MP Antiquity Caesar's Rome: Multiplayer Battle Mod

Users who are viewing this thread

I don't think the goal of this multiplayer battle mod is to be historically accurate. It seems more about historical evocation I would say (which is not a bad thing if it is assumed).

We have a battle re-enactor writing up a combat manual for historically accurate rules of engagements and roman tactics for clans, we also have a historian who is guiding us through the process of this mod. All our assets will be revised to ensure the best historical accuracy possible before being ported; We may have one or two assets that came after in the time of Augustus, but it's not historically impossible for say the Centurion helmet we made to be there. It's also incredibly simple for us to make a dozen more period accurate helmets in a few days. We are also doing historical battles for the mod that include the Battle of Alesia, Battle of Vosges, Britannia Landings, and more.

We're naming units based off real legions, and armies of other powers after the names of their gods and tribes.

So no, you're wrong there.The goal is historical accuracy whether you think so or not. Evocation is also the goal as we will have a battle mode that let's players play in non historical battles with the mechanics of our mod. Anyways, no game/mod will ever be 100% historically accurate. At best, they're all evocations at the end of the day.

A better example of a mod in which the goal is historical "evocation" would be a mod that does not replace vanilla assets with assets based off historical references; And simply retextures native assets to evoke the feeling of rome. A mod like ours in which the goal is historical accuracy, makes assets that are based off historical references from the time. An example would be say, like the gladius we made that is Hispaniensis style vs any other style. We take into account those small little details mate. Driven by a goal of historical accuracy.
 
Last edited:
We have a battle re-enactor writing up a combat manual for historically accurate rules of engagements and roman tactics for clans, we also have a historian who is guiding us through the process of this mod. All our assets will be revised to ensure the best historical accuracy possible before being ported. We are also doing historical battles for the mod that include the Battle of Alesia, Battle of Vosges, Britannia Landings, and more.

So no, you're wrong there.The goal is historical accuracy whether you think so or not. Evocation is also the goal as we will have a battle mode that let's players play in non historical battles with the mechanics of our mod.

Okay, sorry then. I misunderstood your goal.

So if I can point out some issues, the imperial helmets are anachronistic for this time period. The earliest evidence seems to be the archaic models found in Nijmegen in Netherlands, dated to the reign of Tiberius. During the Gallic Wars and the Civil War, the helmets in use would have been very probably the Coolus-Mannheim and the Buggenum types. Maybe some Gallic helmets were in use as well, notably the Port type (the ancestor of the Imperial Gallic series). It is not known if the Italic Montefortino type is still in use but it could be a plausible hypothesis.

An example of illustration of the Roman legionary during the Gallic Wars:

Finally about the Gauls, the helmets attested for the Gallic Wars are:
The Port type.
The Alésia type and its variant found in Agen (with a crest holder).
The Normandy type, found in Forêt de Rouvray and Forêt de Louviers (probably with a crest holder).
The Coolus-Mannheim.
There is also the helmet from Boé found slightly after the Gallic Wars, around 40-30 BC.

For example, the helmet you have chosen for the spearman is a helmet type found in burials from the 5th and 4th centuries BC.

A few accurate illustrations:
 
Okay, sorry then. I misunderstood your goal.

So if I can point out some issues, the imperial helmets are anachronistic for this time period. The earliest evidence seems to be the archaic models found in Nijmegen in Netherlands, dated to the reign of Tiberius. During the Gallic Wars and the Civil War, the helmets in use would have been very probably the Coolus-Mannheim and the Buggenum types. Maybe some Gallic helmets were in use as well, notably the Port type (the ancestor of the Imperial Gallic series). It is not known if the Italic Montefortino type is still in use but it could be a plausible hypothesis.

An example of illustration of the Roman legionary during the Gallic Wars:

Finally about the Gauls, the helmets attested for the Gallic Wars are:
The Port type.
The Alésia type and its variant found in Agen (with a crest holder).
The Normandy type, found in Forêt de Rouvray and Forêt de Louviers (probably with a crest holder).
The Coolus-Mannheim.
There is also the helmet from Boé found slightly after the Gallic Wars, around 40-30 BC.

For example, the helmet you have chosen for the spearman is a helmet type found in burials from the 5th and 4th centuries BC.

A few accurate illustrations:

Conical La Tene helmet was in use up to 101 bc. it's not impossible that it would be present in 60-45 b.c given that the boe helmet itself was conical. I already addressed the centurion helmet; Yet you haven't read any of what I replied. It's kind of futile to do that given that I addressed revisions. Yes, we have the coolus, and montefortino. Anyway, thank you for your concerns but our historian has already addressed all this.
 
Conical La Tene helmet was in use up to 101 bc. it's not impossible that it would be present in 60-45 b.c given that the boe helmet itself was conical. I already addressed the centurion helmet; Yet you haven't read any of what I replied. It's kind of futile to do that given that I addressed revisions. Yes, we have the coolus, and montefortino. Anyway, thank you for your concerns but our historian has already addressed all this.
"Conical La Tène" helmet is not a type. It is not because you see something vaguely similar in shape that it means there is a direct link between the helmets nor that they are contemporary. Typology is made on how the helmets are constructed.

To be more precise the helmet of the spearman is clearly looking like the Berru type.
 
"Conical La Tène" helmet is not a type. It is not because you see something vaguely similar in shape that it means there is a direct link between the helmets nor that they are contemporary. Typology is made on how the helmets are constructed.

To be more precise the helmet of the spearman is clearly looking like the Berru type.

Conical La Tene refers to several type of Gallic/Celtic helmets that are conical in shape the La Tene style like the Marne helmet. Besides, these spearmen are not nobles and would probably have much older gear; It is widely known that ancient gear typically had a longer shelf life. Just because one of these helmets was found in the 3rd century b.c does not mean it couldn't have been used /in production in 1st century b.c. Take for example the Lorica Hamata which was used from 3rd century bc to 4th century AD. That's 700 years. And as I said, you're only nit picking at small things that are irrelevant to the fact that I said there will be more assets & revisions. You're acting like we've completed the mod. Do you realize we're going to make all those different variants of helmets like the Port & Alesian. You're not even pointing out the good which tells me you're just here to be a heckler. Go bother someone else.
 
Besides, these spearmen are not nobles and would probably have much older gear; It is widely known that ancient gear typically had a longer shelf life.

It is absolutely not the case. The items found in La Tène burials are following clear evolutions, even a simple fibula can give you a fairly accurate dating for a burial. I assure you that older material are not found mixed with younger one. If there are subdivisions of the La Tène period based on archeological materials, this is because we are not seeing mixed material between different centuries in the same burial.

You're acting like we've completed the mod.

I am not pointing out errors in what you have not done, but on what you have done. It would be fine if you weren't saying that the mod is trying to be historically accurate. I have no issue with artistic license but I have issues with misinformation. The La Tène culture is a world seeing a lot of material innovation although there is little technological revolution. The helmets from the Marne region (the Berru type) found in chariot burials during the 5th century BC have never been a part of the common military panoply. Actually new helmets fusioning Italic, Etruscan and Celtic technology replaced them during the fourth century and those helmets are never found after that.

The settlements at the time remain little-known, and there is scant information about artisanal output. Between the end of the fourth and end of the third centuries BC, ironwork was already highly developed at Sajopetri in Hungary as well as at Manching in Bavaria, Aulnat in Auvergne, and Lacoste in Gironde. Even so, given the available information, it may be supposed that production was relatively loosely organized across various sites. Funerary and religious contexts provide the bulk of documents. For an idea of the scale of standardization, it is sufficient to examine the distribution not just of personal items (for example, the copper alloy fibulae from Duchcov or Munsingen, or short swords that have scabbards with openwork and rounded chape ends, which are typical series from the last two-thirds of the fourth century BC), but also the sets of weapons, combining a sword (complete with scabbard and suspension system), a spear, and personal shields, which have been found in lands separated by several hundreds or thousands of kilometers. The patterns, more symbolic than ornamental, in an escutcheon arrangement — such as zoomorphic lyres on a textured background — that were reproduced identically on certain swords of similar shape and design found in France (Champagne, Languedoc), northern Italy, Hungary, and even Britain also give another idea of the scale of standardization. Technological innovations also attest to the vitality of those living north of the Alps. Here too, inasmuch as they cannot be separated from the warrior elites, armaments benefitted the most from these advancements. The sword, carried on the right at waist-level, denoted this excellence in war throughout the Second Iron Age. The scabbard, which both protected and decorated it, was a composite object consisting of two plates held together with an end chape, along with a means of suspension attached at the back and various support pieces. Inseparable from the sword, it was custom-made in order to protect the blade effectively by keeping movement of the sword edges to a minimum. It could also be completely taken apart for maintenance and repair. An initial phase (La Tene A, or the fifth century BC) characterized by output with relatively strong regional characteristics despite certain commonalities, gave way to a phase dominated by the trend toward standardization. This shift, which can be observed from the start of the fourth century BC, went hand in hand with technological advancements. While blacksmiths had already amassed four centuries of experience, it was not until the fifth century that they began producing sheets of metal to make scabbards, which replaced sheaths formerly made of wood or leather. Toward the end of the century, craftsmen abandoned the use of bronze for sheet metal, which was common throughout the fifth century BC, in favor of iron as they became adept at making sheets that were sufficiently thin (only several tenths of a millimeter thick) and hard wearing. Bronze was used only for decorative purposes, in the form of often very delicate bronze leaf covering the iron plate. It was only in the British Isles that bronze continued to be employed up until Romanization. On the continent, bronze only resurfaced during the second century, alone or in combination with iron. Sheet iron was difficult to work with: during the initial phase in the fifth century BC, artisans often proceeded via welding and riveting (Cortrat), a technique inspired by pot-making (as in the Celtic jugs with tubular spouts obtained by riveting together thin sheets of bronze). For populations in a large part of Middle Europe, the preference for iron left a lasting impression on the history of weapons. This was accompanied by another innovation connected to the suspension system (comprising the scabbard’s suspension device or hasp and belt) and the need to create a fastening that could withstand the impact of rapid movement (the Celtic warriors of the day were primarily foot-soldiers). In the third century BC, the addition of bronze or iron chains dramatically changed the traditional leather belt with hoops and hooks that had been used since the fifth century. The concept was commented on by ancient writers, such as Diodorus Siculus at the dawn of our own age. In the new system, two chains of different sizes attached to the scabbard’s suspension piece were now joined to the leather belt, a short section running forward on the right-hand side and a longer section encircling the body around back but attached at the front. At the start of the third century BC, this original system emerged simultaneously not only in western and eastern Europe but also in Italy. The innovation and formal variety of the initial phase was soon reduced to a few basic concepts (two or three in each generation for about a century). The heavy, cumbersome chains from the beginning of Middle La Tene (the second quarter of the third century BC) became more delicate and developed toward greater comfort. The use of semi-rigid belts was finally abandoned just before the end of the third century BC, when cavalry was being established. The return to simple leather belts with hoops and hooks brought this interlude of barely a hundred years to a close. Largely made of perishable materials, the oval Celtic shield made its appearance at the dawn of the third century BC, when the use of metal umbos designed to provide the hand-grip with better protection became widespread. The first attempts at bivalve coverings gave way to transverse band-shaped bosses and ultimately, from the end of the second century BC, to circular designs that implied the central spine had disappeared. The helmets worn during the second half of the fifth century BC by certain warriors found buried on their two-wheeled chariots did not subsequently become part of military equipment, except in the southeastern alpine area and Balkan Europe.

Source: https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANNA_672_0295--the-golden-age-of-the-celtic-aristocracy.htm

You're not even pointing out the good which tells me you're just here to be a heckler. Go bother someone else.

There are different ways to receive criticism. Do not confuse criticism with insults or do not believe I am here as a heckler. From a visual and artistic perspective, your work is really good. I am simply thinking you are not working with the proper source material.

But if you want to continue in this direction and to create more stuff you will need to change in the future, go ahead.
 
It is absolutely not the case. The items found in La Tène burials are following clear evolutions, even a simple fibula can give you a fairly accurate dating for a burial. I assure you that older material are not found mixed with younger one. If there are subdivisions of the La Tène period based on archeological materials, this is because we are not seeing mixed material between different centuries in the same burial.



I am not pointing out errors in what you have not done, but on what you have done. It would be fine if you weren't saying that the mod is trying to be historically accurate. I have no issue with artistic license but I have issues with misinformation. The La Tène culture is a world seeing a lot of material innovation although there is little technological revolution. The helmets from the Marne region (the Berru type) found in chariot burials during the 5th century BC have never been a part of the common military panoply. Actually new helmets fusioning Italic, Etruscan and Celtic technology replaced them during the fourth century and those helmets are never found after that.

The settlements at the time remain little-known, and there is scant information about artisanal output. Between the end of the fourth and end of the third centuries BC, ironwork was already highly developed at Sajopetri in Hungary as well as at Manching in Bavaria, Aulnat in Auvergne, and Lacoste in Gironde. Even so, given the available information, it may be supposed that production was relatively loosely organized across various sites. Funerary and religious contexts provide the bulk of documents. For an idea of the scale of standardization, it is sufficient to examine the distribution not just of personal items (for example, the copper alloy fibulae from Duchcov or Munsingen, or short swords that have scabbards with openwork and rounded chape ends, which are typical series from the last two-thirds of the fourth century BC), but also the sets of weapons, combining a sword (complete with scabbard and suspension system), a spear, and personal shields, which have been found in lands separated by several hundreds or thousands of kilometers. The patterns, more symbolic than ornamental, in an escutcheon arrangement — such as zoomorphic lyres on a textured background — that were reproduced identically on certain swords of similar shape and design found in France (Champagne, Languedoc), northern Italy, Hungary, and even Britain also give another idea of the scale of standardization. Technological innovations also attest to the vitality of those living north of the Alps. Here too, inasmuch as they cannot be separated from the warrior elites, armaments benefitted the most from these advancements. The sword, carried on the right at waist-level, denoted this excellence in war throughout the Second Iron Age. The scabbard, which both protected and decorated it, was a composite object consisting of two plates held together with an end chape, along with a means of suspension attached at the back and various support pieces. Inseparable from the sword, it was custom-made in order to protect the blade effectively by keeping movement of the sword edges to a minimum. It could also be completely taken apart for maintenance and repair. An initial phase (La Tene A, or the fifth century BC) characterized by output with relatively strong regional characteristics despite certain commonalities, gave way to a phase dominated by the trend toward standardization. This shift, which can be observed from the start of the fourth century BC, went hand in hand with technological advancements. While blacksmiths had already amassed four centuries of experience, it was not until the fifth century that they began producing sheets of metal to make scabbards, which replaced sheaths formerly made of wood or leather. Toward the end of the century, craftsmen abandoned the use of bronze for sheet metal, which was common throughout the fifth century BC, in favor of iron as they became adept at making sheets that were sufficiently thin (only several tenths of a millimeter thick) and hard wearing. Bronze was used only for decorative purposes, in the form of often very delicate bronze leaf covering the iron plate. It was only in the British Isles that bronze continued to be employed up until Romanization. On the continent, bronze only resurfaced during the second century, alone or in combination with iron. Sheet iron was difficult to work with: during the initial phase in the fifth century BC, artisans often proceeded via welding and riveting (Cortrat), a technique inspired by pot-making (as in the Celtic jugs with tubular spouts obtained by riveting together thin sheets of bronze). For populations in a large part of Middle Europe, the preference for iron left a lasting impression on the history of weapons. This was accompanied by another innovation connected to the suspension system (comprising the scabbard’s suspension device or hasp and belt) and the need to create a fastening that could withstand the impact of rapid movement (the Celtic warriors of the day were primarily foot-soldiers). In the third century BC, the addition of bronze or iron chains dramatically changed the traditional leather belt with hoops and hooks that had been used since the fifth century. The concept was commented on by ancient writers, such as Diodorus Siculus at the dawn of our own age. In the new system, two chains of different sizes attached to the scabbard’s suspension piece were now joined to the leather belt, a short section running forward on the right-hand side and a longer section encircling the body around back but attached at the front. At the start of the third century BC, this original system emerged simultaneously not only in western and eastern Europe but also in Italy. The innovation and formal variety of the initial phase was soon reduced to a few basic concepts (two or three in each generation for about a century). The heavy, cumbersome chains from the beginning of Middle La Tene (the second quarter of the third century BC) became more delicate and developed toward greater comfort. The use of semi-rigid belts was finally abandoned just before the end of the third century BC, when cavalry was being established. The return to simple leather belts with hoops and hooks brought this interlude of barely a hundred years to a close. Largely made of perishable materials, the oval Celtic shield made its appearance at the dawn of the third century BC, when the use of metal umbos designed to provide the hand-grip with better protection became widespread. The first attempts at bivalve coverings gave way to transverse band-shaped bosses and ultimately, from the end of the second century BC, to circular designs that implied the central spine had disappeared. The helmets worn during the second half of the fifth century BC by certain warriors found buried on their two-wheeled chariots did not subsequently become part of military equipment, except in the southeastern alpine area and Balkan Europe.

Source: https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANNA_672_0295--the-golden-age-of-the-celtic-aristocracy.htm



There are different ways to receive criticism. Do not confuse criticism with insults or do not believe I am here as a heckler. From a visual and artistic perspective, your work is really good. I am simply thinking you are not working with the proper source material.

But if you want to continue in this direction and to create more stuff you will need to change in the future, go ahead.
BuggenumHelmetOS.png

Literally took me a minute to turn into a Buggenum. And I still plan on including the Berru helmet.
 
And I still plan on including the Berru helmet.

If you refuse what even archaeologists wrote, no issue with that. The same for the Roman helmets, if you want Imperial types, you are free to ignore what the literature says. Anyway, it won't be a waste, someone else could use them for another mod on a different period.

We strive for historical accuracy, therefore historical battle maps will be recreated as such. Take for example the Battle of Alesia, it was a classic example of Siege Warfare, It was fought by Julius Caesar in Gaul against a confederation of Germanic Tribes united under leadership by Vercingetorix of the Arverni. He led a revolt on the Roman occupiers and his final stand was at Alesia. This is where Caesar famously built a double wall around Alesia to starve their defenders. But also to protect his flank from Tribesmen arriving to help.

By the way, I think you made an inadvertent error here.
 
Last edited:
This mod is not OSP; It's LSP. No one can use my assets without asking for permission; That'd be stealing and I'd be sure to have it shut down quickly.

Also, I already addressed the centurion helmet. You're just beating a dead horse.
 
This mod is not OSP; It's LSP. No one can use my assets without asking for permission; That'd be stealing and I'd be sure to have it shut down quickly.

I was not implying this. I know that generally modders accept to share their work if they are properly asked and received the credits. That what I meant.

Again do not take my messages as attacks. I am not trying to be mean.
 
Also, I already addressed the centurion helmet. You're just beating a dead horse.

Good. I apologize for my tone and my excess of frankness. If I started my initial criticism like this "So if I can point out some issues..." it was without any mean intent. But if you are stubborn, I am much more, especially when it is a topic I know well.
 
Nice job with this helmet. It is indeed a helmet in use during the Gallic Wars. A small note however, the helmet looks more like the one found in the Forêt de Rouvray (Normandy, Northern France) than the one found in Agen (near Toulouse, Southern France). Here the helmet found in Normandy:
image.png.4bef189a07f0a3ca11c7beb1cb1a6b7b.png


Here the helmet found in Agen:
image.png.7989d8d04fff45fa73e55fcde7e4a8fd.png


As you see, the helmet found in Agen is rounder, very close to the helmet found in Alésia:
725e288b.jpg


Finally, the helmet known as the Port type, because it has been first found in Port bei Nidau(Switzerland), is this one:
image.png
 
Looks fantastic Will you have the Manipular legion formation ? (I cannot remember when they switched over)

Love to see 390 BCE Roman Hoplites V Gauls battles :grin:
 
Looks fantastic Will you have the Manipular legion formation ? (I cannot remember when they switched over)

Love to see 390 BCE Roman Hoplites V Gauls battles :grin:

That's complicate topic. Cohorts are the most common tactical units reported during the Gallic Wars but the maniples are mentionned a few times in very particular circumstances. Notably against the Eburones (a Celtic tribe) using guerrilla tactics in the forests, Caesar dispatched his men in maniples. But on the battlefield, it doesn't seem to have been the case, at least not clearly.

If you are more interested, I suggest you these articles:
 
Back
Top Bottom