Printable View
I am still confused. Did CA just make a massive typo, and put Macedonian instead of Numidian? Because Numidian is in the discription. I have stayed away from arguing unit accuracy, but if this is really Macedonian, than CA has really gone over the top. I will still buy the game ofcourse, but yeesh.
I believe it was a typo because - as you said. The description states Numdian.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyviking03
Barkhorn.
If it is truely a typo, why is everyone going so ape shit over the name? They obviously messed up the name, and I highly doubt they are just going to leave it like that.
After reading all of the negative posts in this forum... I've got to say that this appears to be an extremely intelligent and on target statement. ~:flirt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkhorn1x
But we do want historical accuracy. And while we do want our personal vision, it has a heck of a lot to do with historical accurarcy.
Well personally it has nothing to do with personal vision and everything to do with historical accuracy
........Orda
I suppose I am one of those for "historically accurate" units (I'd personally prefer the term "historically informed")
However, I also admit that "historical accuracy" does have a lot to do with "personal visions". Competing "personal visions" often, because we are all trying to come to a picture of how things actually were based on evidence (literary, iconographic, archaeologic...) which is not only scarce, but also rarely straightforward. What we have is typically in need of much interpretation and there is where the "personal" part enters...
So, does that make it equivalent to "since we can't be sure everything goes"? No, because at the core still lies the "evidence". Let's say that, influenced by how things are today and seem to have been for quite a while, one of us, who cares some for historical accuracy, had the preconceived notion that the Numidians probably used camels in war. However, just to make sure, you still go and try to check the evidence, just in case... And then you find that there is not a scrap of that beloved evidence of the Numidians using camels for warfare in the timeframe of the game. Actually, it turns out to be not just "using camels in war", but rather "having camels at all". Not one camel bone. Not a single literary reference, no matter how vague or indirect. And that's not just the Numidians. Same goes for Carthaginians, Libyans... (because historical evidence being what it is, arguments like "no proof for them, but their neighbors did have them" merit attention and carry some weight). But nope. Nothing.
A bit more of research would probably also show that, after all, it does makes sense because such lack of evidence does match very well the evidence that we do have. Evidence which indicates that the camel (the dromedary, the single hump one) had been domesticated only relatively recently in the Arabian Peninsula, that the species didn't occur in most Northern Africa (if at all) and that it only spread westwards later as the deserts in that part of the world got bigger. Then, after evaluating all that, you'd go and change your mind.
How could any one claim that such a process is no more valid that "Ah, since there is no proof we can't be sure. Maybe they had them" is beyond my understanding. I understand however, that such sort of "logic" (big euphemism here) is great because you cannot be proven wrong. "The Numidians fought with machine guns" If evidence happens to show up, fantastic, you were right. If it doesn't, well maybe they did, we cannot know for sure, can we?... Useful, eh?
Certainly, we can't be "sure". By the same token, we can't be sure the Numidians didn't have jet fighters, plate armor or fire-breathing dragons or that (as an English philosopher showed) the sun will rise again tomorrow. But we don't have/need to. Because we are reasonably sure. After all, even juries work on the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle.
That said, I understand that this a game and that CA wants to sell it to those who, perhaps influenced by the logo of certain brand of cigarettes, may think the Pharaohs had camels. Or if they did not it's really a pity because a Pharaoh on camel back looks "cool" and thank you CA for taking care of it... It's CA's money and they are entitled to try and make a profit producing the game they think will sell most... IMO, CA needs no further justification. What bothers me are those clumsy attempts at "defending" CA choices by attacking the methods and tools through which we humans can learn about our past. Well, that particular "defense" is not only totally unnecessary, but also an utter failure.
Cheers
A.
Good post Angadil
Long Read.
Great post, Angadil!!!
Excellent post... Angadil.
You know I was under the impression that Camels were not widely used outside of the Middle East/Arabia in this Era. I thought that Camel use only expanded into North Africa after the conquest by the Arabs long after this games timeframe.
Anyone know the truth about when Camels were introduced to North Africa?
tsk tsk, you'll learn what a long read is soon enough. A patron Rajput from India did an exteremly interesting well researched and informative post in the monastery a while back that makes this a brisk read which it actually is. Just think, in a book that post would *almost* be a page long. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
After a quick google search it seems that camels were introduced to North Africa after the Persian invasions around 500 BC. So for RTW they'd been around for quite a while. Seeing as the Numidians usually adopted whatever was adopted down the nile of them I wouldn't be surprised if they had came "technology" by the period RTW is set in.
That Macedonian part better be a typo, it'd be absolutely stupid otherwise. Just imagine Alexander the great with his Companian Camel Cavalry!
Thank you,
AFAIK, the earliest evidence of camels in Africa is camel dung from Egypt whose radiocarbon date has yielded an estimate of 600-780 BCE. Interestingly, these dates would neatly encompass the Assyryian invasion of king Ashar-Haddon (c. 675 BCE, IIRC) who recruited very numerous Arab auxiliaries from previously beaten tribes (attested camel users) for his Egyptian campaign.
However, the camel appears to have remained a sort of localized rarity, restricted to the Eastern end of North Africa and does not seem to have moved westwards until quite later. In the Saharan rock art of the Tassili (south eastern Algeria), representations of camels appear first around the 1st century CE, becoming progressively common since then. So, it is believed that an initial camel expansion in North Africa may have occurred under the Romans. It is worth noting, though, that the Tassili is thought to have been one of the first areas of the Sahara undergoing desertification and thus, could have provided a suitable home for camels relatively early (unlike the still relatively mild areas further north).
The real major expansion of the beast seems to have in fact occurred with the Arab conquest. Some have hypothesized that the destruction wrought upon the agricultural systems of North Africa by the Vandal/Alan invasion of the 5th century and the subsequent wars and invasions (the Byzantine reconquest etc...) may have contributed to a northwards expansion of the desert.
Cheers
A.
Barkhorn, I've been following the camel thread at .com and was surprised at the number of vociferous "screw history" posters there. I agree that an unusual number of the posts at .com have been rather juvenile of late. It is the official site and gets the most hits, Rome has enjoyed unprecedented media hype, and the new graphics will attract gamers that here to for would not look at Total War. Consequently, .com and the org both will see an influx of non-wargamer, console type fans. It is inevitable and we should expect as much.
That said, I bet they turn off morale and fatigue and go arcade... ~;)
Agg! The invasion of the noobs. Run! ~:shock: Hopefully they will stick primarily to the .com, espically the ones that need some serious manner lessons.