Why 14 ACE??

I was just wondering why 14ACE has been chosen as the end date for the EB mod. Or in other words why did you think it necessary to end the game with the death of Augustus- Is it because he was the last ruler before the they started to declare themselves openly as Emperors, as Augustus was an emperor in every respect expect name.

In my opinion alternative end dates could be:

a.68ACE- the Death of Nero and the beggining of the Civil War.(Civil Wars always make good waypoints to end a game. ~;) )

or

b.69ACE- the proclamation of Vespasian as Emperor and end of civil war.

I am just inquiring about the motivation and reasoning behind the descion to set 14ACE as your end date.No criticism is intended and any attempt at flaming will result in the use of sarcasm and if really irritated- irony.
You have been warned. ~D

It was like that in vanilla and we've had no cause to change it as of yet. Extending it more than a few years would mean expanding militaries and we don't have the model space for that.

that's long enough if you ask me I only got there with one campaign and since EB has 4 turns a years it's really long enough.

Extending it more than a few years would mean expanding militaries and we don't have the model space for that.

Thats the kind of no nonsense, to the point answer that i was looking for.By the way since the issue has been raised could you clarify what do you mean by-expanding militaries.Since Iam unaware of any military revolutions taking place in the era that would necessiate the need for new unit models. ~:confused:

As in legions wearing lorica segmentata etc, I'd assume. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Tomyris Reloaded

As in legions wearing lorica segmentata etc, I'd assume. :book:

---

Exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amritochates

Iam unaware of any military revolutions taking place in the era that would necessiate the need for new unit models. ~:confused:

---

Military evolution, in general, is constant and ongoing at all periods in history. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but you can't stick every change into a neat package called "Iphicratean reforms" or "Marian reforms" or "Augustan reforms".

Why not.

After all, the EB folks needed:

1) some place to call a halt

2) some means to make the pain go away. Can you imagine redoing all the roman units to reflect Imperial armor -- egads.

3) 284 years should be sufficient to achieve a continent-spanning empire. If you haven't got a leg up by then, you should go ahead and let the inhabitants of Lesbos take total control.

Seamus

Hey, Khelvan, what's that thing in your sig? Did I miss a preview or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blamat

Hey, Khelvan, what's that thing in your sig? Did I miss a preview or something?

---

It's a secret!

Bah, its bad enough that people use the ridiculous 'CE' nonsense, is 'ACE' even a proper term?:~p

Yeah, what the heck is ACE? Isn't CE 'common era', aka 'we are going to use the Christian dating system, but since we don't like religion we're going to pretend the dating system the entire world uses has nothing to do with the birth of Christ'.

Crazed Rabbit

erm...'After Christ's Evacuation [from his mum]'?

That aside, I agree totally with Seamus. Krusader: you missed nothing. And yet, in a sense, you're missing everything that really makes EB a step above RTW. :) Read my sig, and observe the tense I'm using to get a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blamat

Hey, Khelvan, what's that thing in your sig? Did I miss a preview or something?

---

Dam...I thought we had already told everyone that we were dropping the Romans and Greeks for Occultus and China!?

BCE: Before the Christian Era
ACE:After Christian Era

ref:http://www.stands4.com/bc.asp?c=TIMEZONES

I just prefer using these terms, as I am not a member any of the judeo-christian religions like the majority of the world's population and therefore I prefer this to an anarchostic defination such as Anno Domini or Before Christ which is anyway inaccurate since historians now attribute the birth of Christ around 4-5ACE and anyway as stated above I see no reason to use such an overtly religious defination when it has no personal religious significance for me. :bow:

And refering back to Simetrical's post
Military evolution, in general, is constant and ongoing at all periods in history. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but you can't stick every change into a neat package called "Iphicratean reforms" or "Marian reforms" or "Augustan reforms".

When I was referring to Military revolutions- I was alluding to a RMA or a Revolution in Military affairs(Something you should know if you are a contemproary military historian) and none of the above examples are instances of a RMA.

According to the Defination given by the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary assesment- A RMA is by its very defination a major discontinuity in military affairs.They are brought about by changes in military relevant technologies, concepts of operation, methods of organization, and/or resources available, and are often associated with broader political, social, economic, and scientific revolutions. These periods of discontinuous change have historically advantaged the strategic/operational offense, and have provided a powerful impetus for change in the international system. They occur relatively abruptly–most typically over two-to-three decades. They render obsolete or subordinate existing means for conducting war.

An excellent example of a RMA set in the RTW period would be the Macedonian Combined Arms revolution or the chariot revolution brought about by the Hyskos interlude in Egypt.

Ref: http://www.csbaonline.org/2Strategic...airs.htm#HA(In case you truly are an amateur historian as you claim in your Sig you always look this up.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If you haven't got a leg up by then, you should go ahead and let the inhabitants of Lesbos take total control.

---

I'd live happily under the rule of the Lesbian Empire! (If I'm allowed to look, of course.) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amritochates

BCE: Before the Christian Era
ACE:After Christian Era

---

Must have been a really small 'era' eh? ~;)

The CE nonsense goes BCE and CE and it stands for current era or common era or such rubbish. there is no 'ACE'.

As for the thread question Augustus the first Roman Emperor died in 14AD, I think thats as good a time to end the game as any especially if one is starting as early as the Punic Wars.

A pity the game doesn't have eras or scratching that hundreds and hundreds of provinces:D

BCE: Before Common era
CE: Common Era

Some Politically correct BS that nobody cares about and we only introduced because of some raving lunatic hippies who think Chritsians are "The Man" and must be destroyed..

~D

The CE and BCE nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. Ever I to write a historical paper, or any sort of academic paper, I would still use the terms out of sheer necessity. But this forum is hardly academic!

Just drop the PC cow dung and use the proper terms, for we live in the era of Christ, the Years of the Lord, not the "Common Era". I mean what was before that? the "Uncommon Era"? LOL

It's proper because we are speaking English and the vast majority of English speakers are Christian anyway.

So use the proper term you steppe dog!

Sigh! I just don't know why I keep on substantiating all my statements with references when no one bothers to look at them. At least when we were at University we were taught to substantiate all our arguments or terms with factual evidence.So when I use the Terms

ACE: After Christian Era
&
BCE: Before Christian Era instead of Anno Domini and Before Christ I included a link that went like this:
http://www.stands4.com/bc.asp?c=TIMEZONES
which If you had bothered to open would have displayed the following:

Category: Regional » Time Zones (185 entries)

ACE: After Christian Era

And now look this up before repyling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

The relevant extract being:

Usage
Jewish and Christian scholars have developed the BCE/CE terms for the benefit of cross-cultural dialogue.[2]. Some Islamic scholars and others outside the Judeo-Christian religious traditions have used the system. Some Christians have used the term CE to mean 'Christian era'. Most non-religious academics in the fields of history, theology, archaeology and anthropology have also in recent decades begun using the system.

More visible uses of common era notation have recently surfaced at major museums in the English-speaking world: Canada's Royal Ontario Museum adopted BCE/CE in 2002 [3], and the Smithsonian Institution also prefers common era usage, though individual museums are not required to use it. As well, many style guides now prefer or mandate its usage. Some style guides for Christian churches even mandate its use; for example, that of Episcopal Diocese of Maryland

The CE and BCE nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. Ever I to write a historical paper, or any sort of academic paper, I would still use the terms out of sheer necessity. But this forum is hardly academic!

Just drop the PC cow dung and use the proper terms, for we live in the era of Christ, the Years of the Lord, not the "Common Era". I mean what was before that? the "Uncommon Era"?

It's proper because we are speaking English and the vast majority of English speakers are Christian anyway.

If you include us Indians as English Speakers, which we are any way and in fact our english is gramatically more accurate than the native speakers themselves(A fact that repeats itself with all languages with non-native speakers being in a majority of cases gramatically more sound) you will soon realise that a majority of english speakers are neither caucasian nor christians.

I thought it was Before Common Era and then Common Era...

They mean the same thing. Why change?

Maybe we should use the Chinese calendar?
That would make it 4702 in the year of the monkey.
Or perhaps the Roman, Aztec, or Islamic calendars.
Or my personal favourite, the year 25 ARTO (After Reagan Took Office)

if you dont like it change it yoself

2758 Ab Urbe Condita. ~;p

Actually then it is the 14th day of the month of Shravan, 1927 according to the saka calendar which is the Indian National Calendar.

The Saka calendar is a lunar system and each of the 12 lunar months ends on a new month. The calendar begins the day after the new moon that ends the ninth lunar month. This always coincides with the Gregorian March. The Saka year numbering system is 78 years behind the Gregorian year ie it stated in the year 78ACE.

For those interested the Saka's are the Saurotomae.
The Scythians inhabiting Central Asia at the time of Herodotus (5th century B.C.) consisted of 4 main branches known as the MassaGatae, Sacae, Alani, and Sarmatians, sharing a common language, ethnicity and culture. Ancient Greek (e.g. Herodotus, Pliny, Plotemy, Arrian) and Persian sources (Darius's
historians) from the 5th century place the MassaGatea as the most southerly group in the Central Asian steppe.

The earliest Scythians who entered the northern regions of South Asia were from this group. Historians derive "Jat" fom "Gatae", "Ahir" from "Avar", "Saka" from "Scythii", "Gujjar" from "Khazar","Thakur" from "Tukharian", "Saurashtra" from "Saura Matii" or "Sarmatians", "Sisodia" (a Rajput clan) from Sassanian", "Madra" from "Medes", "Trigartta" from "Tyri Getae"and "Sulika" from "Seleucids".

Some of these Saka tribes entered northwest Southasia through the Khyber pass, others through the more southerly Bolan pass which opens into Dera Ismail Khan in Sindh. From here some invading groups went north, others went south, and others further east. This explains why some Jat, Gujjar and Rajput clans claim descent from Rajasthan (Chauhan, Powar, Rathi, Sial etc.) while others from Afghanistan (e.g. Mann, Her, Bhullar, Gill, Bajwa, Sandhu, etc.). This is supported by the fact that the oldest Rajput geneologies (10th
centuries) do not extend into the northwest's Gandharan Buddhist period (400 BCE - 900 ACE)

The different races of the Scythians which succesively appeared as conquerors in theborder provinces of Persian and India are the following in the order of arrival: Sakas orSacae (the Su or Sai of the Chinese), Kushans (the great Yue-Chi (Yuti) of the Chinese), Kiddarite or later Kushans (the little Yue-chi of the Chinese) and finally the Epthalites or White Huns (the Yetha of the Chinese).

Down to this day, the very name of the region `Gujarat' is derived from the name `Khazar', whilst `Saurashtra' denotes `Sun-worshipper', a common term for the Scythians.

I don't think that the Huns were Iranians. The Epthalites probably absorbed Iranian tribes, but Huns themselves weren't Iranians.
In additon the Yueh Chi may not have been Iranian speakers, and I don't think the Kushans were either, though I'm not sure.

And the Saka are a seperate tribe of Iranians from the Scythians and Sarmatians, I believe.

I think Bactrian, or a variant of it was the language of the Kushans.

We don't really know what the ethnic origin of the Huns. The names that come down to us have been altered by Roman and Byzantine writers, and include many Gothic names as well. They may have been Turkic or Magyar, but some do suggest that they were Scythian.

Given the name of the game, the EB folks (and CA for that matter) might follow Duke C's suggestion and just label it all in AUC.

Seamus

Sorry for going way of topic, but why change the terms for Before Christ etc, when you are still using a chrisian calander. It still revolves around the birth of Christ, so why try to change the name to hide its true identity....


Also i have never, heard of it as Befor/after cristian era.

In history books it is B.C.E(before common era) and AD has remained unchanged(atleast in mine, and according to my history teacher...).

It's just a name, however, some ultra-nationalistic-atheists can't stand to have anything slightly associated with a foreign culture/religion and for better "understanding" a new "neutral" term must be created even thought it means exactly the same thing.

It's as if they just couldn't live with it, their own religion is so weak, they are so spiritually insecure, the original term seem to hurt them right on the weak spot.

So, have a little pitty, and let them heretics have their wishes, it's not only "politically correct" crap, it's the least you can do to make their life a little less miserable.

I use BCE and CE because not only am I not a Christian, I'm an Orthodox Jew, and I would prefer not to refer to a year as "Year of Our Lord" or "Before the Messiah", even if it's in another language and abbreviated. It smacks of blasphemy, even though it obviously isn't actually blasphemy, even by Judaism's rather strict standards. As far as normal people go, yeah, I could see why you'd think it's overly PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amritochates

BCE: Before the Christian Era
ACE:After Christian Era

ref:http://www.stands4.com/bc.asp?c=TIMEZONES

---

We are not, however, after the Christian era, we are in it. Thus "CE". If you consult a source that doesn't include every abbreviation anyone's ever used anywhere, such as the AHD, you will find CE but not ACE, because ACE is vanishingly rare. Only if you search something like Acronym Finder, which lists pretty much everything, will you ever find ACE. CE can be found in any authoritative general-purpose dictionary. Notice that the Wikipedia article you linked to doesn't even mention the variant.

Basically, ACE is really rare and logically makes no sense. Everyone uses CE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amritochates

in fact our english is gramatically more accurate than the native speakers themselves(A fact that repeats itself with all languages with non-native speakers being in a majority of cases gramatically more sound)

---

That comes as a surprise to me after having spoken to quite a number of Indian customer service representatives for various companies, but your English seems to be pretty good, certainly. According to this, "in the 1991 census, . . . about 11% of those polled . . . claimed that English was their first, second or third language." That suggests to me that either a) Indians tend to learn a ton of languages, or b) not many Indians are fluent in English, at least as of 15 years ago. Also, this says "English is spoken as a second language by somewhere between 50 and 250 million Indians", but not spoken as a primary or "native" language by pretty much anyone. It cites the Ethnologue, which is pretty reputable, although a cursory look at their website doesn't give me any useful info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

It's as if they just couldn't live with it, their own religion is so weak, they are so spiritually insecure, the original term seem to hurt them right on the weak spot.

---

I don't care about this particular debate in the least. The letters don't mean a thing to me. BC and AD are just fine. ~;)

However, your argument could be generously called way off base. You want to speak in absurdities? I could easily make an equally absurd, amusing statement about the insecurities of faith, but I think it would be crass to stoop to such lows.

Keep statements like this where they belong, in the backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

So, have a little pitty, and let them heretics have their wishes, it's not only "politically correct" crap, it's the least you can do to make their life a little less miserable.

---

Okay, I'm a heretic, yeah...

And you wonder why I loathe you people

And for the reccord it isnt about "political correctness" its about overzealous and self-important fanatics who wan't to force their religion down the throat of everyone else, and mesaures to check them.

Khelvan, I apologize for adding wood to the fire as it were, BUT I'm not about to let some shmuck who thinks its the damned middle ages call me a bloody Heretic!

thread closed by request

B.