Excellent work, very fine units and art work. Not sure why you didn't just put Alans, Saka and Lazyges under a general Sarmatian title though?
Excellent work, very fine units and art work. Not sure why you didn't just put Alans, Saka and Lazyges under a general Sarmatian title though?
Yeah with their spread out towns and 'uncivilised' economy they wouldn't get too powerful. Plus their aor units would sort of represent individual tribes. Thus would free up a faction slot...I'm probably in a minority with that suggestion though![]()
You could still do that if you become strong enough to subdue the other two factions though, thus, it makes it a lot more interesting for starting as one of them to have neighbours around too, rather than just having your own small empire, which would be really boring.
Variety is the spice of life, and all that!
I like very much the idea Knonbro! Also for the Germanic tribes we could imagine the objective of creating the big Confederations: Franks, Alamans, Goths........they might be very interesting campaign objectives for the not-Roman players.....![]()
It is an interesting idea. Though the same objective of recreating the same the big confederations can be achieved with AOR units?
Last edited by Sertorio; January 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM.
Texture works by Sertorio, banner courtesy of Joar
My AAR for VGRII-AQUILAE
IMHO yes for sure Sertorio! But here I'm only a grain of sand swept by the wind........(what a poetry! what a philosopher! What a man!......I love myself!....
........today!
)
To be honest...there's going to be a Heruli AAR, from me, of that you can be sure. Death to the Romans!
Slight necro, sorry.
But couldn't you start as a small tribe and conquer "rebels" (Colorful ones at least) and once you conquer them you get specific AoR units. But of course there needs to be a balance or else you have huge amounts of "rebels" on the map.
炸鸡
MMFA, it is one thing to have an opinion and back it up with your own thoughts and researches and quite another to make a bald statement about the hard work and research of others and when challenged simply post up a link to a thread in another forum where a single unpublished non-academic holds forth his own opinion.
Now while his research may be solid and in-depth, it is still one man's conclusion and runs counter to other thoughts and scholarly works. And while I do not doubt his research in principle I have not read it only his conclusions. Were I to make a claim the opposite of his and preface it with the statement that 'I have studied this over many years and have found nearly everyone to wrong about this, etc., etc.,' would you believe me? I doubt it.
I would be very interested in your own thoughts and research given you have made such a bald statement. Otherwise you are simply parroting another's opinion here which, to be honest, is a little smug.
I write this after reading many of your thoughts and opinions on Aetius and know that you indeed are capable of research and debate on a topic dear to you.
For what it is worth, his opinion in the RAT thread is a strong and well-thought one but it would be wrong to take it as fact until he has published and the merits of his research have survived scrutiny in the academic world. Until then, I respect his opinion but would never parrot it as fact nor use it to state that the modders have got something wrong.
This is from Oxford Classical Dictionary.
Yazyges: a Sarmatian nomadic people (see sarmatae), originally lived near the Lower Danube (Ov. Pont. 1. 2. 7 f.), ...
This is from Encyclopedia Britannica:
Yaziges:...Sarmatians, a combination of tribes who had overwhelmed and replaced the Scythians, their distant kinsmen, in eastern Europe. The assailants were repelled without undue difficulty; but the Sarmatian Iazyges, now firmly in control of the region between the Tisza and Danube rivers, posed a threat for the future.
This is from Pauly. Brill Online , 2013
Iazyges, Iazuges (Ἰάζυγες; Iázyges). Iranian-Sarmatian tribe, first documented around the birth of Christ. They probably settled from the 3rd cent. BC at the earliest on the Maeotis east of the Tanais in the area of the Roxolani (Ptol. 3,7; Amm. Marc. 22,8,31). In the 1st cent. BC a branch of the I. turned towards the southwest, crossed the Carpathians and settled on the plains between the lower Danube and the Tibiscus (later the province of Pannonia; cf. Ov. Pont. 4,7,9; Tr. 2,191; Ἰάζ…
From Sarmatia URNV History:
Yaziges: By the first century BC, Sarmatians came into direct contact with Rome through Mithridates VI of Pontus. In the employ of the Pontic King, the Sarmatians ran helped bring Asia Minor under his rule, and likely wreaking havoc in Greece and the Balkans, at the expense of Rome. These alliances would eventually be crushed by Pompey and by Caesar in the mid 1st century BC, but the Sarmatians would continue to be a threat to Rome for another several centuries. External pressures from marauding Huns and other eastern people pushed the Sarmatians farther west. The Iazyges, certainly the most commonly known tribe to the Romans, settled along the Danube, between Dacia and Pannonia, soon to be in direct conflict with Rome.
From the Encyclopedia of Europeans Peoples:
Yazyges: The Yazyges were an Iranian -speaking tribe, their nomadica ancestros originally from Asia, they are classified as Sarmatians.
Soooo, in My Not Humble Opinion, the damn Yazyges were damn Sarmatians!
...So let's go with those damn Cataphracts & Contus!
.
Last edited by Diocle; February 01, 2013 at 12:31 PM.
I see your point SBH, I was merely re-stating something I had learned, that's all.
Ive been waiting for this one for a while, hope you can finish it soon.![]()
"Today I saw a slave become more powerful than the Emperor of Rome"
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]