Game News Suebi faction revealed for Total War: Rome II

[MasterSmithFandango]

So I haven't played TW since Empire. Is it still shit? Should I pick up Shogun 2? Is this going to be shit as well?

Why isn't TW more like Paradox?

 

[bloodlover]

Barbarian is as barbarian does, all of those tribes/civilizations were maligned by the romans. They even minted coins (not a revolutionary idea, considering greeks had them 700 years earlier, but still...).

True. History is written by the victors. My ancestors were also "conquered" by the Romans but the facts taught in school don't really match with accurate historical discoveries.

Also, the Celts made roads better and before the Romans did.

I think that if the way we see the Romans will change, than they way we'll see barbarians will too.

 

[Akarnir]

at 1:05. ''slowing down slightly the speed of battle''.

Battles were slow in shogun 2. That was an error on their part, but in no way an attempt to dumb things down. They also confirmed they would increase the speed of battles in Rome 2, which confirms its no decline trend.

Oh The shame... I must save my honor.

 

[Irenaeus]

True. History is written by the victors. My ancestors were also "conquered" by the Romans but the facts taught in school don't really match with accurate historical discoveries.

Also, the Celts made roads better and before the Romans did.

I think that if the way we see the Romans will change, than they way we'll see barbarians will too.

Following your logic that history is written by the victors, it seems as if anti-Roman Romanian nationalists are writting their own history now.

 

[kris]

Barbarian is as barbarian does, all of those tribes/civilizations were maligned by the romans. They even minted coins (not a revolutionary idea, considering greeks had them 700 years earlier, but still...).

True. History is written by the victors. My ancestors were also "conquered" by the Romans but the facts taught in school don't really match with accurate historical discoveries.

the Romans did lose though.

 

[Akarnir]

True. History is written by the victors. My ancestors were also "conquered" by the Romans but the facts taught in school don't really match with accurate historical discoveries.

Also, the Celts made roads better and before the Romans did.

I think that if the way we see the Romans will change, than they way we'll see barbarians will too.

Following your logic that history is written by the victors, it seems as if anti-Roman Romanian nationalists are writting their own history now.

It's actually not a bad logic. What he means is that we are still studying the views of biased greco-roman historians at school, when recent archeology already pretty much debunked 75% of the bullshit they came up with. It was the same with Persians/Parthians a dozen decades ago (our great great grandfathers had pretty cliche views of these empires), except it was easier to uncover their civilizations due to more favorable conditions (climate and culture dynamics allowed for preservation).

 

[Ulminati]

So I haven't played TW since Empire. Is it still shit? Should I pick up Shogun 2? Is this going to be shit as well?

Why isn't TW more like Paradox?

S2 was ok for what it was. Better than empire, worse than rome.

 

[Trash]

They also confirmed they would increase the speed of battles in Rome 2

 

[Irenaeus]

It's actually not a bad logic. What he means is that we are still studying the views of biased greco-roman historians at school, when recent archeology already pretty much debunked 75% of the bullshit they came up with. It was the same with Persians/Parthians a dozen decades ago (our great great grandfathers had pretty cliche views of these empires), except it was easier to uncover their civilizations due to more favorable conditions (climate and culture dynamics allowed for preservation).

ITT: Barbarian propaganda

But really, can you tell me about any sources that could be a good intro for an ignorant like me on recent archeology?

Anyway, my interest in this game is picked. I'll follow TWC and the announcements more closely and might as well reinstall Rome by mid-year to warm up.

 

[Ulminati]

They also confirmed they would increase the speed of battles in Rome 2

Trash, they meant DECREASE, see the video a few posts up.

 

[Trash]

I'm just going to sit here and breathe in a platic bag for awhile now.

 

[Spectacle]

This seems relevant:

 

[Brayko]

Some right wing Euro's are still butthurt that the Romans conquered their land 2000 years ago so they're willing to strain themselves to try to prove that the Romans had an inferior civilization and only conquered through luck.

 

[Akarnir]

It's actually not a bad logic. What he means is that we are still studying the views of biased greco-roman historians at school, when recent archeology already pretty much debunked 75% of the bullshit they came up with. It was the same with Persians/Parthians a dozen decades ago (our great great grandfathers had pretty cliche views of these empires), except it was easier to uncover their civilizations due to more favorable conditions (climate and culture dynamics allowed for preservation).

ITT: Barbarian propaganda

But really, can you tell me about any sources that could be a good intro for an ignorant like me on recent archeology?

Anyway, my interest in this game is picked. I'll follow TWC and the announcements more closely and might as well reinstall Rome by mid-year to warm up.

For archeology overall : http://www.britisharchaeology.org/ , http://www.archaeology.co.uk/ ... Its easy to come by on google. For books and stuff, I don't know much that is English. Mostly Indian and French.

On the celtic/germanic:

If you just want to know simple cultural stuff (craftsmanship, religion, law system...), a few google research will give you pretty much all the internet has to offer. There are some good books, but I only know french ones. I'm pretty sure there exist a tons of English archeology journals, shouldn't be hard to come by.

If you are interested in their architecture :
It's pretty hard to find. There's not much mainstream book or vulgarization articles, and it's even harder if you don't know how to read either french, german, or spanish (Gauls, german, Iberians).
Since it's very, very recent stuff (because of the new shiny lasers and stuff) it's mostly thesis and professional archeological articles. Most of the vulgarization you'll find is already outdated. It goes pretty fast right now.
I'm lucky to live in Canada right now, where they forced me to learn both English and French. So if you do understand french, I can give you a few good sources.

The best thing would be to have access to an online archeological thesis repository with links to all the articles on a given subject. The kind of thing you have access to in university network...



However www.europabarbarorum.com is a pretty good start, because they made extensive research (I know their lead historian), and it's a direct application into video games. They've put a lot of content and sources on their website, it's worth a visit. And Europa is overall, the most popular mod, and the most historically accurate.

You can go on their forums at total war.org and ask them where they got all their archeological informations. It's most likely to be in english. http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?235-Europa-Barbarorum-II

They are making a Europa Barbarorum II for Medieval 2 Total War if anyone's interested.

 

[Brayko]

Europa Barbarorum kicks major ass.

 

[Irenaeus]

Thanks for the fine and thoughtful write-up and tips. Most likely the Europa Barbarorum forums are my best way to go for info, since with my basic French training I doubt I can read professional archeological articles. In addition, archeological thesis, even in english, would be too hard for me to get the proper context without some base knowledge. I still would most likely find them biased, since I come from greco-roman cultural background.

I've been following Europa Barbarorum II development and have learned to be really patient about it.

 

[bloodlover]

True. History is written by the victors. My ancestors were also "conquered" by the Romans but the facts taught in school don't really match with accurate historical discoveries.

Also, the Celts made roads better and before the Romans did.

I think that if the way we see the Romans will change, than they way we'll see barbarians will too.

Following your logic that history is written by the victors, it seems as if anti-Roman Romanian nationalists are writting their own history now.

Sadly that's not even the case. People over here either accept the shit they hear in school plus what they see in movies (remember the first battle from Gladiator?) or even worse are proud of being conquered by the Romans. It saddens me to hear Romanians actually saying that our ancestors were filthy, uneducated barbarians and thank god the Romans came and civilized us. In fact, Dacians were not like that at all, in fact even better in some ways compared to Romans. They drank alcohol moderately since they knew it's not good for the body in excess, they only had one wife and didn't indulge in the orgies the Romans were so fond of, they were a very spiritual peoples and they also put a high role on physical education.

Here's a good video if you want to know more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=duj_84hnc58&v=6PBdNU7xAcM

I can go on like this forever but this is not the point. The point is that whoever wins in the end gets to write the facts. Media and education made barbarians into savages, uneducated, filthy people and while some with interest in the field know more, the average person takes this as a fact.

 

[Brayko]

You do realize that contrary historical revisionism is a sign of low intelligence, correct? We're taught stupid shit in public schools here as well about the American Civil War and can only learn (more) accurate facts once you hit college level. Saying that every last Dacian only drank in moderation and was very spiritual is like saying all Jews are greedy corruptors of Germanic civilization.

 

[bloodlover]

Where did I say "every last"?

 

[Irenaeus]

remember the first battle from Gladiator?

Not really, was it that bad?

or even worse are proud of being conquered by the Romans. It saddens me to hear Romanians actually saying that our ancestors were filthy, uneducated barbarians and thank god the Romans came and civilized us.

But people living in Romania today may not descend from Dacians. There may have been Roman colonization in the area and if you check late classical age and early middle age history, you'll see that several nations invaded the region.

In fact, Dacians were not like that at all, in fact even better in some ways compared to Romans. They drank alcohol moderately since they knew it's not good for the body in excess, they only had one wife and didn't indulge in the orgies the Romans were so fond of, they were a very spiritual peoples and they also put a high role on physical education.

Orgies came in late Roman period of decadence, now you're using Gladiator-like stereotypes. But I must really study Dacians more, I know little and they seem really interesting to be sure.

Here's a good video if you want to know more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_329375&feature=iv&src_vid=duj_84hnc58&v=6PBdNU7xAcM

I'll check when I get home.

The point is that whoever wins in the end gets to write the facts. Media and education made barbarians into savages, uneducated, filthy people and while some with interest in the field know more, the average person takes this as a fact.

True, the victor surely writes history. I really want to learn more about Dacians and other civilizations and it's great that these fun games even increase my interest. Nevertheless, my point is that since empires, nations, peoples, etc. are always changing, so is history. Historiography is the word, right? I'm an amateur, don't really know. That's why I quoted your post and joked that history in Romania is now being re-written by nationalists. But be assured I don't take this as a fact.

 

[bloodlover]

I didn't mean to use stereotypes but wanted to show some aspects that not many people know about my ancestors.

Regarding the descendents, this is where the shit comes in. We are taught here in school that the Romans came around 100 AD (there were actually two great wars with the Romans in 101-102 and 105-16 AD) and after their supposed victory they started to colonize the area. From the local inhabitants and the Roman colonists, the Romanian people and the language was born. However at the beginning of the the Middle Ages, after the first medieval states were formed, rulers from the western part of the country (today's Transylvania) brought Germans over in order to maintain things under control and establish diplomatic roads. This is very important since we can still see its impact on some cities in today's western part, in architecture and demographic distribution. The western part was also a long time under the Austro-Hungarian Empire and it only merged with the rest of the country in 1918 and again this has a great impact in population. However, it is generally accepted and taught that the actual birth of the Romanians was made after the Roman invasion.

However one can talk about a civilization here long before the Roman Empire even existed. Here's an interesting article from the New York Times on this matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01arch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

The more we learn about our past, the more we should see that this was actually a clash between two civilizations and not a civilization and some random barbarians. Of course, this will take time and like I said before, the fact that people over here are actually satisfied with what they are taught today does not help things.

edit: I forgot to mention one very important thing: not all of Dacia was conquered. Parts in the North were never conquered by the Romans and people that lived there are known as "the free Dacians".

 

[Brayko]

Where did I say "every last"?

Indication and/or generalization. I can visualize some European college professor getting carried away about examining the Celts as some highly sophisticated gentle lot being bullied by Romans whilst leaving out several other factors.

 

[Akarnir]

Well the Celt were highly sophisticated in some regions. However not exactly what one may call gentle. They were huge assholes with the countries surrounding them. They went on a massive rampage several times just to get some l00t.

Generally speaking, wealth per inhabitants ----> advancement and sophistication in a relatively stable country. Which means a powerful tribe like Avernii would be pretty high tech, while a more backyard tribe in the british isles would stay a bit behind when it comes to achievements. Of course, thanks to the ''international'' druids, the knowledge and culture would be easily shared, which means that they were all mostly sophisticated in their mind.

I do remember one fun fact, in Rome, Celtic instructors were much more prized than Hellenic Instructor. That's probably because the qualification of the druids were extremely high = 20 years of study, everything learned by hearth, and a strong emphasis on the speech skills (which the Romans elite favored).
They also seemed to have some good math skills because apparently, they came up an algorithm and calendar allowing you to predict lunar stuff at any given day in any given year, which was some massive breakthrough at the time. And apparently something that we hadn't found out ourselves without computers. From the wikipedos : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_calendar . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar.

Not to mention, that knowledge was much more widespread back then than we believe, and travel much more frequent, especially for those seeking knowledge or more material retributions. It wouldn't be uncommon to meet Druids, Greek philosophers and even Indian priest lurking in the library of Alexandria.

 

[oscar]

Awesome links people. Never imagined Europe c.5000 BC was so sophisticated.

 

[Brayko]

Fuck off, oscar.