured men.
    Last edited by Trarco; February 21, 2020 at 02:08 PM.

  18. #5158

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Thank you!

  19. #5159
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar I am your sovereign now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,952

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    I simply love the new Early Lusitanian Cavalry and their bright colors and patterned clothes and shields, they look awesome! You guys are also doing a great job improving and adding variety and realism to the different heads & faces of the soldiers. Is this cavalry unit very light, like with 1 or 2 armor points? They seem to have some body armor but only some have hats, with no bronze or iron helmets. Does the Late Lusitanian Cavalry have helmets? I can't remember.

    I hold the same opinion for the new Cantabrian cavalry, equally awesome looking indeed. Well done, Zarrr, Mathieu and Trarco!

  20. #5160

    Default Re: EB-Twitter updates Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    I simply love the new Early Lusitanian Cavalry and their bright colors and patterned clothes and shields, they look awesome! You guys are also doing a great job improving and adding variety and realism to the different heads & faces of the soldiers. Is this cavalry unit very light, like with 1 or 2 armor points? They seem to have some body armor but only some have hats, with no bronze or iron helmets. Does the Late Lusitanian Cavalry have helmets? I can't remember.
    Quintus is the one who can reply to your question of the stats. Regarding the other matters, these horsemen can't have iron helmets because of the only iron helmets (of La Tene typology) attested in the Iberian Peninsula belong to the non-Celtic Iberian area. However, you can expect better-armoured horsemen in the case of the late version. As the written sources say, they will have helmets with three plumes (bronze Montefortino) and apart from the armour of organic nature you have noted, a few of them will have chainmail armours.



    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    I hold the same opinion for the new Cantabrian cavalry, equally awesome looking indeed.
    Regarding this unit, I would suggest focusing the attention in a special dagger for a moment. It the so-called Monte Bernorio-type dagger. It was a beautiful weapon (that included silver and copper damascene) typical of the aristocrats but not too useful for fighting. The late version of this unit will show how this ineffective dagger was transformed into a useful deadly dagger. Probably, this process of transformation was due to the war against Rome and the influence of the Celtiberian Bidiscoidal-type dagger (the dagger that was transformed into the pugio by Romans).


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 







    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Well done, Zarrr, Mathieu and Trarco!
    Definitely, Zarrr, Mathieu and wermez are making great work with the revamped units of the Iberian Peninsula.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •