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

[Geticus]

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.