Next DLC: Conquest of Britain?

[Sint]

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?

Well and you know that the celts had democracy too,build city's and also had complex laws ?

[Suomen SuurRuhtinas]

Please no. We do not need more British tribes one is good enough. We need more different faction like Armenia, Numidia, Dacia, Thrace and Illyria.

[tungri_centurio]

not worth a penny,just like any DLC. if i buy all dlc for the game,it costs me over 100 euro's????????????
and that for a beta game,thats not worth the retail price.NUTS

[jamreal18]

For factions, I guess Illyria, Thrace, Dacia and Armenia, Pergamon, Cimmeria....

[Emperor Domitianus]

I would prefer something set in the east like in greece of Asia Minor.

[MathiasOfAthens]

COnquest of Britain DLC might be interesting. Would it include all of the isle of Britain and Ireland? Would it include northern gaul as well? Or all of Gaul? I would imagine it would only be Britain and Ireland and if so how many regions? 80? I would like for there to be many more. But would CA have the time to develop 80 different british tribal factions to fill the map. 1 region each?

[Emperor Domitianus]

COnquest of Britain DLC might be interesting. Would it include all of the isle of Britain and Ireland? Would it include northern gaul as well? Or all of Gaul? I would imagine it would only be Britain and Ireland and if so how many regions? 80? I would like for there to be many more. But would CA have the time to develop 80 different british tribal factions to fill the map. 1 region each?

If they do it well probably it will be like CIG type.

[Emperor Domitianus]

COnquest of Britain DLC might be interesting. Would it include all of the isle of Britain and Ireland? Would it include northern gaul as well? Or all of Gaul? I would imagine it would only be Britain and Ireland and if so how many regions? 80? I would like for there to be many more. But would CA have the time to develop 80 different british tribal factions to fill the map. 1 region each?

If they do it well probably it will be like CIG type.

[Duncan III]

COnquest of Britain DLC might be interesting. Would it include all of the isle of Britain and Ireland? Would it include northern gaul as well? Or all of Gaul? I would imagine it would only be Britain and Ireland and if so how many regions? 80? I would like for there to be many more. But would CA have the time to develop 80 different british tribal factions to fill the map. 1 region each?

Why would you want a faction for every region?

I think you're getting led astray by your idea of 'tribal'.

A 'tribe' is no different to a 'people' or a 'folk' and they can control large areas and have diplomatic relations and trade links over thousands of miles- Britain and Ireland are a collection of 'states' in this period, it's not small families of cavemen beating their neighbours with clubs.

[ABH2]

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 ou

When you refer to gender as a social construct, you are ignoring biological differences which studies have backed up. The most obvious and blatant example of a biological difference is simply average physical strength and endurance.

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.

The point was that Christianity was completely unnecessary to the larger point. The Romans had already conquered Gaul and Britain before they made contact with Christianity. The Germans already had contact with patriarchal societies. There's no logical reason to place emphasis on Christianity. Later in your post you reference Eastern cultures whose successors also had documented patriarchal orders well before the spread of monotheistic religions. It creates the impression that you are placing some level of blame on religions for cultures that existed well before hand.

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,

The key is the bold part at the end there. There isn't evidence to support the idea, so there's no actual reason to assume it. There's also no reason, for whatever biases the accounts had, for them to neglect to mention female warriors. Nor are Caesar and Tacitus the only accounts we have of the Celts. You basically acknowledged as much in this next quote:

Diodorus Siculus wrote "Among the Gauls the women are nearly as tall as the men, whom they rival in courage."

Here's another bias which a number of ancient writers were guilty of - trying to interest their readers. They were also guilty of reporting hearsay and second hand info. I'm unaware of a single place on the planet today where females have the same height as men. The quote itself is barely even circumstantial in this argument.

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."

This comes from an account of the Battle of Aquae Sextiae. The women did not participate in the battle. This comes in the aftermath of the Roman victory as they attacked the camp followers of the Ambrones:
Well, then, the Ambrones became separated by the stream; for they did not all succeed in getting across and forming an array, but upon the foremost of them the Ligurians at once fell with a rush, and the fighting was hand-to‑hand. Then the Romans came to the aid of the Ligurians, and charging down from the heights upon the Barbarians overwhelmed and turned them back. 6 Most of the Ambrones were cut down there in the stream where they were all crowded together, and the river was filled with their blood and their dead bodies; the rest, after the Romans had crossed, did not dare to face about, and the Romans kept slaying them until they came in their flight to their camp and waggons. 7 Here the women met them, swords and axes in their hands, and with hideous shrieks of rage tried to drive back fugitives and pursuers alike, the fugitives as traitors, and the pursuers as foes

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

No source is provided for this on that page (I Googled it). Here's what Tacitus claims Boudica said in her pre-battle speech:
"This," she said, "is not the first time that the Britons have been led to battle by a woman...Though a woman, my resolution is fixed:"

Doesn't sound like her presence was typical, even if not exceptional. No mention of women participating in the fighting, and Boudica herself died in the aftermath.

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

From what we know of the ancient nomadic tribes, they were patriarchal. Their ancestors certainly were. Either way, it's a completely different culture with a very different style of fighting. And according to Hippocrates:
A woman who takes to herself a husband no longer rides, unless she is compelled to do so by a general expedition.

A number of the graves found don't have horses (the male warriors all seem to).

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

Absolutely irrelevant to the Celts. Speculative in nature, and a number of other interpretations beyond females being common warriors is possible. A number of the ancients had religions that had warrior women in them (one of your arguments in your initial post). These included patriarchal societies such as that of the Greeks.

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

I don't have access to ancient Assyrian sources that mention these two queens, but who is the original source for the bit on their use of female warriors? Based on what we know of Arab culture in later times, powerful females would not have been rare. Female warriors? Different story.

[Sharpe]

Moar Celts, moar muscles

[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 think lacking adequate information from other side,it is erroneous to assume in ones own interest despite contradicting 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.And please note that my digression into other fields and cultures of the world was in the interest of a broader representation of female warriors in general cropping up in varying parts of the world,as they have,and did,occur.

I find it difficult to imagine why ,in a far harsher and demanding time as the one currently in question,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.Again,I encourage you to continue this endeavor and re read some of my points with the mind that I am not implying it was overtly common,but did in fact occur with enough regularity to justify female combatants in the milieu of a Total War game,even mixed models in a war band,and certainly present with the Sarmatians,as all female graves lacking weapons does not nullify the ones that did.

As well,as an aside be sure that when researching or otherwise countering my points you are using the latest and most up to the minute resources from the field as I am wont to do,as much has changed in this field of study in just the last 20 years(remember,outdated sources will tell you Troy was a myth and never a reality) and your account of Aquae Sextiae sounds reminiscent of the baseline interpretation offered up by the Metro Books bargain editions.Good for a quick reference but often erroneous.

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.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.

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

[Cerberus119]

I want to see something for Egypt... playing as Ptolemaic Egypt now doesn't give you any sense of the egypt/hellenic culture and how it was received by the rest of the world at the time...

[Toho]

I want to see something for Egypt... playing as Ptolemaic Egypt now doesn't give you any sense of the egypt/hellenic culture and how it was received by the rest of the world at the time...

egypt has the most fleshed out roster in the entire game...

[prithupaul]

I want to see something for Egypt... playing as Ptolemaic Egypt now doesn't give you any sense of the egypt/hellenic culture and how it was received by the rest of the world at the time...

Are you talking about Rome Total War?

[Kraut and Tea]

Dont forget that the Celts got even more tunics added with this patch than the Germans.

[Quintus Dias]

Deleted.

[Barbarian Nobility]

Sad, even if they make a briton dlc it's a waste of time. Better to make a balkan factions dlc or a dlc featuring the jewish revolts instead of this.... I guess it's ok with CA why not make 20 DLCs like the gaul and hannibal dlc and make us pay them like how much is it? $15 per dlc so... srsly

And to be honest i'd happily pay for each and everyone of those DLC's providing they add decent content like new culture's and factions to the campaign map, and continue with quality mini-campaigns.

[jamreal18]

What will be the playable factions if they make it? Another celtic tribes?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Better to make a balkan factions dlc

Anyways Regarding Balkan, I posted interesting articles and pictures in this thread:

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...Thracia/page4?

post #39....

[GideonAI]

Regarding Balkan,

Lets keep this on-topic which is about "Conquest of Britain" and events around it.

Nice...

Speaking of Briton DLC, is there some kind of pattern that CA has followed, like a certain period of time between DLCs or something? I've been waiting for the official announcement for a while now.