View Full Version : What faction did you play first?
So, we've had numerous threads on what faction you played first, what faction you've never played, and what factions you still want to play.
Now, let's get to the question, "what faction did you play first?"
I thought it would be interesting to know what faction you chose to play with first, and why you did so. Was it because you like pointy hats? Was it because you want to crush Rome!? Was it because you felt psychologically attacked by everything French and wanted to raze every city from Massilia to Lemonum?!?!
Well, post everything here!
My first faction was Epeiros. I chose it because I loved Greek warfare and Elephants, and I wanted to crush everything Roman.
Maion Maroneios
08-23-2008, 17:43
Well, my very first faction back at EB 0.70something was the mighty Koinon Hellenon. First of all becaue I love all Greek factions, and secondly to kick, as with your case, some serious Roman arse:thumbsup: (which I didn't btw, as I never got enough time before the next build came out...)
Maion
Romani cos I felt out of place playing every thing else. Something about em just gels
Their position seemed interesting and I wanted to try something other than the romans. I've been a fan of Epeiros ever since. One of my fav campaigns have been with them where, during some epic battles all within the same year I lost both Pyrrhos and his son Ptolemaios to the Maks, but a captain from the army (the guy in charge of the phalanx that one the last battle for Demetrios was adopted into the family and eventually led a campaign against the Romans and into Sicily when Taras rebelled from their Roman occupiers and joined the Epeirotes for protection.
Foot
That would be Iberia, back in 0.74 I think when all they could affordably muster was skirmishers. I took Carthage but had to yield to the Romani with all their armour.
Tollheit
08-23-2008, 18:15
My first faction were the Casse. I chose them because EB scared me, and I felt more secure on an island.
Under my command the initial army, frequently retrained and augmented with 1-3 units of cheap but useful Iaosatae, conquered all realms of the British Isles.
Ibn-Khaldun
08-23-2008, 19:01
I have to say that I am one of those who chose Romani.
I wanted to play them because there is no Senate in EB that can send me missions or make me do things that I do not want to do!(Not that I did what they asked/ordered me to do:beam:)
I tried the Romani to begin with, back in .81x or so. Although I quickly tired of them. Several mini-campaigns later, in which I barely played 3 turns, I settled on the KH. I consider them to be my first 'true' EB campaign, and also the first one in which I started to step up from the noobish E/E to my standard M/M. Now I find EB to be so much more challenging than vanilla RTW or even M2TW, so much so that I can go VH/VH in either of them, and win easily.
General Appo
08-23-2008, 19:32
Long ago, in the times before times, I first played EB, and I started with the Romani.
I don´t know, I think I just thought I should start off with a faction I am relatively familiar with instead of jumping straight at a new one. You know, experience the changes gradually. Was still quite a shook though.
It must have been 0.7 or 0.8, I don´t quite remember. I played it very slow and I think I took Sicily, southern Iberia... maybe even Carthage. Then the next version came out. But I do remember that that version wasn´t 1.0, could have been 0.81x or what it was called.
TWFanatic
08-23-2008, 19:51
Saba.
Are you kidding me?
The Senatus Populusque Romanus was my first faction. My second faction was the Senatus Populusque Romanus with the script on. :smash:
My third faction was the Casse tribe.
Fourth Makedonia. Fifth Makedonia. Sixth KH. Seventh Averni. Eigth Qart Hadasht. Ninth Senatus Populusque Romanus. Tenth KH. Eleventh Sweboz tribe. I’m currently on #11 (my “screenshot of the month” entry is from that campaign).
Epeiros. Except for baktria it was the only 'new' faction that was decently finished back in the good old Closed beta of the 6.x version. I still have it on my HD. lol. I don't believe I've finished the campaign. I can't believe how vanilla everything was compared to now, and yet I found it so different and refreshing already. Ah sweet memories of yore....
The Celtic Viking
08-23-2008, 20:34
Sweboz in 0.74, which reminds me: I haven't played as them since 0.8. I must remember to do that, what with all the new content they've got since then.
I too played Epeiros first. I had only played RTR up until this point so the Epeiros faction was totaly new for me. I remember I found EB to be very hard that first time - I lost many battles - and didnt liked it at all. :sweatdrop: But a few weaks later I tried it again but this time as the romans. I fell in love.
That was, hm..., atleast 3 years ago. Since then I have played this game more then any other game ever. There is ALWAYS this little voice in my head screaming; EB! EB! EEEEEEB! :yes: I cant let it go! And I dont plan to stop playing any time soon!
EB2 will prob drive me insane!:beam:
Megas Methuselah
08-23-2008, 21:15
Bartix FTW!!!!
Then I got pissed off because 1.0 was released halfway through my campaign, so I started a Pahlava one. Of course, after a looong Pahlava campaign, I did another Baktrian one again. What fun EB is!
:crowngrin:
Onehandstan
08-23-2008, 21:56
my first (and only so far) campaign on EB was with the Romani, I wanted a starter faction to get to grips with it.
Tellos Athenaios
08-23-2008, 22:06
Very first campaign was with the Ptolemies of 0.74. Those were the days you could not afford not to maintain a strong presence in your [conquered] cities because along would come an AI retor/diplomat and then the place would throw off your rule to join the (of course) faction you just conquered the town from.
And I mean serious presence: at least a retor/diplomat of your own.
General Appo
08-23-2008, 22:40
Yeah, what was that about? Didn´t frequent the forums back then, so never saw the reasoning behind that.
LorDBulA
08-23-2008, 22:47
Frankly I dont remember but this was EB 0.6 something days.
General Appo
08-23-2008, 23:01
Yeah, ´cause I don´t think I encountered it myself, just heard talks about it the few times I did go here.
Romani. I'm pretty sure I remember that the Triarii still fought with pikes in phalanx formation.
Che Roriniho
08-23-2008, 23:17
Romani. I'm pretty sure I remember that the Triarii still fought with pikes in phalanx formation.
Not in the phalanx in the makedonian sense, but try TWFanatics phalanx mod. it's great, and looks incredible.
No, I mean in that version of EB, the Triarii fought with the RTW phalanx formation.
EDIT:
It was before the custom animation, I think.
Tellos Athenaios
08-23-2008, 23:23
The strong presence? That was just the somewhat generous money scripts which made the AI so rich it could afford to buy anything. And it would.
Celtic_Punk
08-24-2008, 00:03
my first faction was KH, as i loved the greek cities in vanilla, and wanted to create a spartan greece. My second faction was Casse, because I'm from the Isles, my third was Makedonia (which i abandoned) and my fourth was Rome with house rules (Which strangely i got overrun by Carthage in 250BC unprovoked... f**king elephants...) I have just started baktria, AND MY GOD I LOVE EM! i love their diversity GOOD JOB EB ON BAKTRIA!
socal_infidel
08-24-2008, 00:06
Didn't get into EB until 1.0 back in October, was it? First faction was Pahlava. What can I say I'm a cavalry guy, and they have an amazing roster. I've played many factions since, but my heart belongs to them:laugh4:
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-24-2008, 00:41
The first faction I played back in 0.8 was Casse. I was new to EB and thought, "hey those isolated islanders sure make for an easy introduction". Got crushed by the other Britons after 3 ours and 2 years or so...
Second was Romani. That was so easy that I welcomed my first ctd for quitting my campaign. Thank god 0.81 came and I tried Makedonia, and fell in love... Got a massive empire until 187, then I became bored...
Then came 1.0 and I did a Sweboz campaign till a ctd in 234 stopped me. Then I did a Carthage campaign. That was actually the first time achieved the victory conditions. Had a massive Mediterranean empire, but I was somehow bored in 213, and I quitted.
But 1.1 was alreay out, so I started a Makedonian campaign again. Currently at 218 and far from quitting. :smiley:
Intranetusa
08-24-2008, 01:26
hastati...principes...triari...ROMANI!!!
Aemilius Paulus
08-24-2008, 01:55
hastati...principes...triari...ROMANI!!!
I second that! (Romani are my favourite and naturally I played them first)
Fondor_Yards
08-24-2008, 02:29
I honestly have no idea, .7 was what 1.5-2 years ago? More? God I've playing EB long. Anyway, the most likely faction would be Kart-Hadastim.
Khazar_Dahvos
08-24-2008, 02:33
my first love and always shall be Pontus way back in .7 for I love the eastern mixed with greek. And they are a underdog so I always play the small factions. I am proud to say that I have never ever even wanted to play the Romans in EB. Not that I hate them (well maybe a little) but there are so many other interesting factions to play as!!!!!:2thumbsup:
DeathEmperor
08-24-2008, 04:30
I remember it quite vividly, EB .80 as Epeiros. I'd been playing RTR for months and was getting tired of it, when an old friend of mine said I should try EB since there was so much attention to history in it (I was and still am a history nut :laugh4:). After downloading and installing it I chose Epeiros as they weren't in RTR at the time, and I was fascinated by Pyrrhus and his ill-fated campaign against the Romans. That campaign was the most enjoyable I've ever had, second only to the Arche Seleukeia campaign I successfully completed a few months ago.
I enjoyed it so much that I actually wrote a short story about it from the first person perspective of his son Amyntas. Was my first time writing in the 'first person form' too, and I learned a lot from it. I'd start an Epeirote campaign right now if I wasn't so enthralled by my current Romani one.
my first campaigne was with Hayastan back in .7. Back the Hayastan campaigne was hard now it's become very easy. I remeber that the rebels around Hayastan had horse archer stacks and fighting them was real hell. The good old days:yes:
Celtic_Punk
08-24-2008, 11:00
I don't know why, but I'm slightly bothered by the large number of players who first chose the Romans. Maybe they chose it because they only played as them in vanilla, or maybe cause they were their favourites before they tried EB. but the romans i find are very dull. The other factions have been painstakingly crafted and it seems everyone jumps in for the old workhorse. the easiest of them all. I mean when you start off with the Romans, your automatically making tons of coin. Everyone else you gotta put work in. whether it be disbanding units and fleets or conquering, all other factions require you to fight for your own survival. the Romans are the only faction in which your survival is almost guaranteed.
if anyone who hasn't tried EB yet and is reading this, go for a different faction, the challenge is certainly worth it.
By the way, im not really trying to bash the players who love the romans, im just expressing my surprise and awe at the fact that so many people decided to chose the easy route, instead of taking on a true challenge.
"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-Robert Frost
MerlinusCDXX
08-24-2008, 11:17
Epeiros in .80, they weren't in RTR, which I'd been playing back then. I picked 'em because they had the first crack at the Romans. Really dug the accurate Hellenistic factions, so I went on to Baktria after that.
machinor
08-24-2008, 14:23
I first played Carthage in 1.0, which was also the first faction I played in RTR and the first faction I played af the Scipii in the original RTW. Second was Epeiros and then Baktria.
Haven't played with Romani so far.
SwebozGaztiz
08-26-2008, 01:30
I think the very first campaign i played in EB, was with the Casse but ive got my ass kick by the eleutheroi, but well my favorite faction are the sweboz, i think their unit roster is amazing and the new units they received are just great, amazing job with them!i also like the celtic factions but honestly i really enjoy fighting the romans with my german armies i think its far more fun!thanks for the great mod!
phonicsmonkey
08-26-2008, 02:16
Wow, am I really the only person to have tried the Aedui first?
I didn't start until 1.0, but I guess I figured, what with it being called Europa Barbarorum and everything...
White_eyes:D
08-26-2008, 06:20
I went with the Romani first as I seen in the FAQ they had the most reforms(plus I gained experience that would prove to be useful later on, not just because I'm a roman fanboy or something....:furious3:because people should not assume these things just because it's the most voted) Currently I'm playing as a HA faction and loving it:2thumbsup:
Mithridates VI Eupator
08-26-2008, 09:10
I played Epeiros first.
I had never seen them in a game before (except AoE, and then they were actually macedonians with a funny name), and I like their position on the map. I wasn't prepared for the high upkeep in EB, though, so even though I managed to conquer dalmatia, I was in debt within two turns, and, foolishly, I didn't disband the elephants.
The only campaign I've had to give up because of personal bankrupcy....:embarassed:
Andronikos
08-26-2008, 09:59
My first game was 0.80 as Casse. I wanted to try some barbarian factions because I wanted to see the difference between EB and vanilla. I got crushed very early by the rebels. Then I tried Bactria with not very glorious end. I got used to EB and my later Aedui and Makedonia campaigns were more successful. Now I can play harder factions like Pahlava or Pontos and kick anybodys ass.
Steve2392
08-26-2008, 14:07
I first played as Rome because i find their rise to be so interesting how one city state grew and took over most of the known world
also can anybody help me out. I cant seem to find any of the roman units on custom battle they all just seem to be mercs etc i cant find cohorts etc any help would be appreciated thanks
Lysimachos
08-26-2008, 16:03
also can anybody help me out. I cant seem to find any of the roman units on custom battle they all just seem to be mercs etc i cant find cohorts etc any help would be appreciated thanks
You have to start the game with the Multiplayer shortcut.
Either Grey Death or Epiros in 0.7 something, I think AS....loved it instantly...You guys are to blame for my first mod installation and exp ever! Have a ballon for that :balloon2:
The Getai, that's why I got EB in the first place.
TheGlobalizer
08-26-2008, 17:24
Romani. Started a Baktrian campaign for fun, got stomped by rebels, went back to my Romani campaign. I need to tweak my strategy to match EB's gameplay.
I'll probably try Baktria again after my Romani campaign, or Saba.
Strategos Alexandros
08-26-2008, 20:16
0.8 Epeiros. They were new to me, and they looked good on the main site.
Aemilius Paulus
08-27-2008, 01:06
I don't know why, but I'm slightly bothered by the large number of players who first chose the Romans. Maybe they chose it because they only played as them in vanilla, or maybe cause they were their favourites before they tried EB. but the romans i find are very dull. The other factions have been painstakingly crafted and it seems everyone jumps in for the old workhorse. the easiest of them all. I mean when you start off with the Romans, your automatically making tons of coin. Everyone else you gotta put work in. whether it be disbanding units and fleets or conquering, all other factions require you to fight for your own survival. the Romans are the only faction in which your survival is almost guaranteed.
if anyone who hasn't tried EB yet and is reading this, go for a different faction, the challenge is certainly worth it.
By the way, im not really trying to bash the players who love the romans, im just expressing my surprise and awe at the fact that so many people decided to chose the easy route, instead of taking on a true challenge.
I am not sure if the Romans had money coming in after the first turn without conquering or disbanding. I really doubt that. Then again, it has been quite a while since I began my Romani campaign. Ptolemies and Seleucids, from my experience, are much easier to start out with (at least from the financial perspective). People don't play the Romani because it seems like they are the easiest faction. You really don't know how difficult/easy it will be with them before they start the campaign (although the difficulty for each faction is indicated when you're choosing a faction for the campaign, I don't find that to be entirely accurate). No. Gamers choose the Romans mostly because they like the Roman history and the Roman military.
I am one of those people. I am not hiding that fact. To hell with political correctness, Romans and Seleucids were the two superpowers during the EB time period and they mattered the most. As the Seleucids declined, the Romans took their place. When comparing other nations with these two empires, those nations seem trivial. They still mattered, but not as much. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the other nations, its just that we need to understand the special place the Latin people held in that time period.
I have read read more than a hundred books on the various aspects of the Roman history, culture as well as military and had not found a single civilization of their time period who had so much written about them, nor one that left us so much legacy (just look at the European languages and laws - most of them are modifications of Latin language and Roman law). It was on the foundation of Greeks and Romans that Western civilization was funded, which came to dominate the globe.
Roman Empire was the most well structured in the Ancient World, if not in the entire history of human empires. It was incredibly long lasting for its time and encompassed the most vital regions of the Antiquity. If the Romans would have controlled China, they would have controlled pretty much all of the civilized and organized world. Although India, parts of Africa and America had their own civilizations, those civilizations were not as organized (in large nations under a single government) as China or the Mediterranean.
QuintusSertorius
08-27-2008, 09:24
Romani. Aside from my stint playing Epeiros-as-Pergamon, they're pretty much all I will play too.
When EBII comes out, the only factions I'm interested in are Rome and Pergamon.
Unless I'm remembering wrong, Romans. Thought it would be a good idea to pick a faction that was easy to get going and experience all the new stuff of EB without immediately getting into a very large debt. Was right.
Tollheit
08-27-2008, 12:23
To hell with political correctness, Romans and Seleucids were the two superpowers during the EB time period and they mattered the most. As the Seleucids declined, the Romans took their place. When comparing other nations with these two empires, those nations seem trivial. They still mattered, but not as much. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the other nations, its just that we need to understand the special place the Latin people held in that time period.
This is not about political correctness. It's more like "Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni", for me.
Edit: The victorious cause pleased the gods, but the defeated cause pleased Cato
This is not about political correctness. It's more like "Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni", for me.
I hope he knows latin otherwise it'd be quite funny! :laugh4:
Edit: am I the only one that is waiting for TPC to enlighten this fella? Cause he seems to have left out a rather big 'barbarian' culture that was a bit important. ~;)
satalexton
08-27-2008, 13:15
thats y i love this forum, people actually get stumped intellectually instead of being n00bed at.
I love it when people wax lyrical about the Romans, its just so gushing; as if the Romans were their lover, this great and wonderful man who just seems too good to be true. And the Seleucids! Superpower? Only for like 150 years. Blip, just a blip.
Foot
Artorius Maximus
08-28-2008, 06:59
I actually played the Getae (Dacians) first. They are quite a fun faction in my opinion, and seeing as Illyrians are not in as a faction, at least the Getae are the most similar availible.
Theodotos I
08-28-2008, 17:56
Baktria, actually. I was inspired by hooahguy's AAR and the unique unit choices they possessed. Will have to play them again some day, now that I've got a handle on EB economics. I won, but didn't get to use all their units.
The Romans from a much earlier release (can't remember now but probably .74 or something)
They have always had a good position and what is more, an excellent and involving trait and reform system (it got better with the last two releases). The challenge with the Romans is not to conquer x number of territories, but to get the reforms naturally. It becomes a story that is so involving.
I've played the Casse to the VCs, the Sweboz and the Pahlava as my first 1.1 campaign and am currently giving the Macedonians a go. None have grabbed me as much as the Romans.
This is no reflection on the real peoples, I'm talking about gameplay here.
Tiberius Aurelius Cotta
08-30-2008, 13:32
lol, Foot.
true, though, the seleucids are way too ignored, tbh. i started as the ptolemaioi, got confused after 3 turns, and eased into EB with the romani
I can certainly understand the amount of people who choose Romani as their first faction. In the complex mod of EB, it's safe to choose something that you know fairly well from before, and it's also one of the easier factions to start out with. A good choice, far better than for instance Saka or Hayasdan where you're likely to go bankrupt and/or be destroyed within 30 years as a newcomer.
The Persian Cataphract
08-30-2008, 15:48
I am not sure if the Romans had money coming in after the first turn without conquering or disbanding. I really doubt that. Then again, it has been quite a while since I began my Romani campaign. Ptolemies and Seleucids, from my experience, are much easier to start out with (at least from the financial perspective). People don't play the Romani because it seems like they are the easiest faction. You really don't know how difficult/easy it will be with them before they start the campaign (although the difficulty for each faction is indicated when you're choosing a faction for the campaign, I don't find that to be entirely accurate). No. Gamers choose the Romans mostly because they like the Roman history and the Roman military.
I am one of those people. I am not hiding that fact. To hell with political correctness, Romans and Seleucids were the two superpowers during the EB time period and they mattered the most. As the Seleucids declined, the Romans took their place. When comparing other nations with these two empires, those nations seem trivial. They still mattered, but not as much. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the other nations, its just that we need to understand the special place the Latin people held in that time period.
I have read read more than a hundred books on the various aspects of the Roman history, culture as well as military and had not found a single civilization of their time period who had so much written about them, nor one that left us so much legacy (just look at the European languages and laws - most of them are modifications of Latin language and Roman law). It was on the foundation of Greeks and Romans that Western civilization was funded, which came to dominate the globe.
Roman Empire was the most well structured in the Ancient World, if not in the entire history of human empires. It was incredibly long lasting for its time and encompassed the most vital regions of the Antiquity. If the Romans would have controlled China, they would have controlled pretty much all of the civilized and organized world. Although India, parts of Africa and America had their own civilizations, those civilizations were not as organized (in large nations under a single government) as China or the Mediterranean.
...
Okay. To hell with "political correctness", you say. How do you react if I say I don't believe you for a single moment? What do you mean by "Western civilization" and what do you mean by "Greek and Roman foundations"? What do you mean by that the Seleucids were replaced by the Romans? What do you mean by that the Graeco-Roman legacy "dominated the globe"? What do you mean by not as "organized" as China or the Mediterranean? I suppose that by your flawed logic you would also like to imply that through Alexander's conquests he civilized the Oriental barbarians, and their Persian overlords? Is that it?
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/images/oroib.jpg
Now, I want you and only you to identify this individual depicted on this coin. I'll give you a hint. His empire stretched from the Oxus, Indus, Euphrates and the Araxes-Kura. His coins are by far the most abundant of his dynasty, and perpetuated well into application by a successor dynasty about two centuries later.
When you are done, try this fellow:
http://www.livius.org/a/1/anatolia/coin_tigranes_armenia.jpg
As for the entirety of your well-phrased but ignorant message, I call bullshit, and I'll double it. I say it is the typical early Classicist and Victorian Anglophilic bile which has been perpetuated until this day, and has sought to downplay Eastern nations as back-water nations. The dogma of Graeco-Roman historiography forming the basis of the "Western world" needs to die. It needs to fucking go, because it's all unfounded bullshit and gross trivialization of history and its inherent complexity. Supposedly the Dark and Middle ages up until the Medieval age and the advent of the "European Renaissance" there is a connotation between Western Europe and the Roman world! This is thievery, and worse, what actually is the historical wealth of all of mankind has now been hogged by the entity which calls itself the "Western world".
It is just as bad as the dogmatic designations of "Islamic science/medicine/architecture/art". As much as Britain relates to Roman architecture, does Islam relate to Persian medicinal practices.
Way to go. You managed to effectively erase the following two empires because of your resounding ignorance:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/frames/pargeo.htm
http://www.armeniapedia.org/images/6/6c/Map-haik2-big.jpg
With all due respect, sir, but your "political incorrectness" backfired into a rant containing outdated, traditionalistic and downrightly colonialist rhetoric which Iranology not only eats for breakfast, but practically lives for when it comes to scrutinizing old scholastics. The worldly influence of the Persianate cultures in the Iranian plateau, Caucasus, Anatolia and Central Asia are not only beyond dispute, but also the core of the concept comparable to the Graeco-Roman legacy.
What you have written in other words is the same as that of Sir Edward Creasy on the battles of Gaugamela and Marathon:
"Alexander's victory at Arbela not only overthrew an Oriental dynasty, but established European rulers in its stead. It broke the monotony of the Eastern world by the impression of Western energy and superior civilization, even as England's present mission is to break up the mental and moral stagnation of India and Cathay by pouring upon and through them the impulsive current of Anglo-Saxon commerce and conquest."
"The Greeks, from their geographical position, formed the natural vanguard of European liberty against Persian ambition ; and they pre-eminently displayed the salient points of distinctive national character which have rendered European civilization so far superior to Asiatic."
Do you identify yourself with these assessments?
I know I identify myself with Hans Holbein (The Younger), as far as these discrepancies are concerned:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/HumiliationValerianusHolbein.jpg
TWFanatic
08-30-2008, 17:04
With all due to respect, getting angry over these issues only serves to dilute your own arguments TPC by making it a simple case of one pride and arrogance vs. another. You are certainly capable of either brushing those comments off or responding to them in a calm and detached manner. There are plenty of bloviators online and you can't bother to educate them all. I don't think Aemilius Paulus is an academic anyway.
I think that one of the major problems here is that many professors try to press their ideology upon their students. Anyone who doesn't comply is exiled from the academic community, resulting in a strong dogma in many corners. I cannot tell you how many grade reductions I received because of a refusal to comply with the "superiority of the west" nonsense espoused by, for instance, Victor Davis Hanson’s The Western Way of War and Carnage and Culture. I learned the hard way that losing my temper did me no good. Debating those persons in a civilized manner is far more effective, especially when the evidence is on your side as it is here.
All that said, the lack of educational freedom in Iran is even worse. One of my roommates fled Iran so that he did not have to join the army. He was only just learning of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid empires because his former government forbid the teaching of pre-Islamic history. By forcing teachers to profess that everything before Islam was a dark and evil age, the dogmas of Iranian historiography are far more effective in suppressing the study of ancient Persian history than any feeble attempts by westerners.
My first faction was the Yuezhi iirc. Which also isnt on the list, kinda sad, was a great campaign destroying the silver plague, or was it the yellow plague whichever plague plagued .74:dizzy2:.
Then it was Kart-Hadast, god they were great with their phalanx capable libypheoni/heavy libypheoni infantry. The romans never knew what hit em.
My first faction was the Yuezhi iirc. Which also isnt on the list, kinda sad, was a great campaign destroying the silver plague, or was it the yellow plague whichever plague plagued .74:dizzy2:.
My greatest apologies, I had forgotten the Yuezhi were playable before 0.8.
You probably would have destroyed the Silver plague, since they were killing in 0.7, as I heard.
The Persian Cataphract
08-31-2008, 17:46
With all due to respect, getting angry over these issues only serves to dilute your own arguments TPC by making it a simple case of one pride and arrogance vs. another. You are certainly capable of either brushing those comments off or responding to them in a calm and detached manner. There are plenty of bloviators online and you can't bother to educate them all. I don't think Aemilius Paulus is an academic anyway.
I think that one of the major problems here is that many professors try to press their ideology upon their students. Anyone who doesn't comply is exiled from the academic community, resulting in a strong dogma in many corners. I cannot tell you how many grade reductions I received because of a refusal to comply with the "superiority of the west" nonsense espoused by, for instance, Victor Davis Hanson’s The Western Way of War and Carnage and Culture. I learned the hard way that losing my temper did me no good. Debating those persons in a civilized manner is far more effective, especially when the evidence is on your side as it is here.
All that said, the lack of educational freedom in Iran is even worse. One of my roommates fled Iran so that he did not have to join the army. He was only just learning of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid empires because his former government forbid the teaching of pre-Islamic history. By forcing teachers to profess that everything before Islam was a dark and evil age, the dogmas of Iranian historiography are far more effective in suppressing the study of ancient Persian history than any feeble attempts by westerners.
You misunderstood the nature of my post. I realize that my previous entry had a very crude phrasing to it, but on the other hand it serves to prove that just because I am capable of composing an essay-like refutation, it does not mean I can't lose some steam composing a message which clearly conveys my distaste, without the crud or the convoluted bullshit. Allow me to disagree for a moment with your rationale; I have debated Islamic apologists for years and quite frankly, trying to argue with individuals who are very firmly indoctrinated in their set of beliefs, in a language beyond their comprehension emphasizes absolute futility. A historian who seemingly fails to convey his message to the unbeknown, it does not matter if he has written an impressive catalogue or accumulated some of the most recent scholarship, he will realize the wasteful shame of even bothering.
I don't get angry on the Internet; I do however get disgruntled at certain writings, and the fact is that this way, I can clean out the crud, and instead of giving some lengthy lecture where I enumerate some of the greatest achievements of the ancient Persianate cultures to the worldly heritage itself, I'm just simply putting a halt to the man's crusade in "breaking the silence of political correctness". What political correctness? Has he seen some of Hollywood's "epic" blockbusters lately? That is my point. I don't need to wear a shit-eating grin, or a fancy facade and get into abstract terms when I can cleanly, and bluntly say "Okay, well you are full of it and you have next to no clue what you are talking about, and add to it, it would take too fucking long to copy-paste a few articles for your enlightenment.". It also goes to show just how much courtesy I accord to his "politically incorrect" opinion.
As for the bogus historiography propagated by the Islamic regime of Iran, trust me, you don't even want to go there as far as I'm concerned. All I know is that for each time the dogmas that still are allowed to permeate in "western" scholarship and to poke us in the eyes, the Islamophilic demagogues get another opportunity for a really serious sucker-punch. We are talking about professors and lecturers getting laid off, severed funding, and single individuals being ostracized by the regime in a number of ways, either through persecution, suspended payroll or in a worst case scenario, murder. Nothing gets done, and Iran is virtually an embodiment of historical wealth in archaeological terms. It's like you're stuck in the middle of an ocean and you're suddenly getting thirsty, realizing there is not even a drop to drink!
People are wondering why there is almost nothing written left by the ancient Iranians, but the moment you say "Maybe Islam had something to do with it", whoa, it turns into blasphemy and instead, what happens. They'll think that the ancient Iranians never wrote anything to begin with and start to think of them as illiterate savages. Oh yeah, they apparently bothered to do some lengthy inscriptions on a fucking rock in some remote place in the middle of nowhere, but they didn't know how to write on parchments? Right! That makes sense, of course!
No. I'll stand by my words as they were initially given. If nobody likes it, well, it's really not my problem. All I know is that regardless of the tone or attitude I write in, I asked legitimate, albeit rhetorical questions.
Che Roriniho
08-31-2008, 18:13
Gentlemen, extinguish your flamethrowers. Take this to the tavern, and we may allow you to use a cigarette lighter.
Spartan198
08-31-2008, 18:36
KH. Why did I play them first? SPARTAAA!!!
Celtic_Punk
08-31-2008, 18:49
given the bluntness, stupidity and ignorance of that guys post, your attitude is not unfounded Persian Cataphract. It is ridiculous how much people discount the east on their contribution to western society. But do not forget that the West contributed alot to eastern society (which is probably why the east is blowing itself up right now... hmmm) Even look at the movie 300 (nobody go on about "oh its so historically incorrect!" WE KNOW) for instance, Xerxes is portrayed as a genderless peirced up weirdo (by whitecollar, rightwing standards). hes portayed as "the other" and thats the way western media portrays the rest of the Eastern world. sadly aslong as this continues, the east will be discounted in the hearts and minds of the west.
Then again, as long as the East has its oppressive governments (not that ALL eastern countries are oppressed, and all western countries are not at all oppressed) they will be discounted. shitty buzz i guess...
TWFanatic
09-01-2008, 23:26
I do not think that films such as 300 are by any means a result of political incorrectness, but simply out of an apathy toward historiography. It is pure capitalism--in most cases films are made first and foremost to make money, not to accurately represent the diversity of ancient cultures and encourage viewers to study more history. Likewise, EB does not accurately represent the complexity of each and every ancient culture to be politically correct, but to encourage players to study more history. Please correct me if my understanding of the EB ethos is off the mark.
That said, there are cases in which ideology is put before profits. Look at the swathe of recent anti-American films that bombed in the box office. The people who fund these films lose a tremendous amount of money yet continue to do it; clearly they care more about spreading anti-American propaganda than making profits. I believe these isolated attempts at socially-reengineering the populace to be an exception to the rule however. In general, Hollywood will do whatever yields the greatest profits--and at the moment, the populace doesn't give a rat's ass about the fair and accurate representation of ancient cultures.
Damn that liberal media bias! I wish they would stop socially re-engineering people. Criticising America is such blatant propaganda. Why can't they make films that focus on the greatness of the American Nation? I just wish the liberal media could put out a positive message. I mean, my word, what possible social and political progress has ever come from criticism of the established political class? None, thats what!
Foot
TWFanatic
09-02-2008, 02:23
Wow Foot, I'm disappointed in you. You have always been a beacon of light we could all look to as an example of perfect forum conduct in accordance rules and regulations.
If I may quote myself...
There are plenty of bloviators online and you can't bother to educate them all.
Those comments are entirely unrelated to the subject at hand (not to mention grossly distorted what I said, which was entirely relevant to my conversation with TPC). I will put my ego aside and follow the request of the EB team regarding forum behavior so that "the good will that was once a part of it [won't be] replaced by negativity and sarcasm" because I understand that "the team finds this worrisome" and that "it also hurts the team's image while fostering an unwelcome climate and discouraging discussion of topics specifically related to the mod." I also have heard that "the EB Team will seriously consider at least temporarily banning repeating offenders for spamming or confrontational language" and will "also feel at liberty to delete posts which we find to be SPAM or confrontational." Therefore, I will desist from posting in this thread henceforth as it appears to "foster the type of behavior that we want to prevent from happening this board."
Good day sir. :bow:
Lysimachos
09-02-2008, 06:53
Damn that liberal media bias! I wish they would stop socially re-engineering people. Criticising America is such blatant propaganda. Why can't they make films that focus on the greatness of the American Nation? I just wish the liberal media could put out a positive message. I mean, my word, what possible social and political progress has ever come from criticism of the established political class? None, thats what!
Foot
:laugh4:
(I hope this post is not too pc :beam: )
I was only having a bit of fun. In particular I was criticising your use of the word "propaganda" in relation to "anti-American films". Unless I'm much mistaken, "criticism" does not equal "propaganda". However given that you thought it did equal "propaganda" I should have realised that you would have thought my criticism of your post was also "propaganda" and thus would have taken offence. Silly me.
Foot
TWFanatic
09-02-2008, 07:25
Does it really look good for you, the purveyor of non-confrontational forum behavior guides, to distort my quote into a non sequitur extreme, thus becoming involved into a debate on the accuracy of the portrayal of the actions of the US government and military in recent anti-American films? As I am sure you know, it is against my code as a gentleman to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, something you certainly are not. Yet I desist from challenging your gross distortion of my comments nonetheless because ultimately, I will follow the forum CoC even if you will not.
I felt your post was particularly confrontational, especially by painting all recent Anti-American films as ideologically based, examples of propaganda and, in particular, attempts at "social re-engineering". Had you said "some Anti-American films", I would have been more understanding. If that was not your intention then I suggest you make a better attempt before painting all films with the same brush.
Foot
TWFanatic
09-02-2008, 14:06
I was pointing towards "the swathe of recent anti-American films that bombed in the box office" as a rare case of placing ideology before profits in Hollywood (pretty specific I think). I apologize if you enjoyed a recently re-released anti-American film that bombed at the box office and that comment upset you. I will not give a lecture on their value as propaganda and tools of social-reengineering here as we are already far off topic, but I do believe there is a movie thread in the Frontroom.
This is an interesting thread and it would be a shame if it died.
Tellos Athenaios
09-02-2008, 16:13
I do not think that films such as 300 are by any means a result of political incorrectness, but simply out of an apathy toward historiography. It is pure capitalism.
Of course it is. But that's easy saying 'cause it doesn't concern you (or me for that matter). You have got to agree that film wasn't exactly a beacon of light of political (or historical for that matter) correct views; for avoiding more hot headed terminology at this point. In any case you can see where I'm coming from; that such films might've simply 'rubbed' some people 'the wrong way' as well?
Look at the swathe of recent anti-American films that bombed in the box office. The people who fund these films lose a tremendous amount of money yet continue to do it; clearly they care more about spreading anti-American propaganda than making profits. I believe these isolated attempts at socially-reengineering the populace to be an exception to the rule however.
Social-reengineering is a pretty serious accusation/claim and wether true or not the word itself (incidentally I take it you were fully aware of that?) alludes to illegit practices. Indeed social-engineering will get you a ticket to court in most countries. Coupled to the use of "swathe" & "propaganda" it is easy to see why people may find that confrontational? At any rate it isn't very well phrased.
So really what's there so different in a movie as 300 to some 'Anti-American' movie currently 'bombing the box office' to people sensitive to bias, propaganda or statements expressed in either? I for one think there is little difference in and of itself; however it's different people that get riled up over it.
I cannot believe I'm saying this, but:
guys, this is the EB forum. this place is to debate history, and the mod known to the world as "Europa barbarorum". politics (especially infalammatory or cruel behavior), is supposed to be banned here. If anyone has issues with "anti-america" or "pro-Islam" or anti-bateekh, there is a place called the backroom. alternately, there is a place called the political mudpit @ the TWcenter.
yeah i learned my lesson from the rules crackdown....
@TPC:
allright-so the government in Iran, and western culture have issues...
TWFanatic
09-02-2008, 17:02
Of course it is. But that's easy saying 'cause it doesn't concern you (or me for that matter). You have got to agree that film wasn't exactly a beacon of light of political (or historical for that matter) correct views; for avoiding more hot headed terminology at this point. In any case you can see where I'm coming from; that such films might've simply 'rubbed' some people 'the wrong way' as well?
Quite so. As I have mentioned before, one of my roommates was a Persian immigrant. We went to see 300 together in fact. Being naturally a light-hearted fellow, he laughed the stupidity off, but I could certainly see that it irked him personally and shared that feeling myself.
Social-reengineering is a pretty serious accusation/claim and wether true or not the word itself (incidentally I take it you were fully aware of that?) alludes to illegit practices. Indeed social-engineering will get you a ticket to court in most countries. Coupled to the use of "swathe" & "propaganda" it is easy to see why people may find that confrontational? At any rate it isn't very well phrased.
It was never my intention to debate this issue in this thread, in fact my post was entirely relevant to the subject at hand even if my phrasing was perhaps too harsh in the context. I would love to share with you the innumerable attempts people have made to socially-re engineer myself and and others, but this is not the place.
So really what's there so different in a movie as 300 to some 'Anti-American' movie currently 'bombing the box office' to people sensitive to bias, propaganda or statements expressed in either? I for one think there is little difference in and of itself; however it's different people that get riled up over it.
Big difference--300 made big money and cost relatively little to create. These other films I alluded to were expensive and brought in very low revenues, yet Hollywood fat cats continue to fund their production. A fascinating situation, is it not?
For future conversation, there is an excellent thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61304) in the Frontroom in which we can discuss movies. I refused to name names on this thread because it was irrelevant to the point I was making and I feared it would engender hard feelings by someone who had enjoyed the films. Unfortunantly, that appeas to have already been done.
I cannot believe I'm saying this, but:
guys, this is the EB forum. this place is to debate history, and the mod known to the world as "Europa barbarorum". politics (especially infalammatory or cruel behavior), is supposed to be banned here. If anyone has issues with "anti-america" or "pro-Islam" or anti-bateekh, there is a place called the backroom. alternately, there is a place called the political mudpit @ the TWcenter.
yeah i learned my lesson from the rules crackdown....
Amen.
TheGlobalizer
09-02-2008, 17:09
Of course it is. But that's easy saying 'cause it doesn't concern you (or me for that matter). You have got to agree that film wasn't exactly a beacon of light of political (or historical for that matter) correct views; for avoiding more hot headed terminology at this point. In any case you can see where I'm coming from; that such films might've simply 'rubbed' some people 'the wrong way' as well?
To be fair, the movie 300 is not based on history, it's based on a fictionalized interpretation of history as represented in a graphic novel by Frank Miller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(comics)
Artistic liberty piled upon artistic liberty. Counter-productive in terms of teaching accurate history? Yep. Fun movie? Yep. (IMHO.)
Tollheit
09-02-2008, 20:03
These other films I alluded to were expensive and brought in very low revenues, yet Hollywood fat cats continue to fund their production.
All is not lost, then. It will be a dark day when everything will be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
The Persian Cataphract
09-02-2008, 20:34
I do not think that films such as 300 are by any means a result of political incorrectness, but simply out of an apathy toward historiography. It is pure capitalism--in most cases films are made first and foremost to make money, not to accurately represent the diversity of ancient cultures and encourage viewers to study more history. Likewise, EB does not accurately represent the complexity of each and every ancient culture to be politically correct, but to encourage players to study more history. Please correct me if my understanding of the EB ethos is off the mark.
I disagree that a movie such as "300" was all "pure capitalism"; its political allusions were clearly conveyed, and according to many others it would hold a valid comparison to fascist art. The Persians were effectively denied their humanity. The Persians were marketed as a demonic horde, all dressed up in Arabesque garb, and worse, clustered together "non-white" peoples as the foe to a bunch of perfectly chiseled, waxed and oiled Caucasian body-builders. It is nonsensical to suggest that the movie had no political undertone to it, or a subconscious, derogatory (Towards Iranians) message attached to it. It's like watching John Wayne's "The Green Berets" being set in antiquity all over again!
If capitalism is implied by deception, defamation and distortion of facts, then the lack of scruples of the landed merchant classes of today (*ahem*) is merely being perpetuated. It is a filthy business. But on the other hand, to merely believe that all these tricks were just used to milk more money is to dismiss their lasting effect. Why get the cow when you can get the milk for free? The average Joe ignoramus is as good a source as he can get.
Artistic liberty piled upon artistic liberty. Counter-productive in terms of teaching accurate history? Yep. Fun movie? Yep. (IMHO.)
http://www.outsidecontext.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/windowslivewriter300-c3a7300-1343.jpg
Yes, clearly it is "artistic liberty". No hidden undertones here. I am sure Hydarnes finds this a most excellent "artistic tribute" to his legacy. I am most confident that he shall find the added drool, animalistic growling, gingivitis gone extreme, and BDSM collar to be satisfactory additions to his character :eyesroll:
Look, I don't give a shit about the "official response" from Warner Bros. I don't fall for the folly of "C'mon it's just entertainment! It's not real! It's not real! It's fantasy!", because I know how hypocritical some individuals might get if we switch settings to the American War of Independence, and play dress-up with George Washington and turn him into a gigantic demonic bullfrog with a white wig. Hey! Isn't that "fantasy"? I mean, it's not "real", now is it? I'd be heckled beyond belief. And understandably too, as I would relate to the reaction myself. No producer in Hollywood would ever accept the idea.
So don't give me any bullshit about it being "artistic liberty". Why wasn't there a black Spartan? Why not a Mongol Spartan to add? What difference would that have made? They were certainly capable of giving the "Persians" a spectrum covering sub-human species and apply to some trans-gender characteristics. The movie certainly had its homo-erotic moments; Greeks don't look like that. Period. There are no excuses left.
allright-so the government in Iran, and western culture have issues...
Yeah, they do.
...And?
To add to TPC's argument, Frank Miller is working on a new graphic novel entitled Holy Terror, Batman, in which Batman fights al-Qaeda in Gotham city.
It's pretty clear Frank Miller has put certain agendas into his work (such as dehumanizing Iranians in 300, which he has admitted to) and this latest is clearly the most blatant and likely to be among the worst of the worst. And considering I don't hold Miller's works in high regard you can imagine what I mean by worst of the worst.
Yeah, they do.
...And?
I say things like that to act like a pike to the person's temper...if you got my idea, you'd should be laughing ~;)
just trying to calm you. no use debating if you are enraged..I mostly agree with ya anyways..mostly.
let's take this elsewhere, plz?
Lysimachos
09-03-2008, 07:09
let's take this elsewhere, plz?
Seconded. Nobody is going to be convinced here of whatever and what could be said has been.
By the way, i played the Romans first, too, because i think they are the best choice to learn a mod's concept's differences to those of other mods, as they are most "common" faction for ancient era mods.
Another thing is, they are designed very interesting in EB: they have the most reforms, they have a lot of special traits, they have offices and so on.
TheGlobalizer
09-03-2008, 18:37
Yes, clearly it is "artistic liberty". No hidden undertones here. I am sure Hydarnes finds this a most excellent "artistic tribute" to his legacy. I am most confident that he shall find the added drool, animalistic growling, gingivitis gone extreme, and BDSM collar to be satisfactory additions to his character :eyesroll:
Look, I don't give a shit about the "official response" from Warner Bros. I don't fall for the folly of "C'mon it's just entertainment! It's not real! It's not real! It's fantasy!", because I know how hypocritical some individuals might get if we switch settings to the American War of Independence, and play dress-up with George Washington and turn him into a gigantic demonic bullfrog with a white wig. Hey! Isn't that "fantasy"? I mean, it's not "real", now is it? I'd be heckled beyond belief. And understandably too, as I would relate to the reaction myself. No producer in Hollywood would ever accept the idea.
So don't give me any bullshit about it being "artistic liberty". Why wasn't there a black Spartan? Why not a Mongol Spartan to add? What difference would that have made? They were certainly capable of giving the "Persians" a spectrum covering sub-human species and apply to some trans-gender characteristics. The movie certainly had its homo-erotic moments; Greeks don't look like that. Period. There are no excuses left.
It's not a matter of making excuses -- it's a matter of whether Frank Miller, Warner Bros., or anyone in Hollywood really gives a shit about "The Persian Cataphract", historians, or anyone other than their core demographic when it comes to producing a movie.
Is Hollywood disingenuous, hypocritical, inaccurate, and does it play into the worst elements of American popular culture and ignorance about the world? Absolutely. But most people who walked into that movie understood that it was fiction, that such people did not exist, and that it was a marked deviation from anything remotely historical.
My point is very simple: If you expect Hollywood or the American movie-going public to rise up and embrace the cause of the mis-portrayal of Hydarnes in an action blockbuster film, perhaps the issue is your expectations and not the actions of Hollywood or the American movie-going public.
It's not that Hollywood or America has some latent issue with the Persian Empire because of some perversion of politics -- it's just that neither of them care one iota about accuracy or how it may be interpreted by "vested interests" around the world. Good guys, bad guys, underdogs, epic battle, lots of blood, good guys win, end of story. That's the model, and it sells tickets.
When historians become the primary source of revenue for the film industry, you'll see the presentation change to preserve historical accuracy. When fans of the Persian Empire become the primary source of revenue, then movies will be more sensitive to the depiction of Hydarnes and Persian history and culture. Until then, keep getting bent out of shape about this all you like, it won't change the formula or the resulting ahistorical nonsense.
(Or feel free to go all EB on it and make your own version of the Battle of Thermopylae -- I'll watch it.)
I'm happy to take this private if you want to discuss further, but I do agree that this is the wrong thread (or forum) for this discussion.
Moosemanmoo
09-03-2008, 20:42
Epeiros, just wanted to quickly kick some Roman ass
The Persian Cataphract
09-03-2008, 22:01
Then you have indeed validated my idea for a caricature of President George Washington. The rationale you have presented applies to basically anything one can throw on the table then.
But most people who walked into that movie understood that it was fiction.
Either you are expecting the best out of the audience, or you are incredibly naïve. Have you read YouTube comments as of late? As before, I do not care about the official response of the movie-makers and their sponsors, as they are just providing a response for catering. You can keep crying about fiction all you like, at least Frank Miller portrayed the Persians within the sapient spectra; Zack Snyder however went the extra mile, and the inclusion of this concept is bizarre to say the least. Besides, the movie does have a historical precedent to it (As did the comic), effectively negating the argument of "fiction". Snyder says it here himself:
"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."
Historians! World-class historians even, if we are to take Snyder's words somewhat seriously. If this is even somewhat true, many professors ought to lose their tenures. Why then put any faith to the average Joe who probably slept through elementary history classes? Where did this 90% figure come from, and why does it appear to be so remote from the appeal to fiction? Like I said, if this is no more than harmless fiction, then why was there not a black or a Mongol Spartan? I would have enjoyed a wise-cracking Chris Tucker, or Gerry Lopez doing another "battle of the Mounds". Instead we got to see a Riefenstahl-influenced cockamamie caricature of an event that Greeks hold in high esteem. If I as an Iranian, am baffled by how the Persians were depicted as sub-human demons, then I would, if I were a Greek, be even more baffled at how a bunch of Americans have taken the Spartans and turned them into Hitler's little boys. All fully intended.
You claim "fiction", but are you willfully forgetting that even fiction can have its own subconscious and sometimes explicit political innuendos and statements? You make it out like it's all about the money. It's not just about the money. We are talking about a 60 million dollar movie full of various ideas that are getting streamed into the popular culture. You say "That's the model, and it sells tickets", but I say that this is still a filthy business, and the filthy money is accumulated at the expense of another. On one hand, it defames and dehumanizes the Persians (There is no argument, it does); on the other hand it lampoons physically disabled, and "non-white" peoples. On boot, the movie is very serious in its portrayal of the events. If this is what caters the popular youth, then I can only lament. Now what if this was a movie which glorified Hitler and portrayed a bunch of Jews as monsters with claws begging to be gassed en masse? The argument of demographics doesn't hold water, if one must assume a perspective broader than that of a marketer.
I'm not advocating a boycott; it would only serve to dignify the film intellectually, which it does not deserve. I'm not advocating censorship, because even though the movie was fucking racist (This coming from someone with enough anthropological know-how to dismiss the concept of "race" altogether), it's still creative property and would in the spirit of Voltaire still have it this way than the other. I am however pointing out the movie for what it is and what it portrays. It's full of irrational Nordicist demagoguery, it's full of derogatory racial allusions, and wears a deceptively simplistic facade from where it can resort to "IT'S FICTION IT'S ALL FICTION GET IT IT'S JUST FICTION AMERICAN YOUTH WANTS THIS NYAH-NYAH!"-card which already has seen official application. It's a stupid flick, yes, but it carries a message nonetheless.
http://z.about.com/d/couponing/1/0/v/0/1/31447.jpg
Warner Bros. doesn't care about what I think? Good riddance, I don't need the approval or permission of a bunch of overpaid mentally numb individuals wearing the executive badge so that I can speak my mind. They'd probably sell their own mothers as prostitutes for peanuts. You are very right, my friend, their target demographics colloquially forms the relevant cash-cow, and the same would apply to fascist rhetorics being directed towards aspiring bullies. So? It doesn't render what I have said untrue. It's like saying the latest TV-shop scam, promising instant abs and pecs, doesn't care about what I think, just because I'm not obese and therefore not a part of the target demographics. Isn't it still a scam? Someone needs to break the ice.
And speaking of which, where is this Aemilius Paulus now? I'd certainly like to hear his "politically incorrect" point-of-view on this ordeal. On-topic or not, the poll lives on.
May the Jägermeister-gods forbid that Satrap Ariobarzanes shall ever be subject to the fate of King Leonidas. Thermopylae has been cheapened and served like a MacDonald's burger: Cheap, quick and without nutrition. I will hang myself if they turn the battle of the Persian Gate into something even remotely similar to "300".
THIS. IS. CAKETOWN.
TWFanatic
09-03-2008, 23:56
I am not so sure Adolf Hitler would enjoy seeing Aryans, the favored race, ripped to shreds.
That aside, TPC is beginning to convince me that 300 is not, well, as it is just because the marketers reckoned it would bring in more dough. Virtually everything Hollywood comes out with these days has an underlying activist message.
It's a stupid flick, yes, but it carries a message nonetheless.
I thought that summed it up well.
teh1337tim
09-04-2008, 03:43
persian cataphract, shesh no need to complain about films like 300?
youtube?! LAWL you should c what people post on Music videos like rock is better than hip hop!
than political yells like, KILL THE USA!! fuck the usa!! LETS NUKE IRAQ AND GET OUT BLAH BLAH!!!
I watched it at the movies, nearly everyone i knew including some 13 year olds (that got in ?wth)
it was entertaining, good use of $10 to waste 3 hours... But hell anyone who went thru and remembered 7-9th grade would know spartans, athenians, greeks wore armor, not some mediteranian tanned muscled dude...
Well, i know the persians were not accurately displayed (does any movie on history accurate except documentaries even do that?)
at least they tried to mix in historical facts like 3 days battle, and the rebuilding of the wall etc...
alright lets get off this topic
I played makedonians because i remember Alexander the movie (hate the gay part...killed the movie)
the fight scene... it was the best historical presentation in any movie of any battle (only missing the 2nd line of hoplites, mercs , greek allies etc)
anyone ever thought it was the funny when the thessalians and peltests charged at the baktrian calvalry and that peltest slipped? LOl it was funny as hell
There is such a difference between what 300 did and what other historical, but hardly accurate, films like Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, etc.
There is a feature of war, whereby the enemy are seen as inhuman - as monsters. It is the kind of understanding that allows such offences as Abu Ghraib to go unchecked and unquestioned by otherwise decent human beings. This moral image was transformed into the physical image of the persians. Of course people are going to realise that the persians didn't look like mutant freaks, but what they will take home from that symbology is that they were monsters, souless slaughters unfit for the title of human-being. Further symbology acts to portray the film as a battle between the western democracies and the middle-eastern tyrannies (Spartans and democracy, my arse!). This combined with the element of monstrosity in the persian soldiery paints a picture that is both relevant and bias. I'm not talking about people reflecting, "wow, those persians are awful people, I bet the iranians are as well", but a subtle connection, unknown, can seriously influence how people react to modern political messages. I'm certainly not saying that the producers of the film were playing the political game and supporting a war against Iran or against the middle-east in general, but it sure as hell wasn't responsible.
Also it was damn crap cinema. I could watch more than 15 mins before I had to switch it off. I can understand why people like it. But if we are right in assuming that ordinary people have more important things to worry about than the delicacies surrounding the political climate of the modern world today, then it sure as hell ain't responsible of a media to play to the fears and hopes of a bigoted minority and then wrap it up in an action-packed cgi fest of muscles and homo-erotic nudity. Cinema is a medium that can both entertain and be intelligent, its a shame that it so often fails to do either.
Foot
yeh I hate when my country (Mexico) is portrayed by US producers...
(they're not the only "americans" :shifty:)
Now I understand TPC , and I agree 100% with him...
(they're not the only "americans" )
What would you rather we call ourselves? Statsians?
Atraphoenix
09-04-2008, 12:03
ROMA INVICTA of course I am sure that %90 of RTW player started with Julii and wiped out all romani faction and tasted to be imperator...
when I was bored with infantry I started to play Parthia.
in EB 1.1 I am not playing with any faction other than Pahlava.
If Konny or other smart guys manages to put RS Legions (I am a failure on adapting them) into EB I do not think that I will play with other than Romani
for that reason when I want to play Romans I play RS when I want to play pahlava I always play EB..
OMG I am a maniac I have two seperate RTW folder for this reason. one for EB one for RS...
10 GB...
my first PC had 8 GB HD only!.....
for foot : the world of screen is just a manipulated imaginery life... for me best of the tools for escapism......
maybe for that reason I almost never watch TV, except LOST of course....
Lysimachos
09-04-2008, 15:02
OMG I am a maniac I have two seperate RTW folder for this reason. one for EB one for RS...
Two folders? If you think that's much, you don't want to know how many I have... :laugh4:
Edit: A lot of mods nowadays can be used in one rtw-folder without interfering, but i think it's cleaner to use separate ones. Just a bit of superstition on my part.
What would you rather we call ourselves? Statsians?
what about US citizens... <.<
currently it's as if someone said european and everyone though the're British >.>
satalexton
09-04-2008, 23:29
I call em "the inhabitants of teh US and A" =P
Hooahguy
09-04-2008, 23:46
i played as the romani in the waning months of .81aV2 :beam:
TheGlobalizer
09-05-2008, 02:06
Cinema is a medium that can both entertain and be intelligent, its a shame that it so often fails to do either.
Agreed with this sentiment whole-heartedly. I'm just too old to bother giving a shit about what Hollywood or any other broadly-defined, amorphous group is supposedly conspiring to achieve. Some see these sorts of movies as a disease; I just see them as a symptom of the larger disease of human ignorance.
FWIW, I'd actually like to see some movies portraying Americans as craven beasts. As long as the movie has action and some nifty CGI.
The best films, of course, are as Foot wishes -- entertaining and intelligent. But for me, in lieu of that, there's a time for in-depth documentary filmmaking and a time for completely mindless bullshit.
The General
09-05-2008, 22:15
Casse :yes:
They seemed like an intriguing bunch, and they still are.
Rodrico Stak
09-07-2008, 02:16
Saba. Actually, I started as the Ptolemaioi, but I didn't even push end turn, so it was Saba.
Macedon. All because of Alexander.
I had a lot of fun with that campaign too.
Look!
https://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/Jarardo/Map226bccopy.jpg
Celtic_Punk
09-07-2008, 11:15
ummm how the hell do two different people own the deserts?
and who is bright green? ooooh wait this must be a version before i started playing... im a feckin' eegit
satalexton
09-07-2008, 11:19
ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!
What would you rather we call ourselves? Statsians?
Yes.
Aemilius Paulus
09-07-2008, 21:11
Macedon. All because of Alexander.
I had a lot of fun with that campaign too.
Look!
https://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/Jarardo/Map226bccopy.jpg
Whoa! How did you and Carthage conquer Eremos? I thought the African Eremos and the Arabian Eremos were the same province. Plus, isn't there only one city in all of Eremos, Terhazza, which you cannot reach without cheating. The Arabian Eremos doesn't even have a city.
Aemilius Paulus
09-07-2008, 21:44
0.7 rings a bell?
Nope, my EB experience began with v1.1 in April.
Nope, my EB experience began with v1.1 in April.
photoshop then :smash:
Hax means it's from a 0.7x version of EB. You can also see the Yuezhi in the northeast, where Saka have replaced them in later versions because they were somewhat out of the starting timeframe. We now have a scripted Yuezhi invasion instead, however we struggle to get the AI to use them for anything worthwhile.
Hax means it's from a 0.7x version of EB. You can also see the Yuezhi in the northeast, where Saka have replaced them in later versions because they were somewhat out of the starting timeframe. We now have a scripted Yuezhi invasion instead, however we struggle to get the AI to use them for anything worthwhile.
This was also the time of "the desert wars" between Carthage and the Ptolemaioi, who would fight over Nubian lands all the time.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.