Slitherine

Just browsing through Legions Triumphant, and a couple of questions came up:

Why is it that Ancient Brits get a BG of elite warriors, whereas Ancient Germans don't? I have no problem with a BG of elite or superior warriors for the AB's, it just seems to shortchange the AG's somewhat - in fact, I would have thought the most ferocious of the German tribes, perhaps the Marcomanni & Chatti, might have a decent argument for a proportion of their line warriors being classed as superior.

Second, after reading that the Gauls should be HF & don't get hills because (and I quote) "The vast majority of France (Gaul) is remarkably flat and that is what is represented by the territories list" - well, dear god, by that standard you can hardly call England hilly - what the English are pleased to call a hill is only enough to cause me to lose my breath due to extreme unfitness, and compared to (say) the Massif Central, England is essentially flat as a pancake (OK, Wales is passably hilly I agree, but that just raises the same arguments about hill tribes for the Gallic list).

And before I hear the volleys about dense woodlands requiring MF, I would point out that there are numerous experts (mostly talking about climatology) that have popped up lecturing us about how England was basically deforested by the Celtic civilisation, and (IIRC) around AD 0 it was as deforested as it reached again in the 18th Century. No idea if these guys are correct, of course, but they at least seem to have some evidence to base this on.

This should be interesting..

These questions have all been asked before

All asked before RECENTLY!

sorry cant find a link to hep you out maybe someone above can help you (if they dont hate you for asking the same that someone else asked not the best way to help new players guys be patient)

Gauls w/ no hills (was in same sub-forum, same page as this topic)
http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8858

Germans should be Superior too topic (used search function just typing Early Germans in it)
http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7002

Nothing about old Britain not having trees though.

Carlos, thanks for the EG link - I had missed that

However, my question wasn't about Gauls lacking hilly (I'm well aware of that recent thread), but why Britons GET hilly terrain in such an abysmally flat country, which I couldn't find in this forum

philqw78 - gee thanks for your exorbitant courtesy

firefalluk wrote:Carlos, thanks for the EG link - I had missed that

However, my question wasn't about Gauls lacking hilly (I'm well aware of that recent thread), but why Britons GET hilly terrain in such an abysmally flat country, which I couldn't find in this forum

philqw78 - gee thanks for your exorbitant courtesy

I suspect you've only been to the flat bits near to London. Much of the territory inhabited by the British tribes was hilly and they tended to put their forts at the top of them too.

Phil is ex-REME, who don't do courtesy.

Phil is ex-REME, who don't do courtesy

Not if someone else who left practically the same comment beats me to it. Although I could send you the same links again Firefall. But being Ex REME we do minmimum effort from somewhere behind the lines.

I suspect you've only been to the flat bits near to London. Much of the territory inhabited by the British tribes was hilly and they tended to put their forts at the top of them too.

The Cheviots and the Pennines are far from flat. Northumberland, Lancashire and Cumbria are also most definitely not flat either (also Wales which Phil mentions)

I am also not sure that every tree in GB was chopped down either. Ancient British tribes aren't famous for their forest planting abilities... so the forests that abound everywhere today must have still been there then!

I do agree that the British getting Elites is a big fudge. My understanding was that Elite troops are needed to differentiate when the ordinary troops are Superior - given that the foot warriors are Average in the Ancient British then..... however this has been discussed ad infinitum and is generally agreed that this slipped through the review log.

dave_r wrote: I am also not sure that every tree in GB was chopped down either. Ancient British tribes aren't famous for their forest planting abilities... so the forests that abound everywhere today must have still been there then!

You could grow a quite substantial forest in a few hundred years, whereas the Ancient British vanished nearly 2000 years ago. There has been plenty of time to grow new forests since then.

On the other hand, IIRC several Roman versus British battle descriptions mention woods and Caesar mentions quite a few types of tree in the British section of Gallic Wars. Also, according to the Royal Forestry Society's web page: "Britain's oldest tree is probably the Fortingall Yew in Tayside, which is believed to be over 3000 years old. Britain is thought to have the largest population of 'ancient' trees in Europe. "

lawrenceg wrote:

dave_r wrote: I am also not sure that every tree in GB was chopped down either. Ancient British tribes aren't famous for their forest planting abilities... so the forests that abound everywhere today must have still been there then!

You could grow a quite substantial forest in a few hundred years, whereas the Ancient British vanished nearly 2000 years ago. There has been plenty of time to grow new forests since then.

On the other hand, IIRC several Roman versus British battle descriptions mention woods and Caesar mentions quite a few types of tree in the British section of Gallic Wars. Also, according to the Royal Forestry Society's web page: "Britain's oldest tree is probably the Fortingall Yew in Tayside, which is believed to be over 3000 years old. Britain is thought to have the largest population of 'ancient' trees in Europe. "

I think it's fair to say there have been many changes in view on this topic. The Victorians assumed there was the "forest sauvage" - unbroken trees - on essentially no evidence. There's been a recent swing back to a theory of a reasonably open landscape, at least in some areas. The reality is, no one really knows for sure. There's little point trying to extrapolate back from what we have now. Cutting for fuel was very common with the rising pre-coal population and major factors like the Enclosures Act and the deliberate planting and harvesting of trees for use of the timbers have comprehensively muddied the waters.

I bought some nice trees at Warfare. The bases are heavy so they don't fall over.


Ray

so HF trees, you wont be able to use them with your ancient brits, you need MF trees (that do fall over) for that

paulcummins wrote:so HF trees, you wont be able to use them with your ancient brits, you need MF trees (that do fall over) for that

No, no, Ents are definitely Heavy Foot.

And I thought firefalluk and Phil were the same person...

possum wrote:And I thought firefalluk and Phil were the same person...

No, they are different Phils, and neither is the Phil.

No, they are different Phils, and neither is the Phil.

And I don't even know who I am on here. But I don't think I'm any of them.

So everyone is claiming " I'm Phil" instead of Spartacus these days ?

This is as good as that old Monty Python skit about the Australians..

"Moind if we call you Bruce, sive confusion?"