In general, I think there's a case to be made for "sub-eras" that don't quite have all the features and trappings of a fully fledged C2C era, but which nevertheless cover at least a few tech columns and represent stages of development within an era; contrast, say, the beginning of the game where you have people living an existence barely distinguishable from non-sapient animals, and the latter parts of the Paleolithic (perhaps we could call it the Mesolithic?) where you've got a much firmer grip on hunting, much more advanced tool industries, and have domesticated the dog. Another example would be Renaissance vs Enlightenment in the Early Modern era.
Ideally, yes, but, practically - C2C is already hard enough to make as it is ?
Specifically it would also cause problems with player impression and/or balance for techs that would stand out as *clearly* not belonging to a specific era.
You should see the Roman crocodile armor they found - it's looking a bit rough these days, but it must've been horrific to see him in it. What I find most interesting about it is that the Romans were usually so uniform about their military gear but this guy really wanted to stand out. Leather armor wasn't non existent so much as it wasn't really done in the way they do it in D&D but I think Lamellar was pretty common.
He said *medieval*...
Looks like
Romans used light leather armor on most of their troops ?
(And when ? Even West Roman Republic + Empire lasted for nearly a thousand years...)
But not lamellar, that would have been the
East Roman Empire ?
(Also, when ? East Roman Empire managed to exist allll the way down to have it's fall start the Modern era : an extra thousand years after the fall of Rome !)
This is a bit like the whole discussion regarding dinosaurs and if they actually had feathers and looked completely different than what we were presented so far.
We
recently found preserved feathers ! With a dinosaur foot nearby that matches !! That was literally killed within the hour of the asteroid impact !!!
The romans had a developed network of stables and roads all over their empire used for message delivery, and yet they relegated cavalry to auxiliary units, relying instead on infantry cores. Centuries prior, Alexander the Great relied heavily on his companion cavalry with great results - and they knew about that. I reckon the need to develop cavalry was also a matter of who you were fighting and where.
Hmm, I see your point, but it doesn't mean that cavalry was obsolete - just that - AFAIK (Late Republic - Early Empire ) Romans were also heavily specialized, and often preferred to use their allies' cavalry ! (But also used their own - though armed with
"mail armor, the clipeus round shield, a spear and a gladius", and no bow.)
In that regard I've never quite figured out how did egiptians and babylonians drive heavy chariots in sand and floodplains.
I'm guessing that they... didn't ?
Would they even have
fought in sand / flood plains ? I doubt even infantry / archers could fight there, except maybe some very light and specialized ones ?
And, - you haven't read my
link about chariots, have you ? - Egyptian war chariots were
light, somewhere between an electric scooter and a moped... for 2 people and 2 horses !
Now, it's somewhat frustrating that Pr. Devereaux doesn't mention Hittites, who had a quite different war chariot from Egyptians and Assyrians :
it held 3 men, one of which was now responsible for the shield (rather than the driver).
And the "fighter" would have had a bow + spear rather than a bow + javelin(s), which might have been more useful in chariot vs chariot close combat ?
The sources I find are quite contradictory about this, but I am doubting too that even Hittite chariots would have risked charging infantry : they supposedly bred better horses, but not *that* much better ?!
(That 2 horses could have pulled 3 men + an actually sturdy "shock chariot" + probably extra armor for horses ?)
(Also, looks like Babylonians quickly fell behind in chariot tech, that's why they were invaded by Hittites and Assyrians ?)