Quote Originally Posted by Brennus View Post
I haven't seen any of their history department, sorry. But why be an historian when you could be an archaeologist? So much more depth. They way I like to look at it is the historian can read Caesar's Gallic Wars and say what the Aedui were doing in 54BC. The archaeologist can tell you what they had been wearing, eating and how healthy they were in 54BC.

Without the archaeological evidence EB would very bland, the Sauromatae, early Saka, Casse, Lusotann and for the most part the Aedui, Arverni and Sweboz would probably be just as generic as the "barbarians" in RTW vanilla. Not to offend the historians amongst us, without you the Hellenic factions and Roma would be very lacking, I just prefer knowing what individuals wore in antiquity rather than where they were.
When I applied for university I wanted to take archeology first, but somehow () I ended up at history and I still don't regret it. As one of my favourite professors said, the historian's work is like an investigator's, we have puzzle pieces and an unknown case, so our job is to solve the puzzle and find out what really happened. The archeologists' work is different, they find the pieces and analyze them, but it's not their job to put this into the whole picture. For example in Hungary, the archeology bachelors study Pannonia province a lot, while the Roman Empire as a whole not, it's exactly the opposite with us. But it depends on what you like actually, I more like to "work" with the big picture.