Some things I need in EB

First of all, Thessalonica needs to be on the map. It is a very important historical city. I actually just took a graduate class that was entirely on the history of Thessalonica. I was surprised to see Pella in its place on the map, since Thessalonica was starting its upswing as Pella began to decline. There are many other reasons that i will detail when I have a little more time.

The other thing that stands out in my mind is the issue with Triarii. The should not fight in hoplite phalanx formation. The Romans abandoned this method of fighting when they introduced the manipular legion to fight in the Samnite wars. In fact the original RTW has the Triarii done wrong as well (they should not be the overpowering brutes that they are). The Triarii were the third line in the Roman infantry (this is essentially what the word "triarii" means), made up of older, more experienced soldiers who had served prior as Hastati or Principes, whose job was to hold the line, in the event that both the first line (Hastati) and the second line (Principes) were defeated, long enough for the first two to regroup. This rarley happened. As a result, the triarii rarley fought, although a battle would sometimes be described as having "gone to the Triarii," meaning that it was a particularly difficult battle.

There are a few other minute details that I can't think of off the top of my head. When they come up I'll post them.

Don't get me wrong, EB is still, by far, the best RTW mod out there.

Wrote this up in July 05:

Why is Pella the capital of Makedonia instead of Thessalonika ("as it was starting to get the reigns as the dominant city in Makedonia")?

Pella had been the capital of Makedonia until the 140's B.C. It looks like the first important use at all for Thessalonika was in 274 when Antigonas Gonatos came back there for some period of time after having no success in southern Greece, *but* Pella was most favored and flourished most under Antigonos Gonatas, who invested much time and energy into its refurbishing and adding to its importance, at that same time. Thessalonika was founded in 316 B.C., when a number of small towns nearby were brought together into a larger city. There is no doubt that Salonika was much more important later, but as the capital of Makedonia in 272 B.C. it would be ridiculous. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography says that Pella "remained the capital, and was a splendid town" from the time of Antigonos Gonatos till that of Perseus (ca. 189 B.C.). Antigonos makes such a big deal out of bedecking it as a royal capital, bringing in all kinds of scholars too, that it is hard to pass over it. These were Pella's "glory days", when it was clearly the capital and undergoing lots of construction, and we know very little about Thessalonika at the time, except that there was a fortress and a city there. There is very little else going in there in the early third century and not an enormous amount of activity even later in the third century. They further say that: Thessalonika would become important at a later date, but in the third century they were not a major urban center. The major four cities of Macedonia were Pella, Philippi, Kassandreia, and Amphipolis. If there was a true "capital" for Antigonas it was Demetrias (in Thessaly), although Pella was very important.

===============
I would add that we have to make decisions based upon what is going on in 272. Some other cities by the end of our mod period are clearly much more important. At the end, Salonica is much more important than Pella, but at the start, and for the next few decades as well, Pella was more important than Salonica. That is the determining factor for us. I'd love to have more city slots though, where we could include both, but that just can't happen because of hardcode limitations.

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou:
Wrote this up in July 05:

Why is Pella the capital of Makedonia instead of Thessalonika ("as it was starting to get the reigns as the dominant city in Makedonia")?

I definitely don't think Thessalonica should be the capital of anything. One if its defining characteristics was that it was always a "second city" in whatever context it found itself. I also agree that the city's prosperity did not being when Menander founded the it in 316/315, from a collection of villages in the general area (not all of them were very close and the people were sometimes forcibly relocated), and named it for his wife, Thessalonike.

My point is that throughout the entire scope of the game, Thessalonica (or whatever other of the dozen or so names it has) becomes more important than Pella, especially under the Romans. The city, under Roman rule, was given a certain degree of autonomy, which is another of the citiy's historical characteristics.

Yeah, definitely in the later half of our period it is more important. That counts for zero though in determining what cities should be on the map in 272 BC, and there is absolutely no chance that we go back and change our method for determining which cities should be on our map since that would mean a lot of them could be reshuffled. Cities that aren't even there in 272 could be removed in favor of very important 100 BC cities. We can't do that. We go with what was there and most important in 272 (if it's destroyed the very next year, obviously we rethink it, but let's say 272 + a couple of decades), and that is what we have to stick to.

Fair enough. I don't know what your limitations are as far as the settlement number is concerned. I didn't realize that a choice had to be made between the two. If I had my way the map would consist of the entire world and everything in it. My game would start at the big boom and never end. I would spend all of my time playing it and my wife would probably divorce me.

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou:
If there was a true "capital" for Antigonas it was Demetrias (in Thessaly), although Pella was very important.

You got me curious here. Was this so at the start of the game, or earlier or later? Would it make sense to shift the faction capital to Demetrias?

Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius:
My game would start at the big boom and never end. I would spend all of my time playing it and my wife would probably divorce me.

I think that game already exists. I think its called reality...

On topic: Im not sure it would be useful or desirable to have two cities so close together. It would just make it cluttered.

Really? Reality? I think I've heard of that.

...I was being facetious.

Somewhat related: why isn't Argos on the map? Is it just because the Peloponessus would be to crowded, or is there some other reason?

Yeah, there are just too many cities down there, and while a case can be made for a number of other ones, given our faction setup we decided on leaving Argos out.

Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius:
The other thing that stands out in my mind is the issue with Triarii. The should not fight in hoplite phalanx formation. The Romans abandoned this method of fighting when they introduced the manipular legion to fight in the Samnite wars. In fact the original RTW has the Triarii done wrong as well (they should not be the overpowering brutes that they are). The Triarii were the third line in the Roman infantry (this is essentially what the word "triarii" means), made up of older, more experienced soldiers who had served prior as Hastati or Principes, whose job was to hold the line, in the event that both the first line (Hastati) and the second line (Principes) were defeated, long enough for the first two to regroup. This rarley happened. As a result, the triarii rarley fought, although a battle would sometimes be described as having "gone to the Triarii," meaning that it was a particularly difficult battle.

Right, first off:

Do you think we don't know all this? In fact "Going to the Triarii is, IRRC in our unit description. Given the wealth of historically information in EB I'm actually somewhat insulted you think we would have missed all that.

Now, to the issue, it is muddy. The Cammillian Legion is still decended from the Servian field army. It is very likely that the Triarii at this point were still Hoplites, for one thing the necessary armour which would allow the easy graduation from Principes to Triarius (mail) wasn't in use yet. At this point the Legion is still very much about property and a little less about age.

Regardless the Triarii did nto fightt in a manipular fashion, they formed a solid block of spears. In other words a phalanx. The fact that commanders later became more inventive using them is one of the reasons our later Triarii do not form a phalanx is because it restricts their ability to run and to use their primary weapon. I am however completely sure that Polybian Triarii were capable of forming a good old fashioned phalanx if needs be.

Seeing as how a phalanx isn't really anything else than the good old-fashoned shieldwall with spears, it'd be right odd if they weren't... 'Course, "phalanx" is a little more specific in RTW context.

...say, I recall reading in the TWC forums the hoplites were being given some sort of odd "closer order in Guard mode" feature. Are the "Camillian" Triarii getting the same, or could it be useful for emphasizing the still basically defensive but more flexible nature of the "Polybian" ones ?

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
Right, first off:

Do you think we don't know all this? In fact "Going to the Triarii is, IRRC in our unit description. Given the wealth of historically information in EB I'm actually somewhat insulted you think we would have missed all that.

Relax Wiggy, nobody's trying to second guess your expertise. I must have missed that.

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
Regardless the Triarii did nto fightt in a manipular fashion, they formed a solid block of spears...I am however completely sure that Polybian Triarii were capable of forming a good old fashioned phalanx if needs be.

It is not a question of whether or not they could form phalanx, but rather one of whether or not they did. They did not. They fought in the third row of the manipular legion, primarily as reserves. It is true that their maniples were were smaller (only 30 men per century, rather than the 60 men that each century of hastati and principes had), so they were spread more thinly across the back row, this being the case, they would not be deep enough to intend to form a phalanx. A shield wall, ok, but not a phalanx.

The reason they did not fight in phalanx formation is that it is not flexible enough to fight anywhere but on flat ground. What prompted the transition from the old style phalanx was that they had to move into difficult mountainous terrain to contend with the tribes of Italy, like the Samnites.

...do I have to put a disclaimer on here that says I acknowledge that you already know what I'm writing so nobody gets miffed at me?

There has been alot of contention over wether the triarii were 'the most experienced' soldiers or just 'too old to fight in the front anymore' soldiers.

In Livy's description of the fourth century legionary organisation (Book 8.8 ... triarios ..., veteranum militem spectatae virtutis ...) the triarii are explicitly mentioned as veteran troops of proven worth. Their officers were correspondingly those with the highest prestige, the legion's chief centurion being that in command of the first maniple of triarii or pili as they were alternatively called. The triarii were composed of the oldest soldiers of the legion. As described by Polybius, Book 6 the division may not have been based on strict age limits and adapted to suit available manpower. They enjoyed some exemptions from duty.

Apart from their dory or hasta carried instead of the hyssos or pilum they did not differ in equipment from the other types of legionary heavy infantry. They are not attested as being better armoured than other soldiers. The notion found in some modern publications that such soldiers would have universally worn mail rather than the kardiophylax or pectorale is not based on the available source material, which indicates that such armour was the distinction of men rated at over ten thousand drachmai. Though as older men they would conceivably have been more wealthy on average than younger legionaries, there are no indications that they would all be clad in mail. The description of Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris 2.16 ( ...triarii cum scutis catafractis et galeis ocreati cum gladiis semispathiis plumbatis binis missibilibus... '... thirdliners with shields, body armour and helmets, greaves, swords and daggers, leadweighted darts and two throwing spears ...') includes vocabulary that suggests contemporary practice rather than copying from earlier sources. As reserves triarii usually kneeled or sat down in anticipation of their use in battle, either to lead a final assault attempt or to cover a retreat. This was not just due to any lesser fitness of the veterans, but usual practice to limit fatigue among reserve troops, a concern recorded in several works on military matters from Antiquity.

Extant evidence indicates that in the imperial army the alternative designation of such troops, pili, was almost universally employed (the restoration of the Caelius stone as listing a t(riarius) ordo is not widely accepted, though the Aurelius Gaius text is definite). The age division seems to have been abandoned, though the pili continued to be the more prestigious of the centurionate. In the first century of the principate at least older soldiers were brigaded together in a vexillum veteranorum, under a curator veteranorum, though due to the absence of continued references it is thought that this practice may have been discontinued later on. There are no clear indications available that these were integrated into the expanded first cohort that some legions appear to have adopted in the later first century AD.

According to Tacitus Annales 3,21 ( ...vexillum veteranorum, non amplius quingenti numero... 'a task force of veterans, not more than fivehundred in number...') there could have been about five hundred veterans in a vexillum veteranorum.



Some, not all, texts mentioning officials associated with such veteran groups.



CIL 5, 4903



L(ucius) Salvius | C(aii) f(ilius) Fab(ia) | vexillarius | veter(anorum) leg(ionis) IIII sibi | et Popiliai(!) | T(iti) l(ibertae) | Hispan[a]i et Capito | ni f(ilio) et Priscai f(iliae) et

| Firmo f(ilio)



'Lucius Salvius, son of Caius, from the Fabian voting district, flagbearer of the veterans of the legio IIII for himself and Popilia Hispana, freedwomen of Titus, and his son Capito, his daughter Prisca and his son Firmus'



AE 1969/70, 133



] Salvius L(ucii) f(ilius) | Pol(lia) Celer vet(eranus) leg(ionis) IIII Scy(thicae) curator | adl(ectus) veter(anorum) aed(ilis) IIvir q(uinquennalis) | mil(itavit) eques an(nos) XXX vix(it) an(nos) LV | hic s(itus) est | Blassia Felicula uxor | | Antonia Fortunata A(ulus) Titinius Italus



'... Salvius Celer, son of Lucius, from the Pollian voting district, veteran of legio IIII Scythica, selected curator of the veterans, aedilis, member of the commission of two, quinqennalis has served as a cavalryman for 30 years. He has lived 55 years. He is buried here. Blassia Felicula, his wife, Antonia Fortunata, Aulus Titinius Italus'



CIL 5, 3375



L(ucius) Sertorius L(ucii) f(ilius) | Pob(lilia) Firmus | signif(er) aquil(ifer) leg(ionis) XI | Claud(iae) Piae Fidelis | missus curat(or) veter(anorum) | leg(ionis) eiusdem | Domitiae L(ucii) f(iliae) | Priscae uxori



'Lucius Sertorius Firmus, son of Lucius, from the Poblilian voting district, standardbearer, eaglebearer of legio XI Claudia pia fidelis, retired, curator of the veterans of the same legion for Domitia Prisca, daughter of Lucius, his wife'


As for the question of formations, Vegetius is not the clearest source for the formation of the Roman Army. The trouble with him is that he picks fragments of earlier and recent practice, weapons and troop-types and mixes them together into a store he likes. For instance: the names of the soldiers in the line (Principes, hastati, triarii and light-armed or velites), he seems to have read in Polybius VI.21-24, but cohorts didn't exist then. Then again, plumbatae are (for him) very recent.

In the Polybian system, the velites would hold a skirmishing line in front of the legion and would withdraw when attacked by heavy infantry. The first line of heavy infantry was formed by the centuries of hastati, the second by the principes (maybe Vegetius was confused by the terminology) and the last line by the triarii. This difference disappears in the Imperial legions, when the formation would be determined by the seniority of the cohort (which is a very late Republican innovation). Vegetius describes this too: 1st cohort right flank, first line, the second next to it etc.

But exactly how the legion would be formed depended on the situation, lay of the land, disposition of the enemy, etc. The legion could be formed up in two lines of five cohorts, three in 4-3-3 etc.

The number of ranks and files would again have been flexible. Within the basic legionary units, century and maniple/cohort, it would be up to the commanding officer to decide about with and depth of the legion's frontage. On a wide front a century could be formed in 10 lines of 8 man, or deeper: 8 and 10. But of course many more options were possible.

Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius:
It is not a question of whether or not they could form phalanx, but rather one of whether or not they did. They did not.

What source do you have that you could make such a definitive statement?

That is some nice information Zaknafien, and very interesting. :2thumbsup:
Plus I now know where to stick my first cohort.

Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius:
A shield wall, ok, but not a phalanx.

What would be the fundamental difference, according to you?

Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius:
Relax Wiggy, nobody's trying to second guess your expertise. I must have missed that.

It is not a question of whether or not they could form phalanx, but rather one of whether or not they did. They did not. They fought in the third row of the manipular legion, primarily as reserves. It is true that their maniples were were smaller (only 30 men per century, rather than the 60 men that each century of hastati and principes had), so they were spread more thinly across the back row, this being the case, they would not be deep enough to intend to form a phalanx. A shield wall, ok, but not a phalanx.

The reason they did not fight in phalanx formation is that it is not flexible enough to fight anywhere but on flat ground. What prompted the transition from the old style phalanx was that they had to move into difficult mountainous terrain to contend with the tribes of Italy, like the Samnites.

...do I have to put a disclaimer on here that says I acknowledge that you already know what I'm writing so nobody gets miffed at me?

Actually I think you'll find that the nominal strength of a manipule of Hastati or Principae was 160. I either case it should be obvious to you, since you are so knowledable that the Triarii cannot have fought along the same frontage as the other lines, because they would have been breached too easily. Try a smaller, more compact formation.

Further, for your information, a hopilte phalanx is identical to a germanic shieldwall. Both are a close ordered body of spearmen. The hoplite phalanx is not as inflexable as you might imagine, the primary issue being mobility. It remained the best formation for holding ground anywhere.

Thermopalae ring any bells?

Oh, and yes, if you are going to explicitly question the competence of my faction then you had better expect a harsh response. Who said you could call me Wiggy anyway?

The issues of the hoplite shield and exactly when cohorts were introduced are up to debate. It may be that the aspis was abandoned with the reforms or that it was retained until the time of Polybius. Similarily the absense of information does not mean that the Camillian legion did not have cohorts.

We have made the best decisions we can based on the sources available.

If you think we're wrong I suggest you produce some evidence.

(Zak, thanks buddy, lovely to have sources on hand, isn't it?)

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
Actually I think you'll find that the nominal strength of a manipule of Hastati or Principae was 160. I either case it should be obvious to you, since you are so knowledable that the Triarii cannot have fought along the same frontage as the other lines, because they would have been breached too easily. Try a smaller, more compact formation.

Incorrect. Each maniple consisted of 2 centuries of 60 men each (120) except in the case of the triarii (2 x 30 = 60). I didn't say they could not have, I said they didn't.

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
Further, for your information, a hopilte phalanx is identical to a germanic shieldwall. Both are a close ordered body of spearmen. The hoplite phalanx is not as inflexable as you might imagine, the primary issue being mobility. It remained the best formation for holding ground anywhere.

Thermopalae ring any bells?

Just because they overlap shields does not make them identical.
Yes, I recall hearing something about Thermopolae in graduate school. It's in Greece, right? Thermpolae, while a great military accomplishment, gets a little bit too much praise. While the Spartan and Theban military tactics were great, don't forget, they were fighting against a bunch of shirtless guys with wicker shields that all spoke different languages (must have been tough to command).

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
Oh, and yes, if you are going to explicitly question the competence of my faction then you had better expect a harsh response. Who said you could call me Wiggy anyway?

Your faction? Really? I didn't "explicitly question the competence" of anybody. I simply stated that I saw some inconsistencies with what I have learned over the years. The sheer defensiveness that you are displaying is somewhat disturbing. I think you should relax and not take yourself so seriously. Nobody said I could call you Wiggy. I just guessed.

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
We have made the best decisions we can based on the sources available.

And you've all done a great job. I think I mentioned that in my first post.

Feel free to kick me in the balls if there's an answer here already, but how long were the spears the triarii use?

Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius:
Incorrect. Each maniple consisted of 2 centuries of 60 men each (120) except in the case of the triarii (2 x 30 = 60). I didn't say they could not have, I said they didn't.

Up for debate, Daniel Peterson favours an 80 man century for Principae and Hastati, to name only one.

Originally Posted by :
Just because they overlap shields does not make them identical.
Yes, I recall hearing something about Thermopolae in graduate school. It's in Greece, right? Thermpolae, while a great military accomplishment, gets a little bit too much praise. While the Spartan and Theban military tactics were great, don't forget, they were fighting against a bunch of shirtless guys with wicker shields that all spoke different languages (must have been tough to command).

The "shirtless barbarian" angle as regards the Persians is rather outdated. Simply because they did not fight as close order heavy infantry did not make them incompetant.

Name the significant differences between the two formations. Saying one is better trained is a question of quality, nothing more.

Originally Posted by :
Your faction? Really? I didn't "explicitly question the competence" of anybody. I simply stated that I saw some inconsistencies with what I have learned over the years. The sheer defensiveness that you are displaying is somewhat disturbing. I think you should relax and not take yourself so seriously. Nobody said I could call you Wiggy. I just guessed.

Check the Sig, Romani faction. I'm not defensive. You are offensive. "Things I need in EB" suggests EB cannot do without your imput, that we must listen to you and that you are absolutely right. None of which is true.

Originally Posted by :
And you've all done a great job. I think I mentioned that in my first post.

Thankyou, but it rings hollow after all the criticism.

Originally Posted by Thaatu:
Feel free to kick me in the balls if there's an answer here already, but how long were the spears the triarii use?

As an educated guess I'd give anything up to 2.5 meters. Or at least all I've read says that's pretty much the longest soldiers can be expected to manage one-handed.

And I must also day I don't quite get what's the supposed difference between "phalanx" and "shieldwall" either (not counting the game-mechanical difference in BI). Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Something that has always confused me is EB's choice to give Camillan Triarii the RTW Phalanx formation. Specifically, if the Triarii faught in a way comparable to classical Hoplites, and if it has frequently been said that Hoplites traditionally used what is closer to a shieldwall than RTW's Phalanx formation (ie a Macedonian-style phalanx), then shouldn't the Triarii fight without the Phalanx formation?

It strikes me as being a little inconsistent - is there a reason for choosing the Phalanx formation over a formation more like that of a traditional Hoplite, or the Hypaspistai secondary attack?

Or have I missed something entirely?

I've wondered about that as well. The old hoplite phalanx from vanilla has been used to represent the Ippikrathian fighting style for the Koinon Hellenon. It seems a bit odd that the Romans have a unit capable of doing the same thing.

Currently the phalanx is used to represent a range of close order fighting styles. It is mainly a game limitation. The Triarii fight in the same manner as the Corinthian Hoplite, not that of the Successor's pike phalanx.

Lord Condormanius, we are still waiting for the sources you have to support your statements.

Until such time as you present them it is hard to take you seriously.

Originally Posted by Cheexsta:
Something that has always confused me is EB's choice to give Camillan Triarii the RTW Phalanx formation. Specifically, if the Triarii faught in a way comparable to classical Hoplites, and if it has frequently been said that Hoplites traditionally used what is closer to a shieldwall than RTW's Phalanx formation (ie a Macedonian-style phalanx), then shouldn't the Triarii fight without the Phalanx formation?

It strikes me as being a little inconsistent - is there a reason for choosing the Phalanx formation over a formation more like that of a traditional Hoplite, or the Hypaspistai secondary attack?

Or have I missed something entirely?

This is mainly due to the problems of implementing the classical solid but flexible hoplite phalanx correctly in RTW. Some of our units have already an implementation to sort this out and the early Triarii will benefit from this.

I haven't read any in-depth literature about Roman military organisation, but I was suddenly reminded about this.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

Originally Posted by :
The divisions were now of ten maniples. The figures are a bit unclear, but what is known is that the hastati maniple consisted of 120 men.

Subdivisions of all three ranks (hastati, principes, triarii) was one of ten maniples. A maniple is defined as consisting of 160 men. (Although the hastati are supposedly had 120 per maniple. The figures are confusing. I assume that the maniple was brought its full numbers by the addition of velites. i.e. 120 hastati + 40 velites = 160 men = 1 maniple)

Originally Posted by :
It emerges that now it was the velites who were the more mobile troops who operated in the front of the army, stinging the enemy with their javelins, before retiring through the ranks of the hastati and principes

I don't know how much work the author of this site put into research, so I won't vouch for him. But if it's true it would explain the confusion.

I've read basically the same thing elsewhere. Its like a lot of things, reading just one source is a good way to get it wrong. Another thing to say is that the Legion did have cohorts early on, composed of all three lines and velites.

Regardless, he's talking pre-Polybius.

Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

You don't need to be so offended when someone decides to question something.

Originally Posted by fallen851:
Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

You don't need to be so offended when someone decides to question something.

Ten academics, from different parts of the world differing diciplines and different sources have all come to the same conclusion about our Triarii. If number eleven wants to argue he will need sources, he has provided none.

End of.

Originally Posted by fallen851:
Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

You don't need to be so offended when someone decides to question something.

And you needn't bear grudges and interject such grudges in the midst of a discussion about which you've got nothing else to add. The title of the post is mildly irritating to people who work like the dickens to make the mod in the first place, that's what WI was referring to and he clearly said it. You've raised another issue in another thread here today and there's no problem with doing so. Is the reply sufficiently to your liking and approval?

Even though I have nothing to do with the team, I do find the original post a little insulting and generally speaking "Some things I(!) need in EB" is a very bad title...

Considering that the EB team is now going 200 km/h trying to wrap up 0.8, people should atleast be polite.

Thankyou for articulating my thoughts, TK.

I didn't show you my sources? Oh that's right, I just remembered: I don't give a crap.

This whole thing started as an observation until Wiggy and some other EB geniuses got offended. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to pour over every source (there aren't that many to begin with) for he sake of proving a point that I obviously don't care as much about as some people do.

You can make your mod however the hell you want. I just thought I would offer a friendly observation. If I had known that you guys were so perfect and unable to be criticized, I would not have bothered. It's hard for you to take me seriously? That's just something you're going to have to live with.

Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius:
I didn't show you my sources? Oh that's right, I just remembered: I don't give a crap.

This whole thing started as an observation until Wiggy and some other EB geniuses got offended. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to pour over every source (there aren't that many to begin with) for he sake of proving a point that I obviously don't care as much about as some people do.

You can make your mod however the hell you want. I just thought I would offer a friendly observation. If I had known that you guys were so perfect and unable to be criticized, I would not have bothered. It's hard for you to take me seriously? That's just something you're going to have to live with.

One question for u man...If u dont bother to find your sources for your statement...Why write something in the first place?????:dizzy2:

Two reasons:

1. I don't think that every comment a person makes needs sources. I don't normally sit around my computer with a bunch of ancient texts, at least not anymore. I feel confident enough in my knowledge and education to make certain statements. If anyone disagrees with me, so be it.

2. I am writing a dissertation on the 1916 Easter Rebellion in Dublin, and frankly, I don't have the time to go searching through sources, just to prove a point to someone whose only interest is belligerence. It is a waste of time that could be spent more fruitfully.

Originally Posted by fallen851:
Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

I know I'm new here, but that seems to sum it up.

I'm sorry if I used a colloquialism in the title that some folks took a little bit to heart. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

Another reason would be that I was never asked nicely enough to consider it important.

I am really sorry, Lord Condormanius. This as really got out of hand, I'm afraid, and the EB team as a whole have come off in a bad light. Obviously your suggestions are serious ones, and you raise a valid argument (though as Wiggy has tried to explain, not a sound one), but I feel that our responses have been far too short with you, and I wish to apologise for this lack of civility.

Not in a method of defense, I must just say that your original post did come off as something of an unsupported, unconstructive criticism. Instead of asking why we had chosen the route we had chosen, you seemed to be saying that we were wrong, but without offering any evidence. That, plus the rather overpowering title may have got the whole debate off on the wrong foot.

Wigferth and others are historians, and they take it very seriously - that's why we have them - and your post seemed more in keeping with the vehemence of Fallen851 or Darkarbiter, and their put down may have been to harsh to compensate for this. I'm sorry that none of our other EB members (I include myself for that more than anyone in this mistake) had the thought of calming this situation down, asking everyone to restate their position, and continue from there in a far more relaxed way.

I cannot, and do not speak for the whole team, but I am sorry that things got this far, and you had to be subject to some rather scathing responses. I hope you are able to put this behind you, accept the apology, and keep posting as you obviously have a keen interest in this timeperiod (as do we) and are the kind of fan that we truly wish to cater for.

Foot

Done and done.

Originally Posted by Foot:
I am really sorry, Lord Condormanius. This as really got out of hand, I'm afraid, and the EB team as a whole have come off in a bad light. Obviously your suggestions are serious ones, and you raise a valid argument (though as Wiggy has tried to explain, not a sound one), but I feel that our responses have been far too short with you, and I wish to apologise for this lack of civility.

Not in a method of defense, I must just say that your original post did come off as something of an unsupported, unconstructive criticism. Instead of asking why we had chosen the route we had chosen, you seemed to be saying that we were wrong, but without offering any evidence. That, plus the rather overpowering title may have got the whole debate off on the wrong foot.

Wigferth and others are historians, and they take it very seriously - that's why we have them - and your post seemed more in keeping with the vehemence of Fallen851 or Darkarbiter, and their put down may have been to harsh to compensate for this. I'm sorry that none of our other EB members (I include myself for that more than anyone in this mistake) had the thought of calming this situation down, asking everyone to restate their position, and continue from there in a far more relaxed way.

I cannot, and do not speak for the whole team, but I am sorry that things got this far, and you had to be subject to some rather scathing responses. I hope you are able to put this behind you, accept the apology, and keep posting as you obviously have a keen interest in this timeperiod (as do we) and are the kind of fan that we truly wish to cater for.

Foot

Ahh.How nice.Group hug you guys (and stop fighting)~:grouphug:

Foot is definately a 10-star diplomat, I'd say. LC, Id be more than happy to discuss roman military scholarship with you, and I'm always open to new ideas and research from *gasp* yes even modern scholars.

Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
Foot is definately a 10-star diplomat, I'd say.

I've been in the same city to long :grin:

Foot

I'm perfectly willing to engage in debate but you have to understand that the tone of your first post was rather forceful and given the number of complaints we get from people who do not know what they are talking about we get a bit touchy when someone comes in and says "I want this in."

Not that I'm saying we can't take criticism, but you should understand that your post appears a certain way in light of the other stuff we get here.

This whole debate has been incredibly childless, and clearly less about discerning the facts than pissing. The title, by accepted social conventions, is fairly forceful, if not rude and pretentious. But beyond that, I believe the crux of the argument lies here:

Originally Posted by :
This whole thing started as an observation until Wiggy and some other EB geniuses got offended. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to pour over every source (there aren't that many to begin with) for he sake of proving a point that I obviously don't care as much about as some people do.

If you don't give a crap, then shut up. If you're going to propose historical/technical changes to people who do give a crap, and have spent hours poring over sources, then you sure as hell better have done something similar. You, without providing any background our support for your argument, attempted to temporarily step into the role of an EB Team Member - something that everyone who makes a productive suggestion does - but then didn't bother to back yourself up. So, long story short, you don't go to a funeral in your boxers, cause, not only is it disrespectful, but more pertinant to you, you look like an idiot next to everyone else. If you really didn't give a crap, you wouldn't have come.

Blah, blah...

I thought this thing was dead already.

If you're not bothered about offending people and don't care about the topic you started why are you on the forum.

Nothing on this whole page 2 pertains to the original questions asked. Thread closed.