Reply To: WHtOW – fluff and does it make sense ?

[bvandewalker 2091xp 0]

First @onlyonepinman I guess I should clarify again: GW can change the army list needs for Kislev , so cassocks,etc. could get thrown out completely and replaced with were-bears or  something more fantastic and less liable to “X company made a cheap historical plastic set version of that the WFB unite was based on”, also not everyone has a 3D printer. Yes Proxy modeling for both Kislev and Cathy is still going to happen, but GW can make it so its less likely you’ll see 4dchan and every fan blog out there recommending you just buy cheap Perry, etc. plastic models  to play those two (which was what was happening to the Human armies around the time GW axed WFB, and frankly looks like the big factor in that decision to me).

@Wolfie65  that “Abrahamically falsified comic book version of Nordic and European myth ” as you put it  is based on Snorri Sturluson’s  poetic saga, which is admittedly a Christian view (according to wiki which is not saying anything given neopagan fake historians give messed up Norse history lessons) but I wouldn’t say comicbook  since it and Royal praybooks are the most detailed of the early mentions of Elves (which actually seem to mostly come up during the Christian era not before) and in both of those it is even clearer they are not based on human people. Likewise while “proto German” word does mean white (among other things such as barley) I doubt its use has anything to do with skin color and frankly making the argument that early white people would view their ancestors as some sort of supernatural critter just doesn’t add up culturally even by academic standards (European cultures rarely respected their elders, let alone viewed them as magical beings).

Also just because Tolkien used Welsh as a base for elvish does not mean other writers should make their elves strictly welsh or euros, and frankly its a mistake to do so at this point in time for spice reasons particularly if your going to make your main human faction predominately Europeanlike unless you are multiracing each nation your setting and picking on later culture tropes (i.e. 1812  instead of 1218 C.E.).

As to “Roman and Christian propaganda about the Celts and Norse” effecting my opinion of the Celts and Norse, no I arrived at them being backwater hicks fairly recently based on their low population numbers and tech levels compared to what China and Assyrian-Persian empires where doing during the same time frame technologically along with their larger population numbers (which are well document and backed up by archaeological evidence). Also just to make things clear I view all the Hellenist states as being truck stop hicks  on par with the Celts and Norse  except maybe Rome and Macedonian states who where second tier civilization for the the same reasons.    Simply put pre-christian  Europe may as well be Arkansas or Nebraska and it was in the Bronze Age long after almost everyone else in class moved on to iron and would likely have stayed there if it had not been for Persia’s influences via trade and the Macedonian Empire’s conquest.     As to them being savages, the Norse outed themselves as such in their own pagan sagas written in stone and we have the corpses the Celts left, the pagan Romans and other Hellenist should also be viewed in the same light, as savages, based on their own records  of themselves.