Is EB 1.2 the most sophisticated turn based computer strategy wargame to this date?

Granted this question is very subjective, and there are a few things about EB that drive me nuts, like cavalry charges failing against enemies that are running away but not yet routing, and troop tracking in barbarian cities during siege battles. But that said, I don't have any games that I think would hold interest against EB nowadays, due to the wealth of cultural content, and strategic/tactical sophistication and general replayability of EB. The amount of history and culture imbued into this game makes it rank extremely high in my estimation. Just recently, for example I totally revised my combined arms system, totally removed archers from my armies and refocused on light cavalry skirmishing and rapid encirclement, with oblique gaesatae flank attacks, to try and get the fastest chainroutes possible. The range of tactical possibilities and development strategies in this game, varying from faction to faction, have to make it rank as one of the most sophisticated turn based wargames to this date. Are there any turn based games that compare favorably with EB for overall depth/sophistication/replayability? Is EB 1.2 the ultimate wargamer's turn-based strategy game to this date?

EU3 is better on all three fronts, but it's not turn based. Civilization is more replayable, but it's not really a war game. So honestly, I don't really know of many other games that do what EB does, though it's certainly an incredibly high quality game and is probably near or at the top of the heap.

Master of Orion 3 was the most complex thing I've ever played... except it wasn't really a game... or fun... or playable...

In Antarian Galaxy, turn based game plays you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Master of Orion 3 was the most complex thing I've ever played... except it wasn't really a game... or fun... or playable...

In Antarian Galaxy, turn based game plays you!

---

I was wondering about that one, I played MOO1 a lot back in the day, Klackons FTW. I didn't play MOO2 much but I know some consider it the best of its genre. But I think the tactical system of the early MOO games was a lot simpler than EB.

He's not referring to tactical battles, but to the economy and the running of the empire.

The economy in MOO3 is so complicated no human can handle it without AI assistance. Or monk-level patience and time-commitment.

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

I was wondering about that one, I played MOO1 a lot back in the day, Klackons FTW. I didn't play MOO2 much but I know some consider it the best of its genre. But I think the tactical system of the early MOO games was a lot simpler than EB.

---

Playing MoO3 is like filling out your tax forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

---

I think what makes EB/RTW so much better than EU3 is the (R:TW engine) battles. If one could combine certain aspects of EU3 stratmap realtime play, factions/in-fighting/subfactions etc.) with the battle engine of R:TW (with some of the AI mods incorporated), the sea battles of E:TW and the cultural background/militay units and know-how of the EB team then I would likely become a hermit, deeply entrenched within the alternative 'reality' of that game. So, its probably as well that it doesn't exist.

CA should just contract Paradox to code their diplomacy system.

Also EU: Rome while extremely flawed and barren introduced some interesting features in its Vae Victus expansion. I wish Rome TW had a comparable political system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

I think what makes EB/RTW so much better than EU3 is the (R:TW engine) battles. If one could combine certain aspects of EU3 stratmap realtime play, factions/in-fighting/subfactions etc.) with the battle engine of R:TW (with some of the AI mods incorporated), the sea battles of E:TW and the cultural background/militay units and know-how of the EB team then I would likely become a hermit, deeply entrenched within the alternative 'reality' of that game. So, its probably as well that it doesn't exist.

---

Well, what "we" would need from the TWs are the battles, the units and the maps which look better than in EU3 in my opinion, nothing else.

EB 1.2 is a mod for a wargame. That wargame would do well to have been made with many more things in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

---

Heh, how could I forget to mention my all-time favorite game series? Heroes 2 was solid gold.

Do not underestimate the RTW campaign engine, especially with BI.
AI does know when it's beaten and will negotiate peace with you just like in paradox games, but unfortunately the "I'm beaten" parameter is coded in a relavitely narrow window.

This is unfortunately not seen in most mods as modders always give extra money to AI one way or the other, plus the "snowball effect" plus the huge trade multiplier effect which makes income grow much more than in a linear way.
This basically causes AI to think "I'm rich, I still have a chance" while we know better.

Once you "deflate" the economy AI becomes more passive (which in player's eyes is a bad thing) but less money also means that the player will be slower as well.
On the bright side, it allows you to see things like a faction you're bordering and you've been at war with for 20 years asking your for peace if it comes under pressure on another front.

This may or may not also be affected by the presence of another hated institution in game: the senate.
While I'm still researching that front, descr_senate.txt is the only txt file in game that shows an editable AI threshold, although the lack of research and testing does not give a 100% correct estimate of its effect globally.

That said, EB's huge amount of historical reseach and gameplay mechanisms bring a very solid layer of sophistication in game that more than compensates for AI flaws and gives the experience we all love.

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

---

Just to be clear, you are talking about Europa Barbarorum 1.2 when you say "EB", right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Just to be clear, you are talking about Europa Barbarorum 1.2 when you say "EB", right?

---

Yes Vartan, it would be safe for you to assume so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

---

Greater depth of unit rosters, greatly improved and more evocative unit graphics, greater FM character development, in many ways improved cavalry behavior-- I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

---

If you had access to a vault of EB MP replays could you make a (relatively?) reliable and accurate assessment of whether in fact MP does represent medieval Asiatic steppe warfare? (Because I do realize the power of heavy cavalry in the RTW engine by way of EB statting).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Greater depth of unit rosters, greatly improved and more evocative unit graphics, greater FM character development, in many ways improved cavalry behavior-- I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

---

Quote:

---

I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as
Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

---

What you failed to realize in my previous post was that the balance referred to is, literally, historical balance...

Vanilla portrayed them very fictionally and, hence, very unbalanced historically... Why were numidians so un-unique?... Why were Gaulish infantry so fragile?...

These are things that are a result of the fact that the unit rosters were totally not made to be historically balanced, but rather for entertainment balance: Carthage with Elephants, Romans with Everything, Greeks with Pikes, Easterns with Cataphracts, Barbarians withh Druids/Berserkers, etc., etc...

So, it is natural for you to feel that your faction has certain disadvantages and, hence it is unbalanced. But this can only be felt if you take, as you said, a very subjective approach. Why not try and play other factions to the same degree as you do as Gauls or Germans? If others also have relative disadvantages, why would that not be considered balanced? What would be unhistorical about trade not being good above the Po under the Gauls and Germans... trade has never, ever been good without the seed of civilization!... Isn't that the mark of the barbarians?... profiting from plunder??...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What you failed to realize in my previous post was that the balance referred to is, literally, historical balance...

Vanilla portrayed them very fictionally and, hence, very unbalanced historically... Why were numidians so un-unique?... Why were Gaulish infantry so fragile?...

These are things that are a result of the fact that the unit rosters were totally not made to be historically balanced, but rather for entertainment balance: Carthage with Elephants, Romans with Everything, Greeks with Pikes, Easterns with Cataphracts, Barbarians withh Druids/Berserkers, etc., etc...

So, it is natural for you to feel that your faction has certain disadvantages and, hence it is unbalanced. But this can only be felt if you take, as you said, a very subjective approach. Why not try and play other factions to the same degree as you do as Gauls or Germans? If others also have relative disadvantages, why would that not be considered balanced? What would be unhistorical about trade not being good above the Po under the Gauls and Germans... trade has never, ever been good without the seed of civilization!... Isn't that the mark of the barbarians?... profiting from plunder??...

---

Yes I agree to some extent that Vanilla RTW unit statistics and design were partly created for fun factor, while EB is a more serious effort to shrug off the effects of Helleno-Roman misobarbarism and reflect that around 270 there were many strong martial cultures and the future was uncertain. As for Roman troops in EB, well on the one their advantages to me are obvious, and having played the Celtic factions a great deal, playing the Romans would be almost the same thing, its all swordsmen armies, the Romans are just tougher and have better javelin volleys, while their melee impact is weaker. And that is the other reason I won't play them, when I send swordsmen charging on the flank, I want to see a lot of bodies dropping but the Romans with their inferior lethality just don't satisfy me. I've played Getai and ran falxmen too much, the 0.13 lethality gladius just don't cut it. 0.225 is about as low as I want to go. Now in reality I think the 0.13 Roman principes lethality is a statistical nerf, designed for game balance issues, and in reality Roman principes were some of the more lethal regular infantry in the world at that time. The Celts, in a more realistic system, would have statistical variance within cohorts, not all would be equally well armed, and the heroes would surpass most anything individually that the Romans could field. And charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality. That's my take anyways.
But I won't play Romans simply because the 0.13 bores me, that and the Polybian principes are just too good in that 0.13 boring way.
As for profitting from plunder, the Romans were just as good at that as any "barbarians". One of the Roman axioms, often repeated in Livy, is that the Romans considered nothing to be more properly their own, than that which they siezed by arms during war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

If you had access to a vault of EB MP replays could you make a (relatively?) reliable and accurate assessment of whether in fact MP does represent medieval Asiatic steppe warfare? (Because I do realize the power of heavy cavalry in the RTW engine by way of EB statting).

---

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear. I did see one replay about a month ago with a good Sarmatian army with Sarmatian nobles, Roxalani lights, mass HA levy spam and Skythian nobles in reserve, maybe it was you playing I'm not sure but the Sarmatians crushed a pretty tight KH infantry box in guard mode. I'd be curious to see it done at 40K with some Sarmatian warlords, or Saka bodyguards (not the FM type but the regular hetairoi lance/axe type). But its not too complex really, the main thing would be crescent formations rather than rectangles, doing simultaneous HA sweeps of both flanks and rear, firing concentrically when possible, skirmishing and riding down stray troops, and punctuated by a decisive heavy cavalry charge.

I usually go with a 3 part army with steppe factions, 1/2 the horses go around each side and 1/2 the horses stay up front. I think a cresent is asking too much though TW controls don't lend to any geometrically complex formations.

More importantly, HA only armies are pretty useless after missiles are out. Its better to bring foot archers and infantry since levy HA will rout on charges.

Quote:

---

The Celts, in a more realistic system, would have statistical variance within cohorts, not all would be equally well armed, and the heroes would surpass most anything individually that the Romans could field.

---

Yes, you too are right, but in the virtual reality system of a videogame, such discrepencies must be overlooked directly, and be indirectly assessed by the law of averages no? In other words, we must look at each unit as a whole rather than as a multitude of pieces.

However, the point you raise sheds light on the preventable descrepencies in the game that cause historical unbalance. The fact is that the typical gallic swordsman (such as the Southern or Northern) were quite under-equipped when compared to legionnaries in every sense. They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs! because sometimes the only way to be able to kill with such a sword was by sheer blunt trauma, not slashing or gashing.

Also, keep in mind that certain technicalities of history, such as the fact that most barbarian armies primarily consisted of those lowly soldiers, should not be considered when attempting to set certain stat values... Just because the Gauls could never develop a socio-economic system where they would be able to afford the maintenance of a real professional army (Neitos), doesn't mean such things should not be allowed to be generated in the game, whether sp or mp. I hear many times how Neitos, in real life, only consisted of an elite squad, not a whole force (as players usually get 6-8 of these units in a typical mp game), but that is fine within the confines of a videogame.

Quote:

---

And charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality.

---

What you are asking for here is... RTW: EB... 2050!!!

Quote:

---

As for profitting from plunder, the Romans were just as good at that as any "barbarians". One of the Roman axioms, often repeated in Livy, is that the Romans considered nothing to be more properly their own, than that which they siezed by arms during war.

---

Yes, this is very true, but as you also failed to recognize in my statement was that it was the barbarian way to profit by plunder. Although the Romans also did, they much more profitted from conquest, colonization, and, ultimately, the establishment and proliferation of modern civilization!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear.

---

Tell me, Geticus, apart from Hannibal, who else in history ever used the crescent defense formation deliberately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

However, the point you raise sheds light on the preventable descrepencies in the game that cause historical unbalance. The fact is that the typical gallic swordsman (such as the Southern or Northern) were quite under-equipped when compared to legionnaries in every sense. They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs! because sometimes the only way to be able to kill with such a sword was by sheer blunt trauma, not slashing or gashing.

---

...the archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily back this up though. There is a danger of reading too much into the hyperbole of Roman endorsed 'histories'....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Also, keep in mind that certain technicalities of history, such as the fact that most barbarian armies primarily consisted of those lowly soldiers, should not be considered when attempting to set certain stat values... Just because the Gauls could never develop a socio-economic system where they would be able to afford the maintenance of a real professional army (Neitos)

---

I would swap the term "could never develop..." to "had not, at this time developed..."

Gaul, as an example, was at the time of Caesar's invasion at a crossroads. It could have been overrun by Germanic tribes (Ariovistus and the Suebi..), or - as with the reaction to Caesar's interference, they might have finally found the motivation to unite (against the threat of these invading Germanic tribes, and the encroachment of the Belgae from the north..) and a strong enough character(s) to do so (Vercingetorix, Ambiorix etc.)

Rome didn't begin with the socio-economic system that allowed them a standing army, it gained those evolving systems through internal/factional confrontations, and through charismatic personalities who perceived the best response to the dissent and implemented the necessary reforms. The Gauls (in particular) already were evolving their political-economic systems. So, it's not that the Gauls could never develop such a system, it is - rather - that they had not by the time Caesar took advantage of their factional in-fighting, to the benefit of Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality.

---

That's one of the features I'm working on for the new battle engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear. I did see one replay about a month ago with a good Sarmatian army with Sarmatian nobles, Roxalani lights, mass HA levy spam and Skythian nobles in reserve, maybe it was you playing I'm not sure but the Sarmatians crushed a pretty tight KH infantry box in guard mode. I'd be curious to see it done at 40K with some Sarmatian warlords, or Saka bodyguards (not the FM type but the regular hetairoi lance/axe type). But its not too complex really, the main thing would be crescent formations rather than rectangles, doing simultaneous HA sweeps of both flanks and rear, firing concentrically when possible, skirmishing and riding down stray troops, and punctuated by a decisive heavy cavalry charge.

---

That would be Horsies.rpy if I recall correctly, gamegeek2 (Sauromatae) vs Antisocialmunky (Koinon Hellenon), I forget the money. Here's the problem, more money doesn't mean more units. The game unfairly and unjustly only lets you choose 20 unit cards. This is of course an implementation used to prevent the explosion of computers from having to render too much darn graphics, but that's only that way because the game doesn't have dynamic range for rendering (AFAIK) that allows the engine to render at a lower quality (or to use lower-polygon models) when fielding over a certain number of men. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

...the archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily back this up though. There is a danger of reading too much into the hyperbole of Roman endorsed 'histories'....

---

Polybius was never shy to glorify Rome's opponents on several occasions when he thought they merited praise. Take, for instance, the description he gives of the Gauls themselves, during the war I mentioned, when they aligned on two opposing fronts to fight the Romans... his description of the Carthaginians and Hamilcar... his description of Gaestatae. He only strayed from objectivity when dealing in more "personal" matters.

Quote:

---

I would swap the term "could never develop..." to "had not, at this time developed..."

---

Well, my friend, as Aristotle said: If they lived and died and never did it, then they could never do it. Right??? :laugh4:

Oh and Vartan about this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That's one of the features I'm working on for the new battle engine.

---

Let me help you while you teach me everything you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs!

---

Strange, then, that the Romans would adopt both Celtic shield and Celtic ironworking and equip their legions with it. I can only repeat what the EB team has said: Polybius' story may be a misinterpretation of the iron-age practice of "killing" enemy weapons. It's not confirmed by the archaeological record.

On a balancing level: yes, the barbarians get +1 armour compared to civilized armies, but that was done to increase historicity, not for game-play reasons. I suspect it can be justified by the fact that barbarian warriors would often have supplemented their equipment by looting from fallen enemies and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Well, my friend, as Aristotle said: If they lived and died and never did it, then they could never do it. Right??? :laugh4:

---

Given that their life was cut short by the Romans...

I think you are taking a too black-and-white view when it comes to barbarians. Remember that the Roman and Hellenistic states had not left their tribal history far behind. Voting in Athens and IIRC Rome still occurred on a tribal basis, and Hellenistic treaties were only valid as long both of the signers were still alive. Given that the more sophisticated Celtic tribes (the Aedui and the Sequani/Averni) had a senate and a justice system, with procedures in place to prevent abuse of power, it looks to me like they were developing along the same lines, if a century or so behind the Romans.

MOO3 was a joke, yet Moo2 is very complex. Almost to the level of SidMeiers Alpha Centauri, most in-depth strategy game ever. In terms of strategy, EB and RTW engine are pretty weak contenders. They triumph in terms of tactical gameplay.

Quote:

---

Strange, then, that the Romans would adopt both Celtic shield and Celtic ironworking and equip their legions with it.

---

Indeed, the Romans, like others, implemented equipment into their military standard that had much Celtic influence, but not Celtic materials or workmanship. The famous "Monteforino" helmet, for example, that so many cultures adopted. But, like the helmet, when you say it is of Celtic influence, it is a reference merely to size, shape, etc. It does not refer to its strength of material, its workmanship, or any other variations that may have been introduced (such as the Iron Boss, which was implemented by the Iberians and, then, the Romans - the boss was taken by the Romans from the Iberians, whom had introduced this variation to the Celtic scutum). So just because something has its origins somewhere, doesn't make the place of origin the cause for its many developments.

Quote:

---

On a balancing level: yes, the barbarians get +1 armour compared to civilized armies, but that was done to increase historicity, not for game-play reasons.

---

Wait, if I understand many of the barbarian myths, barbarians would usually sacrifice such spoils into the rivers where they're Gods dwelt or in some other way (i.e. Battle of Teutoborg Forest and the many weapon fragments still found there to this day and accounted for in Tacitus' history).

Quote:

---

I suspect it can be justified by the fact that barbarian warriors would often have supplemented their equipment by looting from fallen enemies and so on.

---

How could this ever be applied as a standard that does not cause historical, let alone basic gameplay, imbalance? Every people that ever wins a battle, to this day, gets the spoils. It is a fact of life. So why would the non-barbarian peoples not be allowed such advantage of spoils? Or is that you assume them to be so haughty as not to deem their opponents barbarian weapons good enough??? :idea2:

Quote:

---

I think you are taking a too black-and-white view when it comes to barbarians. Remember that the Roman and Hellenistic states had not left their tribal history far behind. Voting in Athens and IIRC Rome still occurred on a tribal basis, and Hellenistic treaties were only valid as long both of the signers were still alive. Given that the more sophisticated Celtic tribes (the Aedui and the Sequani/Averni) had a senate and a justice system, with procedures in place to prevent abuse of power, it looks to me like they were developing along the same lines, if a century or so behind the Romans.

---

I understand your point - that barbarians too had civilizations - and I agree. But 100 years of difference is much more than a result of bad luck, and the scale with which each (Rome v. Gauls) is compared is too much to categorize any tribe organization with the level reached by Rome. Rome had tribes, but it began and always was a city-state, centralized by the Senate. The Gauls too had tribes, but each tribe was his own state, his own government. Yes, certain tribes were subject to others, varying from time to time, but such was the organization of Rome when it began in 758 BC. So then, either, as I said, the Gauls were a people incapable of reaching greatness, or simply were 700 years behind... :idea2:

Just imagine if the United States, when declaring independence, did so as individual states, united only in that one instance of independence. Do you really think they would've achieved anything as great as they have to this day? Do you really think the many innovations brought about by this nation would've been achieved as they have been??... I don't think so.

This is excessively speculative since the evidence on Gallic politics, based on Caesar, Strabo, and whatever Greek historians comes pretty late in the day after the decline of Gallic martial culture. When the Gauls fought Rome for the first time c. 390, Roman historians recollected that the Gauls invaded Latium in vengeance for a Roman ambassador fighting alongside the Etruscans and slaying a Gaulic warrior in battle. Who was showing respect for justice? The Roman accounts of the battle of the Anio which led to the Gallic sack of Rome and the plebian *desertion of the city as lost*, are so short in detail as to exasperate any serious military historian--the Roman explanation for the defeat, devoid of technical knowledge and respect, ascribes the victory to divine retribution. What cultural advantages did the Gauls demonstrate at the battle of the Anio? Why did the plebs, the backbone of the legions, give up the city? Remember that Rome was not a weak military power at this time, like the Gauls from the north the Romans were breaking the power of the Etruscans from the south, they had just destroyed the once opulent Etruscan city of Veii in an allegedly 10 year siege, at a time when the Spartans had failed miserably to adapt to long sieges vs. Athens. So why did the Romans lose so crushingly? What was the state of Gallic cavalry and chariotry at that time? The Roman historians offer no help.

Your assumptions of Gaulic cultural mediocrity are right in line with Roman historiography. But the Romans didn't have that arrogance in the 4th century BC, it developed over the next three centuries as Gallic power declined, and was cemented by Caesar. But there is a Roman saying- mortuo leoni etiam lepores insultant (even rabbits jump on a dead lion.) Caesar for his part respected the Gallic nobles who sided with him enough to make them senators.

One might consider the case of Makedon. Southern Hellenes viewed them as semi-barbaroi. They were rustics. They partially submitted to the Persians during the Persian wars when the Spartans protected the independence of Hellas. But somehow the semibarbaroi came down from the hills and conquered the world. Would you ascribe this to Makedonian attainment of "civilization"? To Alexander's education by Aristotle? What did any Hellenic philisoph ever accomplish in war? In martial affairs civilization is very much overrated. Have you read Latin histories at all? The Romans ascribed their victories mainly to disciplina militaris and virtus, both of the soldiers and of the generals. They did not ascribe their victories to living in a city. That was the line of the Byzantines later on, but it was a pompous claim, they were generally mediocre in war and their greatest successes under Justinian were reliant substantially on barbarian manpower, notably of the Huns, the most uncivilized of them all. Where do you think the greatest Roman generals came from. Gaius Marius was a rustic. Quinctius Cincinnatus was a rustic. Manlius Torquatus, the exemplar of extreme severe discipline, was a rustic, raised on a farm and worked like a slave alongside the slaves. Granted Caesar and Scipio, Pompeius, the Romans had more urbane generals, but the uniting element was virtue and prudence, personal authority, and knowledge of the art of war. And where did the masses of the soldiers come from? They were farmers for the most part, or their homeless offspring in a later era- the capite censi of the post Marian legions. The fortified urbs of Rome was a commercial and political center but you overrate the importance of urban residents for providing robust manpower for the armies. Look at the Augustan imperial era, how many emperors actually came from Rome? After the Julio-Claudian dynasty very few. Because the culture in that city became increasingly luxurious and enervating. Most later emperors just stayed away from the city.

I might as well argue that Celtic warlords conquered much of Europe during the 5th and 4th century, and their cultural degeneration through luxury opened the way for the expansion of the Roman imperium. In history most conquering martial cultures don't last much more than two centuries after they reach their zenith anyhow. The Median hegemony lasted all of 60 or so years after their conquest of Assyria. The Persians who succeeded them lasted about 200 from the time of Cyrus the Great. The Makedonian dynasties who succeeded the Persians came out of nowhere just like the Persian, and lasted all of 150-250 years. What did the urban poleis of Greece accomplish in the meantime? None of these hegemonic martial cultures originated in a polis. And as for Sparta, the martial hegemon of classical Hellas, well their city scarcely even resembled a regular polis. So "civilization" and "city life" that you cite as some great characteristic are of very dubious value in military affairs. A general or warlord need not reside in a city to have perception and intelligence. People need not reside in a city to have courage, honor, and fortitude.

So I don't really see much connection between military excellence, whether of Rome or of anyone else, and urban life, or civilization for that matter. Rome rose from under the shadow of Gaul, and they fell under the shadow of the Huns. They had 300 or so years of supreme excellence from the time of Marius to the time of Severus. And the peculiar genius of Rome during wartime, wasn't a product of "civilization" and their quarrelsome constitution, unless you follow Polybius' line but I do not- since the history of the Republic is a history of endless political strife. It was mainly a reflection of the culture and character of the Roman people, which gave profound respect to authority, discipline, and martial virtue. Transpose that kind of culture into a semi-barbarian kingdom like Makedon, or a nation of rustics like pre-imperial Persia, and the outcome is pretty similar.

Well I think it is, here are my reasons:

RTS games (Rise of Nations like): Well, they are quite entertaining but lacks the customization of characters

Turn based (UFO Afterlight and or Jagged Alliance): You are allowed to play, but you are capped to the units and or number of units that the games gives you. You can customize character, bases, weapons but none the fact that I have mentioned

Rome Total War was the first of his class, it lacks a new engine and some options that can see in actual games BUT MAN what do you expect?? this mod is what I have been expecting. As someone mentioned above, games like Master of Orion 3 are the kinds of game that plays you (like in sovie7 russi4 lol).

We all were aware of all the new things that M2TW had over RTW, now... lets get EB into M2TW and... voila, perfection spotted. It is normal that some bugs will pop in the firts versions but we are here to test ^.^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That's one of the features I'm working on for the new battle engine.
That would be Horsies.rpy if I recall correctly, gamegeek2 (Sauromatae) vs Antisocialmunky (Koinon Hellenon), I forget the money. Here's the problem, more money doesn't mean more units. The game unfairly and unjustly only lets you choose 20 unit cards. This is of course an implementation used to prevent the explosion of computers from having to render too much darn graphics, but that's only that way because the game doesn't have dynamic range for rendering (AFAIK) that allows the engine to render at a lower quality (or to use lower-polygon models) when fielding over a certain number of men. :juggle2:

---

If you can program charioteer dismounting, hats off to you, I believe that would be a first in wargaming. Yes now that you remind me it was horsies.rpg, a pretty good example of what Skythian nobles are good for. As for 40K, I just think that that number would allow one or two Sarmatian warlords in addition to a well fleshed out horde of nobles and regular horse archers. Playing as the Getai I was appaled the first time I fought a Sarmatian king's bodyguard, they killed crazy numbers with their archery, then when my troops finally caught up with them, they got slowly lanced to death.

Many good points Geticus, and its particularly telling - within Caesar's Gallic Wars - that he refers to the martial cultures of the Gauls being corrupted, to varying degrees, by luxury. He refers to the Belgae as "the bravest of all the Gauls", for example, because they eschewed the luxury imports (Roman trade, essentially).

There was, it seems, at some point a united Gaul - under the hegemony of the Bituriges-Cubi confederation. That central authority had broken down, and various of the more powerful tribes sought to re-establish that authority. The two most powerful (as represented in EB1) were the Aedui and Arverni, but there were others.

At some point, there was a cultural shift within Gaul, away from martial 'ethics' and toward trading. Luxury, in other words. And the nobles of various tribes were attracted to that luxury, and so the Aedui, who were 'friends and kinsmen' of Rome, and so who likely had the greatest trading rights with their merchants, gained influence and power among those simlarly placed nobles within other tribes. Their confederacies and 'senates' were in place to avoid warfare - hence the limits on holding office referred to by Caesar. It was to avoid raiding and other martial pursuits. The nobility who lead many of the tribes at this time had become remarkably squeamish about war. It is telling that the main focus of what warring was occurring was regarding toll rights and trade routes. The Arverni were disrupting and interfering with the trade routes of the Aedui, and the Sequani and Aedui were at war over the toll rights to the Arar which ran between them - which resulted in them bringing in Ariovistus in to aid them in subjugating the Aedui...

This deterioration of the martial aspects of the culture of the Gallic nobles is probably what allowed those less 'civilised' Belgae, under the suzerainty of Diviciacus of the Suessiones, to gain ground in Gaul as a whole.

There were those within the various tribes who saw the need for a more martial response to foreign incursions. There was Orgetorix, Casticus, Dumnorix, Ambiorix, Galba and, of course, Vercingetorix. And to highlight a point you made, Geticus, Vercingetorix raised an 'army of the poor'..... farmers, farm workers - the dispossessed of Gallic trading culture.

What was lacking in Gaul was a centralised 'rallying' point. Rome had managed to attain that. But, they could so easily have gone the way of Gaul.... the Social Wars was won not just by military means, but also by giving way on political power within the Senate and the assemblies to those outlying Italian tribes.

It is telling that Roman culture saw land-owenership/farming as acceptable pursuits for their noblemen, while trading for the ruling classes was frowned upon. So, what differentiated the Roman Senate at this time from other 'civilisations' was that the members of that Senate were expected to possess martial skills and knowledge, so that political decisions would support military campaigning. We see the opposite with the Gauls, and also a marked difference with the Carthaginians - whose own senate often undermined military campaigns.

As to the idea that it is not 'accidental' that Rome persisted while others fell by the wayside.. for the reasons given here that's true to an extent. But the geography of Rome's position helped. In the middle of a peninsula. Once they'd gained hegemony over the Roman peninsula, and naval power through the Med and the Adriatic, they were not subject to attack from all sides - so it's interesting that the USA should be brought up as a modern day example (and the wars against the French, the war of independence, the wars against Mexico...all play a significant part in US power, as does the defeat of the secessionist South in the civil war). The Gauls were facing pressure from the North, from the distinct culture of the Belgae, from the East and North with the expansion of the Germanic tribes and from Rome. Rome's other enemies were also subject to incursions on many fronts. The various Greek factions were all merrily weakening each other, the Persians/Eastern Greeks were involved in their own blood-letting...

and, in terms of the Gauls, Caesar was only in Transalpine Gaul because of 'accident'; the man who should have been there died suddenly, and so Caesar was given command of it along with Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria. How differently might things have turned out had that 'accident' not occurred?

Rome's great political nouse was in understanding how to use existing political structures within conquered towns - both prior to and after - to facilitate their expansion; a strategy used later by the church in it's spread across Europe.. and how politics and military matters were one and the same thing. If the political will is not there, any military success will, ultimately, be futile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elthore

MOO3 was a joke, yet Moo2 is very complex. Almost to the level of SidMeiers Alpha Centauri, most in-depth strategy game ever. In terms of strategy, EB and RTW engine are pretty weak contenders. They triumph in terms of tactical gameplay.

---

TW is a hybrid of the strategic and the tactical. If it focused solely on tactical gameplay, could you picture any improvements for the engine?

How would dismounting be a first in gameplay? Someone's been away from the industry for too long...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Many good points Geticus, and its particularly telling - within Caesar's Gallic Wars - that he refers to the martial cultures of the Gauls being corrupted, to varying degrees, by luxury. He refers to the Belgae as "the bravest of all the Gauls", for example, because they eschewed the luxury imports (Roman trade, essentially).

There was, it seems, at some point a united Gaul - under the hegemony of the Bituriges-Cubi confederation. That central authority had broken down, and various of the more powerful tribes sought to re-establish that authority. The two most powerful (as represented in EB1) were the Aedui and Arverni, but there were others.

At some point, there was a cultural shift within Gaul, away from martial 'ethics' and toward trading. Luxury, in other words. And the nobles of various tribes were attracted to that luxury, and so the Aedui, who were 'friends and kinsmen' of Rome, and so who likely had the greatest trading rights with their merchants, gained influence and power among those simlarly placed nobles within other tribes. Their confederacies and 'senates' were in place to avoid warfare - hence the limits on holding office referred to by Caesar. It was to avoid raiding and other martial pursuits. The nobility who lead many of the tribes at this time had become remarkably squeamish about war. It is telling that the main focus of what warring was occurring was regarding toll rights and trade routes. The Arverni were disrupting and interfering with the trade routes of the Aedui, and the Sequani and Aedui were at war over the toll rights to the Arar which ran between them - which resulted in them bringing in Ariovistus in to aid them in subjugating the Aedui...

This deterioration of the martial aspects of the culture of the Gallic nobles is probably what allowed those less 'civilised' Belgae, under the suzerainty of Diviciacus of the Suessiones, to gain ground in Gaul as a whole.

There were those within the various tribes who saw the need for a more martial response to foreign incursions. There was Orgetorix, Casticus, Dumnorix, Ambiorix, Galba and, of course, Vercingetorix. And to highlight a point you made, Geticus, Vercingetorix raised an 'army of the poor'..... farmers, farm workers - the dispossessed of Gallic trading culture.

What was lacking in Gaul was a centralised 'rallying' point. Rome had managed to attain that. But, they could so easily have gone the way of Gaul.... the Social Wars was won not just by military means, but also by giving way on political power within the Senate and the assemblies to those outlying Italian tribes.

It is telling that Roman culture saw land-owenership/farming as acceptable pursuits for their noblemen, while trading for the ruling classes was frowned upon. So, what differentiated the Roman Senate at this time from other 'civilisations' was that the members of that Senate were expected to possess martial skills and knowledge, so that political decisions would support military campaigning. We see the opposite with the Gauls, and also a marked difference with the Carthaginians - whose own senate often undermined military campaigns.

As to the idea that it is not 'accidental' that Rome persisted while others fell by the wayside.. for the reasons given here that's true to an extent. But the geography of Rome's position helped. In the middle of a peninsula. Once they'd gained hegemony over the Roman peninsula, and naval power through the Med and the Adriatic, they were not subject to attack from all sides - so it's interesting that the USA should be brought up as a modern day example (and the wars against the French, the war of independence, the wars against Mexico...all play a significant part in US power, as does the defeat of the secessionist South in the civil war). The Gauls were facing pressure from the North, from the distinct culture of the Belgae, from the East and North with the expansion of the Germanic tribes and from Rome. Rome's other enemies were also subject to incursions on many fronts. The various Greek factions were all merrily weakening each other, the Persians/Eastern Greeks were involved in their own blood-letting...

and, in terms of the Gauls, Caesar was only in Transalpine Gaul because of 'accident'; the man who should have been there died suddenly, and so Caesar was given command of it along with Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria. How differently might things have turned out had that 'accident' not occurred?

Rome's great political nouse was in understanding how to use existing political structures within conquered towns - both prior to and after - to facilitate their expansion; a strategy used later by the church in it's spread across Europe.. and how politics and military matters were one and the same thing. If the political will is not there, any military success will, ultimately, be futile.

---

If the Gauls were unable to deal with the many vices and pitfalls that come with a more urbane, centralized, and developed society, culture, and government, then what does it say about their ability to be great?!

Look, no one denies that Roman historians always sought to skew history in their country's favor, but even now, as common knowledge, no one knows for certain that there existed a centralized, Celtic authority. There is much more doubt than certainty. All is based on flimsy evidence and speculation, so if you are willing to allow such things as evidence, why would you not accept the basest remarks of the primary sources themselves?

Think of the most vivid comparison of what I'm trying to convey to you: Europeans and Native Americans. There were empires in America, but would you dare to say that their social, economic, and political structure was [I]anything/I] compared to Europe's kingdoms, despite the contemporary difficulties and strifes they were under at the time? I doubt you would and if you do, you are speaking from ignorance. Just ask yourself: Why would, if I could, prefer 1000 times to be an English Puritan, than an Native Indian?

You could say it was luck, time, etc., but, in reality, it's a matter of civilization!

One of the things that so hilarious and ming-boggling about the above poster is how, with a mistaken view of history, he constantly uses examples that run contrary to his point!

Quote:

---

There were empires in America, but would you dare to say that their social, economic, and political structure was [I]anything/I] compared to Europe's kingdoms, despite the contemporary difficulties and strifes they were under at the time?

---

Well I wouldn't want to be subject to the Aztecs or a serf in medieval Spain, but it seems clear that the social and economic structure of the Aztec Empire was at least comparable to European kingdoms, if not vastly superior. After all, it was the Spanish themselves (not exactly a non-biased account) that called Tenochititlan larger and finer than any city they'd ever seen. We won't even bother with the logistical feats necessary to hold together a realm as large as the Incas' or the complex political arrangements of the post plague North American tribal confederations since your own exhibit #1 runs directly counter to your own point, disproving yourself.

Quote:

---

Why would, if I could, prefer 1000 times to be an English Puritan, than an Native Indian?

---

Ooh, Ooh, easy answer! Because you have an idyllic, false view of what a Puritan's life was like and an ignorant concept of Native Americans as dirty savages! As a Puritan, you have little to no freedom in daily life, your days are rigidly controlled by the village elders and the intense study of religion is compulsory. Plus the general prudishness. Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless one places unreasonably high values on cows and pigs) than your average Puritan. There's a number of reason why far more English immigrants in that period decided to live like the Native Americans did, as compared with Native Americans adopting an English lifestyle. (Not just racism and bigotry.)

Similarly, rather than marching on a path to some mythical "greatness," I think its much more realistic to understand that Caesar pretty much made Gaul and the Roman Republic shittier places than they were previously, at least for a generation or two. Assume you're going to be born to some random life in either location before or after Caesar. To my understanding the civil wars increased the turmoil and social problems in Italy, caused a considerable amount of death and economic disruption, and significantly increased the likelihood that in our fictional reincarnation lottery, you are born a slave. Similarly, slavery probably increased in Gaul and at the least the likelihood of becoming a free man of considerable property in the reincarnation lottery probably dropped in Gaul post-Caesar.

I could deconstruct your post further, maybe starting with the irrelevance of the very analogy you center your argument on, but I think pointing out that you don't understand your chosen pieces of evidence themselves is sufficient to warn other readers that your assumption Gauls were 'less advanced' than Romans across the board or that comparing Europeans and Europeans with different Europeans and Native Americans centuries later has nothing to do with anything.

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

A society is great in that it provides a good life, materially and in the intangibles, to its members, not because it preserves the records of friendly historians and creates a fantastic life for a select few on the backs of slaves and conquered peoples, as the above poster seems to suggest.

One last point: because most people understand history in a 'progessive' context, they often think that the Roman Empire fell when the barbarians managed to reach an similar 'level' of development and overwhelmed the Empire with sheer numbers. They forget that centuries of economic decay and continuous mismanagement (not just civil war) also meant that the Roman Empire in its later days was weaker and less capable than what it had been before. Barbarian life may have improved and made their military power stronger, but the reverse occurring in the Empire was far more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

TW is a hybrid of the strategic and the tactical. If it focused solely on tactical gameplay, could you picture any improvements for the engine?

How would dismounting be a first in gameplay? Someone's been away from the industry for too long...

---

Is there any game that allows charioteers to dismount, fight in melee, remount, and skirmish? If there is it is news to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

Ooh, Ooh, easy answer! Because you have an idyllic, false view of what a Puritan's life was like and an ignorant concept of Native Americans as dirty savages! As a Puritan, you have little to no freedom in daily life, your days are rigidly controlled by the village elders and the intense study of religion is compulsory. Plus the general prudishness. Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless one places unreasonably high values on cows and pigs) than your average Puritan. There's a number of reason why far more English immigrants in that period decided to live like the Native Americans did, as compared with Native Americans adopting an English lifestyle. (Not just racism and bigotry.)

Similarly, rather than marching on a path to some mythical "greatness," I think its much more realistic to understand that Caesar pretty much made Gaul and the Roman Republic shittier places than they were previously, at least for a generation or two. Assume you're going to be born to some random life in either location before or after Caesar. To my understanding the civil wars increased the turmoil and social problems in Italy, caused a considerable amount of death and economic disruption, and significantly increased the likelihood that in our fictional reincarnation lottery, you are born a slave. Similarly, slavery probably increased in Gaul and at the least the likelihood of becoming a free man of considerable property in the reincarnation lottery probably dropped in Gaul post-Caesar.

---

Though (as a side issue) I would question placing the blame for the civil wars entirely upon Caesar's shoulders (and most especially the era of the principate that followed - I have my doubts as to whether that 'sort of thing' was what Caesar had in mind), the main point is well made. In fact, prior to the aristocracies and their 'senates' within the Gallic 'proto-states', life as a lesser Gaul would likely have been much better. Those aristocracies were making their fortunes, and power bases, by essentially betraying their own people - feeding the slave markets of Rome with their 'bretheren' Gauls..... from what little information we have, these polities were oligarchic, the lesser classes becoming - even within their own country - all but slaves.

That's what Vercingetorix utilised with his 'army of the poor' - the dispossessed of the Gallic oligarchical structures, which were bound up with good relations/trade with the Romans. Orgetorix, Ambiorix, Dumnorix.., all were dealt with by those entities to the pleasure of Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

---

Indeed. Cultures don't necessarily have to follow the same path..... I think that the Roman interference with much of Europe (and beyond) tends to suggest that this is so, in many peoples' minds. As a counter example I will offer Switzerland, and it's sovereign Cantons, it's Landsgemeinden - people's assemblies. Just because a culture/polity might not have become Rome, might not have subjugated it's own and it's neighbours people, doesn't mean that civilisation was beyond them. It just depends upon what you regard as civilised....

One thing that really grates is when I read something along the lines of 'We know that the Gauls were illiterate......'. We know no such thing. We have been told so, but look a little closer and little cracks appear in this version of history. Caesar refers to the alphabets that the Gauls used for different functions. The Helvetii had conducted a census of their tribes before (and for the purpose of) their migration. Dumnorix is attested as being granted the tolling and taxing rights of the Aedui - which require literacy and numeracy. He speaks of the Druids as being forbidden to write down their teachings.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Is there any game that allows charioteers to dismount, fight in melee, remount, and skirmish? If there is it is news to me.

---

Well not charioteers per se. But outside of the historical genre there's plenty of mounting and dismounting going on. Strifeshadow had Gremlin Carvers (melee infantry) and Moags (melee cavalry). The Gremlins could mount the Moags to form a third unit Moag Riders (skirmish cavalry), and dismount again to fight separately. Similarly, Warcraft III had hippogriffs (aerial melee) and eleven archers (ranged infantry), who could mount (not sure about the dismount, though). Historical units are only a little tricker, because you have to come up with a mechanism to deal with the left-over horses & the cavalry-men who watched over them or chariots & drivers, who would presumably flee if threatened from another direction (and what to do about spare riders or horses). But given the vast number of games made I've never heard of in the last few years, someone's probably dealt with that issue too.

Also, very good points in the previous post, Gracchus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Many good points Geticus, and its particularly telling - within Caesar's Gallic Wars - that he refers to the martial cultures of the Gauls being corrupted, to varying degrees, by luxury. He refers to the Belgae as "the bravest of all the Gauls", for example, because they eschewed the luxury imports (Roman trade, essentially).

At some point, there was a cultural shift within Gaul, away from martial 'ethics' and toward trading. Luxury, in other words. And the nobles of various tribes were attracted to that luxury, and so the Aedui, who were 'friends and kinsmen' of Rome, and so who likely had the greatest trading rights with their merchants, gained influence and power among those simlarly placed nobles within other tribes. Their confederacies and 'senates' were in place to avoid warfare - hence the limits on holding office referred to by Caesar. It was to avoid raiding and other martial pursuits. The nobility who lead many of the tribes at this time had become remarkably squeamish about war. It is telling that the main focus of what warring was occurring was regarding toll rights and trade routes. The Arverni were disrupting and interfering with the trade routes of the Aedui, and the Sequani and Aedui were at war over the toll rights to the Arar which ran between them - which resulted in them bringing in Ariovistus in to aid them in subjugating the Aedui...

This deterioration of the martial aspects of the culture of the Gallic nobles is probably what allowed those less 'civilised' Belgae, under the suzerainty of Diviciacus of the Suessiones, to gain ground in Gaul as a whole.

What was lacking in Gaul was a centralised 'rallying' point. Rome had managed to attain that. But, they could so easily have gone the way of Gaul.... the Social Wars was won not just by military means, but also by giving way on political power within the Senate and the assemblies to those outlying Italian tribes.

It is telling that Roman culture saw land-owenership/farming as acceptable pursuits for their noblemen, while trading for the ruling classes was frowned upon. So, what differentiated the Roman Senate at this time from other 'civilisations' was that the members of that Senate were expected to possess martial skills and knowledge, so that political decisions would support military campaigning. We see the opposite with the Gauls, and also a marked difference with the Carthaginians - whose own senate often undermined military campaigns.

As to the idea that it is not 'accidental' that Rome persisted while others fell by the wayside.. for the reasons given here that's true to an extent. But the geography of Rome's position helped. In the middle of a peninsula. Once they'd gained hegemony over the Roman peninsula, and naval power through the Med and the Adriatic, they were not subject to attack from all sides - so it's interesting that the USA should be brought up as a modern day example (and the wars against the French, the war of independence, the wars against Mexico...all play a significant part in US power, as does the defeat of the secessionist South in the civil war). The Gauls were facing pressure from the North, from the distinct culture of the Belgae, from the East and North with the expansion of the Germanic tribes and from Rome. Rome's other enemies were also subject to incursions on many fronts. The various Greek factions were all merrily weakening each other, the Persians/Eastern Greeks were involved in their own blood-letting...

Rome's great political nouse was in understanding how to use existing political structures within conquered towns - both prior to and after - to facilitate their expansion; a strategy used later by the church in it's spread across Europe.. and how politics and military matters were one and the same thing. If the political will is not there, any military success will, ultimately, be futile.

---

Well martial law can, at least for a time, substitute for political will :)

Concurred as to the advantages of Rome's position, Polybius spoke at length about the fecundity and abundance of Italy, with timber, livestock, great produce, rivers, and all other needful things for great power in that day.

Your observation about Roman injunctions against Senators owning many commercial vessels again confirms the unique character of the Roman nobility, which enabled Rome to fuse arts of civilization and statescraft with the brute art of war to such a rare degree, perhaps only rivalled by Sparta in its heydey under the Lycurgan constitution. For my part I like to side with Caesar and accept the mythical notion that this character was of Trojan provenance. For those who laugh-- laugh at Caesar as well!

As to Gaulic martial cultural remissness, indeed I have read Hellenic historians of the late Republican era relating the famous wealth of Gaulic kings of that day, and their extreme alcoholism and overfondness for Hellenic wine, even going so far as to trade human slaves for amphorae of wine on a one to one basis. This sort of lifestyle surely detracted from martial virtue.

Was it necessary for Gallic statescraft to follow a similar trajectory to the Roman during the social wars and lead to liberation/inclusion of other states in some sort of Pan-Gallic identity? Makedon was pretty effective at conquering the world, and Alexander did use pan-Hellenic ideals to fill out the ranks of the army, certainly what he did was inspired in part by Xenophon's Anabasis and other Hellenic philosophers who advocated pan-Hellenic ideals and unification against Persia. Later Makedonian kings tried to ride the fine line between popularity with the Southern Hellenic states, and preservation of autokratic power, and wasted a lot of strength in wars against other Hellenic nations as a result.

But I think it can go both ways, inclusion can lead to popular support which can be of advantage. But the Roman Republic was generally successful during its first 400 years pursuing a policy of Roma uber Alles. Latin urbes that disputed the primacy of Rome were ruthlessly quashed, notably during the beginning of the Samnite War c. 340 during the consulship of Manlius Torquatus and Decius Mus. Mus rather sacrificed himself to the infernal gods in battle than lose a battle to the Latin confederacy, likewise Torquatus executed his own son to preserve Roman military discipline with the utmost severity-- and his decision was successful, the Latins political will was pretty well permanently crushed, they didn't even dare revolt in meaningful numbers when Hannibal reached out his hand, and it took another 250 years and a united Italy to finally break the strength of Roman ethnocentric bigotry.

As to the martial equation of Gauls vs. Romans, I think the major weakness of the Romans was in its equestrian class, especially after the shift of equestrian culture towards commerce following territorial and economic expansion after the Samnite Wars. The total route following the battle of the Anio has all the markings IMO of an atrocious cavalry route, I don't think that the plebs would have given up the city if the pursuit was a slow affair, they couldn't even reenter the city or do a well ordered defensive retreat- only cavalry can accomplish this. So to me the question is, what cavalry/chariotry advantages did an optimized Celtic army possess over the Romans? Since technical literary evidence is lacking I can only speculate. But consistent with Caesar's observations that you cite from De Bello Gallico I.1., it is clear that the Gauls were growing martially remiss. Gaul was dominated by a forked aristocracy of horsemen and druids. Vercingetorix tried to optimize the cavalry numerical advantage but he failed in his day. But I suspect that back in the day the Gallic aristokrats, when chivalry was uppermost in their daily priorities, were capable of fielding cavalry forces beyond any Roman capability and I think that this is the key to the debacle at the Anio, and the great dread of Gallic invasions that persisted for 150 years thereafter. At any rate in speculating on Celtic chivalry capabilities we are definitely dealing with a different culture, one that confirms Mr. Fred's observations on the fact that culture doesn't always improve, and knowledge is not always preserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

Well I wouldn't want to be subject to the Aztecs or a serf in medieval Spain, but it seems clear that the social and economic structure of the Aztec Empire was at least comparable to European kingdoms, if not vastly superior. After all, it was the Spanish themselves (not exactly a non-biased account) that called Tenochititlan larger and finer than any city they'd ever seen. We won't even bother with the logistical feats necessary to hold together a realm as large as the Incas' or the complex political arrangements of the post plague North American tribal confederations since your own exhibit #1 runs directly counter to your own point, disproving yourself.

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

One last point: because most people understand history in a 'progessive' context, they often think that the Roman Empire fell when the barbarians managed to reach an similar 'level' of development and overwhelmed the Empire with sheer numbers. They forget that centuries of economic decay and continuous mismanagement (not just civil war) also meant that the Roman Empire in its later days was weaker and less capable than what it had been before. Barbarian life may have improved and made their military power stronger, but the reverse occurring in the Empire was far more important.

---

Awesome critique of linear progressive historiography. If I was as eloquent on arguing that point as you are, I might have made better headway and had the patience to complete my PhD:)

And though in some ways I loathe cultural relativism, I will take it one step further in this military context that you cite. Remember that Rome despite its great successes during the 3rd and 2nd century BC, was shaken to its foundation during the Cimbri-Teutonic invasion, and Gaius Marius was hailed as the third founder of Rome for winning the first victory at Aquae Sextiae over the Teutones and Ambrones. So we see two times, that Rome following great successes, almost met with terminal defeat- first victory over Veii followed by near destruction at the hands of the Gauls, and then the victories of the 2nd century in Spain, North Africa, Hellas and Asia followed by repeated major defeats in Gaul by the Cimbri and Teutons. So regardless of the excellence that Rome reached for a while, I like to maintain some Gibbonesque pessimism and see the seed of the ultimate failure of Roman martial culture in the Augustan reforms. This is to say the cessation of universal military service led to remission of martial culture among the general child-bearing populace, while the martial culture bearing fraction- the imperial military itself, did not have children at all, unless after completion of military service at the age of 40. So this led to a kind of martial culture-bearing oliganthropy, since the increasingly luxurious general populace of Rome was no longer the brute "durum genus" of farmer-soldiers from the old Republic. So I see Hannibal as ultimately having a kind of success in arresting Rome's destiny, the destruction and ravaging of the Roman farms through 15 years of continuous war shattered the continuity of Roman agrarian culture, which was replaced by slave latifundia. The patriotic durum genus of farmer-soldiers gave way to the landless capite censi of the Post Marian era, who became the Augustan urban soldier class than dissolved through oliganthropy and luxury. This ultimately led to the incremental reliance upon Iberian, Illyrian, Gallic and ultimately German manpower to fill out the legions, epitomized by Vegetius' shocking axiom in De Re Militari, that the best military manpower came from the northern provinces of the empire, because of their robust physiques and abundance of blood, which enabled them to withstand bloodshed well! Whatever happened to the world conquering durum genus of Rome?

So granted I do believe that Rome attained an extremely great culture of infantry warfare, but Roman equestrian culture proper was not very strong, and against a sufficiently state of the art cavalry force, like Hannibal's, or the Parthians at Carrhae under Surenas, I don't really know that the Romans ever had a good answer. How many post-Augustan emperors were more astute than Marcus Crassus or Marcus Antonius, both of whom failed in their Parthian invasions? So if the Parthians had risen the bar a bit higher, or the Sarmatians came under stronger central rule, I think the arete of the empire might not have appeared quite as bright as it did for its 300 years. Anyhow, that to me is the appeal of EB, destroying the Roman myth of invincibility and role-playing a more chaotic world, where there is more to excellence than mechanical discipline and self-sacrificing servility to a headstrong Roman imperator.

One of the nice aspects of EB is that you don't have to give up the Republic with all its instutions (such as the farmer-soldiers) as a Roman player - but then again that makes reaching even the Marian reforms much harder, because of the Latifudia requrements.

As to military commanders, I'd say that Crassus wasn't really much use, even compared to most later commanders.
What the Romans were quite successful at - from a Parthian perspective - was strategic warfare via economy. They caused a lot of trouble in Mesopotamia and even found ways around the Parthian Empire. In other words: they were always good at winning the actual war, even if some of the battles turned out less than favourable. One of the major causes in the downfall of the Arsacids, one might say. Which - in theory - might also have been the cause for the Sassanid fixation on the Persian-Roman conflict, with fatal consequences for both.

But what you were basically saying - and I agree with that - is that most societies ultimately defeat themselves, for example through structural changes that are foolish in hindsight. We're just experiencing this live in Western Europe, and possibly some other societies. There are a great many parallels to the late Roman Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius

CA should just contract Paradox to code their diplomacy system.

Also EU: Rome while extremely flawed and barren introduced some interesting features in its Vae Victus expansion. I wish Rome TW had a comparable political system.

---

I know there tends to be camps of followers regarding game companies but given their last few releases, CA should pay Paradox a consulting fee for ideas as they have great ones but stay as far away from their coders as possible. They would simply be tripling their release bugs (if the games worked at all.)

I didn't find MOO3 to be quite as bad as everyone else just following 1 easy principle - place a minimum of mines, food, recreation, etc on each planet (even if you can't make much use out of it at first.) Place them as soon as your tech allows if you can't. I know, the idea was to allow the computer to manage this but mostly it just doesn't work well. The bigger problem with MOO3 for me was the (in vanilla) broken combat system. I understand some fan made patches fixed some of this but I was way past burnout on the game to try them.

R:TW and specifically this mod have consumed more of my playtime than any other game. I wish the macro level was more like a turn based EU3 but can you imagine how long the games would take? :) EU3 and pretty much all the rest of the Paradox offerings have some great advantages in politics, trade, empire building but fail at the 1 thing the R:TW engine delivers well on (my opinion): Tactical combat.

Hegemon, Phillip of Macedon has some potential for being from a very small game company. I'd recommend downloading the demo and giving it a whirl if you haven't tried it yet.

Quote:

---

One of the things that so hilarious and ming-boggling about the above poster is how, with a mistaken view of history, he constantly uses examples that run contrary to his point!

---

You know Mr. Fred, when you criticize my views, you sould point out what views you believe to be wrong and justify your critique, as I will do with you, and, also, if you're going to refer to me have the decency to refer to me by name, please:

Quote:

---

Well I wouldn't want to be subject to the Aztecs or a serf in medieval Spain

---

Neither would you like to be a crack addict in the United States of America today, right? But my point, and the truth is, that we still prefer to be that crack addict as opposed to the subject or the serf you referred to. Why? Because the level of society and civilization was raised to a point where even being a crack addict! is not as bad as being a lowly, 15th century serf.

Quote:

---

...but it seems clear that the social and economic structure of the Aztec Empire was at least comparable to European kingdoms, if not vastly superior. After all, it was the Spanish themselves (not exactly a non-biased account) that called Tenochititlan larger and finer than any city they'd ever seen.

---

Look Mr. Fred, I understand the liberal arts attitude of appreciating the subtle and less appreciated. I too recognize that the Incas and Aztecs had developed a unique and rich culture. But you cannot honestly say that a culture that was still fundamentally hunting-and-gathering is comparable to a culture that had developed writing, the fundamentals of modern law, architecture, science, religion, the list goes on... right?!

As far as the Spanish account is concerned (of which I hope you take Cortez's as the ultimate authority in said subject), you should take the previous advice of realizing that, with certainty, what Cortez's main objective was by publishing such papers was to influence those back at home to keep sending reinforcements for more conquests. Besides, who would compare the pyramids of the Aztecs to the Pantheon.

Quote:

---

We won't even bother with the logistical feats necessary to hold together a realm as large as the Incas' or the complex political arrangements of the post plague North American tribal confederations since your own exhibit #1 runs directly counter to your own point, disproving yourself.

---

There you go again... what exhibit?... use evidence not opinion or hearsay as proof... but in regards to your assertion... again... would you really compare the American "Empires" to the logistics of maintaining the Roman Empire? Seriously.

Quote:

---

Ooh, Ooh, easy answer! Because you have an idyllic, false view of what a Puritan's life was like and an ignorant concept of Native Americans as dirty savages! As a Puritan, you have little to no freedom in daily life, your days are rigidly controlled by the village elders and the intense study of religion is compulsory. Plus the general prudishness. Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless)

---

You know, if someone asks me would you prefer being a noble or a peasant, I don't assume a peasant to be a better position just because the peasant has the freedom to go anywhere and do what he wants, while the noble is subject to the demands of his king. Same thing here. Yea, maybe the Indians were better off "ideologically," but what on Earth does that have to do with having a better standard of life? The Puritans read, wrote, and had many other advantages that one would say is worth more in this real life.

Quote:

---

There's a number of reason why far more English immigrants in that period decided to live like the Native Americans did, as compared with Native Americans adopting an English lifestyle. (Not just racism and bigotry.

---

How does this prove anything? The Puritan were outcasts, rebels. They hated their own culture, so adopting another one was probably quite welcome to them, not matter how primitive it was.

Quote:

---

Similarly, rather than marching on a path to some mythical "greatness," I think its much more realistic to understand that Caesar pretty much made Gaul and the Roman Republic shittier places than they were previously, at least for a generation or two. Assume you're going to be born to some random life in either location before or after Caesar. To my understanding the civil wars increased the turmoil and social problems in Italy, caused a considerable amount of death and economic disruption, and significantly increased the likelihood that in our fictional reincarnation lottery, you are born a slave. Similarly, slavery probably increased in Gaul and at the least the likelihood of becoming a free man of considerable property in the reincarnation lottery probably dropped in Gaul post-Caesar.

---

How can you say Caesar's achievements were destructive to Rome? Wow. Just call youself Cato man and be quiet for the rest of your life. Caesar led to one of the greatest territorial conquests in that day or the next. It led to Augustus expanding the empire greater than anyone else had up to that point. And in a world where slavery was just as common as pumping gas in your car, where do you get the nerve to criticize them for that? You are acting, Mr. Fred, as if the Gauls had lawyers, or even knew what they were.

Quote:

---

I could deconstruct your post further, maybe starting with the irrelevance of the very analogy you center your argument on, but I think pointing out that you don't understand your chosen pieces of evidence themselves is sufficient to warn other readers that your assumption Gauls were 'less advanced' than Romans across the board or that comparing Europeans and Europeans with different Europeans and Native Americans centuries later has nothing to do with anything.

---

Funny how someone without a face or even an entity, can shun those who have ensured themselves immortality and worldwide recognition. Maybe you should ask yourself if you possess some of that prejudice you seem to criticize in them.

Quote:

---

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

---

So the fact that most cultures today, read, write, practice modern science, and adhere to a common religion does not insinuate that we are all intertwined under one standard of humanity? Look, no matter what culture or system of government is dominant in the world, that world power will always continue human civilization, whether for good or bad. When the Romans fell, the Muslims assumed their place. How, you may ask yourself, were they able to advance humanity? By using the works of the ancient Greeks themselves. By adopting the mathematical concepts of the Indians, etc. The concept of humanity is not a new one, and you would be wise to figure out its meaning.

Quote:

---

A society is great in that it provides a good life, materially and in the intangibles, to its members, not because it preserves the records of friendly historians and creates a fantastic life for a select few on the backs of slaves and conquered peoples, as the above poster seems to suggest.

---

And since when has blasphemy been allowed to convince in favor of an argument?

Quote:

---

One last point: because most people understand history in a 'progessive' context, they often think that the Roman Empire fell when the barbarians managed to reach an similar 'level' of development and overwhelmed the Empire with sheer numbers. They forget that centuries of economic decay and continuous mismanagement (not just civil war) also meant that the Roman Empire in its later days was weaker and less capable than what it had been before. Barbarian life may have improved and made their military power stronger, but the reverse occurring in the Empire was far more important.

---

Thank you for doing as you said I did: proving yourself wrong. Of course it wasn't the barbarians that defeated Rome, it was the Romans themselves. The barbarians were never able to beat Rome, they just happened to be ALL at the right place at the right time.

Besides, if you don't take my word for it, take Mr. Eugene Weber's, professor of History at UCLA. Particularly, listen to what he says when he compares the Roman to the Barbarian (~6:24: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S6vBXtsgWA).

Quote:

---

Though (as a side issue) I would question placing the blame for the civil wars entirely upon Caesar's shoulders (and most especially the era of the principate that followed - I have my doubts as to whether that 'sort of thing' was what Caesar had in mind), the main point is well made. In fact, prior to the aristocracies and their 'senates' within the Gallic 'proto-states', life as a lesser Gaul would likely have been much better. Those aristocracies were making their fortunes, and power bases, by essentially betraying their own people - feeding the slave markets of Rome with their 'bretheren' Gauls..... from what little information we have, these polities were oligarchic, the lesser classes becoming - even within their own country - all but slaves.

---

Again, what does this say about their government and people, and their ability to be great!

Quote:

---

Indeed. Cultures don't necessarily have to follow the same path..... I think that the Roman interference with much of Europe (and beyond) tends to suggest that this is so, in many peoples' minds. As a counter example I will offer Switzerland, and it's sovereign Cantons, it's Landsgemeinden - people's assemblies. Just because a culture/polity might not have become Rome, might not have subjugated it's own and it's neighbours people, doesn't mean that civilisation was beyond them. It just depends upon what you regard as civilised....

---

Wait Switzerland was never conquered by the Romans? I thought the people of the Alps were seen as more barbaric than the Gauls themselves... and when you say Canton, were they the original people of the Alps, or modern Swiss who are probably more German than Alpian.

Quote:

---

One thing that really grates is when I read something along the lines of 'We know that the Gauls were illiterate......'. We know no such thing. We have been told so, but look a little closer and little cracks appear in this version of history. Caesar refers to the alphabets that the Gauls used for different functions. The Helvetii had conducted a census of their tribes before (and for the purpose of) their migration. Dumnorix is attested as being granted the tolling and taxing rights of the Aedui - which require literacy and numeracy. He speaks of the Druids as being forbidden to write down their teachings...

---

You must learn to interpret what people say. When the Gauls are "illiterate," they don't mean that every Gaul didn't know how to read and write. It meant their culture had not developed their own system of letters. The Helvetti census was written in Greek, fyi, and is the reason why the Romans could decipher it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Neither would you like to be a crack addict in the United States of America today, right? But my point, and the truth is, that we still prefer to be that crack addict as opposed to the subject or the serf you referred to. Why? Because the level of society and civilization was raised to a point where even being a crack addict! is not as bad as being a lowly, 15th century serf.

---

Firstly, this rather highlights the point that was being made; that progress isn't linear and that what may seem progress in the eyes of contemporary 'historians' is not necessarily progress for many living under the institutions brought about by it. Serfdom in the 15th century, and the near slavery of those Gauls living under the oligarchic institutions so favoured by (and favourable to) Rome were not an improvement for those 'classes' of peoples.

And that there are 'crack addicts', 'smackheads' etc. surely says something about the state of the 'civilised' modern world. Also, how do you think those citizens in the US and most of Western Europe sustain the 'fat of the land' lifestyles; what makes these civilisations so 'great'? (especially considering the huge amounts of personal and institutional debt). Would it not be more accurate to ask whether one would rather be a factory worker in China, or a farm worker in Africa as a more realistic 'simily'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

How can you say Caesar's achievements were destructive to Rome? Wow. Just call youself Cato man and be quiet for the rest of your life. Caesar led to one of the greatest territorial conquests in that day or the next. It led to Augustus expanding the empire greater than anyone else had up to that point. And in a world where slavery was just as common as pumping gas in your car, where do you get the nerve to criticize them for that? You are acting, Mr. Fred, as if the Gauls had lawyers, or even knew what they were.

---

I'd call a period of civil war pretty destructive - and I believe that's what MisterFred made specific reference to. As to what he did for the Gauls.... how many does he, himself, claim to have killed and sold into slavery? For the average pleb in Caesar's time, how was their world made better by Caesar? And..., what do you mean by, "as if the Gauls......even knew what they were"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Funny how someone without a face or even an entity, can shun those who have ensured themselves immortality and worldwide recognition. Maybe you should ask yourself if you possess some of that prejudice you seem to criticize in them.

---

Ahhh...., so it's hero-worship. The cult of personality. If a man is in the history books he must be worth more than some 'faceless' pleb..... I think that you rather expose your own 'prejudices' here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

So the fact that most cultures today, read, write, practice modern science, and adhere to a common religion does not insinuate that we are all intertwined under one standard of humanity? Look, no matter what culture or system of government is dominant in the world, that world power will always continue human civilization, whether for good or bad. When the Romans fell, the Muslims assumed their place. How, you may ask yourself, were they able to advance humanity? By using the works of the ancient Greeks themselves. By adopting the mathematical concepts of the Indians, etc. The concept of humanity is not a new one, and you would be wise to figure out its meaning.

---

Apart from the fact that what I certainly do not see in today's world is the adherence to a "common religion", I'm interested in how this single "standard of humanity" is represented in the varying forms of subjugation of people within political-geographical areas. I certainly see that there is a movement against the Western hegemony which has latched itself, for the most part, to a 'brand' of Islam... I just don't see the hippy happy hoppy "concept of humanity" and 'civilsed progress' that you seem convinced is the reality of the 21st Century.

As for the Muslims 'following on' from Rome.....what a lovely, tidy recant of 'history'... Wasn't quite like that though, was it? I'm glad you've brought the muslim world up though, because they didn't just fuse the mathemeatics/science/literature of the East and West... they saved the west from it's own 'civilised' prejudices. Many of the great Greek works only exist because of the muslim translation movement; because the true followers of Rome, in that ever so progressive march forward, had destroyed many of the Greek writings as pagan muck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

And since when has blasphemy been allowed to convince in favor of an argument?

---

This is very obtuse....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Again, what does this say about their government and people, and their ability to be great!

---

Ahhh... I see. It's gone from being a question of 'civilisation' to a question of the ability to be 'great', a very subjective term which basically means - could they be like the Romans..

What it says about their government is that it was already in thrall to Rome. What it says about the people is that they were ripe for action asgainst those who had, essentially, betrayed them. Caesar only just defeated the Gauls, make no mistake. There were plenty of times that his forces were close to being overrun. Had it not been Caesar (and his very capable legates)..........?

What the Gallic wars showed was that there was a recognition of a Gallic 'nation', that to be a 'Gaul' had meaning in itself, even beyond the socio-political entity of a tribe or pagi; that, with a defeat over the Romans there could very well have been - under the right ruler, a charismatic and powerful noble who had proved himself superior to the Romans - a 'revolution' in Gaul. The pro-Roman aristocracy would have lost their power base, and so new institutions would have replaced their 'senates'. What you fail to acknowledge is that these institutions represented the law, that there was a system of taxation and duties. What you claim as being the cornerstones of modern civilisation ("read, write, practice modern science, and adhere to a common religion") were all present within the various Gallic polities. And yet.... you continue to dismiss them as 'civilised'.... oh, sorry, now it has become a question of the measurement of 'greatness', hasn't it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Wait Switzerland was never conquered by the Romans? I thought the people of the Alps were seen as more barbaric than the Gauls themselves... and when you say Canton, were they the original people of the Alps, or modern Swiss who are probably more German than Alpian.

---

I think you misunderstood my point. Whereas most Western polities have followed (more or less) Roman (late) practices in terms of governance, which tends to skew this idea of 'progress' as if it is, naturally, linear and inevitable (along a given path defined by modern Western political structures), Switzerland followed a different model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

You must learn to interpret what people say. When the Gauls are "illiterate," they don't mean that every Gaul didn't know how to read and write. It meant their culture had not developed their own system of letters. The Helvetti census was written in Greek, fyi, and is the reason why the Romans could decipher it...

---

By which standard the Romans were illiterate, given that their alphabet is simply an evolution of the Etruscan alphabet, which is itself an evolution of the Western Greek alphabet..... That is not what is meant by claiming the Gauls were illiterate.

You know, NOT 1 person has agreed with my opinion that Rome was BY FAR the greatest civilization of the ancient world (and possibly of all time) and, thus, incomparable to any other civilization that has not been deemed great by the standards of humanity. Either you all are ignorant, or assume that what people have said for MILENNIA is wrong. The audacity... but, like a True Roman, I will try my best to illuminate the barbarian, if but for his own good:

Quote:

---

Firstly, this rather highlights the point that was being made; that progress isn't linear and that what may seem progress in the eyes of contemporary 'historians' is not necessarily progress for many living under the institutions brought about by it. Serfdom in the 15th century, and the near slavery of those Gauls living under the oligarchic institutions so favoured by (and favourable to) Rome were not an improvement for those 'classes' of peoples... ... And that there are 'crack addicts', 'smackheads' etc. surely says something about the state of the 'civilised' modern world. Also, how do you think those citizens in the US and most of Western Europe sustain the 'fat of the land' lifestyles; what makes these civilisations so 'great'? (especially considering the huge amounts of personal and institutional debt). Would it not be more accurate to ask whether one would rather be a factory worker in China, or a farm worker in Africa as a more realistic 'simily'?

---

No Gracchus. The comparison you speak of would be a legitimate one if the subjects were also similar to mine... China is not the dominant power of the world, it is the United States. Just as back then Rome was dominant, while Parthia was not. Also, you totally screw up the discussion by you saying that a portion of the individuals didn't benefit or actually lost benefits. As a True Roman, I will not deny the truth, but it is much more true that what my argument deals with is a society rather than a social group; with a country rather a tribe; with a civilization and culture rather than a custom. When I bring the analogy of the modern crack addict vs. the feudal serf, you must realize that a feudal serf (which I guess could be personified by your example of the modern Chinese worker to a certain extent) was on his own, without any notion of hope in the form of welfare, free housing, food stamps, and all the amenities that our civilization provides to its citiziens for merely being a part of it (something I think not even the Atenians themselves believed in). A serf, though part of a civilization, was given nothing and had everything taken away. That is progress and a clear distinction between the sophisticated and un-sophisticated.

Quote:

---

I'd call a period of civil war pretty destructive - and I believe that's what MisterFred made specific reference to. As to what he did for the Gauls.... how many does he, himself, claim to have killed and sold into slavery? For the average pleb in Caesar's time, how was their world made better by Caesar? And..., what do you mean by, "as if the Gauls......even knew what they were"?

---

I meant the Gaul comment as referencing Mr. Fred's fanatic zeal of aggrandizing the Gauls and deriding the Romans. He sounded, to me, like the defense lawyer of a clear, but rich rapist who uses technicalities to win arguments but no substance. I guess nobody got it though.

About yours, however, the civil war was caused by the Senate, not Caesar, my friend. And since when should we deride the Romans for not looking out for anything but their own interest, especially in such primitive a time? How did the Gauls act when they sacked Rome? When the Goths did? They merely used their victory for plunder and destruction, while the Romans used theirs to create something new... does Paris and London ring a familiar bell? I believe the Roman way to be a much more civilized and sophisticated approach.

Quote:

---

Ahhh...., so it's hero-worship. The cult of personality. If a man is in the history books he must be worth more than some 'faceless' pleb..... I think that you rather expose your own 'prejudices' here...

---

No, I'm just tired of people dismissing the ancients as reliable evidence and using their own "theories" in their place. To me, as a True Roman, no theory is valid without a source. What I was trying to do there was simply to shed light on Mr. Fred to have more respect on such sources, Thank You.

Quote:

---

Apart from the fact that what I certainly do not see in today's world is the adherence to a "common religion"

---

Most of you should take classes in the art of politicking, for one of its basest lessons is not to support your argument with flimsy assumptions and lies that can be easily refuted. I never said humanity's progress to be, or have been, "hippy happy hoppy." And if you read my words correctly, you would realize that I was referring to a culture within the confines of a civilization. However, the fact is that a common religion is much more prevalent that just amongst a lone civilization, but now even spans continents (Christianity in America and Europe, Islam from Africa to Pakistan, Buddism in Asia, Hinduism in India). Of course there are many more, smaller religions, and even subdivisions of each of these major religions, but even from a theological perspective!, isn't a little odd to you that, with the exception of Buddhists and Hindus, the vast majority of people on this Earth believe in only one God? That trend, of a common human progress, is the essence of what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

I'm interested in how this single "standard of humanity" is represented in the varying forms of subjugation of people within political-geographical areas. I certainly see that there is a movement against the Western hegemony which has latched itself, for the most part, to a 'brand' of Islam... I just don't see the hippy happy hoppy "concept of humanity" and 'civilsed progress' that you seem convinced is the reality of the 21st Century.

---

Wait, so Terrorism, to you, is something that is destined, or can be destined, to advance humanity? It is not just a fanatical movement destined for its very aim of destruction and strife? Do you really think humanity will accept Terrorism as the method of warfare for the future??? Please explain!

But as for my explanation, take, for example, the invention of the gun. It was made in China but ultimately transformed the way MAN, not just the Chinese, fought and died, regardless of the "political-geographical area." Think of Christianity and how it subjugated the invading barbarians. Think of the Italians and their Renaissance. Think of ALL the great things that have been passed on not just from relative to relative, or countryman to countryman, but MAN to MAN! Aren't those things the greatest of them all?!

Quote:

---

As for the Muslims 'following on' from Rome.....what a lovely, tidy recant of 'history'... Wasn't quite like that though, was it?

---

No, Gracchus, but if you want, you can wait 2 more years until I finish my state-of-the-art time machine so you can go back yourself and find out EXACTLY what is was like without the aqueducts and roads and sense of freedom (relative to 600 AD).

Quote:

---

I'm glad you've brought the muslim world up though, because they didn't just fuse the mathemeatics/science/literature of the East and West... they saved the west from it's own 'civilised' prejudices. Many of the great Greek works only exist because of the muslim translation movement; because the true followers of Rome, in that ever so progressive march forward, had destroyed many of the Greek writings as pagan muck.

---

So you diss the Latins, but for what purpose? That is not the subject my friend. That is your main problem. You always seek to win an argument by derision and slander. If I were like you, I would say that true followers of Rome weren't actually Romans, but barbarian usurpers. What does anything they did have anything to do with the Romans?!

Quote:

---

This is very obtuse....

---

Then help my obtuseness by helping me figure out what your boy meant.

Heh, that was just hilarious. I can never tell if he's trolling or not.

There's not really any need to respond to anything here, but I'll take a second to say I'd rather live a humble life in pretty much any crappy ancient civilization than be a crackhead. I've had the unfortunate experience of knowing a crackhead. That stuff messes you up, and no amount of modern amenities changes that.

Whatever happened with the Rome Killer group? You would think they would be all over this.

Quote:

---

Ahhh... I see. It's gone from being a question of 'civilisation' to a question of the ability to be 'great', a very subjective term which basically means - could they be like the Romans..

---

Nothing that frustrates me more than when people have no idea what they're talking about. But to make it clear: Call it "civiliation" or "greatness," if you can interpret English, you will know what I mean. What I mean is Rome, Carthage, Athens, Macedon, Egypt, Persia. What you mean is Gauls, Vandals, Goths, Britons, Huns, Picts, Lombards, etc.

Quote:

---

What it says about their government is that it was already in thrall to Rome. What it says about the people is that they were ripe for action asgainst those who had, essentially, betrayed them.

---

So by Caesar accounting that some Gaulish tribes were given to the luxuries of modernization is reflective of only a select few within the tribe but not of the whole? That just doesn't make sense. An epidemic, as he described the Belgae to view the "corruption" undergone by the other Gauls, is not of a select few, but of the greater whole, is it not?



Also, how does the story of Avaricum fit in with this suggestion? The Gauls were always a divided people, incapable of anything greater than the tribal structure of government.

Quote:

---

Caesar only just defeated the Gauls, make no mistake. There were plenty of times that his forces were close to being overrun. Had it not been Caesar (and his very capable legates)..........?

---

As the saying goes: "In war, important events result from trivial causes." Tell me of all those close calls, when did they occur because the circumstances were not trivial or a product of Celtic treachery? When were they rather a product of the use of sound military strategy. The only one I think that can support your argument, would be Vercingetorix's scortched-earth policy, but that really achieved nothing due to cities such as Avaricum.

Quote:

---

What the Gallic wars showed was that there was a recognition of a Gallic 'nation', that to be a 'Gaul' had meaning in itself, even beyond the socio-political entity of a tribe or pagi;

---

So in the midst of all this Gallic nationalism I ask again, why?, my friend, did Avaricum not listen? Why did Caesar still have Gallic allies?

Quote:

---

...that, with a defeat over the Romans there could very well have been - under the right ruler, a charismatic and powerful noble who had proved himself superior to the Romans - a 'revolution' in Gaul. The pro-Roman aristocracy would have lost their power base, and so new institutions would have replaced their 'senates'. What you fail to acknowledge is that these institutions represented the law, that there was a system of taxation and duties.

---

How does this prove anything bro??? This is all speculative. Kinda like if the Romans were all only 2ft tall, then yes, I agree that the Gauls would've defeated the Romans and become the major Mediterranean power that Rome was.

Quote:

---

What you claim as being the cornerstones of modern civilisation ("read, write, practice modern science, and adhere to a common religion") were all present within the various Gallic polities.

---

This is something that is so far from fact I feel compelled not even to deem it worthy a response but I will for your sake. Gauls never had a native writing method. Gauls never practiced anything close to modern science... THEY BELIEVED IN DRUIDS NOT REASON! They couldn't develop seige equiment to assault fortified towns. So what makes you believe they were so advanced for their time?

Quote:

---

And yet.... you continue to dismiss them as 'civilised'.... oh, sorry, now it has become a question of the measurement of 'greatness', hasn't it.

---

Because when I earlier had said that the main distinction from Romans and Barbarians was the essence of civilization, someone took the literal, technical approach of saying: "Oh but Gauls had a civilization with Senate, trade, economy, etc." So I had to change the term so that it would be more understandable to most of you.

Quote:

---

I think you misunderstood my point. Whereas most Western polities have followed (more or less) Roman (late) practices in terms of governance, which tends to skew this idea of 'progress' as if it is, naturally, linear and inevitable (along a given path defined by modern Western political structures), Switzerland followed a different model.

---

Which is why Switzerland has always been the standard of mediocrity. All that capital, but no motivation to use it. Kinda like the Rhodisians... lol. Wait, that would be dissing the Rhodisians... -_-

Quote:

---

By which standard the Romans were illiterate, given that their alphabet is simply an evolution of the Etruscan alphabet, which is itself an evolution of the Western Greek alphabet..... That is not what is meant by claiming the Gauls were illiterate.

---

Fyi... The Romans were once Etruscans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

Heh, that was just hilarious. I can never tell if he's trolling or not.

There's not really any need to respond to anything here, but I'll take a second to say I'd rather live a humble life in pretty much any crappy ancient civilization than be a crackhead. I've had the unfortunate experience of knowing a crackhead. That stuff messes you up, and no amount of modern amenities changes that.

---

True, but not if you're a crackhead and you're high on crack! Hahahaha.

But in regards to being a troll, this would be enough for the classification:

Quote:

---

Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless one places unreasonably high values on cows and pigs) than your average Puritan.

---

Hahaha. I'm just imagining how better it was for the typical Indian who went to take a leak at his local pond, not realizing it was rival chief's pond instead, and getting shot through the the penis with an arrow for trespassing. At least the Puritans all could urinate in peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Whatever happened with the Rome Killer group? You would think they would be all over this.

---

What is the Rome Killer Group?

It seems that everybody in this discussion has stated their position, and is not going to be moved from it. If you disagree with my assessment, please PM me, but I am closing this thread.

Thread closed.