The Rood and the Dragon - the Anglo-Saxon scenario

A couple other minor things.

Viking Huscarl unit is indicated as being a Anglo-Saxon unit in its description, when in actual fact it is a Scandinavian unit only.

Forge has no description but costs 120 shields. I'm assuming its some kind of factory improvement, but it should state that.

Cheers
Misfit
 
Thanks, Misfit - in fact the Forge did have a description, but a missing # prevented it from being displayed. I've corrected this and updated the patch at the start of this thread. And you're right, of course - the Forge does work like a Factory.

It's true that the Viking Huscarl entry isn't quite right - this is because this unit is identical to the Huscarl and uses the same files. In fact you're unlikely ever to see one (look at the required resources to find out why - this unit exists primarily to motivate the Vikings to invade) so I was hoping this wouldn't be a problem, but at some stage I will probably give the unit an entry of its own which is more accurate.
 
The Last Conformist said:
It's worth noting that "Northumbria" sounds alot like an exonym (a name given by outsiders). People tend to think of their home as the centre of the world, not as the bit north of something. Without knowing anything more about this particular case, I'm tempted to guess that the Northumbrians were so named by their southern neighbours, and only later picked up the name themselves, perhaps due to a lack of any other catch-all term for all the Anglo-Saxons groups eventually united under the Northumbrian king.
I think the name Northumbria is simply derived from its geography. That is, the kingdom was almost entirely North(of the river)Humber. Mercia and Northumbria were seperated by the river and Northumbria only held possesions south of the river for very short periods.
 
Asclepius said:
I think the name Northumbria is simply drived from its geography.
Well, duh. The point is that names so derived - specifying the name-bearers to be, in this case, north of something - are rarely ones that the people or country in question has given to itself, but one that has been given it by outsiders.
 
The Last Conformist said:
Well, duh.
LOL!
The Last Conformist said:
The point is that names so derived - specifying the name-bearers to be, in this case, north of something - are rarely ones that the people or country in question has given to itself, but one that has been given it by outsiders.
I'm sure they would have noticed that they all lived north of a river called the Humber though...no matter where that river is in relation to anything else. Anyhooo, just trying to help.
 
I think TLC is probably right, although I certainly wouldn't know. I do know that if I were a Northumbrian, I'd probably call my own kingdom "centre of the universe" and the rest of the Anglo-Saxons "Southumbrians".

In fact, come to think of it - the modern inhabitants of Northumbria do pretty much that, don't they?...
 
Asclepius said:
I'm sure they would have noticed that they all lived north of a river called the Humber though...no matter where that river is in relation to anything else. Anyhooo, just trying to help.
They'll have noticed they lived north of the Humber - the question is whether they, on their own accord, would have based their self-designation on it.

(Xpost with Plotinus.)
 
I can't unzip the file?
 
from Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica:

Angles "are descended the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians, all the race of the Northumbrians (that is to say of those peoples who live to the north of the river Humber), and the other Anglian peoples."
 
Asclepius said:
from Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica:

Angles "are descended the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians, all the race of the Northumbrians (that is to say of those peoples who live to the north of the river Humber), and the other Anglian peoples."
This doesn't actually address the question.
 
Well, it sort of does, since Bede himself was a Northumbrian (I don't think he ever set foot outside the place), so if he uses that term... etc.

I'm glad I seem to have accidentally created a History discussion thread. Normally I find that arguments about religion inexplicably break out around me, so this makes a nice change.

Triple C: that's a problem at your end, I'm pretty sure. Try again, as blackheart says.
 
The Last Conformist said:
This doesn't actually address the question.
No, not directly but Bede was a Northumbrian and if he described his people thus in 731 then that is about as close as you can get to knowing if the Northumbrians called themselves so.

Edit: Oops Plotinus just posted the same point.
 
But the question wasn't whether they called themselves so at some point, but whether the name originated as an exonym or not.

Modern Australians call their country Australia; no-one would take this as evidence that the name was given by people from somewhere else.
 
Plotinus, can you describe the MP version? This looks fascinating and should be a good scenario for me and my MP friends to have a go at (as if we didn't have a big enough backlog of scenarios already - but what the...)
 
[Nachos] The Vikings are strictly non-playable and appear only later in the game - in theory at approximately the historically correct time, if I set them up correctly.

[KayEss] Basically, the MP version is identical but with only eight playable factions (Lindsey and Hwicce are no longer playable), as I believe this is the only criterion for making something MP-compatible. I must say that I have never played mulitplayer so I haven't been able to test this. But I did think whilst making it that this would probably make an interesting multiplayer scenario (largely because it's quite fast-moving and there's an awful lot of fighting), so if you'd like to take it for a spin I'd be very pleased. It would be good to get feedback on how it runs in MP as well.
 
The Last Conformist said:
But the question wasn't whether they called themselves so at some point, but whether the name originated as an exonym or not.
Well that will be kind of hard to prove, although it appears to be evident that Northumbrians called themselves Northumbrians, where that name came from is pretty hard to pin down. I think what is more important is that it is not a modern invention, but the name was used to describe themselves from the 8th Century on.

It is interesting to note that the English never described themselves as Saxon, either. They only ever called themselves Angles, the term Saxon comes from the Celtic and was only used to describe the territory of the English and not the people themselves. The term Anglo-Saxon most certainly is a modern invention. It was considered of great importance that an Englishman could show his descent from Anglian stock not Saxon. Even the kings of Wessex called themselves Rex Anglorum.

Oh, and BTW I'm still enjoying your scenario, sorry for hijacking this thread :goodjob:
 
Somone should start a SG with this scenario. I am away from my C3C right now and would love to watch that vicariously.
 
Plotinus said:
[KayEss] Basically, the MP version is identical but with only eight playable factions (Lindsey and Hwicce are no longer playable), as I believe this is the only criterion for making something MP-compatible. I must say that I have never played mulitplayer so I haven't been able to test this. But I did think whilst making it that this would probably make an interesting multiplayer scenario (largely because it's quite fast-moving and there's an awful lot of fighting), so if you'd like to take it for a spin I'd be very pleased. It would be good to get feedback on how it runs in MP as well.

That sounds like a great way to do it. When we play we tend to have the full compliment of 8 players (most being AI), but many scenarios get hopelessly unbalanced if there are too many tribes missing. I'm not sure when we'll get to it though - might not be for a few months (PbEM takes a long time).
 
Back
Top Bottom