Historical Evidences

Hi,

Since this mod is all about historical accuracy I would like to know what are you evidences for :

-tha hammer troops from Ireland

-the Uachtarach guy or whatever you call this

- the Vascii armored infantryman

-the green color for evocata cohors

-the face mask for prodromoi

-thorakitai argyraspidai

-the german two handed axemen with purple

-where can I find the lusitanian dictionary you apparently use ?

-where can I aslo find the celtic and proto-baltic dictionary you apparently use ?

Could you enlighten me because I find all this stuff very interesting if not a bit surprising in a realism mod ?

Thanks

I'm sure that our respective members will be along promptly to answer your questions. Until then may I take this oppurtunity to welcome you, rtrforever (good name!), to the org. I hope you enjoy your stay here and Europa Barbarorum as well - you seem to have already shown some interest in it already!

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtrforever

Since this mod is all about historical accuracy I would like to know what are you evidences for :

---

Hey sure, if you don't mind us checking IPs to see who belongs to what is very clearly a sock puppet account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtrforever

Hi,

Since this mod is all about historical accuracy I would like to know what are you evidences for :

-tha hammer troops from Ireland

-the Uachtarach guy or whatever you call this

- the Vascii armored infantryman

-the green color for evocata cohors

-the face mask for prodromoi

-thorakitai argyraspidai

-the german two handed axemen with purple

-where can I find the lusitanian dictionary you apparently use ?

-where can I aslo find the celtic and proto-baltic dictionary you apparently use ?

Could you enlighten me because I find all this stuff very interesting if not a bit surprising in a realism mod ?

Thanks

---

Piss off. Clear enough for ya?

Seriously, it's beyond me why any RTR fan/developer juvenile wankjob would have the need to come over here and bash our mod, when we have a strict internal policy not to do the same with their mod...

Geeez. I hate the internet.


https://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2218/jerkitzz1.gif

I highly doubt this was a sockpuppet for any current RTR developer. To my understanding they have a similar policy, and neither mod wants to get back to the bad old days.

The EB team claims to be as historical accurate possible whithin game limits and gamepley limits. However as you may or may not know, when we're dealing with history we can only use finds etc as bases for knowledge. The rest we must derive from logical thinking and assumptions. And ofcourse on some subjects there are different theories. And ofcourse we can only follow one for every subject in our project.

Now if you have questions or see historical issues you can also ask this on a freindly and polite manner. However just posting a list of something you want evidence for isn't really a good way to ask. Especially since it's your first post on this forum, which suggests using a dummy account. Also I can't help to notice your name. I hope you are not trying to set two mods up against each other, cause though we may had some problems in the past, that is a long time ago and with almost a completely different team. And I can assure you there's a good relation between the two mods now.

If you're only just an RTR fan who's concerned with our historical accuracy than I ask you to be a bit more polite and not just ask for a bunch of evidence of a whole bunch of things just like that. We're just making a mod and we don't have always the time to help everyone with their questions. However when asked nicely it isn't much of a problem to us, but as you can understand the way you did, makes us less willing. You ask as it is our job to give evidence for evrything you want withtin a second. So if you have a serious question, please ask it on more polite

I say ignore him and lock the thread. Who the hell does this? Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtrforever

-the green color for evocata cohors

---

No complex reason, in reality everyone should be in undied wool. It's not that expensive a fabric so ex-legionaries might well wear it.

I'd like to elaborate on the issue of non-noble colours among certain legions; We wouldn't even have this "discussion" if the uniformity wasn't hard-coded. In my opinion it is a rather silly question that of course begs this problem in return: What colour should there be instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtrforever

Hi,

Since this mod is all about historical accuracy I would like to know what are you evidences for :

-tha hammer troops from Ireland

-the Uachtarach guy or whatever you call this

- the Vascii armored infantryman

-the green color for evocata cohors

-the face mask for prodromoi

-thorakitai argyraspidai

-the german two handed axemen with purple

-where can I find the lusitanian dictionary you apparently use ?

-where can I aslo find the celtic and proto-baltic dictionary you apparently use ?

Could you enlighten me because I find all this stuff very interesting if not a bit surprising in a realism mod ?

Thanks

---

I know man, I know, this one just ruined my suspension of disbelief.

I sure hope this IS a dummy account, because if not, then we've been awful hosts...

That said, the first post looks very suspicious. One of the things that bothers me most about the EB critics who take one unit or another and use endless squirrel-style arguement to try and prove EB wrong. They demand a host of primary sources, and then they argue that the sources are never enough. I remember one big arguement over on the twcenter.net forums about whether Carthage should get pike units- an EB dev or historian came forward with plenty of evidence, including a record of thousands of long spears/pikes in a Carthaginian temple, but people still said: "where's your source? that's not a legit source!" I even saw someone say the pikes could have been for naval combat. Talk about believing in any theory but the one EB had :laugh4:

Why do people need to try and prove EB is somehow full of fantasy units? The proof is in the pudding- just run EB for an hour and you'll realize that this game is as accurate as possible. I guess people, for whatever reason, will always try to take pot-shots at EB by finding some obscure unit, and demand immediate primary sources proving 100% conclusively that such a unit existed. Even if that is provided, they still won't quit. I hope this guy isn't one of those people bent on trying to prove that EB is actually inaccurate- because that's simply not true. EB isn't right about everything, and there's more than one way to interpret evidence, but there are NO fantasy units in EB, and the professionalism, depth, and accuracy of EB's team is unrivaled. I hope this guy is just asking an honest question, and if not, I hope he's just some lonely freelance punk who thinks he's doing RTR or some other mod a favor. I don't think any respectable mod team would have someone on their team that immature.



sorry for the rant, I just hate it when I see dumb people get into an argument with rational ones. You know what they say:
Never argue with stupid people; they drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I'd like to elaborate on the issue of non-noble colours among certain legions; We wouldn't even have this "discussion" if the uniformity wasn't hard-coded. In my opinion it is a rather silly question that of course begs this problem in return: What colour should there be instead?

---

Rainbow, obviously.


Just to get all the major colors in.

Yeah, like the Theban sacred band.

As someone said. We should hope that was a secret plot and not just a guy interested in historical evidence. Why you are so touchy?


Lusotanan, Celtic names are based on some sort of celtic language. I hope Anthony will be available to answer to you more about this rtrforever.

Someone asks for an answer, and isn't interested in posting to make EB look bad, which is what whoever this person is is doing, and they will get an appropriate response (you saw what happened when one reasonable person said they would like to know the answer to that one question above - quickly information was posted). This person deserves whatever they get.

someone close this thread its obvious purpose is to incite a bad reaction from us, and to make us look bad, this has nonthing to do with the units in question.

Come on people, you're a little too touchy. You should have at least waited for a reply before you start attacking. Now he can go to where-ever he came and say he was banished from the forums for asking a few questions.

Edit: Although if he was really asking, he might have wanted to check the factional unit section from the EB main site.

Naaah, he did it on purpose the tone was kinda aggressive plus check the profile he didn't use to check for any answers (I guess he did but from another account). He was clearly trying to get people pissed and he succeeded a bit. From my point of view he's already missing out on a lot by only playing RTR. And to believe that the units in EB are fantasy is way off base. I really believe that the team at EB had some rare experts (at least in the modding world) in Celtic people and Lusitans and all the faction that had a lot of "warband" unit names in vanilla and other mods too, I really hate that name "warband".

wow...the reaction to this post is really disappointing.

one of the most important aspects of writing about history is being able to provide sources for your work. i can just imagine what would have happened if i had told any of my history professors that my source for any work i did was "because i say so." thats basically what many of these posts are saying.

Dude... what are you talking about? In this very same thread people have asked for historical evidence, and they have been given. Why the questions in the initial post has not been answered is because it's an obvious flamebait. They should not be answered.

But of course, I think you know this already.

Close this thread at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

wow...the reaction to this post is really disappointing.

one of the most important aspects of writing about history is being able to provide sources for your work.

---

No not quite.

By coming here with a name that he posted with, coupled with the tone in which the OP addressed the questions was obviously in an arrogant, aggresive manner, so the reaction he got was just.

If you read the whole post, you will see that questions asked in a reasonable manner, will funnily enough be answered in a reasonable manner.

And if you come here with any 'problems' with anything in the mod, atleast have some argument/evidence to debate with, make your own mod that feels appropriate to you or...otherwise ask a question politely or STFU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

i can just imagine what would have happened if i had told any of my history professors that my source for any work i did was "because i say so." thats basically what many of these posts are saying

---

You are obliged to give sources to your history prof. The EB team however do this work for free, and give sources if they feel like it...don't like it? tough SH*T!


Mega

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

wow...the reaction to this post is really disappointing.

one of the most important aspects of writing about history is being able to provide sources for your work. i can just imagine what would have happened if i had told any of my history professors that my source for any work i did was "because i say so." thats basically what many of these posts are saying.

---

The problem my friend is that this tedious work has been done internally, where we have discussed things for months. Where we have provided our exhibits, ideas and reasoning, fusing them into one, and discussing it some more. When you look back at how old this modification is and how extensive it is, you may come to the realization that we have multiple archives of discussion stored online; Not flexible. It's tedious work, and the more often people demand, not ask, especially in the manner of the thread author who provided a list of queries, the more our time is wasted on an enterprise which can't really end by the first answer, and the more our collective energy goes down the drain. It's as simple as that.

What you are saying is that we pull the appeal to authority, or ad verecundiam, to make the queries look unimportant and thus easily shrugged away. Rest assured, this is not the case; the nine questions raised could partially be answered by a genuine search on google, especially as dictionaries or lingual charts are concerned. The rest pertain largely to Goidilic troop types, and that's where my jurisdiction ends. However these unit types have been discussed internally. It's a matter of mentality. It's tedious work and to some a complete waste of time; What is discussed here in the public forum in reality has little impact upon the discussion that has been conducted internally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

wow...the reaction to this post is really disappointing.

one of the most important aspects of writing about history is being able to provide sources for your work. i can just imagine what would have happened if i had told any of my history professors that my source for any work i did was "because i say so." thats basically what many of these posts are saying.

---

Well, first of all, besides my reaction which was the internet equivalent to a punch in the face, everyone's was pretty mild to me. If you can't clearly see a provocative attitude in the very first post a guy named rtrforever does on this forum by formulating a series of questions that are demanded to be answered (lest we be considered unhistorical) with a snide remark at the end, then I suggest you go your eyes checked. Or like Watchman once said, I can at least question your judgement.

I think you missed the vital difference in your own argument. We're certainly not his students, nor the other way around, and we have no obligation to answer any questions whatsoever, even if we're more than happy to do so if the questions are asked in a particular way. Call me touchy, but I wouldn't answer any of those and especially not the way in the calm way which my fellow members did.

I still say lock the thread.

Who's got the keys? This'd be better bolted shut.

I do think you are being a bit touchy, Sarcasm. A calm and considered answer is always the best response.

rtrforever could conceivabley just be abrupt and not good at explaining why he is interested in getting this information. I don't think that is so, but not everyone has fantastic English skills.

I like hearing about this kind of stuff- incidentally I asked a question about ancilia a few days ago and haven't had so much as an 'I don't know'. So maybe I should emulate rtrforever since he has in fact got some very interesting answers.

Two reasonable questions asked, two answers given. Vicious Monkey is right on the money.

Here is what would seem like a good way to handle this: take the part of this thread where the prodromoi and hammer questions are asked and answered, and split them off into a thread that remains open, and close the rest of it. That way you guys can continue discussion of those units if you like. Anyone want to ask about another unit, they can in a new thread, but again this first post was just flamebait, like VM said above.

Oh, and I don't know for sure, but that post from khelvan sure sounds like he's quoting Ranika :laugh4:. I don't think he would have come up with that himself, though it's remotely possible I could be wrong there. :grin: Thanks for digging that up though abou. It's very clear.

EDIT: This action has been taken. Couldn't split two pages of posts into one new thread, so I had to make two new ones, about those two unit questions. Our guys were happy to find the answers to those questions that people made inside this thread and those discussions certainly can continue. There won't be an answer in kind to the first post because it was flamebait. This thread is closed.