El Gato Supreme的最近内容

The hillfort thing was originally directly linked to tw's blog post...

I'm hoping upgrade costs are linked to the Castle's prosperity: such as a higher population = more available labour = cheaper build costs.

NPC99 说:

I'm sure TW is taking inspiration from the later-day uses of hillforts.

点击展开...

I would think so but their post specifically talks about the iron age.  You could argue that a hillfort being used in the roman\sub-roman periods was not an 'iron age hillfort'.

From an archaeological perspective  the enclosure of space in prehistory (and later) often has symbolic meaning rather simply being a functional response to a perceived need.  The enclosure of space in the iron age may well have been to define areas of ritual significance (often hillforts were built enclosing earlier funerary monuments such as bronze age barrows), and you only have to view some of the immense palisaded enclosures of the preceding bronze age to get to grips with how far man was willing to go to create elaborate ritual spaces. That many hillfort entrances appear to have been astronomically aligned might reinforce such an interpretation. Hillforts may also have acted as central spaces where a dispersed community might gather to reinforce tribal identity.

The elaboration of hillforts with multiple rings of bank and ditch (multivallation) is a phenomenon largely originating in the middle iron age and is often argued to be a kind of competitive display between rivals.

Unfortunately our views of hillforts are often skewed by the use of the word 'fort'.  Such a term is now largely abandoned of meaning but continues to be used for the sake of ease.  Hillfort function continues to fuel intense archaeological debate to this day.

The actual function/role of iron age hillforts, especially with regards to warfare, is so far unsubstantiated.  Some appear to have been occupied for long periods (a few examples containing iron working sites), others very little, however we have very little evidence for 'hillforts at war'.

As for mounting defences against the Romans, this was at the very end of the iron age when, in central southern Britain atleast, we begin to see the emergence of the oppida.  At this later stage of the iron age 'empire building' may well have been on the cards as we begin to see the centralisation and consolidation of political and ritual power around developed hillfort/oppida sites.  These later 'fortifications' however, were often even less suited to defensive warfare than their early-middle iron age counterparts. 

Nevertheless I also remain excited...

Yeah I get this, hence in my original post 'but I am an ass' 

*although iron age 'fortifications' is also specifically cited.

**And taleworlds  in the same post on castles discuss the need to make fortifications which work properly, which Iron age hillforts did not do in the way I imagine they will in game. 

Some hillforts were indeed reused in later periods, however in dramatically altered formats entirely alien from their iron age predecessors; whose inspiration it was that taleworlds  cited.

Early medieval Britain is circa AD 450-1070.

I'm happy to post a bibliography but for a snapshot of the effect which Iron age hillforts have had on the British landscape:

https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk/

It's been created by Gary Lock and a team from Oxford university - by no means a resource to access in isolation but nonetheless a good start point.

I'm citing from range of sources, none of which are wikipedia but I'm not sure what you mean? I completely understand that iron age hillforts are not castles nor even a form of earlier motte and Bailey fortificatiion. 

What I was trying to say is that, hillforts are not fortifications in the early medieval-medieval sense of the word, so how can they be used as the model for battanian castles? 

An thanks for the direct, I'd just seen the castles blog not the factions.  Still the bit about hillforts still applies.

Love the ideas but a bit worried about the historical direction of the game here... The blog mentions about how the Battanian faction architecture was difficult as it is based on British tribes whose architecture transformed as Britain was subject to 'waves of invaders'.

I thought the game was based circa AD 11th-12th century?  Britain was indeed subject to 'waves of invaders' (think Romans: AD 43-400, Anglo-Saxons: circa AD 450, Vikings: AD 793 and Normans: 1066), however the majority of architectural advances taking place during the early middle ages had settled by the time the game is based.

Taleworlds have then instead based Battanian castles on Iron age hillforts?  British iron age hillforts (some built more than 2000 years before the game's setting), despite their name, were not castles.  Their ramparts were likely not manned and many interpretations of hillforts suggest their use may well have been as livestock enclosures.  They did not have the ranged technology to 'command a landscape' like a medieval castle might (sling technology being a revolutionary introduction during the middle IA), and we have scant archaeological evidence for large-scale warfare during this period.  Many hillforts were simply unsuited to defensive warfare; many didn't even have water supply for example and, consider the 21ha Welsh hillfort of pen-y-cloddiau, simply did not have the men to even consider adequately manning the ramparts (if you consider medieval siege manuals as a guide).

What really confuses me then is that: we have a game set during the medieval period which, whilst citing the plethora of influences in play in the preceding 'dark ages',  disregards the even-earlier Roman period and instead settles on using the even-even-earlier iron age???

I'm not moaning - I am rattling with excitement for this game - just concerned about some of the reasons behind design choices... But I am an ass.