Conquer Club

Kab wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:and while he did split the Empire, Constantine re-unified it and moved the capital to Constantinople. Diocletian's eastern capital was at Nicomedia. Julian followed Constantine in a unified Empire, but his successor Jovian presided over the final and permanent split between east and west. Your map describes the situation post-Jovian more than it does in Diocletian's time.

for the sake of gameplay and appeal-ability I'm giving myself some 'conceptual freedoms' - So I'm overlooking Milan (or Mediolanum) as the temporary capital of the East and Nicomedia for the West.

Industrial Helix wrote: And the Eastern Roman Empire was never known to them as the "Byzantine Empire", they referred to themselves as Romans until the Turks sacked Constantinople.

indeed, but it was later known as the Byzantine Empire to us.

Well that's fine and dandy, with things like this you need some freedom... just don't say Diocletian made his capital at Constantinople. I don't have any problem with the gameplay mechanics, its the paragraph that needs some corrections.

Furthermore, I find all this talk about the Crescent and Star flag very interesting... i had no idea the Ottoman's swiped the idea from the Byzantines. I think you should use it somewhere on this map.

Nic work Kab. Wasnt this right around the time that Attila the Hun was kicking Rome's ass any and every time that he wished?

theBastard wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:so it's understood that the crescent with the sun (star) is the flag of Constantinople.. but I'd be more interested in the flag of the Eastern Roman Empire rather than be using the flag of its capital. Any ideas?

[bigimg]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1931/byzfxm.png[/bigimg]

That will be it!

Industrial Helix wrote:Furthermore, I find all this talk about the Crescent and Star flag very interesting... i had no idea the Ottoman's swiped the idea from the Byzantines. I think you should use it somewhere on this map.

interesting indeed, did not know it either

wolfpack0530 wrote:Nic work Kab. Wasnt this right around the time that Attila the Hun was kicking Rome's ass any and every time that he wished?

Thanks wolf,
well Attila appears in Europe more than 1 century later.. and actually the Huns migrate to Europe around 350 A.D. which is a bit later than Diocletian but still in this time scope.

.....I could of course replace the Huns and insert a more contemporary tribe like the Vandals or the Burgundians....

Any preferences?

Option A
[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/ConquerRome2a_img.png[/bigimg]

Option B
[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/ConquerRome2b_img.png[/bigimg]

the first one looks better for me.

just one notice: the Angles (Anglo-Saxons) become to Britain later (about 600 AD). there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

1st one def

theBastard wrote:the first one looks better for me.

just one notice: the Angles (Anglo-Saxons) become to Britain later (about 600 AD). there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

There were Angles who were harrowing the british coast long before the Anglo-Saxong invasions in the 5th century. And this map is not about after the withdrawal, but during the collapse of the empire.

tokle wrote:

theBastard wrote:just one notice: the Angles (Anglo-Saxons) become to Britain later (about 600 AD). there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

There were Angles who were harrowing the british coast long before the Anglo-Saxong invasions in the 5th century. And this map is not about after the withdrawal, but during the collapse of the empire.

yes, this is baout collapse. but than there were no Anles (Anglo-Saxons) as main power. yes Anglo-Saxons harrowing the coastal area (but is was not massive) and in England lived Anglo-Saxons, but only as foreign settlers.

it was Celts and Britons which were incoming power after Romans (and during collapse). when there is also Barbarian Invasion (and the truth is that all others tribes did massive invasion and established their rule in Roman area), the Anglo-Saxon invasion become later.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:

theBastard wrote:just one notice: the Angles (Anglo-Saxons) become to Britain later (about 600 AD). there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

There were Angles who were harrowing the british coast long before the Anglo-Saxong invasions in the 5th century. And this map is not about after the withdrawal, but during the collapse of the empire.

yes, this is baout collapse. but than there were no Anles (Anglo-Saxons) as main power. yes Anglo-Saxons harrowing the coastal area (but is was not massive) and in England lived Anglo-Saxons, but only as foreign settlers.

it was Celts and Britons which were incoming power after Romans (and during collapse). when there is also Barbarian Invasion (and the truth is that all others tribes did massive invasion and established their rule in Roman area), the Anglo-Saxon invasion become later.

In the context of this map it is not a-historical to include the Angles, in my oppinion. The Britons you speak of were not barbarians, and they weren't an "incoming" power, they were continuation of Roman power. But since the didn't have any military, they were actually pretty powerless. And it was this vacuum that the Roman Legion had left that encouraged the Anglo-Saxon invasions. So the Anglo-Saxon invasions were definitely related to the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Though considering that the arrow is pointing at the north it might be more fitting to include the Picts. Though, admittedly, they didn't settle and become the dominant power in any areas of the old Empire.

I like the first better definitely.

tokle wrote:In the context of this map it is not a-historical to include the Angles, in my oppinion.

it is a-historical for this time period.

tokle wrote:The Britons you speak of were not barbarians, and they weren't an "incoming" power, they were continuation of Roman power.

they were not "incoming" power, but they were new power - they established their Kingdoms and Kings. never during Roman rule of England.

tokle wrote:But since the didn't have any military, they were actually pretty powerless.

they did not have any military? the were powerless? do you know how many soldiers (legions) were in England to secure this land for Romans from powerless Britons? btw, also because in Britain were many legions they can not help to secure east borders.

and do not forget that after Romans withdrawall England the Britons must secure themselves before invasion from Ireland. and they won.

tokle wrote:And it was this vacuum that the Roman Legion had left that encouraged the Anglo-Saxon invasions. So the Anglo-Saxon invasions were definitely related to the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Anglo-Saxons were invited by Vortigern to help him against his enemies.

tokle wrote:Though considering that the arrow is pointing at the north it might be more fitting to include the Picts. Though, admittedly, they didn't settle and become the dominant power in any areas of the old Empire.

Anglo-Saxons become mainly from South...

isaiah40 wrote:I like the first better definitely.

This.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:In the context of this map it is not a-historical to include the Angles, in my oppinion.

it is a-historical for this time period.

tokle wrote:The Britons you speak of were not barbarians, and they weren't an "incoming" power, they were continuation of Roman power.

they were not "incoming" power, but they were new power - they established their Kingdoms and Kings. never during Roman rule of England.

What? What kings and kingdoms are you talking about? What happened in Britain after the Roman legions left was something like a chaotic anarchy. There are very few written sources from this era, so exactly what happened we will never know. History writing about this period is mostly guesswork.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:But since the didn't have any military, they were actually pretty powerless.

they did not have any military? the were powerless? do you know how many soldiers (legions) were in England to secure this land for Romans from powerless Britons? btw, also because in Britain were many legions they can not help to secure east borders.

and do not forget that after Romans withdrawall England the Britons must secure themselves before invasion from Ireland. and they won.

The Romans moved all their troops off Britain, thus the civilized Celts who were left in charge of the civilized parts of the island did not have any military. That's why they started paying the Germans to defend them.
I don't know this invasion you're talking about. Do you have any information about that?

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:And it was this vacuum that the Roman Legion had left that encouraged the Anglo-Saxon invasions. So the Anglo-Saxon invasions were definitely related to the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Anglo-Saxons were invited by Vortigern to help him against his enemies.

This is a legend. How true it is is unknow. But it only accounts for the Jutes settling in Kent. Not the other German invasion happening around the same time.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:Though considering that the arrow is pointing at the north it might be more fitting to include the Picts. Though, admittedly, they didn't settle and become the dominant power in any areas of the old Empire.

Anglo-Saxons become mainly from South...

At least we agree on that.

tokle wrote:What? What kings and kingdoms are you talking about? What happened in Britain after the Roman legions left was something like a chaotic anarchy. There are very few written sources from this era, so exactly what happened we will never know. History writing about this period is mostly guesswork.

so you never hear about Goddodin, Rheged, Elmet, Brynaich, Gwynedd, Powys... what about title King of Britons...
we know what happend - there are several historians (mainly monks) Gildas, Nennius, Bede...

tokle wrote:The Romans moved all their troops off Britain, thus the civilized Celts who were left in charge of the civilized parts of the island did not have any military. That's why they started paying the Germans to defend them.
I don't know this invasion you're talking about. Do you have any information about that?

no, no... to the Britain were send excelent generals to fight against Picts, Irish and Scots. and ofcourse many soldiers. for example Magnus Maximus, general of legions in Britain took throne in Rome by legions from Britain. when Visigoths attacked Italy one legion of two in Britain become as reinforce. two legions in so small area as was Roman England (and in these era when each soldier on borders in Europe was needed...

they have military, Anglo-Saxons conquered them 200 years...

tokle wrote:This is a legend. How true it is is unknow. But it only accounts for the Jutes settling in Kent. Not the other German invasion happening around the same time.

legend written in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and mentioned by Celtic monks...

tokle wrote:At least we agree on that.

I believe we will find more common .

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:What? What kings and kingdoms are you talking about? What happened in Britain after the Roman legions left was something like a chaotic anarchy. There are very few written sources from this era, so exactly what happened we will never know. History writing about this period is mostly guesswork.

so you never hear about Goddodin, Rheged, Elmet, Brynaich,

As I said, reliable sources are non-existant. But I believe entities like those only came into being a few generations later. And talking about these as kingdoms per se is difficult, as I'm pretty sure the extent of control that the kings held would be fairly low.
And anyway, these were not barbarian peoples coming in from outside.

I think i favor the second version, but only if you put the same painting texture that you used int he first example. Red is more Roman to me.

Out of curiosity... what's the logic behind having two Barbarian spaces instead of one?

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:The Romans moved all their troops off Britain, thus the civilized Celts who were left in charge of the civilized parts of the island did not have any military. That's why they started paying the Germans to defend them.
I don't know this invasion you're talking about. Do you have any information about that?

no, no... to the Britain were send excelent generals to fight against Picts, Irish and Scots. and ofcourse many soldiers. for example Magnus Maximus, general of legions in Britain took throne in Rome by legions from Britain. when Visigoths attacked Italy one legion of two in Britain become as reinforce. two legions in so small area as was Roman England (and in these era when each soldier on borders in Europe was needed...

I don't see how this is relevant to my point. We're talking about different time periods. I was talking about the time after all the Roman soldiers had left.

tokle wrote:

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:The Romans moved all their troops off Britain, thus the civilized Celts who were left in charge of the civilized parts of the island did not have any military. That's why they started paying the Germans to defend them.
I don't know this invasion you're talking about. Do you have any information about that?

no, no... to the Britain were send excelent generals to fight against Picts, Irish and Scots. and ofcourse many soldiers. for example Magnus Maximus, general of legions in Britain took throne in Rome by legions from Britain. when Visigoths attacked Italy one legion of two in Britain become as reinforce. two legions in so small area as was Roman England (and in these era when each soldier on borders in Europe was needed...

I don't see how this is relevant to my point. We're talking about different time periods. I was talking about the time after all the Roman soldiers had left.

it looks so, but I´m talking about time period to which is map situated. you are talking about which period?

my English is not good, maybe sometimes I do not exactly understand, but one thing is clear to me: it is far history, and nobody can tell that about this we know everything and about that nothing

theBastard wrote:there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

This is were the discussion came from. You said "after Romans withdraw". So that was the period I was thinking of.
If we're talking about the time-period of this map, then the Romans were still in control, so I'm not quite sure what we would be discussing.

And yes, I would say that we "know" nothing (or practically nothing) of the facts of history in the dark ages in Britain.

tokle wrote:

theBastard wrote:there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

This is were the discussion came from. You said "after Romans withdraw". So that was the period I was thinking of.
If we're talking about the time-period of this map, then the Romans were still in control, so I'm not quite sure what we would be discussing.

no, the discusion came from my point that Angles invasion to England in this time period is a-historical...

tokle wrote:And yes, I would say that we "know" nothing (or practically nothing) of the facts of history in the dark ages in Britain.

no, there is enough records. and maybe they said truth more as Romans records, which were converting by those who ruled.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:

theBastard wrote:there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

This is were the discussion came from. You said "after Romans withdraw". So that was the period I was thinking of.
If we're talking about the time-period of this map, then the Romans were still in control, so I'm not quite sure what we would be discussing.

no, the discusion came from my point that Angles invasion to England in this time period is a-historical...

Yes. And I said that I thought it was within reason to include Angles here. I still do.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:And yes, I would say that we "know" nothing (or practically nothing) of the facts of history in the dark ages in Britain.

no, there is enough records. and maybe they said truth more as Romans records, which were converting by those who ruled.

Here again we were talking about different times.

The Romans were fond of records. The Roman period is pretty well documented. I don't know how biased they would have been as sources, but they would definitely be infinitely more accurate than Gildas or Bede or the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.

tokle wrote:The Romans were fond of records. The Roman period is pretty well documented. I don't know how biased they would have been as sources, but they would definitely be infinitely more accurate than Gildas or Bede or the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.

why? Romans knew propaganda and did it very well it is long time ago when I worked on any project about Dark Age Britain. and believe me I found much, much good records and informations.

EDIT: I think we could end this debate here. it is off map (graphics or gameplay...)

No Catholics in this one. Who are we going to blame if we lose on this map? The Bishop of Rome. Well done! Another excellent map by Kab with the very style of the Nuno himself.