Through witnessing various discussions held in this forum regarding EB and it's relationship to the History it is based upon, I thought it would be helpful to discuss what should be considered factual, probable, and, hence, legitimate to the construction of the EB2 mod.
The reason I bring this up is because, in some previous posts, a significant portion of people seem to possess a prejudice for the latest history book or the lastest scientific article. They seem to disregard, and at times even seem to despise, the original sources, of which without we wouldn't even be able to speak on the subject. I could explain myself, but I will provide an explanation from someone with much higher credentials to reinforce my point:
Thus, it is important to realize that the world as was then is much different as it is now. Whether better or worse, we cannot assume it worked in the same way it does now. I once saw a modder bring up a google map as his reference for his map planning, and I thought: How on Earth could he, using such reference, ever locate or draw out the Arnus Marshes?! He can't. And because of this, I hope EB2 is based on all those primary sources which we deem probable, likely, and true, for, after all, the main concern must be that we get things right. But, even for those whom require concrete evidence as necessary to be convinced, do we not play this because of it's qualities of fable and mythology, which the classical sources seem to possess so much? I do and see it much more appealing than your typical Call of Duty game, no matter how much more "realistic" it is.There is a tendency among some of the modern historians [and EB scholars ;)] to make this general maneuver on the line of the Po much as Napoleon, with a more perfect art, with the history of centuries of warfare in this region before him, and with a close knowledge of its minutest topographical details, would be apt to have done... But strategy, which is still nothing but the higest military expression of the art of deceit, was in that day, as a rule, mere strategem, and we can scarely assume that the Carthaginian general was called on to look as closely into the strategic mapping of the country as Bonaparte was both compelled and able to do... Some of the cleverest of military critics seem to work on the theory that such and such a course was the proper one for a good strategist to take; and that therefore Hannibal did so, forgetting that there was no strategy in Hannibal's era... - and this is the main point - that the old authorities give us facts which we may not overlook.
-Theodore Ayrault Dodge on explanation of Hannibal's maneuvers on the Po.
Bookmarks