Anybody feel like defending the honor? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therecanbeonlywar!

Again, I would be more than glad to offer my sources if any of you want them and this is rather a short reply. If I had the sufficient time right now, I would post a complete reply but I don't, so I'll post more later. And if it seems like I'm trying to hijack this forum or something with this stuff, then any of the EB people here (whose objective to make a mod that's based on historical accuracy as the top priority, which I do admire) could debate it with me in the Monastery (I don't know if there is already a Rome vs. China thread already but I usually don't check anywhere else except the modding forums).

---

Why people at EB? Nobody from EB spoke anything about a Rome vs Chinese kingdoms confrontation. The people who are discussing this do not belong to EB.

Besides, the comparation is lucicrous if we take in to consideration different time periods and the enourmous disparity of numbers in such a confrontation. In most periods, the technological know-how of both opponents was not that different. In opposition, the resources and manpower were vastly different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Why people at EB? Nobody from EB spoke anything about a Rome vs Chinese kingdoms confrontation. The people who are discussing this do not belong to EB.

---

Notice that I was just asking if anyone from EB wanted to debate about it, not trying to provoke you guys or something (it depends on how you guys interpret what I had previously posted). I had been following this mod for a while, and I was rather impressed on the objective stance you guys claimed you were trying to take, even when making a mod (I'm not trying to boast or suck up or anything, I'm serious) for a game, and I also liked how you guys chose historical accuracy above everything else, even gameplay (I read up on military history alot, and I am quite disappointed on how some so-called historical games actually don't portray the period historically accurate, especially like, for example, how the Parthians were portrayed in vanilla RTW with that simple self bow they used when clearly they were supposed to be using a much more powerful recurved composite bow otherwise it wouldn't make sense; I would've enjoyed playing historically accurate units even if they don't look "cool" as long as they are historically accurate). Since you guys claimed to be objective, I was curious as to what your stance was towards the Rome vs. China topic since this topic is brought up quite often and almost every historical game/history forum I've been to and it is usually Eurocentrics vs. Sinocentrics with neither side able to really back up their assumptions, though I've seen at least several China-supporters able to seriously back up what they were saying with reliable sources. I was thinking that if you guys took a pro-Rome stance, I would seriously be questioning your so-called "objective" stance (I don't doubt you guys are objective when dealing with the "barbarians" and Rome) that you guys claimed to take for history in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Besides, the comparation is lucicrous if we take in to consideration different time periods and the enourmous disparity of numbers in such a confrontation.

---

Notice that I was of the idea of comparing the two armies of Imperial Rome and Han China (the contemporary of Imperial Rome), not asking who would win in an imagined scenario on a battlefield. So it is actually not ludicrous since there is clear evidence of who was the more technologically advanced and better-equipped and who overall had the better army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

In most periods, the technological know-how of both opponents was not that different. In opposition, the resources and manpower were vastly different.

---

It depends. If it was 4th century imperial Rome vs. 13th century China (this was the topic some guy opened a thread on at SCC), then 13th century China was vastly ahead in technology than imperial Rome (when I say "vastly", I mean it is wide enough to have been a decisive factor, and the 13th century Chinese crossbows would've clearly been a decisive factor against 4th century imperial Rome), yet the majority of the guys still were of the idea that imperial Rome would win. If it was 4th century imperial Rome vs. 4th century China, 4th century China would still be vastly ahead in technology (the first response for Westerners is that I am a Sinocentrist, however I can provide solid evidence for this, and an objective person who looks at reliable sources will see the truth in this; Rome would have no answer to crossbows alone), while the empires of China at this time were no less militant than the imperial Romans (again, the pro-Roman supporters try to force a "pacifist and weak Chinese" stereotype on the Chinese armies; anyone who has seriously studied Chinese history will agree that this stereotype is baseless and ridiculous). Considering this, I see no reason to conclude that the Han army was overall the better army than the imperial Roman army.

I'm not trying to be devil's advocate or something; in fact, I fully support such a mod like this and would only hope that some game designers and modders adopt this stance of historical accuracy (RTS/war games would automatically be much funner this way). I was also interested since I saw that Dead Moroz's map extended all the way to the Jungar Basin near western Mongolia and the Tarim Basin in East Turkestan; if you guys somehow found a way to implement more than 21 factions into the game, I was wondering if you guys at that point would add in some Central and East Asian factions, factions beyond Bactria, like the Wu-Sun (Indo-Iranian or Tocharian-related nomads) of the Ili Valley, the Yuezhi (Indo-European Tocharian nomads that were driven out of Gansu by the Xiongnu and who invaded Bactria after the Saka invasions), the Saka of Transoxiana (contrary to popular belief, not all Saka were Scythians; the Scythians were a Saka tribe, not the other way around) who invaded Bactria (these were the "eastern barbarians" the Greeks there referred to as), or even the Han empire (if so, I was curious as to how you guys would portray them as, is it the typical ridiculous Eurocentric and biased stereotype of "waves upon waves of low-quality Chinese peasant soldiers" or is it thoroughly researched and historically accurate). In my opinion (I know people here on this board mostly care about Europe/US/Western history and are prone to make assumptions about non-Western/non-white history, I've seen remarks as ridiculous as "there wasn't much happening in Asia during its history, it was mostly peace and culture and only the Japanese fought while the rest were pacifists whereas Rome had many enemies to fight and encounter like Carthage, Gaul, Britain, Germania, North Africa, Macedon, etc.") would be awesome to be able to fight and conquer the entire landmass of Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and East Asia.

The Yuezhi are near and dear to the hearts of many EB members. The Wusun and Sakae were also considered. In all likelihood were we to be able to add more than 21 factions, all three would have been included. As it is, however, we can only have 21, and there is 100% certainty on this. We will only have 21 factions.

Unless, of course, an expansion changes that.

Personally, I would not make any comparison between the two groups. I do not know enough about Imperial China to do so.

Therecanbeonlywar:

Well I’m not part of EB team, and I think any attempt to compare imperial Rome to 13th century China is a touch silly (just about as profound as saying yep Imperial Rome would whip New Kingdom Egypt real good). But, I really don’t think you sustain an argument that the China that was a contemporary of Republican or Imperial Rome had a significant technological advantage; advantages of sufficient magnitude that they would out-weight all outer factors (luck, who managed to produce the first really good general first, etc). This is really not the correct form thought, your better off moving this to the Monastery… Also I’m not sure why you quoted my response and then provided a reply with respect to threads you had not previously posted, in a context of the comparison of 13th century China to Late imperial Rome. I was explicit in offering a comparison of both states at roughly the same point in time.

History is written by the victors. Well, yes and no.
History isn't a science, and the first thing you learnt when you study history is to question your source. Who wrote the text, what were his purposes, to who, what the text is telling you, and what, more important, isn't telling you. That is the B a BA.
Cesear wrote his Comments to convince other Romans that he was a good general and politicien. Him alone was able to defeat the Gauls who were for the Romans THE threath. He also probably exagered the difficulties of the fights. It isn'ty so glorious to defeat weak ennemies...
We know that most of the text were written years after the events, and sometimes decennies... But, text written during the events are sometimes more linked with propagenda than facts... A witness can't see on the other side of a hill. and he can report only what he see, which is by definition partial. He or she is contaminated by the poeple is lived with, translator, soldiers, population. Look at the news and actual journalists.
History is written by each country to built its own representation and to built its own values.
Exemples: 1415, Azincourt: English version: The weak English Army deafeated the allmighty French Army, For England, The King and St Georges..
French version: The French army, under the command of King bealeaving he was built in glass (doesn't help in battle) and the stupid knights, desobeing their leader, attacked without orders, creating a traffic jam. And the English killed all the prisoneers. But, at Bouvines the French won and at Castellion, and won the Hundred Years War.
Same event, different messages.
And you can carry on like that for each period or battle.
And you have also to bulit heroes. No good representation without caracters, mythic or not, who will illustrate the Nation... And the choice of the heroe depends on wich values you want to underline... The choice also depends on the period you write the book of history...
History isn't written by the victors. History changes, moves, with the needs of the time. When I was at school, the Russian Front wasn't studied, the role of the Red Armu denied because they were COMMUNISTS. Nowadays, teh sacrifice of the Russian soldiers is recogninized and movies like Enemies at the Gate can be shown on our western screens. And Saving Private Ryan in the Eastern countries.

Quote:

---

Cesear wrote his Comments to convince other Romans that he was a good general and politicien.

---

wrong,they were not meant to be publicated,Commentaries were actually diaries of Campaigning for Governemnt records,also Caesar did not need to write anything,to convince how good it was at the art of war,like it or not...

Quote:

---

He also probably exagered the difficulties of the fights. It isn'ty so glorious to defeat weak ennemies...

---

This is great too.....the only problem had Gauls, was that they were not united,like Greeks....otherwise history could have gone differently.... ~:)
They had not such a military organisation as Romans had,that's it,and were not a nation,not united many interior struggles for power
"divide et Impera..." Caesar made good work of this... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legionario

wrong,they were not meant to be publicated,Commentaries were actually diaries of Campaigning for Governemnt records,also Caesar did not need to write anything,to convince how good it was at the art of war,like it or not...

---

Um, they certainly were meant to be published - in fact they were published by installments while he was still campaigning in Gaul and won him vast amounts of popularity back in Rome. Pretty much as they were intended to do.

Legionario:

Quote:

---

This is great too.....the only problem had Gauls, was that they were not united,like Greeks....otherwise history could have gone differently....
They had not such a military organisation as Romans had,that's it,and were not a nation,not united many interior struggles for power
"divide et Impera..." Caesar made good work of this...

---

The Greeks were not united either, allowing Rome to use essentially the same strategy. I would suggest that if a Union of Macedonia, Rhodes, Achaea, Aetolia, Athens and Sparta existed during the Roman period (and implicitly pulling most of the smaller cities along with them the Aegean islanders, and Crete for example), Rome might never have conquered Greece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Legionario:



The Greeks were not united either, allowing Rome to use essentially the same strategy. I would suggest that if a Union of Macedonia, Rhodes, Achaea, Aetolia, Athens and Sparta existed during the Roman period (and implicitly pulling most of the smaller cities along with them the Aegean islanders, and Crete for example), Rome might never have conquered Greece.

---

Not might sure. Unity has always been the problem of Greeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Legionario:



The Greeks were not united either, allowing Rome to use essentially the same strategy. I would suggest that if a Union of Macedonia, Rhodes, Achaea, Aetolia, Athens and Sparta existed during the Roman period (and implicitly pulling most of the smaller cities along with them the Aegean islanders, and Crete for example), Rome might never have conquered Greece.

---

Most likely true. The chances for something like this happening probably died far earlier when Athens was defeated by Sparta. Essentially the oligarchs of rival city states won over the Athenians' democratic empire. I could be totally misunderstanding history, but Rome seems to have followed a similar course to Athens with Rome's republican system, but it became dominant, rather than being defeated shortly before it could establish lasting control over its fellow city states. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." (I think of this every time some neocon starts lecturing about "States Rights", then I recall what the US Civil War was fought over...but I digress.)

Red

I think Rome a key advantage over Athens, the Republic was a far more appealing government to the essentially aristocratic-oligarchs that ruled the majority of classical city states than the Athenian-style democracy. If you had to loose you independence, I think the ruling classes of most cities just felt more comfortable, with the Patricians who ran the Senate (“they may be Romans but their kind of people, better than a bunch of sellouts pandering to the Demos back in Athens”).

I think the Greeks had one more shot in the 4th century to really stay independent. If Athens (and its second league) and the Beoetian federation of Epaminondas and Pelopidas had stayed allied. Epaminondas was supposedly a excellent speaker, it is too bad he did not go to Athens in person after Leuctra and argue against the leaders at Athens who were advocating (successfully) “balance of power politics”, and shifting to an alliance with Sparta.

I just read that thread and was a little disappointed at it being locked, but I'm left with two things that grabbed my attention. Both are questions for Khelvan.

First, are you sure the Gaels built a road from Inverness to Emhain Macha?

Second, you mentioned more than once that you know a man who's an avid Celtic scholar. It was said that he hasn't published anything, but is there any way it could be managed that I could have some kind of contact/read his findings? I'm borderline obsessed with this area of history.

Thanks.

Not Inverness, Ivernis. Inverness is in Scotland. Ivernis was an ancient city in the southwest of Ireland. The highway was a combination of stone and wood planks (like most Celtic highways, like those in Gaul, which were long distances of planks and what amounted to gravel) to traverse the swamps over the center of the island. The highway also included a branch to Menapia, which was a major trade center. Back when it was built, it would look like a large, raised dirt road covered in pebbles, combined with long sections of wooden 'bridges' over the wetter areas, so as to allow chariots and other wheeled objects to move through the island (since Ireland itself is essentially a massive bog in many places, combined with rough rocky terrain; niether is conducive to wheeled travel, or large horses).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Not Inverness, Ivernis. Inverness is in Scotland. Ivernis was an ancient city in the southwest of Ireland. The highway was a combination of stone and wood planks (like most Celtic highways, like those in Gaul, which were long distances of planks and what amounted to gravel) to traverse the swamps over the center of the island. The highway also included a branch to Menapia, which was a major trade center. Back when it was built, it would look like a large, raised dirt road covered in pebbles, combined with long sections of wooden 'bridges' over the wetter areas, so as to allow chariots and other wheeled objects to move through the island (since Ireland itself is essentially a massive bog in many places, combined with rough rocky terrain; niether is conducive to wheeled travel, or large horses).

---

lol Thanks for the enlightening description of the roads. I just found it odd that a road would have been built between Emhain Macha and "Invernes (sic)", since it was written as such in Khelvan's post - just a clarification.

The whole China vs. Rome debate that took place earlier was like a grown-up scholarly version of "my dad's better than yours!" Who would win between China and Rome? Well, neither! With however many THOUSANDS of miles between them, these 2 cultures didn't even EXIST to each other except in spice and silk trading. That's it! Debates should be geared towards something controversial, not something fantasy.

Please forgive my typographical errors. ~:)