We would like to change our titles too:

Locum -> Balchon
Archon -> Sundgin
Protector -> Arasaeg
Warrior -> Bogal

We've found a pretty good source:

http://antique-empire.de/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,181/func,view/id,365722/catid,51/

Eadgils wrote:

QUOTE:
We would like to change our titles too:

Locum -> Balchon
Archon -> Sundgin
Protector -> Arasaeg
Warrior -> Bogal

We've found a pretty good source:

http://antique-empire.de/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,181/func,view/id,365722/catid,51/

Ups... Error!!! This is the correct hierarchy! Sorry!!!

Locum -> Sundgin
Archon -> Balchon
Protector -> Arasaeg
Warrior -> Bogal

Click me!
That would be the link to the discussion.

These titles are in ossetic language, which is said to be the most sarmatian-related modern language.

Yep - thanks for the support, Kralle!
There is no evidence about realistic titles for that period and this tribe. But we believe, that these titles are a good approach and a bit more individual.

First, the pretty good "source" you "found" it is not a source. The fact Sarmatians tribe adopt some titles in the similar game AE.de is not a source, or a reason we should do the same.

Second, your affirmation is not true.

Eadgils wrote:

QUOTE:
There is no evidence about realistic titles for that period and this tribe

If you look no further than your "source", you could notice an extended reference to Sarmatians tribe:
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/index.html

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3, p.186 Gibbon mention:

QUOTE:
It is often asserted that “Sarmatian” was a generic name for Slavonic peoples. It is certain that a great many Slavonic tribes must have been often described under the name, but it is extremely doubtful whether any of the chief Sarmatian peoples — the Bastarnae, the Roxolani (? Rox-alani) or Jazyges — were Slavonic. (..)
It is an hypothesis such as, in some form, is needed to account for the appearance of Slavonic names before the beginning of the sixth century in the Illyrian provinces.

Šafarik tried to show that the Alani, Roxolani, Bastarnae, Jazyges were of Iranian race, allied to the Persians and Medes, — like the Scythians of Herodotus.

I'm sure you can find more, like:
http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/497002-sarmatians/

Please post some correct references in support of your proposal.

Dear Siegfried,

This can be a "nice" discussion about sources (especially about "internet driven sources".
Believe it or not, we did more then some grassroot work, to find some facts and we found a lot of sources with -let me say- discussable backround.

Due to the undisputed fact, that the "Sarmatians" (another term, that has potential for a debate of principles) haven't had a passed on written language/script, any source that you will find works on base of derivations (more or less scientific).

I really like this one:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28328848/Osprey-The-Sarmatians-600-BC-AD-450

But also there is no indication of correct titles, even the basic social structures is not properly defined.
So, we stay with our proposal/petitions, based on the argument the the proposed titles are not "worser" then the actual definitions.

By the way - maybe the link to ae.de was a wrong choice as a "source" - But the fact that another council of warriors was able to decide this titles positively did not seem to me like a bad argument.

Best regards
Eadgils

Sarmatians have nothing in common with Slavonic peoples. In older times in Poland between XVI-XVIII century was popular idea that polish nobles have Sarmatians origin (Poland have the greatest cavarly in the world in that times that is maybe the reason) but it was only good wish, nothing more. Of course in AE Sarmatians should be move little more to South-West to Ukraina because up there where they are now it wasn't any steppes. Where were Slavians in that times historicians still aren't 100% sure.

Some appendixes from my side...

1. Siegfried wrote:

QUOTE:
The fact Sarmatians tribe adopt some titles in the similar game AE.de is not a source, or a reason we should do the same.

Is this your opinion or an official rule?

2. Siegfried wrote:

QUOTE:
Second, your affirmation is not true.

Eadgils wrote:

QUOTE:
There is no evidence about realistic titles for that period and this tribe


If you look no further than your "source", you could notice an extended reference to Sarmatians tribe:
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/index.html

It is not very professional, academical or scientific, to declare my 'affirmation' as not true, without showing an evidence. I can't find a title in your first link.

In your second linked article (Believe me, I really enjoyed the porn pics ads on that plattform - Thx Siegfried), I really can't find anything about the author (besides his name). His approach to scientifc work seems a little bit pseudo-academical, nothing concerning his sources and so on. Following your approach, Siegfried, it won't take me to much time, to release an article anywhere and to post it here afterwards.

I will not discuss on base of suspious, not reliable sources, only because they are existing. I don't find serious sources including Sarmatians titles and I won't follow the argumentations on dubious websites.

To put it in a nutshell:
In a game, where players are named like 'Butch the slaughterer', 'conan', 'streetfightersbl' or provinces like Hamburg, Bremen or Kent are existing, you should choose wisely if you are really wanting to do a high sophisticated scientific discussion about titles for a Nation, where no written word was found til now.

I believe that our proposal is not "historical approved" but it is game supporting and due to our derivation not phantastical.

I'm amazed you call Edward Gibbon a "suspious, not reliable source".

QUOTE:
Unusually for the 18th century, Gibbon was never content with secondhand accounts when the primary sources were accessible (though most of these were drawn from well-known printed editions). "I have always endeavoured," he says, "to draw from the fountain-head; that my curiosity, as well as a sense of duty, has always urged me to study the originals; and that, if they have sometimes eluded my search, I have carefully marked the secondary evidence, on whose faith a passage or a fact were reduced to depend."[33] In this insistence upon the importance of primary sources, Gibbon is considered by many to be one of the first modern historians

About the first reference, here are two examples about Sarmatian titles:

QUOTE:
the Chersonesians applied to Amage, queen of the Sarmatians for help in the face of the hostile attitude of the Crimean Scythian king and concluded an "alliance" with her. Amage first sent an order to the Scythian king requesting him to abstain from harassing Chersonese and when this proved of no avail, she appeared unexpectedly at the head of a small cavalry force, at the Scythian king's quarters, had the king put to death and set the dead king's son in his place as ruler of the Scythians ordering him to live in peace with the Greeks and the other neighbouring barbarians.

QUOTE:
There are undoubted traces, however, that the town enjoyed once more an economic improvement for a short spell. In the 2nd century B. C. lively trade relations between Athens and the Pontic Greek towns seems to have been taken up once more. This was undoubtedly the result of the peace treaty concluded between the Pontic powers in 179 B. C. Among the parties to the treaty we find the Sarmatian king Gatalos. It was this peace treaty that to a certain extent had ensured a more peaceful state of affairs bringing about the revival of economic life and of trade relations.

Well, to put it also in a nutshell:
We would like to judge on our own, not take for granted what others decided. So, I expect you to produce some references in sustaining your claim, instead arguing with me, because that's the rule.

Anyway... last statement from my side, concerning this theme, because I'm getting bored about being forced to explain myself permantely:

Siegried wrote:

QUOTE:
I'm amazed you call Edward Gibbon a "suspious, not reliable source".

I'm pretty sure, that was clear without ambiguity that this statement related to your second source. I've mentioned, that I could not found any titles in the Gibbons article.

Siegried wrote:

QUOTE:
About the first reference, here are two examples about Sarmatian titles: ...

Interesting! That means, you believe that based on this sources the correct Sarmatian title for the head of the tribe is queen or king? Hopefully the old Sarmatians had a better english skill than me, while titeling their heads in a foreign language.

To come back to our proposal:

Locum -> Sundgin
Archon -> Balchon
Protector -> Arasaeg
Warrior -> Bogal

The argumentation:

Opa Kralle wrote:

QUOTE:
These titles are in ossetic language, which is said to be the most sarmatian-related modern language.

The source:
Miller, V. F.: Ossetisch-Russisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (dictionary)
(Leningrad, 1927, 1929, 1934)

Sorry, could not find an online version. There still seems to be a world besides the web:

Source for the Sarmation/Ossetian relationship:
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/index.html

Like already mentioned: Because their is no written Sarmatian language evident, our approach (and any other would be) is to get as close as possible to a solution. Our proposal should not be more worse than the actual standard titles.

I suggest to make it easy: If the CoW votes against our proposal, this theme is finished. We won't change our argumentation, even under pressure...