History to Follow

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

Okay so you're just saying we shouldn't just use the first source of information we bump into, right? Well we don't. Happy?

No, read it again Mr. Moros. I'm saying to base it upon the primary sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

No, read it again Mr. Moros. I'm saying to base it upon the primary sources.

---

Oh so we're not supposed the overvaluate certain sources above those which are founded to be more credible? Well we don't do that either. Happy?

I would have to take your word to be happy Moros, and for some reason I can't be convinced it is true to what you say...

Evaluation of sources, theories,... is an important part of history. And of course this evaluation is subject to the historian and hence can differ. So quite possibly you might not agree on all of our assessments, but that doesn't mean we don't take it seriously. But then again on most historical topics there are multiple theories in the academic world, of course we always only chose to represent one. That however doesn't mean we never mention other possible theories.

There can only be theories about that which is not certain. My point is that, where things are uncertain, we must defer to the sources that started the discussion in the first place. Why would there need to be an evaluation of theories for something as basic as what is relevant to this mod? What such theories could this mod seek to debate or challenge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

There can only be theories about that which is not certain. My point is that, where things are uncertain, we must defer to the sources that started the discussion in the first place. Why would there need to be an evaluation of theories for something as basic as what is relevant to this mod? What such theories could this mod seek to debate or challenge?

---

Where possible we base our mod on the status questionis. When there's not one single theory that is most commonly accepted we of course evaluate the current theories and chose the one with the most credible case. Of course this often discussed and debated in our internal forums. Often we need to make dicissions on certain things (due to the game's design) which there's no or barely any sources on, in which case the educated guess is there. There however times when we need to reconstruct the past almost completely ourselves in which case we use sources, relevant studies and the likes. For example when reconstructing specific units. Of course we don't reevaluate and question everything to the smallest detail, especialy when generally academically accepted theories are already there. We don't have the time for it, nor the manpower, nor would it be much of use for our mod.

You were talking about how we should handle sources. I was responding on how we deal with sources. I didn't claim that we didn't use academic journals, monograph's, or modern theories in general... However we do evaluate these theories when there are multiple theories in circulation as well. How in depth depends on the subject, relevance,...

Sources are pretty much always the same or at least most authors share a great deal of those.
Interpretation of the sources from different authors can produce different results, especially as most authors are going to put more emphasis on the sources that seem to agree more with their own point of view.
Aside from what we get by reading and interpretating the classical authors we also get our data from excavation reports, musem exhibits, books by specialist historians and sometimes even by talking with/having academics on the team.

To put an example, EB1 Carthage was heavily influenced in many aspects by Polybius and Livy, whom are the main authors on the punic wars plus reports on findings in north africa like pottery and pieces of panoply.
In EB2 many things on the faction have been changed because of more recent research, which greatly integrates (and in some cases partially contradicts) the works of the classical authors and gives a pretty different picture overall.

Inside the EB team itself there are historians that supports different visions of the meaning of a source and that is in itself a source of internal discussions and compromises over the interpretation of certain aspects, not to mention how we decide to fill in the voids left by the sources.
The mod in itself does not debate or challenge any theory, it merely represents the implementation in game of our interpretation of the various theories.

SlickNica, I'd never thought of actually using the primary sources...

And I guess I should stop using my Clausewitz to design EB2... you do grasp, right, that that's what Dodge is arguing against? He's railing against extensive, revisionist anachronism by modernists and armchair historians entertaining inquiries into antiquity. Is there some reason you think we're guilty of that?

C'mon dude, what's the beef? Upset about something? We make extensive use of primary sources. In fact, Polybius in most respects is just an early secondary source (he can also be read as a primary source, and is a primary source for some things). Alongside our ancient historians, we use archaeology, epigraphy, papyrology, and scholarly works in various fields of inquiry to craft our depictions of the ancient world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

SlickNica, I'd never thought of actually using the primary sources...

And I guess I should stop using my Clausewitz to design EB2... you do grasp, right, that that's what Dodge is arguing against? He's railing against extensive, revisionist anachronism by modernists and armchair historians entertaining inquiries into antiquity. Is there some reason you think we're guilty of that?

C'mon dude, what's the beef? Upset about something? We make extensive use of primary sources. In fact, Polybius in most respects is just an early secondary source (he can also be read as a primary source, and is a primary source for some things). Alongside our ancient historians, we use archaeology, epigraphy, papyrology, and scholarly works in various fields of inquiry to craft our depictions of the ancient world.

---

No beef man. But, to further the conversation, give me an example where any of your modern sciences successfully refuted something that the classics themselves haven't already, that would apply to the game? I don't feel any "beef." All I feel is that I get the feeling that some people, if reading a source that is inaccurate (such as various instances of Livy) we take that as an authorization to develop a theory. Rather, I believe theories should only be developed if ALL sources have been looked at, and are deemed inaccurate. You feel me? Such as, like I said, the fable of Romulus and Remus. Livy, per my example, constantly goes off-hand on speculation, but we have Polybius as the remedy. Since we have the remedy, there is no need to operate...

Except that we have also excerpts from Polybius' sources (although precious few and very little) plus quite a bit of material from excavations which shows one or two things in a different way than him.

Remember that Polybius aim was to write something akin to Machiavelli's prince rather than a detailed report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

Except that we have also excerpts from Polybius' sources (although precious few and very little) plus quite a bit of material from excavations which shows one or two things in a different way than him.

Remember that Polybius aim was to write something akin to Machiavelli's prince rather than a detailed report.

---

Ok, what did such excavations refute?

And I'm sorry, but if his true aim was to write a treatise rather than a report on events, why on Earth would he visit the battlefields to get a first person perspective of such things as the topography? Such work only requires basic knowledge of events and deep critical thought. He was writing history, not an academic paper. Come on man.

Quote:

---

give me an example where any of your modern sciences successfully refuted something that the classics themselves haven't already, that would apply to the game?

---

Are you even serious? :bounce:

Also if you are to question the Academic ways of history, shouldn't you first get acquainted with it? Perhaps if you'd do that you might understand the value of some of the basic principles behind the science of history and current historical theories.

Actually what you are posting is a request for us to forget about the historical methodology, and just trust the sources you think are correct? Sadly you don't even seem to posses any knowledge of ancient historiography either. So your point is actually to make the game as unhistorical as possible?

Ok Slick, one example: In Polybius' description of the Ptolemaic reforms prior to the battle of Raphia, he says that the Ptolemaic army was reorganized along ethnic lines, each nation to their own unit, and equipped with their nation's weaponry. By studying papyri, we can show this was not the case.

That's a very simple one, but I hope it's sufficient to show what I mean. Besides, I think you missed my point: we're not talking about modern sciences, we're talking about using an alternative, less accessible, often superior type of ancient source.

The bad thing about the OP is that it is so vague and devoid of examples as to allow the poster to weasel out of any challenge. Slick is going to have to apply whatever his actual criticism is to some specific material. Where, precisely, have we not met and/or far exceeded any of the standards that he feels entitled to set for us? Pick one detail out of any of the EB2 previews and we'll go from there.




For example,

Quote:

---

where things are uncertain, we must defer to the sources that started the discussion in the first place.

---

Meaninglessly circular. Essentially this says, "When your sources are vague, refer to other sources". Honestly, not a lot of help.

Quote:

---

All I feel is that I get the feeling that some people, if reading a source that is inaccurate (such as various instances of Livy) we take that as an authorization to develop a theory. Rather, I believe theories should only be developed if ALL sources have been looked at, and are deemed inaccurate.

---

Trite, trite. If there was one specific example, anywhere, in any of this hogwash, I might be able to better show what an meaningless platitude this is. "The sources", for example, are very uncertain, and in some cases downright erroneous, when it comes to detailed information about the military organization of the lPRIA Britons. Caesar, Tacitus, Diodorus, Strabo: not much actually there and some bona fide errors. There is archaeology, settlement pattern analysis, and some modern scholarship: but these things need an interpretive lens to be of any use in designing a game. So, we need a soi-disant 'theory': a vision of what kind of society we are dealing with, which informs decisions made in modeling and skinning the units.

Quote:

---

if his true aim was to write a treatise rather than a report on events, why on Earth would he visit the battlefields to get a first person perspective of such things as the topography? Such work only requires basic knowledge of events and deep critical thought. He was writing history, not an academic paper.

---

Wretchedly articulated, to be sure. Many false assumptions. Pompous, as well. And as far as I can tell, absolutely no import for EB - like this thread, really.

Quote:

---

the world as was then is much different as it is now.

---

What a stunning insight! I had never considered that!

Quote:

---

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.

---

And your point is? This having been the guiding principle of the Europa Barbarorum project since 2004, I think we can safely tag this one, "Well, duh!"

* We, means, of course, the EB team.

Moros really put it best. Slick is concerned that we don't do a good job at assessing the value of our various sources of information (without providing a single example of what he means). Moros, having torn himself away from the SpiceGirls for 3 seconds, correctly pointed out that just 'cos we didn't run it past Slick first, doesn't meant that we got it wrong.

I don't understand Slick's pidgeon-English. I mean, wow. I grew up in the ghetto, and even I didn't talk like that.

I'm sorry for the Offtopic, but I really must write this now.
How is it possible that intelligent people waste so much of their time on a troll like SlickNica? Do you really think he is serious about anything he writes? Or don't you know what he writes since he is member in this forum?
I think you're wasting your energy...

It looks like slicknica has too much free time too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahl

I'm sorry for the Offtopic, but I really must write this now.
How is it possible that intelligent people waste so much of their time on a troll like SlickNica? Do you really think he is serious about anything he writes? Or don't you know what he writes since he is member in this forum?
I think you're wasting your energy...

---

I think, in all seriousness, that SlickNica is no troll. He says it as he sees it. I think he really believes that the use of archaeology is a modern 'fad' and that, basically, anything that doesn't add up to the 'original sources' (which generally aren't original anyway, and are not written as a history as we might understand such now..but rather as polemics, or as 'moral guides' - and I'll refer you to your own words, Slic, in terms of the nature of such 'histories' "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 think Oudysseos has given the best reply, in so far as highlighting the paucity of any real argument within the OP, but I think it unfair to dismiss SlicNicka as simply a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahl

I'm sorry for the Offtopic, but I really must write this now.
How is it possible that intelligent people waste so much of their time on a troll like SlickNica? Do you really think he is serious about anything he writes? Or don't you know what he writes since he is member in this forum?
I think you're wasting your energy...

---

I think, in all seriousness, that SlickNica is no troll. He says it as he sees it. I think he really believes that the use of archaeology is a modern 'fad' and that, basically, anything that doesn't add up to the 'original sources' (which generally aren't original anyway, and are not written as a history as we might understand such now..but rather as polemics, or as 'moral guides' - and I'll refer you to your own words, Slic, in terms of the nature of such 'histories' "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 think Oudysseos has given the best reply, in so far as highlighting the paucity of any real argument within the OP, but I think it unfair to dismiss SlicNicka as simply a troll.

I have read and re-read the original post and i think that i am starting to understand what was some of the intention of the thread. I think the key is this sentence: "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."

It looks like what SlickNica was doing is criticising several posts that he read, the problem is that he created a new thread, instead of posting his criticism in the very same place where he read it. I think that is the main reason why the post is so confusing and don´t say anything in concrete. To the OP, if you want to criticise some post made by the EB team, then you should post the source you are criticising too, and allow the author to show his opinion as well. Perhaps you misunderstood the posts, or did not understand them the way the author intended them to be read.

I think is that is SlickNica is not trolling, but is being way too generalist and if he wants a proper discussion he needs to bring into the discussion the EB posts that caused him to write the thread.

As it is now there is not much content in the original post other than: "hey EB team i hope you are doing a good work, because i don´t want to be disappointed and see anything that i don´t consider accurate. So show me your methods and prove to me that you know what you are doing"

I hope i didn´t come off as too harsh, but really you should be more specific and to the point, if you had been your thread would probably have been treated in a more serious way.

Lessons to be Learned
1) Specificity can and usually does shed a more focused spotlight on the issue(s) at hand.
2) Time management. It is wise to spend time on people and things that will bring about progressive change with regard to said issue(s). Anything else would be unwise management of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

I think, in all seriousness, that SlickNica is no troll. He says it as he sees it. I think he really believes that the use of archaeology is a modern 'fad' and that, basically, anything that doesn't add up to the 'original sources'

---

I also think that Slick genuinely believes what he says, but I do suspect he is trying to provoke a response. Both here and in the Pritanoi-general thread he has criticized the source-preference of the EB team without giving examples of where they got it wrong. In other words: the posts assume rather than argue that the EB team made mistakes, and the vagueness of the arguments makes it hard for the EB team to counter them. As such, this thread seems intended to provoke rather than help.

Again: it's fine to criticize the EB team, but remember they are human and sometimes emotional about their work. So be specific, bring sources, and don't automatically assume you know better. See Khelvan's request here.