Rise and Fall of House Julii

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

farmers are not nomadic, but if threatened with invasion they could switch the occupation zone easily, retreat, reapear, or simply leave most exposed danger zones. also the occupation of an area could vary from dense fortified hilltop to loose village type.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

From Wiki:

Spoiler :

The archaeological record for the 5th-3rd centuries BC is rich in rural settlements and remains of agriculture but very poor in artifacts. This is mainly due to extremely austere burial customs where few people received formal burial and those who did got little in the way of grave goods. There is little indication of any social stratification. Bronze importation ceased almost entirely and local iron production started in earnest.

Starting in the 2nd century AD, much of southern Sweden's agricultural land was parceled up with low stone walls. They divided the land into permanent infields and meadows for winter fodder on one side of the wall, and wooded outland where the cattle was grazed on the other side. This principle of landscape organization survived into the 19th century. The Roman Period also saw the first large-scale expansion of agricultural settlement up the Baltic coast of the country's northern two thirds.

Also "He said that the size of the island was unknown but in a part of it dwelt a tribe named the Hillevionum gente, in 500 villages, and they considered their country to be a world of its own." From Pliny the Elder

I don't think Sweden would be inhabited by Finnic peoples, they would have been proto-Norse.

 

[The Guardian]

From Wiki:

Spoiler :

The archaeological record for the 5th-3rd centuries BC is rich in rural settlements and remains of agriculture but very poor in artifacts. This is mainly due to extremely austere burial customs where few people received formal burial and those who did got little in the way of grave goods. There is little indication of any social stratification. Bronze importation ceased almost entirely and local iron production started in earnest.

Starting in the 2nd century AD, much of southern Sweden's agricultural land was parceled up with low stone walls. They divided the land into permanent infields and meadows for winter fodder on one side of the wall, and wooded outland where the cattle was grazed on the other side. This principle of landscape organization survived into the 19th century. The Roman Period also saw the first large-scale expansion of agricultural settlement up the Baltic coast of the country's northern two thirds.

Also "He said that the size of the island was unknown but in a part of it dwelt a tribe named the Hillevionum gente, in 500 villages, and they considered their country to be a world of its own." From Pliny the Elder

I don't think Sweden would be inhabited by Finnic peoples, they would have been proto-Norse.

The Finnii and the Hellusii and Oxiones are mentioned at the end of Cornelius Tacitus's dissertation. This is what he says about them:

Spoiler :

The Fenni are astonishingly wild and horribly poor. They have no arms, no horses, no homes. They eat grass, dress in skins, and sleep on the ground. Their only hope is in their arrows, which, for lack of iron, they tip with bone. The same hunt provides food for men and women alike; for the women go everywhere with the men and claim a share in securing the prey. The only way they can protect their babies against wild beasts or foul weather is to hide them under a makeshift network of branches. This is the hovel to which the young men come back, this is where the old must lie. Yet they count their lot happier than that of others who groan over field labour, sweat over house-building, or hazard their own or other men's fortunes in the wild lottery of hope and fear. They care for nobody, man or god, and have gained the ultimate release: they have nothing to pray for. What comes after them is the stuff of fables—Hellusii and Oxiones with the faces and features of men, but the bodies and limbs of animals. On such unverifiable stories I will express no opinion.

 

[Quinzy]

By the time of Pliny, the Swedes were living where Sweden is, and the Finns were living where Finland is.

Prior to that, Germanic tribes lived in southern Sweden, with the Finns having little to do with the area, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[7ronin]

Tacitus and Pliny were writing four hundred years after the start of your mod. A lot can happen in four hundred years. I agree that Norway and Sweden were "Civs," but in 100 A.D., not in 300 B.C.E.

The south Scandinavians spoke a language called Proto-Norse (also called Proto North Germanic and Ancient Nordic) which in turn became Old Norse which was, as I recall, the immediate pre-cursor language of Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Frisian, and several others.

Finno-ugric is also a language and is one of the few descriptors we have for the people who moved out of the area of Estonia into Hungary in the south and Finland in the north. Some of those early Finns continued to move into northern Sweden and later northern Norway.

DNA confirms these patterns. Norse DNA consists of three distinct Y (paternal) DNA haplogroups: I1, R1b, and R1a. The vast majority of the inhabitants of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Northwest Germany, and the Western Islands of Scotland belong to one of these three groups.

With regards to Finns, 60% belong to N1(=Estonians) and around 40% belong to R1a or R1b. N1 is also found in the more northern populations of Norway and Sweden.

The generally held view is that Northern Scandinavia was settled (or "civilized") much later than Southern Scandinavia. Shift your timeline slider back and you have fewer civs; shift it forward and you have more.

Fortunately for game designers (or unfortunately) depending on your point of view, we know very little about bronze age Scandinavia. Historical references are scant, names given to its peoples and geographic regions are obscure, and the physical record they left behind (e.g. burial artifacts) are meager. So..., consider your design restricted by what you know or liberated by what you don't know.

On a final note, I much prefer Gaius Plinius to Publius Tacitus. Tacitus owed too much (as he admitted) to his Flavian sponsors to be completely objective in his writings.

 

[The Guardian]

Tacitus and Pliny were writing four hundred years after the start of your mod. A lot can happen in four hundred years. I agree that Norway and Sweden were "Civs," but in 100 A.D., not in 300 B.C.E.

The south Scandinavians spoke a language called Proto-Norse (also called Proto North Germanic and Ancient Nordic) which in turn became Old Norse which was, as I recall, the immediate pre-cursor language of Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Frisian, and several others.

Finno-ugric is also a language and is one of the few descriptors we have for the people who moved out of the area of Estonia into Hungary in the south and Finland in the north. Some of those early Finns continued to move into northern Sweden and later northern Norway.

DNA confirms these patterns. Norse DNA consists of three distinct Y (paternal) DNA haplogroups: I1, R1b, and R1a. The vast majority of the inhabitants of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Northwest Germany, and the Western Islands of Scotland belong to one of these three groups.

With regards to Finns, 60% belong to N1(=Estonians) and around 40% belong to R1a or R1b. N1 is also found in the more northern populations of Norway and Sweden.

The generally held view is that Northern Scandinavia was settled (or "civilized") much later than Southern Scandinavia. Shift your timeline slider back and you have fewer civs; shift it forward and you have more.

Fortunately for game designers (or unfortunately) depending on your point of view, we know very little about bronze age Scandinavia. Historical references are scant, names given to its peoples and geographic regions are obscure, and the physical record they left behind (e.g. burial artifacts) are meager. So..., consider your design restricted by what you know or liberated by what you don't know.

On a final note, I much prefer Gaius Plinius to Publius Tacitus. Tacitus owed too much (as he admitted) to his Flavian sponsors to be completely objective in his writings.

I will concur on one thing for certain, I too hold Pliny's writings in greater stead than tacitus. That is Tribune Gaius Plinius Secundus who was stationed at Castra Vetera with the XXX ultra Victrix in Germania Inferior and later obtained several procuratorships including procurator of the western empire. However, even venerated writers can make mistakes
Example

Spoiler :

even critical authors like Aristotle and the elder Pliny assumed that there was an underground connection between the Danube and the Adriatic, which was used by the tuna fish (Animal History, 8.13; Natural History, 9.53).

According to Pliny, the catfish in the Danube were so big that they had to be caught with harpoons, and brought to the land with oxen (Natural History, 9.45). Herodian was convinced that the river froze over every winter (Roman History, 6.7.6-8).

I fail to see what Tacitus may have written concerning the Northern tribes would have anything to do with what he may have owed to the Flavian's when in fact, Tacitus was greatly influenced by Pliny. To refute Tacitus is to refute Pliny.

As far as DNA goes The Swedes, and Norwegians ALSO have commonality with the britains as well as the western Russians, Estonians, Latvians. We know the Britons have commonality because of the viking raids and many germans and french have commonality with the norwegians for the same reason. It also known that the scandinavian tribes moved eastward. Also it is not surprising that scandinavian DNA is found in eastern european nations since we know that the Vikings moved as far east and in fact captured Kiev.

 

[Ares de Borg]

About "longships": I've written a dissertation about norse shipbuilding not long ago, and to my surprise found no evidence of larger sail-powered vessels before the Middle Ages. There is evidence for long, row-powered boats though. I wish somebody made such an unit...

Summa summarum: No longboats as we know them in antiquity...

 

[The Guardian]

Ares I believe you are correct. I remember seeing a description of their ships in Pliny's writing, and I don't believe he made any mention of sails, but he gave a very detailed description of the ships size, shape and oars. He elaborated on their ability to forward and backward with ease. I am certain that if they had sail he would have elaborated on that also. Especially, since at one time he was procurator of the Roman navy. It is not something he would have omitted, so, I am inclined to agree with you.

I also agree, it would be nice if someone would create such a unit. A long ship, without the sails.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

of course, ares is right they were only part time traders, concentration was put on hit and run tactics.

 

[Wolfshade]

Guardian, I have a pic suggestion for a sphinx - check it here, please. It seems to be better than the Vegas one.

 

[Babylon746]

About "longships": I've written a dissertation about norse shipbuilding not long ago, and to my surprise found no evidence of larger sail-powered vessels before the Middle Ages. There is evidence for long, row-powered boats though. I wish somebody made such an unit...

Summa summarum: No longboats as we know them in antiquity...

Entirely correct.
For some odd reason (nobody really seems to know why) sails weren't used in Northern Europe until ~700 AD. And the introduction of the sail was what in turn brought about the Viking Age - all the other ingredients were there already for centuries.

 

[The Guardian]

OK, all the information I have reviewed seems to indicate that there were no real roads in western Europe until the Romans built them.

This creates a small problem regarding the western european civs ie: Gallia, Iberia, Germania, Celts, Picts, Suiones ( Scandinavians), as well as Dacians, Sythians and Huns. It may hold true for the rest of the civs also, tho I haven't done any serious research on that yet.

The problem is, none of them will be able to connect to resources or trade resources, even with their own villages, towns and cities. The first of the great Roman roads, the Via Appia (Appian Way), begun by the censor Appius Claudius Caecus in 312 bce.
Now that is the First of the GREAT roads. I am assuming that there were roads before this, probably of lesser quality and shorter distance ( perhaps between nearby towns) like Rome to Ostia. But if I am going to start from the founding of Rome, that means more 400 years before we get roads. In play testing, I have been able to build cities all over the italian peninsular and connect them all with roads and connect all resources by 464BCE.
Parthia, Upper Egypt, Greeks, and Macedonia are also well connected. All the rest are only about 50%. If I delay their ability to build roads, I can probably achieve some sembalance of historical accuracy without hindering their ability to produce units. The second choice is to deprive them total of the ability to build roads. This can be done with all or selectively civ by civ.

I would appreciate hearing views and opinions/ideas and open a discussion on how this would impact game play.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

can you make a difference between pathways/dirt roads and Roman style roads?

 

[The Guardian]

can you make a difference between pathways/dirt roads and Roman style roads?

I had this discussion before, and unfortunately the answer is no. How I wish we could have more than one type of road. I love to be able to make paths, trails, dirt roads, cobble roads etc etc. Pounder has made many types of roads, unfortunately you can only use one at a time throughout the entire scenario.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Some ideas, could mix'n'match, whatever's appropriate:

*Limit road building to a tech available at a later point which some civs (i.e. those who could already build roads) start with at the beginning of the game.
*Hinder the more tribal civs (Celts, Scythians, etc.) ability to build worker units. Less workers = less roads, after all!
*Use LM terrain to hinder which terrain roads can be built on. Makes controlling the trade routes more important, but by itself it will only help in stopping the terrain being completely roaded, not any roading.

 

[T-mun]

About roads, I've recently read that the Gauls had already achieved many of the longest ones in Gaul, and of a good quality. The Greek settlers and traders have had them build roads so that they could more easily get some precious metals. The article said the romans only made them better and paved them. The historians who came to that conclusion have found in the ancient litterature some relating of very short trips through western Europe long before the Romans came.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

maybe some parts were paved with wood (oak or elm)....or with large stones...so a wooden road texture would be something new...

 

[The Guardian]

About roads, I've recently read that the Gauls had already achieved many of the longest ones in Gaul, and of a good quality. The Greek settlers and traders have had them build roads so that they could more easily get some precious metals. The article said the romans only made them better and paved them. The historians who came to that conclusion have found in the ancient litterature some relating of very short trips through western Europe long before the Romans came.

Do you think you could find that for me. I would be interested in reading it. Can you remember any more details, such as dates, locations etc. It would be helpful.

"Long before the Romans came ... " would indeed be a long long time ago.

 

[The Guardian]

Some ideas, could mix'n'match, whatever's appropriate:

*Limit road building to a tech available at a later point which some civs (i.e. those who could already build roads) start with at the beginning of the game.
*Hinder the more tribal civs (Celts, Scythians, etc.) ability to build worker units. Less workers = less roads, after all!
*Use LM terrain to hinder which terrain roads can be built on. Makes controlling the trade routes more important, but by itself it will only help in stopping the terrain being completely roaded, not any roading.

I can control when civ acquire the road building capability pretty easily. I'm thinking about going that route. Using LM terrain might require a lot of work and its a really BIG map.
I am using settler costs (cost 3 pop) to slowdown expansion, I guess I could do the same with workers. Putting limitations on terrain would also limit where resources can be placed.

I think the best method would be to control when workers can build roads. A good variation of what you mentioned, might be to start with workers that only have irrigate, clear forest/jungles, and build mines, and then upgrade to include roads at a later stage.

 

[Virote_Considon]

The only problem is, the AI won't know what to do with them until they know all worker actions