Misellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

No, no you get it wrong. I totally agree with Pelopidas. And in fact i extend his perspective and just say it is fair to have more greek factions. I dont know why there should be a Greek factions that includes Athenians, Spartans and Corinthians and a separate Macedonian faction. I believe it should be many little factions or one that covers all, from Sparta to Macedonia.Get it now?

---

No, that is itself unreasonable. Why one or the other? In fact that doesn't even make any sense. EB and vanilla rtw has never tried to emulate cultural groups, we use political factions. It thus makes sense to use the koinon hellenon group. It could also make sense to have separate city states, but it certainly would not make sense to have one big faction encompassing macedonia and sparta et al. That was never a homogeneous political entity. We have two choices for the Greek faction. Either we choose to represent them by city-states, but then they would be too weak as their power was in making alliances with other city-states which the RTW engine cannot represent. Or we represent a pre-existing alliance and use traits to represent the disparate groups and city-states that make up alliance.

We chose the latter. But your third option, a pan-hellenic faction makes about as much sense as a pan-gallic faction, or pan-germanic faction. These were not political entities. Oh, and don't go making false dilemma fallacies, representing two choices as the only choices, or I will tear your argument apart.

Thanks,

Foot

I am not the one to doubt a biologist, but if you could find some link that isn't greek...

Quote:

---

δεν υπάρχει γενετική ετερογένεια μεταξύ των Ελληνικών πληθυσμιακών δειγμάτων (από τις διάφορες περιοχές της χώρας), αν και κάποιοι δείκτες είναι ικανοί να διακρίνουν μερικά ζευγάρια πληθυσμιακών δειγμάτων. Η σύγκριση των συχνοτήτων των αλληλομόρφων των γενετικών δεικτών που αναλύθηκαν ανάμεσα στον Ελληνικό και σε άλλους Ευρωπαϊκούς πληθυσμούς επιβεβαιώνει τη γενική διαπίστωση ότι στην Ευρώπη παρατηρείται γενετική ομοιογένεια. Μόνο ο δείκτης ΤΗΟ1 φαίνεται να μπορεί να διακρίνει τον Ελληνικό από τους υπόλοιπους Ευρωπαϊκούς πληθυσμούς.

---

Let me attempt to translate here...

Quote:

---

There is no genetic difference between tghe Hellenic population samples (from different areas of the land), even if certain genetic markers are capable of discerning certain couples of population samples. The comparison of the frequencies of transpositonal genetic markers analysed in between the hellenic and other European populations only confirms the general ascertainment that in Europe a genetic homogeny exists. Only the marker THO1 is shown to differentiate Hellenic from other European populaces

---

The article goes on to explain in detail the very small genetic differential between Greek and other European genetic makeup. I am not a biologist, though, so this is as far as I can translate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

And in fact i extend his perspective and just say it is fair to have more greek factions. I dont know why there should be a Greek factions that includes Athenians, Spartans and Corinthians and a separate Macedonian faction. I believe it should be many little factions or one that covers all, from Sparta to Macedonia.

---

I think everybody agrees that it would be desirable to include more factions. Unfortunately, the R:TW engine is limited to 21 factions, including the rebels/eleutheroi. But this was never the issue under discussion.

Hellenes, do you have it in French or English ? :]

Tiberius ( and allothers who could have been harmed ), I must apologized, I was rude.

I have sustained dozens of arguments about the "purity" of an ancient Greek nation, and it has clearly influenced my reaction here, it was not the point, we have a good and healthy conversation there.
I hope this wouldn't throw a shadow on the evidences I advance.

Meliritos, I doesn't fully agree: yes, a " true depiction " of ancient Greece would need more than one faction, but RTW having a limited numbers of factions, it's impossible...in fact the only Greek ancient world would need an entire mod, and would then be far away from the reality of the political relations...the best thing would be to show the political leagues and major polis, as playing some regional powers.
But !
It would not be as accurate for a faction like the Persian empire: Median, Phrygian, Phenicians, Egyptians...they were all under real Persian rule, just as they are in the Diadochoï states. There could be some factions under protectorate and paying tribute, such as Halicarnassos or Phenician and Chypriots client kingdoms, but that's all.

Under the EB system most of those would just rank as Type III and IV governements though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

No, that is itself unreasonable. Why one or the other? In fact that doesn't even make any sense. EB and vanilla rtw has never tried to emulate cultural groups, we use political factions. It thus makes sense to use the koinon hellenon group. It could also make sense to have separate city states, but it certainly would not make sense to have one big faction encompassing macedonia and sparta et al. That was never a homogeneous political entity. We have two choices for the Greek faction. Either we choose to represent them by city-states, but then they would be too weak as their power was in making alliances with other city-states which the RTW engine cannot represent. Or we represent a pre-existing alliance and use traits to represent the disparate groups and city-states that make up alliance.

We chose the latter. But your third option, a pan-hellenic faction makes about as much sense as a pan-gallic faction, or pan-germanic faction. These were not political entities. Oh, and don't go making false dilemma fallacies, representing two choices as the only choices, or I will tear your argument apart.

Thanks,

Foot

---

tearing apart? tearing apart is the fascist way, in Greece we are tought to discuss and exchange arguments, thats the democratic way. Anyway, you are talking about political similarities between the "greek" states that differentiate them from the "macedonian" state. Can you please tell me how the oligarchic system of Sparta is similar to the democratic system of Athens or the aristocratic system of other city states?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

tearing apart? tearing apart is the fascist way, in Greece we are tought to discuss and exchange arguments, thats the democratic way. Anyway, you are talking about political similarities between the "greek" states that differentiate them from the "macedonian" state. Can you please tell me how the oligarchic system of Sparta is similar to the democratic system of Athens or the aristocratic system of other city states?

---

Haha, you comparing me to a fascist? I am fully able to discuss and exchange arguments, but if you are going to put forward fallacious arguments whose only purpose is to further your own agenda I will not continue any discussion.

And to your second bit; WTF?! I never said their systems was similar, not once did I say that. Nor did I imply it. I think what you will find that I said is the following:

Quote:

---

Or we represent a pre-existing alliance and use traits to represent the disparate groups and city-states that make up alliance.

We chose the latter.

---

I even said that the city-states that make up the group are disparate. But the alliance was an historical fact, and that is what our KH faction represents. I never once said that the Athenians had the same political system as the Spartans.

Show me, in what I have posted, where I have said anything to the contrary. Don ascribe absurd positions to me, who in their right mind would claim that an oligarchic and a democratic system are the same (ideally of course, in practice there are marked similarities).

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

Before Hellenistic times there wasn't the kind of syncretism which allowed for identifying gods of barbarians with Greek gods either. So who are you arguing against?

---

I forget to answer:
Herodotos used this kind of syncretism. Xenopho and Thukydides also, they all said that Mithra was Apollo, or that the Persian worshipped Zeus.
In Asia Minor, the Great Mother-goddess became Artemis of Ephesos.

So it was clearly long before the Hellenistic era that the Greek thought like this.

I was arguing about the " same religion " idea :]
Similarities in religious practice, yes...but not every time nevertheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meliritos

tearing apart? tearing apart is the fascist way, in Greece we are tought to discuss and exchange arguments, thats the democratic way.

---

It may be that English is not your first language and you misinterpreted "tearing apart" as a physical threat (it isn't, it is an emphatic way to indicate your argument can be dismissed easily), but your fascist-reference was uncalled for.

Why is it so hard to consider that peoples from different Helenic polis/regions regarded others as inferior when as recently as the American Civil War, most people considered themselves from their state first and country second, and usually looked down on others from different states?

For the answer to that, my money's on "nationalist sentiment". :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

For the answer to that, my money's on "nationalist sentiment". :wall:

---

Its kinda trivial to witness the continious "politically correct" cosmopolitan perception being hold on a pedestal of perfect and unfallable opinion...
On the way of the "politically correct" agenda one can sacrifise anything included any historical reality...

Your brand of historical reality would claim the ancient Greeks invented fire if there was the slightest chance you could get away with it.
:dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Your brand of historical reality would claim the ancient Greeks invented fire if there was the slightest chance you could get away with it.
:dozey:

---

My ancestors were saying:
ΜΗΔΕ ΚΡΙΝΕΙΣ ΕΞ ΙΔΙΩΝ ΤΑ ΑΛΛΟΤΡΙΑ
Please dont judge others based on yourself...

Around here there's an old chestnut that translates roughly as "bull by his horns, man by his words".

I subscribe to that school of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Around here there's an old chestnut that translates roughly as "bull by his horns, man by his words".

I subscribe to that school of thought.

---

IMO a man by his actions would be more appropriate... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

IMO a man by his actions would be more appropriate... ;)

---

lol what is this an exchange of old sayings? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

IMO a man by his actions would be more appropriate... ;)

---

Hey, I didn't invent the saying. 'Sides "words" and "actions" are about the same when all you really see of the other guy is text, text and more text...

I don't think anyone here say that the various peoples who are considered commonly as the "ancient Greek" were united in any political way.

Well, another things I forget to point: in Seleukid population census, the division about hellenic settlers is between Macedonians and Greeks .
I don't know if the Lagid dynasty used the same division terms.
But what would I say is that in Seleukid cities, at hellenistic times, the descendant of the people of Macedonia, heavily hellenized, style considered themselves as different from the others Greek peoples.
They not say " Macedonian and Ionian / Athenians / Boetians.... " just they, all the others greeks, and then the barbarians.

So I see this as clearly a mark of contempt, not only based on national entities, the Macedonian of that time seeing themselves as superior to everyone else ( well, they have good reasons to tought this :] )

@Pelopidas, this is not directed to you in particular, nor is it intended to laugh at you or offend you in any way. But as Teleklos put it so well: "what really cooks my carrots" and in my case... well, let me explain below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

So I see this as clearly a mark of contempt, not only based on national entities, the Macedonian of that time seeing themselves as superior to everyone else ( well, they have good reasons to tought this :] )

---

[sarcasm on]Ah, finally. Now we're getting somewhere. And I believe that somewhere is here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...05&postcount=4 & https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=15 (which is me, btw)[/sarcasm off]

:jawdrop: No really, 2 pages (!) to have your own personal little fights about what not leading nowhere else but 2 pages back -> I believe there's a special subforum for this sort of things, and I believe it's called...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Backroom

So, my little contribution to this thread will be this: please get back to this world, and stop spoiling threads with debates which to some extent end up as getting personal and more importantly add nothing whatsoever to either the original topic or to the thread as a separat topic of it's own, and which therefore would better not be here at all. Please just don't spoil it for all those who hope to really add something to the thread, OK? In other words: :focus:

Well, I'm not getting it the wrong way ^^

But my English must be very bad if I wasn't correctly interprated.
All the stuff I brought is about the accuracy of " mishellenes " trait.

When we see that Macedonian overlords of the Hellenistic era make a distinction betwin the "Macedonian" and the "Hellens" ( yes, in original version, it's the term used , perhaps I forget to point it... ) in their very censitary account, then, someone like me could see the " mishellenes " trait as being perfectly good the way it actually exist, no ?