Next DLC: Conquest of Britain?

[Comrade_Rory]

Oh really? Why has it always to be a DLC campaign about Celts? Seriously we had already 2 dlc campaigns which covers boring celts. Where is the love for Hellas? They don't even have Corinth, Sicyon, Thebes or Halicarnassus, Miletus,Aetolian league,Aegean league included in the main game. Why don't they make a DLC about Ancient greece? Also the battle of Waling street was just a bunch of barbarians storming the roman shield wall without tactics and got slaughtered by the romans. Why not thinking out of the box and make a Peloponnesian war DLC with the historical battle of Delium? Or perhaps slightly out of date the battle of Leuctra? Dissapointed if they're going to make another dlc about Barbarians

As other people have already said in this thread that Britain was apparently the least Romanised province not to mention that post-Roman occupation of Britain, it was mainly inhabited by Germanic and Celtic peoples anyway.
The Greeks may have shaped the ancient world but the modern world is how it is mainly thanks to Germanic people.

The Celts were more advanced than generally believed.

Thirdly, Boudica's rebellion =/= Roman conquest of Britain. The Roman conquest of Britain was a long campaign with lots of interesting events, characters and factions. The Roman conquest of Britain lasted longer than that of Gaul.
Just because there may be a model of Boudica and files for the Battle of Watling Street, doesn't mean the DLC will be about the surrounding events.

There's only one Celtic faction from the British isles... why is it so horrible that they add more?

[TheCenturion24]

On the topic of the DLC; the fact is, there hasn't been a Hellenic DLC yet (except the ridiculous, STUPID fact they made us purchase the Hellenic player factions ON LAUNCH). We've had Gaul, and we've had Carthage. I'm not a fan of Rome II, but let me say that I think for the sake of diversity it'd make sense to go somewhere they hadn't really looked at yet.

It's not like the Britons in Rome II are that different to the central European factions, except one's coloured blue and the other green.

I suggest you look at some faction unlocker mods; there's a fair few factions you can play in Britain, and provide a better challenge than the default Iceni. Furthermore, if CA were to release more 'packs' for Britain, then apparently we can't use them without paying them extra cash, and it's not like they're actually going to add much anyway.

[ABH2]

Comrade_Rory

Thirdly, Boudica's rebellion =/= Roman conquest of Britain. The Roman conquest of Britain was a long campaign with lots of interesting events, characters and factions. The Roman conquest of Britain lasted longer than that of Gaul.

This is the actual point of this thread. I keep seeing people state this, but I don't see what they're referring to. It took a while because it was done piecemeal. Yes, there were setbacks and a few Roman defeats. It lacks substance, however, and it wasn't a grand campaign. It's one of the least memorable wars you could pick.

And even going beyond that, the mini-campaigns so far have featured a heavy dose of Gauls/barbarians. CiG, which already had a more focused Britain to conquer, and HaTG which still had, what, 4-5 Gallic factions and a ton of Iberians? They have pretty similar unit rosters in game.

Chevalier IX

I believe again my friend you are missing the entire point,that being I am in no way,shape or form attempting to argue for the presence and inclusion of entire legions of women on the battlefield,but instead for the fact that they were in fact there in small numbers varying by society.My reference to social construct was not intended toward the concept of Gender,but simply gender interest and ability,as well as the construct of Matriarchy vs Patriarchy.

I mean, it's hard to argue with a statement that watered down. The ancient world was brutal, and women weren't spared from it. I'm sure they did what they could to defend themselves, and in some cultures, yes, there were occasional female warriors. I don't see how you want that represented in game, however. That's the real point. Organized units of female fighters wouldn't be accurate, and some of us do care about that.

folk find it hard to imagine a significantly tougher and hardier woman than that which is found today taking up a military cause when here in our own world we have female combat and military participants present in the armed forces of all major,and numerous minor,nations.

The American military did not have females in combat roles. They are only now experimenting with it, and the early results haven't been good. The few females the Marines had for their infantry officer course failed last I heard about it. I don't know how other nations do it. I'm aware Israel and others use females in combat roles.

Lastly,whether there is a place on earth TODAY that sees men and women of the same height is wholly irrelevant in a conversation concerning the ancient world as it has been evidenced time and time again that the human body and overall experience has changed dramatically over the centuries and judgements of the past based on information from the present are wholly erroneous

Are you suggesting that in the course of 2,000 years the entire human race across the world has, for whatever reason, evolved so that the height differential between the sexes has grown? I don't know what would have caused that. I'm almost certain that wouldn't be enough time for evolution to take place, let alone for it to happen globally. The human body has changed because of environmental factors (Ex - diet/nutrition). Biologically, we are essentially the same as the people of the ancient world. Women are healthier today, on average, than they were back then. I mean, I could keep picking at this, but I think the point is made.

My reference to female participation being more than a little bit of a detriment to Roman advance is backed by Tim Newark,a note military scholar,as portrayed in his book "Woman Warlords" which also covers much of what I have referenced and more in the case of female combatants not only on the field by of course in the Arenas of Rome as well.

I'm assuming there is an index, correct? What sources did he use for the account of the battle? I've already quoted the source material on the events. They were camp followers who defended themselves. I see a bland assertion and an appeal to authority here, but nothing of substance. What took place in the arenas of Rome for entertainment has little relevance to the battlefields.

As well,keep in mind,that often times there is no source for the fact that frankly we never discovered one accompanying the text,as much of what we have and know of the era has no known source or author.

Are we getting into unknown unknowns, or known unknowns here? The absence of evidence that something didn't happen isn't evidence that it, well, did.

it is erroneous to assume in ones own interest despite contradicting evidence

There is no contradicting evidence presented here. Nor do I have a particular interest in anything but the facts. If you want female units represented in game, I'd like to see some actual evidence.

and as for why a male dominated society would exempt mention of the presence of women from historical records,well,there is a well fount of books,studies,lectures and information concerning that very point by some of the leading minds not only in their field,but in the academic world

This, for instance, is not evidence. It's another assertion and appeal to authority. Here you didn't even name particular scholars. You think the ancient world had some conspiracy to hide the role women played in other cultures? What, were they scared of a female revolt? I think you're projecting onto the past with talk like this.

but simply gender interest and ability,

Then you are referring to exactly what I mentioned. I'm not going to pretend as if this is settled science, but a number of studies have been done that have found that there are natural differences between the sexes even at a young age. That is what people talk about when they talk about gender being a social construct (interest and abilities). They've found biological tendencies in primates and humans in a number of studies. There is counter evidence, and I'm not going to pretend there isn't. But here's one study of interest:

"Of their 16 affected subjects, 14 had been reassigned female at birth. At follow-up, between ages 5 to 12, 8 of those reassigned female now identified as boys. The children and their parents completed a battery of questionnaires assessing psychosexual development, sexual identity, and gendered behavior. Follow-up assessments were done at least annually ranging from 34 to 98 months follow-up. All of the subject had moderate-to-marked male-typical attitudes and interests."
http://www.isna.org/node/564

And, of course, there are biological differences between the sexes in all species. In humans, males are, on average, larger. In that rougher and harder world you mentioned, gender differences most likely would have been magnified, not minimized. Today in the developed world we perform tasks that require less physical strength, and there's more interchangeability. More males and females are going to be able to cross over and break the older gender roles. There are exceptions and different cultures have different structures (as well as variations). There is still nothing presented that shows the Celts/Gauls were anything but patriarchal. Even if it was matriarchal, that has more to do with the social organization than the particular roles they filled. Women are still universally the primary care providers for children. They are still, on average, physically weaker and smaller in stature than males.

[Templar Knight]

As other people have already said in this thread that Britain was apparently the least Romanised province not to mention that post-Roman occupation of Britain, it was mainly inhabited by Germanic and Celtic peoples anyway.
The Greeks may have shaped the ancient world but the modern world is how it is mainly thanks to Germanic people.

The Celts were more advanced than generally believed.

Thirdly, Boudica's rebellion =/= Roman conquest of Britain. The Roman conquest of Britain was a long campaign with lots of interesting events, characters and factions. The Roman conquest of Britain lasted longer than that of Gaul.
Just because there may be a model of Boudica and files for the Battle of Watling Street, doesn't mean the DLC will be about the surrounding events.

There's only one Celtic faction from the British isles... why is it so horrible that they add more?

There has been only one dlc that added Greek factions, and a good number of people got that dlc for free. Compare that to CiG, which not only added new celts to the grand campaign but also an entire mini-campaign focused in on the Roman conquest of Gaul, and any reasonable person would see that far more celt related content has been released for this game then greek themed dlc. With that in mind, it is entirely reasonable for people to expect CA to take a break from celts for a while and go release content for other factions/cultures.

[Chevalier IX]

there is some rather convincing new archaeology which would suggest that the presence and participation of female combatants on the ancient battlefield amongst the steppe tribes,celts and germanics was not nearly as rare as the patriarchal retelling of history would have us believe. Keep in mind that the concept of women as a weaker variant of their superior manfolk and thereby unfit to stand in opposition to their enemies or side by side with their kin is a social construct introduced into Europa by the incursion of Christianity and its inherent patriarchy borrowed from eastern cultures,as such prejudice against your own daughters,wives,sisters was anathema to the pre christian tribes and mindset which often required ALL able hands to contribute to the defense of the stead and land,not to mention it it patently ridiculous to believe that cultures whom theology is laden with battle maidens,spear wives and war Goddesses would somehow disallow for this manifestation to occur amongst them as it does in the heavens(even from a euhemerist standpoint it is stated that the famed Valkyries were possibly inspired by accounts of Proto Germanic warrior women)with the Sagas and prior works wholly outlining female warriors(such as the band of 300 shield maidens present at Stiklstad) .History aside,it makes for good cinematic effect and drama,which is ultimately what Total War sets out to do,to recreate sweeping scenes of combat and intrigue set against a historical backdrop

[Duncan III]

there is some rather convincing new archaeology which would suggest that the presence and participation of female combatants on the ancient battlefield amongst the steppe tribes,celts and germanics was not nearly as rare as the patriarchal retelling of history would have us believe. Keep in mind that the concept of women as a weaker variant of their superior manfolk and thereby unfit to stand in opposition to their enemies or side by side with their kin is a social construct introduced into Europa by the incursion of Christianity and its inherent patriarchy borrowed from eastern cultures,as such prejudice against your own daughters,wives,sisters was anathema to the pre christian tribes and mindset which often required ALL able hands to contribute to the defense of the stead and land,not to mention it it patently ridiculous to believe that cultures whom theology is laden with battle maidens,spear wives and war Goddesses would somehow disallow for this manifestation to occur amongst them as it does in the heavens(even from a euhemerist standpoint it is stated that the famed Valkyries were possibly inspired by accounts of Proto Germanic warrior women)with the Sagas and prior works wholly outlining female warriors(such as the band of 300 shield maidens present at Stiklstad) .History aside,it makes for good cinematic effect and drama,which is ultimately what Total War sets out to do,to recreate sweeping scenes of combat and intrigue set against a historical backdrop

Top quality post Chevalier!
If I had rep enabled I'd rep ya! by the gods!

[RexImperator]

I wonder if we'll get the German Guards

[ABH2]

I have been waiting for ages for female soldiers, and generals, in vanilla Total War. I'm going to keep my hype down though, because it might just be for a special portrait for voice-over or maybe cutscenes.

Are there accounts of the natives using females that I'm unaware of? Yes, Boudica led a revolt. To even call her a general is a bit of a stretch. She led a disorganized mob in spirit and served as a rallying point for discontent. That's a little different from being the actual military commander.

there is some rather convincing new archaeology which would suggest that the presence and participation of female combatants on the ancient battlefield amongst the steppe tribes,celts and germanics was not nearly as rare as the patriarchal retelling of history would have us believe.

Such as? I'm supposed to believe the historical accounts all neglect to mention the fairly common use of female warriors?

the concept of women as a weaker variant of their superior manfolk and thereby unfit to stand in opposition to their enemies or side by side with their kin is a social construct

It's a 'social construct' observed by nearly every major culture. Females on the battlefield in history have been an exception, and to dismiss the biological component of that is rather baffling to me.

introduced into Europa by the incursion of Christianity and its inherent patriarchy borrowed from eastern cultures,

There's an inherent contradiction here. Why would Christianity be necessary to introduce a patriarchal structure which a number of pagan neighbors already practiced? You went from proposing a POSSIBILITY to stating this all as a certainty. It's an illogical one at that. The cultures without written records conveniently had female warriors across the board?

,not to mention it it patently ridiculous to believe that cultures whom theology is laden with battle maidens,spear wives and war Goddesses would somehow disallow for this manifestation to occur amongst them as it does in the heavens

As opposed to the other pantheon of gods which also included warrior goddesses in societies that remained patriarchal?

History aside,it makes for good cinematic effect and drama,which is ultimately what Total War sets out to do,to recreate sweeping scenes of combat and intrigue set against a historical backdrop

A large portion of the fanbase, particularly on these forums, prefers historical authenticity. A conquest of Britain DLC would be something I have little interest in, especially if they add made-up units...which, female or not, they will undoubtedly do because they need to increase the artificial difficulty of the campaign.

[Lord Baratheon]

there is some rather convincing new archaeology which would suggest that the presence and participation of female combatants on the ancient battlefield amongst the steppe tribes,celts and germanics was not nearly as rare as the patriarchal retelling of history would have us believe.Keep in mind that the concept of women as a weaker variant of their superior manfolk and thereby unfit to stand in opposition to their enemies or side by side with their kin is a social construct introduced into Europa by the incursion of Christianity and its inherent patriarchy borrowed from eastern cultures,as such prejudice against your own daughters,wives,sisters was anathema to the pre christian tribes

Gods, the same old .Yes, Christianity is the root of all evil in the world. How could I have forgotten. It's very interesting that you say christianity was an "incursion" into Europe. Anyhow, christianity spread throughout

Europe by way of the Roman Empire. Where does the term patriarchy come from? Thats right, Greece and Rome. That said, I know what kind of bias to expect in any piece of writing when I see the term "social construct". Back on topic, I will finish with this: you cannot change history to suit your own modern worldview.

That being said I see nothing wrong with Boudica being a general in game.

[AK47]

I think the next DLC will be a German one based on all the new tunics etc added for them in the beta patch 12.

[Clone1710]

I think the next DLC will be a German one based on all the new tunics etc added for them in the beta patch 12.

Do you have pictures of these tunics? I'm really hoping for a germanic tribes DLC, as their unit roster is kinda limited.

[IGdood]

Do you have pictures of these tunics? I'm really hoping for a germanic tribes DLC, as their unit roster is kinda limited.

Wodanaz Spears

[DividingSolid]

The Germans need some love. I want to see the Marcomanni and the Cherusci playable.

[jamreal18]

The Germans need some love. I want to see the Marcomanni and the Cherusci playable.

Cimbri and Cherusci for me.

Cant CA change factions color? Cherusci is another yellow...

[Ariovist]

The Germans need some love. I want to see the Marcomanni and the Cherusci playable.

The Marcomanni shouldn't be a faction at all.
They were a prominent suebian tribe and so should be a member of the suebian faction along with the Semnoni, the Langobardi, the Hermunduri and others.
If the Marcomanni are a single faction, there is no reason to not have the other suebian tribes as single factions as well, perhaps allied to each other.

CA just made an error here.

[Chevalier IX]

I think perhaps there are those here that were misreading my intentions or interests when I stated that the appearance of females on the pre christian battlefields of the ancient world amongst the Celt/Germanic/Slavic tribes and took it as meaning there were entire battalions of female combatants.This,of course was not the case. I do not wish to derail the thread by getting into a religious biological discussion on the matter,but I will ask as to what biological component is being referred to here when you state I have somehow ignored or otherwise left it out,as well as to ask exactly what "pagan neighbors" to the Celt Germanics you are referring to as having been patriarchal in practice and nature.Also,exactly what historical documents from the time of the proto germanic tribes are you referring to as having conveniently left out the participation of females as acive combatants,as the only surviving mainstream document is what was written by Caesar and Tacitus,which was of course full of error,bias,and and a failed attempt at familiarizing the Germanic folk to what they understood in Rome( Hermes analogous to Wotan..?? come on...),thanks in part to the Christian"incursion" which eliminated much of the history,traditions and culture we would have otherwise referenced for your answers.I think the issue here is not that I am imposing my modern concepts upon a far older society,but instead hat my detractors are doing just that by assuming that their societies,for lack of evidence to the contrary,must have functioned very similar to that of the other "major" cultures,which of course the tribal communities in question are not nor were they ever considered a part of.It has always startled me as to how vehemently the suggestion that women could/did take the field during military campaigns is attacked on this forum as being wholly a work of recurring fiction,though the detractors never seem to have much by way of supporting evidence save their own assertions.And yes,if you delve a bit deeper in the research than the perhaps one to two books on the subject of the female experience in pre Christian Europe,if you have read any at all,then you will find that it was quite far from what you might assume,and that,though not common in numbers,shield maidens were far from unheard of.

either way,here is a bit of food for thought...
Diodorus Siculus wrote "Among the Gauls the women are nearly as tall as the men, whom they rival in courage."

The Roman historian Plutarch described a battle in 102 B.C. between Romans and Celts: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry."

Among the ancient Celts women rulers and warriors were so common that when a group of Brigantian captives was brought to Rome in the reign of Claudius they automatically assumed his wife, Agrippina the Younger, was the ruler and ignored the Emperor while making their obeisance to her. -source,women warriors in the Roman/Celtic world

Archeological finds of Scythians have included female skeletons with bows, swords, and horses

On the walls of Hittite fortresses dating to 1300 BC paintings of woman warriors carrying axes and swords.

Zabibi and her successor Samsi reigned as Arabian warrior queens from approximately 740 to 720 BC. Both commanded armies containing large numbers of women.

Women were members of the venatores, (gladiators who fought wild animals in the Roman arena), according to the writings of Martial and Cassius Dio.
(source "Women's Life in Greece and Rome" - M.R.Lefkowitz & M.B.Fant)

also see the book "Women in Roman Britain" Lindsay Allason Jones

[Mary The Quene]

Of course. But I just don't think you should dismiss the celtic peoples as uncultured and uncivilised. Any good historian will tell you thats not the case. I can understand however, if you're from an eastern/Hellenic nation why

you would not want another "Roman V Celts" DLC campaign.

Ok i may be a bit biased but idk, Greeks/romans/persians/carthaginians managed themselves to write , build huge city's , have complex laws and ofcourse to be the founder of the current day democracy and republic. Also they have contributed much to philosophy and science. However point me out if i'm wrong on something because i don't know much about celts and the germanic tribes!

But even aside that argument it's just that Hellas is so badly developped! They don't even have some important city's on the campaign map like Sicyon,Thebes,Argos,Corinth. And the game doesn't even include the aetolian league and the aegean league
Why not use this map CA for an expansion?




We have already 2 DLC's about celts (cig and HATG, yes celts are also important in HATG) and they're well represented on the regular campaign map!

[RexImperator]

the aegean league

Tastes like iron.

[Kraut and Tea]

Ok i may be a bit biased but idk, Greeks/romans/persians/carthaginians managed themselves to write , build huge city's , have complex laws and ofcourse to be the founder of the current day democracy and republic. Also they have contributed much to philosophy and science. However point me out if i'm wrong on something because i don't know much about celts and the germanic tribes!

But even aside that argument it's just that Hellas is so badly developped! They don't even have some important city's on the campaign map like Sicyon,Thebes,Argos,Corinth. And the game doesn't even include the aetolian league and the aegean league
Why not use this map CA for an expansion?




We have already 2 DLC's about celts (cig and HATG, yes celts are also important in HATG) and they're well represented on the regular campaign map!

Look.

We can assume that there might be a mini campain DLC for each unlocked historic battle that is in the Game.

And if we assume that there will be 4 more expantions after conquest of Britain: "Parthian Wars - Rome vs Parthia", "Ceasars Civil War" and "Greek Wars".

Missing from it all are the Germans, so the might get an expantion without having further historic battles unlocked for them or just a faction pack.

My Guess is that the "Parthian Wars" DLC will come after Conquest of Britain DLC and that it will finaly unlock the two yet to be unlocked eastern Factions: Armenia and Media Apronane

I am not shure if there will be a civil war DLC, but there definatly is a Roman civil war historical battle in the files. I have no clue what such a campain will look like and what it could unlock for the game.

"Greek Wars" would probably unlock the Dacians and Thracians as playable faction, which if we are honest: All of us want. I guess it would be dumb by CA not to make it because it will easily be their most popular and most sold DLC.

And the Germans... Well, there are no historical battles about them unlocked in the files. So either expect a faction expantion pack. Or a small campain DLC.


I also think that there is a small possibility that CA will release 2 more Iberian factions via "FreeLC"

[Duncan III]

Ok i may be a bit biased but idk, Greeks/romans/persians/carthaginians managed themselves to write , build huge city's , have complex laws and ofcourse to be the founder of the current day democracy and republic. Also they have contributed much to philosophy and science. However point me out if i'm wrong on something because i don't know much about celts and the germanic tribes!

But even aside that argument it's just that Hellas is so badly developped! They don't even have some important city's on the campaign map like Sicyon,Thebes,Argos,Corinth. And the game doesn't even include the aetolian league and the aegean league
Why not use this map CA for an expansion?




We have already 2 DLC's about celts (cig and HATG, yes celts are also important in HATG) and they're well represented on the regular campaign map!

You are right of course, Greece and the East seem to have been neglected so far in the DLC campaigns.

Also, it's a joke to have Greece divided into just Athens and Sparta but it's part of the 'TW for dummies' approach of the dev team.