Help need for timeline from -2200 BC to 1820 AD

[spryllino]

Early Iron age (-800 to -250) - Ennius (almost), Livius Andronicus (almost), Plautus (almost)
Late Iron age (-250 to 300 AD) - Cicero, Livy, Pliny
Dark ages (300 AD to 600 AD) - Boethius, St Augustine, Martianus Capella, St Jerome

 

[T_F]

My two cents, for Japan:

Early Joumon-jidai (-2200 to -1200) name: Joumon, leaders: ?
Middle Joumon-jidai (-1200 to -800) name: Joumon, leaders: ?
Late Joumon-jidai (-800 to -250) name: Joumon, leaders: ?
Yayoi-jidai (-250 to 300 AD) name: Yamato, leaders: Jinmu-tennou (?) (technically he should be in -660, but he was not Joumon)
Koufun-jidai (300 AD to 600 AD) name: Yamato, leaders: ?
Nara-jidai (600 AD to 900 AD) name: Yamato, leaders: Shoumu-tennou (?)
Heian-jidai (900 AD to 1200 AD) name: Yamato, leaders: Fujiwara-no-Michinaga
Kamakura-jidai (1200 AD to 1450 AD) name: Nippon, leaders: Minamoto-no-Yoritomo, Ashikaga Takauji
Sengoku-jidai (1450 AD to 1550 AD) name: Nippon, leaders: ? (there wasn't a centralized Japanese government, and no one was really important)
Azuchi-Momoyama-jidai (1550 AD to 1650 AD) name: Nippon, leaders: Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tokugawa Ieyasu

The rest of it really isn't interesting, thanks to isolationism, so the rest all fall into the 'Edo-jidai' category (which really starts in 1600, and lasts till 1868). If you want to simulate a lack of isolationism, that might require some creative thinking.

Flags:
Joumon (up to -250): something involving this?
Up to 1650: probably this
1650 to 1868: This
(whenever 1868 falls would be the end, then you would use the modern Japanese flag)

 

[kivanc]

Keep up good work Steph!
if you are interested in Turks, i can help.
I also have info on other countries' history as well, but just tell us which civs you are missing now.

 

[kivanc]

In this case, it's a bit different, because the "successor" of Byzance would be the Ottomans in this area, but they are already here has Hittites --> Seldjouk --> Ottomans --> Turkey, or at least they will be a bit later.

This is not correct. We don't know what happened to old Hittite people after their collapse. But no relation with Turks.

Turkish bloodline is like this: (the first info we have about early Turks is from 1000BC or maybe slighlty earlier)

Huns in central asia--> a) European Huns b) Oghuz Turks c) Gokturks
(2main branches of migration and the guys who stayed in central asia, here are also smaller branches who have migrated other places)


a) European Huns have mostly combined with Slavs, only a few tribes still accept being Turkish. In Balcans, near ural mountains, north caucasia and some even near Baltyc coast.

b) Oghuz Turks-->Karakhan, Gaznevid, Great Seljuk Empire Period-->Anatolian Seljuks-->Ottoman--> Turkey
and also many more different tribes which are elders of Turcoman and Azeris.

c) Gokturks-->Kutluk-->Uyghur, Uzbek, Khazak etc.

 

[Steph]

This is not correct. We don't know what happened to old Hittite people after their collapse. But no relation with Turks.

This is correct because I'm not basing the line on real relation between people and how they evolve, but who occupied an area.
That's why Gaul "evolve" to Frank, or Iberian to Visigoth, or Roman to Ostrogoth.

So if Hittites empire occupied part of modern Turkey, and this part was letter occupied by Ottomans, then they can go in my lines.

I don't claim there is a "bloodline" between Hittites and Turcs, so your line is also correct.

But we are not basing it on the same hypothesis.

And yes, I will need Turks/ Ottomans later, but for the moment I don't have enough unit animations to fully include them in the mod.

 

[kivanc]

This is correct because I'm not basing the line on real relation between people and how they evolve, but who occupied an area.
That's why Gaul "evolve" to Frank, or Iberian to Visigoth, or Roman to Ostrogoth.

So if Hittites empire occupied part of modern Turkey, and this part was letter occupied by Ottomans, then they can go in my lines.

I don't claim there is a "bloodline" between Hittites and Turcs, so your line is also correct.

But we are not basing it on the same hypothesis.

And yes, I will need Turks/ Ottomans later, but for the moment I don't have enough unit animations to fully include them in the mod.

then according to your view, the below should also be correct

native americans-->usa
golden horde (turcomongol) --> russia
babylonians, egyptians-->arabs
mughal (Mongol) --> india

sound weird, no? same for hittites-->turks

 

[Steph]

then according to your view, the below should also be correct
native americans-->usa

Yes, with probably some "English colonist" in between

golden horde (turcomongol) --> russia

It could be, except here I have a Scythian - Novgorod, Kievan Rus, Rus line.

babylonians, egyptians-->arabs

No, but babylonians -> persians yes

and new kingdom --> ptolemaic --> fatimid --> mamluk yes

mughal (Mongol) --> india

It's a possibility.

sound weird, no? same for hittites-->turks

No, it doesn't sound weird depending on what hypothesis or criteria you are using.

 

[kivanc]

anyway, it is still correct for your point of view then. congrats!

 

[Steph]

That's the difficulty of an epic game from 4000 BC to 2000 AD. We have many gaps, very few civilizations had a continuous existence for all the periods, and even when the civ existed, we may not have the unit animations we need to make flavour units.

So we have to make some compromise for gameplay that remain fun.

But then, without this hypothesis, I try to stay as correct as possible.

So when the Turks are in the game as turks, I want to have the correct name of leaders.

 

[kivanc]

France (leaders in bold, military commanders in plain)

Early Bronze age (-2200 to -1200) - n/a
Late Bronze age (-1200 to -800) - n/a
Early Iron age (-800 to -250) - Brennus, Britomaris
Late Iron age (-250 to 300 AD) - Vercingetorix
Low early middle age (300 AD to 600 AD) - Clovis
High early middle age (600 AD to 900 AD) - Charlemagne, Roland
High Middle age (900 AD to 1200 AD) - Philip II Auguste, Robert II de Dreux
Late Middle age (1200 AD to 1450 AD) - St. Louis IX, St. Jeanne d'Arc
Renaissance (1450 AD to 1550 AD) - Francis I, seigneur de Bayard
16th century (1550 AD to 1650 AD) - Louis XIII, Prince de Condé
17th century (1650 AD to 1720 AD) - Louis XIV, Claude de Villars, duc de Berwick
Early 18th (1720 AD to 1760 AD) - Louis XV, Maurice de Saxe
Late 18th (1760 AD to 1790 AD) - Louis XVI, comte de Rochambeau, duc d'Estrées
Napoleonic wars (1790 AD to 1820 AD) - Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis-Nicolas Davout, André Masséna, Jean Lannes

tomorrow, i can prepare a similar table for turks but if it is ok for you to follow the bloodline i told. because i don'T have so much detailed info on ancient anatolian civs. i just know there were hittites, lydia, urartu, akkad, troy etc.

and also, turks have many branches after the migration so leaders i could give as example could be from different states like attila from europe and teoman from central asian huns and alparslan from anatolian seljuks etc. but ancient times (for ex: before 1000BC), it would be n/a

maybe you just wanted to put hittites because of that

 

[Steph]

Actually, I want to use hittites mostly for ancient times, before BC, when there's no Turks available.

After that, I can use reeal Turks. But please focus mostly on the branch who settled in the area of modern Turkey when there is a chance.

 

[kivanc]

well. known history of turks stand back to 1000BC in central asia. OTOH, in anatolia, hittites' earliest record is 16th century, not much older than central asian turks. but anyway, if you want me focus on the issue regionally, ok then.

about anatolia, turks started to settle there mostly after the battle in malazgirt (1071 AD) where seljuk leader Alparslan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alparslan

Before 1071AD, Turks had today's Iraq and greater persia region (Great Seljuk Empire)
So Anatolian settlements are actually like the below

Hittites, Achaemenid, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Anatolian Seljuk and Ottoman states.
between hittites and achaemenid, there are also many small kingdoms.

i assume achaemenids will already belong to persia and byzantine/rome are also seperate civs, so i assume you will jump to seljuks after hittites then?
before hittites, some mesopotamian kingdoms (akkadians etc) settled in east anatolia. it is normal as east anatolia is near to north mesopotamia. but that is only for a small period. so the 1st big state belonging to anatolia mainly is hittite.

 

[Steph]

What "flags" or symbols could I use for the Britons in bronze age and iron age?

 

[spryllino]

A a man covered in woad paint, and a torc?

 

[Steph]

Could a Triskel be OK?

This one for iron age

And the Neolithic spiral version for the Bronze age

 

[Traitorfish]

Perhaps the Uffington Horse? It's a chalk hill-figure in Oxfordshire that was fashioned in the Bronze Age, and maintained throughout the Celtic period (as attested by Iron Age coins bearing a representation of the figure). It is particularly associated with Britain, and is less generically "Celtic".

Spoiler :

 

[Steph]

That's a good candidate. If I want to use it and the Triskel for several eras, which is first?

 

[Traitorfish]

I suppose the Horse would be best for the Bronze Age, given that it was first carved then. The triskel is a bit more flexible, given that it's more broadly sited in history.

 

[spryllino]

I'd say your iron age triskel for the Bronze Age, and I'd say a torc for the Iron Age. If I play Civ3 and I leave ancient times and go and visit Brennus to see his new costume, I prefer it if he isn't still wearing the same hat!

 

[Traitorfish]

A torc isn't an exclusively British symbol, though, it merely happens to be associated with them. It was found in European cultures throughout the Iron Age, include Scythian, Illyrian, Gaulish and Germanic. It was even adopted by the Romans as a military honour, in reference to the legendary courage of the Gauls.