If anybody is bored and feels like defending the honor of the barbarians in a discussion, go to this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...d=1#post659498
Printable View
If anybody is bored and feels like defending the honor of the barbarians in a discussion, go to this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...d=1#post659498
Doesn't sound like the guy is willing to listen to reason and to point out the obvious wouldn't help if he isn't willing to listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by eadingas
I know Pindar's oppinions well. He posted some things, long ago, at the first EB thread in the Colosseum. I'm sorry to say that he is just an ignorant. Not worth my bother. But maybe you could whip some sense and culture in to that limited mind. :wink:
Pindar=Brilliant in the tavern. (Except he's a damn dirty conservative)
and of course
he's a MORMON.
What do you expect?
Hey, I'm a conservative, mostly economically and geopolitically, though, you'd find a lot of professional historians and antiquarians are. And he just seems like too much of a bother to argue with. If one is bent on a preconception of history and would refuse to listen to reason, no amount of proof can be offered to put to rest that manner of thought. You could explain all day that barbarians like Gaul didn't control single 'provinces', but rather large kingdoms, or that the Ptolemies built quality road networks, that the Celts had well maintained fleets (consider the Vascones immigrating to Hibernia in a large enough manner to construct a large city there, using what we believe to be the southern tallships in Ireland, was considering them as one of the fleet types for barbarians? I'll mention it in the proper thread sooner or later), that non-Romans had elaborate coinage, metalwork, clothing, etc. He won't care. If one has steeled themselves to accept a view of the ancient world, regardless of mountains of evidence, and flat out proofs, to the contrary, they aren't going to budge. It's just a way to start arguments, and heaven forbid we should seek them out. We'll have plenty of arguments about history on this project, but at least we have people who can be worked with. If you need a fix for arguing, argue here.
However, in my understanding of the word "barbarians" the Mormons are barbarians.Quote:
he's a MORMON
What exactly is your definition of barbarian then? Any religious person?
That's Pindar. Great debator, from what I've seen in the Backroom. And a great conservative ally. I think you just need to show him some good sources of information about "barbarians" to sway him. :duel: :book:
I use the modern word "barbarian" for a couple of negative attributes on people, which behave against my viewpoint of Morale and modern Culture.Quote:
What exactly is your definition of barbarian then? Any religious person?
September 11 2001 was Barbarian.
Persecution of Homosexuals is Barbarian.
Death Penalty is Barbarian.
Destruction of Nature is Barbarian.
The Mormons are a fundamentalist christian sect which interprets Jesus Message in an very arch-conservative way which is mostly based on lies.
Of Course, now you may call me intolerant but Mormons are a variant of Christianity, my own religion. So I can't accept their radical viewpoints because then I would rely my own ones.
Because their arch-conservative viewpoints are so radical and unacceptable they are barbarian to my view.
In other words, "Barbarian" is equal in meaning with "Stupid Butthole", "People from Yesterday" or "Junkie".
Oh and yes: Historical Research is religious behaviour. Why?
Well, in Germany the interpretation of the national identity is based on the Family. Karl Marx developed an equal theory on the development of modern Society: Families in the Stoneage founded Grandfamilies incluedeing mostly all relatives, together the group of Humans could survive. In the Toolage and later those Grandfamilies combined to Tribes, like the Celtic and Germanic Tribes were subdivided into Familyclans. Then the Tribes combine into loose Alliances, which were later replaced by tight alliances called "Nation" and this process will never end.
A dead body of a Celtic Chieftain is the rest of an Ancestor or your People, maybe even a direct Ancestor of your own person. If you knew it was direct Ancestor of your own Person, of course then you would favor he did get a proper grave rather than beeing exposed in a Museum.
The western Germanic people are the Ancestors of the medieval teutonic-germans, the medieval teutonic-germans are the ancestors of the modern Germans. The Slavs in Ancient are the Ancestors of modern Slavs an so on.
This includes all of your Ancestors, who deserve a honorful treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by God
----------
If you are still not convinced start calculating 270 B.C. -> 2004 A.D. = 2274 Years. Theoretically every generation got 80 Years to live, that would make ~ 28 Generations to go backwards in time. You have two parents, they got two parents, so you have four Grandpartents, those have parents and you have eight Grand-Grandparents... Then you start on trying out who many 'parents' you have, 2 x 2 for the first and then again take the result with x 2 for 27 times: 268.435.456 Individuals are theoretically your Grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grandparents living in 270 B.C. ! ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek:
That means calling Celts, Germanics, Slavs etc. your Ancestors is a biological Fact. Even if my calultion is wrong, and it is unless not every generation lived 80 years, you can see how many Individuals' Blood floods in your veins.
If someone could makes a more proper calculation on that thing, it could deserve its own thread! ~:)
Just to be clear, any flame war, regardless of who started it, will be deleted from this forum.
Please make sure to keep the heated ones over in the Backroom ;)
love your mod guys.. so are mormons going to be in the barbarian culture? that'd be sweet.
um, wait a sec, wth does any of this have to do with EB? shouldn't this whole thread be in the tavern or something?
anyway, i'm really, really, really looking forward to your product, i wish i could help, but i have neither the time nor the talent :/
I have defended the honor!
wait.. you guys have honor? since when?
I don't, personally. I was defending the honor of the barbarians, who did!
~:cheers:
That fool Pindar seems to have slithered into the shadows once more, the barbarians' honour is preserved! :medievalcheers:
- Panda
It is futile to argue with Pindar. I had a 5 pages long argument with him once about morals and relativity. It doesn't matter we went from Einstein's theory to Kant, Nietzsche and Sartre, he kept going that morals are absolute, and communities have no power in shaping values. An horizont too narrow.
He never backs down, so why bother? This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time (is it plagiarism if we put it in another context? ~:) )
plagiarism is a facade anyway, it assumes that only the person who spoke or wrote an idea is the only one who has ever had that idea
this is obviously not true, and to spread ideas more freely people should be more ready to disolve any notion of idea ownership and allow others to take, utilize, and expand on ideas already in practice.
believing in plagiarism is pure selfishness and poisons progress. If you must sign an idea as your own, dont' get upset if someone else uses it to prove a point of their own, it's just flattery, and you're not losing anything anyway.
ps - oh and about absolute morals, that's also bollocks; founded by relgious types and bred over millenia of religious oppresion. Now adays, moral codes are habit, even if they're really absurd. Just assume society doesn't know what they're talking about and go where your desires take you, not where their doctrine dictates.
Hmm, yes, indeed, well, it's just that I wanted to draw attention on the fact that my last sentence is not to appear as original. A rethorical question ~;)Quote:
believing in plagiarism is pure selfishness and poisons progress. If you must sign an idea as your own, dont' get upset if someone else uses it to prove a point of their own, it's just flattery, and you're not losing anything anyway.
broadly, my point exactly, eventhough not all should go where their desires take themQuote:
ps - oh and about absolute morals, that's also bollocks; founded by relgious types and bred over millenia of religious oppresion. Now adays, moral codes are habit, even if they're really absurd. Just assume society doesn't know what they're talking about and go where your desires take you, not where their doctrine dictates.
well of course it's within reason, mainly structured by not harming others - other than that, go wildQuote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
About the barbarians: Are barbarians the Others, The Aliens. Alexander was a Barbarian for the Greeks, his father at least, if you believe the Phillipiques.
The barbarians defended their honors, the only problem they had: It wasn't the same than the Romans'one.
Julius Cesare wrote he slaughtered quarter of the population of Gauls, enslaved an other quarter, and occupied what left. After a rebellion (I don't remember the name of the place -Bibracte- not sure), he blinded all the prisoners except one on ten whom he "just" took one eye to allowed the poor defeated warriors to go back home as an example... Who were the barbarians...
When, according some texts, the Gauls took Rome, the Romans complained they (the Gauls) were cheating on the weight of the ransom, the chief of the Gauls, throwing his sword on the balance just said "Vea Victis".
barbarians have a beard.
Not very EB related anymore, but religious fundamentalism is just so tragic. There's just no arguing with an almighty invisible friend whose logic defies the understanding of mere humans etc. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
How can we ever get along if it's impossible to have a rational dialgoue ~:confused:
Unfortunately it seems that a tendency to strong religious feelings and irrational beliefs is genetically determined, and they do tend to get more children, don't they, so that proves all of their gods exist and up mine and Darwin's big time. ~;)
Regarding EB: I'm really looking forward to it! Am I ever? Oh yes! ~:cheers:
The funny thing being that if I had proposed that the Eastern Han army was qualitatively better, especially regarding military technology, than the Imperial Roman army, no doubt that all of you would take the stance that Pindar took, despite the fact that I would offer mountain loads upon loads of flat-out evidence. I'm going off topic a bit, but it was just my observations and something very common I noticed happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Obviously you haven't tried to make the argument to this group, if you think that you would get that sort of reaction. This group being the EB members. We have a few that would give you a knee-jerk reaction, but most would be open to scholarly debate.
therecanbeonlywar!
I imagine you might feel I’m in the knee jerk crowd.
But overall the historical record is so thin there is room to make and take a lot of diametrically opposed arguments and views with respect to Roman, or Han Chinese or Greeks or Celts of 2000 years ago. Honestly I think you can in all like hood marshal the proverbial mountain of evidence both for Rome or China as militarily superior. In disclosure I'll admit I think Rebublican Rome would defeat Han china (not so sure about the Empire)...
The old sterotypes of "Barbarians" are hard to shake off...
The problem is with Roman Written records being taken as gospel for so long, especially as the documents themselves were not written as an attempt to record history accurately but rather to give personal prestige and political influence to the authors.
History is written by the victors.
And in today's terms it would be like having the Nazis win WW2 and future generations being forced to rely on Goebel's records as the only surviving sources...
In comparison with Written history, Archeology on the other hand has come up with some very surprising artifacts and finds that demonstrate that the Celts were skilled craftsmen and metalworkers, and archeology (much like forensics) builds up a picture of how all sorts of people lived in general.
History is written by the victors and the Romans knew that well. You only need look at what they did to Carthage to understand that.
You don't need to assume any alternative historical outcome. The americans and the soviets were both claiming to have been tha actual victors of WW2. Their peoples believed (and still believe, regarding the americans mostly, since there are no soviets anymore) that what their governments told them the truth. But which is the historical truth?Quote:
And in today's terms it would be like having the Nazis win WW2 and future generations being forced to rely on Goebel's records as the only surviving sources...
The greek state teaches children in history classes that the turks raped, slaughtered and deported the greek-speaking population of ionian cities like Smyrne in 1922. They conveniently "forget", though, that the greek army did the same to some of the turkish-speaking population of asia-minor, about a year before that. The turkish state, on the other hand, has a lot to teach to the children about the attrocities performed by the greek soldiers but doesn't really mention much about the ones performed by the turkish ones.
Where is the historical truth there? My point is that we don't need to use an unreal turn of events to prove how history is written by the victors. Actual events give us a lot of examples about how any authority creates a version of history that better suits it's interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...showtopic=5422Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...pic=5015&st=40
Though I might, at some point, post in those threads when I have the time to, I simply won't now because I am too exhausted and lack enough time to give complete replies to the various ignorant statements made. I laughed when I came upon these threads since the Roman/European supporters showed absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on the historical militaries of the empires of China and their comparisons were based on inaccurate and baseless assumptions of the supposed "lack of physical strength of 'Asians'" and that all "Asian" militaries were either Japanese (16th century Sengoku Jidai era ashigaru troops) or Persian (they assumed the Chinese armies were not much different from the Persians that were defeated by the Spartans at Thermopylae and thought that would happen to the troops of the Han Dynasty as well; Persians are Indo-Iranians, and therefore, Indo-Europeans, and the Persians are much more connected to the western world in terms of culture, linguistics, ethnicity, history, and military than the peoples of East Asia, obviously).
Referring to the first thread, not even mentioning that when one would take an objective stance and view the primary and reliable secondary sources at hand that the Western Jin (I have to admit that it was in a state of civil war and political instability, though again I was comparing the efficiency and effectiveness of the troops and not necessarily the political state of the two empires) troops were qualitatively and quantitatively (there is obviously no contention to this since the Eurocentric Roman supporters would usually try to enforce an inaccurate "huge waves upon waves of weak, little Chinese peasants wielding pitchforks and other farm equipment" type of stereotype on the Chinese armies) better than the contemporary Imperial Roman troops of circa 300 AD, there is almost no possible way 4th century Roman troops would take on and win against a 13th century "Chinese" (again, I doubt the Roman supporters know anything about Chinese history since they make no mention of what empire they were specifically referring to, it could either be the Jin, Xi-Xia, or Southern Song) army that was literally light years ahead of the 4th century Imperial Roman army. Even the much less militant troops of the southern Song woud still be able to take on and defeat the 4th century imperial Romans due to sheer technological superiority (yes, in this case, the technology of the southern Song, especially regarding their crossbowmen would've played a decisive factor in a given battle), much less the militant Jurchen ruling and military elite of the Jin and their superb cataphracts (I know 4th century Imperial Romans had clibanarii, but the Jurchens, being a semi-nomadic people from Manchuria would've been much more skilled cavalrymen than the Romans and most other cavalrymen of sedentary peoples for that matter; furthermore, when they captured northern China and had in their possession the blast furnaces and fineries, they had much more high-quality weaponry than the 4th century Imperial Romans) or the troops of the Xi-Xia Tanguts.
Again, I would be more than glad to offer my sources if any of you want them and this is rather a short reply. If I had the sufficient time right now, I would post a complete reply but I don't, so I'll post more later. And if it seems like I'm trying to hijack this forum or something with this stuff, then any of the EB people here (whose objective to make a mod that's based on historical accuracy as the top priority, which I do admire) could debate it with me in the Monastery (I don't know if there is already a Rome vs. China thread already but I usually don't check anywhere else except the modding forums).
Why people at EB? Nobody from EB spoke anything about a Rome vs Chinese kingdoms confrontation. The people who are discussing this do not belong to EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by therecanbeonlywar!
Besides, the comparation is lucicrous if we take in to consideration different time periods and the enourmous disparity of numbers in such a confrontation. In most periods, the technological know-how of both opponents was not that different. In opposition, the resources and manpower were vastly different.
Notice that I was just asking if anyone from EB wanted to debate about it, not trying to provoke you guys or something (it depends on how you guys interpret what I had previously posted). I had been following this mod for a while, and I was rather impressed on the objective stance you guys claimed you were trying to take, even when making a mod (I'm not trying to boast or suck up or anything, I'm serious) for a game, and I also liked how you guys chose historical accuracy above everything else, even gameplay (I read up on military history alot, and I am quite disappointed on how some so-called historical games actually don't portray the period historically accurate, especially like, for example, how the Parthians were portrayed in vanilla RTW with that simple self bow they used when clearly they were supposed to be using a much more powerful recurved composite bow otherwise it wouldn't make sense; I would've enjoyed playing historically accurate units even if they don't look "cool" as long as they are historically accurate). Since you guys claimed to be objective, I was curious as to what your stance was towards the Rome vs. China topic since this topic is brought up quite often and almost every historical game/history forum I've been to and it is usually Eurocentrics vs. Sinocentrics with neither side able to really back up their assumptions, though I've seen at least several China-supporters able to seriously back up what they were saying with reliable sources. I was thinking that if you guys took a pro-Rome stance, I would seriously be questioning your so-called "objective" stance (I don't doubt you guys are objective when dealing with the "barbarians" and Rome) that you guys claimed to take for history in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
Notice that I was of the idea of comparing the two armies of Imperial Rome and Han China (the contemporary of Imperial Rome), not asking who would win in an imagined scenario on a battlefield. So it is actually not ludicrous since there is clear evidence of who was the more technologically advanced and better-equipped and who overall had the better army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
It depends. If it was 4th century imperial Rome vs. 13th century China (this was the topic some guy opened a thread on at SCC), then 13th century China was vastly ahead in technology than imperial Rome (when I say "vastly", I mean it is wide enough to have been a decisive factor, and the 13th century Chinese crossbows would've clearly been a decisive factor against 4th century imperial Rome), yet the majority of the guys still were of the idea that imperial Rome would win. If it was 4th century imperial Rome vs. 4th century China, 4th century China would still be vastly ahead in technology (the first response for Westerners is that I am a Sinocentrist, however I can provide solid evidence for this, and an objective person who looks at reliable sources will see the truth in this; Rome would have no answer to crossbows alone), while the empires of China at this time were no less militant than the imperial Romans (again, the pro-Roman supporters try to force a "pacifist and weak Chinese" stereotype on the Chinese armies; anyone who has seriously studied Chinese history will agree that this stereotype is baseless and ridiculous). Considering this, I see no reason to conclude that the Han army was overall the better army than the imperial Roman army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
I'm not trying to be devil's advocate or something; in fact, I fully support such a mod like this and would only hope that some game designers and modders adopt this stance of historical accuracy (RTS/war games would automatically be much funner this way). I was also interested since I saw that Dead Moroz's map extended all the way to the Jungar Basin near western Mongolia and the Tarim Basin in East Turkestan; if you guys somehow found a way to implement more than 21 factions into the game, I was wondering if you guys at that point would add in some Central and East Asian factions, factions beyond Bactria, like the Wu-Sun (Indo-Iranian or Tocharian-related nomads) of the Ili Valley, the Yuezhi (Indo-European Tocharian nomads that were driven out of Gansu by the Xiongnu and who invaded Bactria after the Saka invasions), the Saka of Transoxiana (contrary to popular belief, not all Saka were Scythians; the Scythians were a Saka tribe, not the other way around) who invaded Bactria (these were the "eastern barbarians" the Greeks there referred to as), or even the Han empire (if so, I was curious as to how you guys would portray them as, is it the typical ridiculous Eurocentric and biased stereotype of "waves upon waves of low-quality Chinese peasant soldiers" or is it thoroughly researched and historically accurate). In my opinion (I know people here on this board mostly care about Europe/US/Western history and are prone to make assumptions about non-Western/non-white history, I've seen remarks as ridiculous as "there wasn't much happening in Asia during its history, it was mostly peace and culture and only the Japanese fought while the rest were pacifists whereas Rome had many enemies to fight and encounter like Carthage, Gaul, Britain, Germania, North Africa, Macedon, etc.") would be awesome to be able to fight and conquer the entire landmass of Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and East Asia.
The Yuezhi are near and dear to the hearts of many EB members. The Wusun and Sakae were also considered. In all likelihood were we to be able to add more than 21 factions, all three would have been included. As it is, however, we can only have 21, and there is 100% certainty on this. We will only have 21 factions.
Unless, of course, an expansion changes that.
Personally, I would not make any comparison between the two groups. I do not know enough about Imperial China to do so.
Therecanbeonlywar:
Well I’m not part of EB team, and I think any attempt to compare imperial Rome to 13th century China is a touch silly (just about as profound as saying yep Imperial Rome would whip New Kingdom Egypt real good). But, I really don’t think you sustain an argument that the China that was a contemporary of Republican or Imperial Rome had a significant technological advantage; advantages of sufficient magnitude that they would out-weight all outer factors (luck, who managed to produce the first really good general first, etc). This is really not the correct form thought, your better off moving this to the Monastery… Also I’m not sure why you quoted my response and then provided a reply with respect to threads you had not previously posted, in a context of the comparison of 13th century China to Late imperial Rome. I was explicit in offering a comparison of both states at roughly the same point in time.
History is written by the victors. Well, yes and no.
History isn't a science, and the first thing you learnt when you study history is to question your source. Who wrote the text, what were his purposes, to who, what the text is telling you, and what, more important, isn't telling you. That is the B a BA.
Cesear wrote his Comments to convince other Romans that he was a good general and politicien. Him alone was able to defeat the Gauls who were for the Romans THE threath. He also probably exagered the difficulties of the fights. It isn'ty so glorious to defeat weak ennemies...
We know that most of the text were written years after the events, and sometimes decennies... But, text written during the events are sometimes more linked with propagenda than facts... A witness can't see on the other side of a hill. and he can report only what he see, which is by definition partial. He or she is contaminated by the poeple is lived with, translator, soldiers, population. Look at the news and actual journalists.
History is written by each country to built its own representation and to built its own values.
Exemples: 1415, Azincourt: English version: The weak English Army deafeated the allmighty French Army, For England, The King and St Georges..
French version: The French army, under the command of King bealeaving he was built in glass (doesn't help in battle) and the stupid knights, desobeing their leader, attacked without orders, creating a traffic jam. And the English killed all the prisoneers. But, at Bouvines the French won and at Castellion, and won the Hundred Years War.
Same event, different messages.
And you can carry on like that for each period or battle.
And you have also to bulit heroes. No good representation without caracters, mythic or not, who will illustrate the Nation... And the choice of the heroe depends on wich values you want to underline... The choice also depends on the period you write the book of history...
History isn't written by the victors. History changes, moves, with the needs of the time. When I was at school, the Russian Front wasn't studied, the role of the Red Armu denied because they were COMMUNISTS. Nowadays, teh sacrifice of the Russian soldiers is recogninized and movies like Enemies at the Gate can be shown on our western screens. And Saving Private Ryan in the Eastern countries.
wrong,they were not meant to be publicated,Commentaries were actually diaries of Campaigning for Governemnt records,also Caesar did not need to write anything,to convince how good it was at the art of war,like it or not...Quote:
Cesear wrote his Comments to convince other Romans that he was a good general and politicien.
This is great too.....the only problem had Gauls, was that they were not united,like Greeks....otherwise history could have gone differently.... ~:)Quote:
He also probably exagered the difficulties of the fights. It isn'ty so glorious to defeat weak ennemies...
They had not such a military organisation as Romans had,that's it,and were not a nation,not united many interior struggles for power
"divide et Impera..." Caesar made good work of this... ~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionario
Um, they certainly were meant to be published - in fact they were published by installments while he was still campaigning in Gaul and won him vast amounts of popularity back in Rome. Pretty much as they were intended to do.
Legionario:
The Greeks were not united either, allowing Rome to use essentially the same strategy. I would suggest that if a Union of Macedonia, Rhodes, Achaea, Aetolia, Athens and Sparta existed during the Roman period (and implicitly pulling most of the smaller cities along with them the Aegean islanders, and Crete for example), Rome might never have conquered Greece.Quote:
This is great too.....the only problem had Gauls, was that they were not united,like Greeks....otherwise history could have gone differently....
They had not such a military organisation as Romans had,that's it,and were not a nation,not united many interior struggles for power
"divide et Impera..." Caesar made good work of this...
Not might sure. Unity has always been the problem of Greeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Most likely true. The chances for something like this happening probably died far earlier when Athens was defeated by Sparta. Essentially the oligarchs of rival city states won over the Athenians' democratic empire. I could be totally misunderstanding history, but Rome seems to have followed a similar course to Athens with Rome's republican system, but it became dominant, rather than being defeated shortly before it could establish lasting control over its fellow city states. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." (I think of this every time some neocon starts lecturing about "States Rights", then I recall what the US Civil War was fought over...but I digress.)Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Red
I think Rome a key advantage over Athens, the Republic was a far more appealing government to the essentially aristocratic-oligarchs that ruled the majority of classical city states than the Athenian-style democracy. If you had to loose you independence, I think the ruling classes of most cities just felt more comfortable, with the Patricians who ran the Senate (“they may be Romans but their kind of people, better than a bunch of sellouts pandering to the Demos back in Athens”).
I think the Greeks had one more shot in the 4th century to really stay independent. If Athens (and its second league) and the Beoetian federation of Epaminondas and Pelopidas had stayed allied. Epaminondas was supposedly a excellent speaker, it is too bad he did not go to Athens in person after Leuctra and argue against the leaders at Athens who were advocating (successfully) “balance of power politics”, and shifting to an alliance with Sparta.
I just read that thread and was a little disappointed at it being locked, but I'm left with two things that grabbed my attention. Both are questions for Khelvan.
First, are you sure the Gaels built a road from Inverness to Emhain Macha?
Second, you mentioned more than once that you know a man who's an avid Celtic scholar. It was said that he hasn't published anything, but is there any way it could be managed that I could have some kind of contact/read his findings? I'm borderline obsessed with this area of history.
Thanks.
Not Inverness, Ivernis. Inverness is in Scotland. Ivernis was an ancient city in the southwest of Ireland. The highway was a combination of stone and wood planks (like most Celtic highways, like those in Gaul, which were long distances of planks and what amounted to gravel) to traverse the swamps over the center of the island. The highway also included a branch to Menapia, which was a major trade center. Back when it was built, it would look like a large, raised dirt road covered in pebbles, combined with long sections of wooden 'bridges' over the wetter areas, so as to allow chariots and other wheeled objects to move through the island (since Ireland itself is essentially a massive bog in many places, combined with rough rocky terrain; niether is conducive to wheeled travel, or large horses).
lol Thanks for the enlightening description of the roads. I just found it odd that a road would have been built between Emhain Macha and "Invernes (sic)", since it was written as such in Khelvan's post - just a clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
The whole China vs. Rome debate that took place earlier was like a grown-up scholarly version of "my dad's better than yours!" Who would win between China and Rome? Well, neither! With however many THOUSANDS of miles between them, these 2 cultures didn't even EXIST to each other except in spice and silk trading. That's it! Debates should be geared towards something controversial, not something fantasy.
Please forgive my typographical errors. ~:)