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

[SlickNicaG69]

You know, NOT 1 person has agreed with my opinion that Rome was BY FAR the greatest civilization of the ancient world (and possibly of all time) and, thus, incomparable to any other civilization that has not been deemed great by the standards of humanity. Either you all are ignorant, or assume that what people have said for MILENNIA is wrong. The audacity... but, like a True Roman, I will try my best to illuminate the barbarian, if but for his own good:

Firstly, this rather highlights the point that was being made; that progress isn't linear and that what may seem progress in the eyes of contemporary 'historians' is not necessarily progress for many living under the institutions brought about by it. Serfdom in the 15th century, and the near slavery of those Gauls living under the oligarchic institutions so favoured by (and favourable to) Rome were not an improvement for those 'classes' of peoples... ... And that there are 'crack addicts', 'smackheads' etc. surely says something about the state of the 'civilised' modern world. Also, how do you think those citizens in the US and most of Western Europe sustain the 'fat of the land' lifestyles; what makes these civilisations so 'great'? (especially considering the huge amounts of personal and institutional debt). Would it not be more accurate to ask whether one would rather be a factory worker in China, or a farm worker in Africa as a more realistic 'simily'?

No Gracchus. The comparison you speak of would be a legitimate one if the subjects were also similar to mine... China is not the dominant power of the world, it is the United States. Just as back then Rome was dominant, while Parthia was not. Also, you totally screw up the discussion by you saying that a portion of the individuals didn't benefit or actually lost benefits. As a True Roman, I will not deny the truth, but it is much more true that what my argument deals with is a society rather than a social group; with a country rather a tribe; with a civilization and culture rather than a custom. When I bring the analogy of the modern crack addict vs. the feudal serf, you must realize that a feudal serf (which I guess could be personified by your example of the modern Chinese worker to a certain extent) was on his own, without any notion of hope in the form of welfare, free housing, food stamps, and all the amenities that our civilization provides to its citiziens for merely being a part of it (something I think not even the Atenians themselves believed in). A serf, though part of a civilization, was given nothing and had everything taken away. That is progress and a clear distinction between the sophisticated and un-sophisticated.

I'd call a period of civil war pretty destructive - and I believe that's what MisterFred made specific reference to. As to what he did for the Gauls.... how many does he, himself, claim to have killed and sold into slavery? For the average pleb in Caesar's time, how was their world made better by Caesar? And..., what do you mean by, "as if the Gauls......even knew what they were"?

I meant the Gaul comment as referencing Mr. Fred's fanatic zeal of aggrandizing the Gauls and deriding the Romans. He sounded, to me, like the defense lawyer of a clear, but rich rapist who uses technicalities to win arguments but no substance. I guess nobody got it though.

About yours, however, the civil war was caused by the Senate, not Caesar, my friend. And since when should we deride the Romans for not looking out for anything but their own interest, especially in such primitive a time? How did the Gauls act when they sacked Rome? When the Goths did? They merely used their victory for plunder and destruction, while the Romans used theirs to create something new... does Paris and London ring a familiar bell? I believe the Roman way to be a much more civilized and sophisticated approach.

Ahhh...., so it's hero-worship. The cult of personality. If a man is in the history books he must be worth more than some 'faceless' pleb..... I think that you rather expose your own 'prejudices' here...

No, I'm just tired of people dismissing the ancients as reliable evidence and using their own "theories" in their place. To me, as a True Roman, no theory is valid without a source. What I was trying to do there was simply to shed light on Mr. Fred to have more respect on such sources, Thank You.

Apart from the fact that what I certainly do not see in today's world is the adherence to a "common religion"

Most of you should take classes in the art of politicking, for one of its basest lessons is not to support your argument with flimsy assumptions and lies that can be easily refuted. I never said humanity's progress to be, or have been, "hippy happy hoppy." And if you read my words correctly, you would realize that I was referring to a culture within the confines of a civilization. However, the fact is that a common religion is much more prevalent that just amongst a lone civilization, but now even spans continents (Christianity in America and Europe, Islam from Africa to Pakistan, Buddism in Asia, Hinduism in India). Of course there are many more, smaller religions, and even subdivisions of each of these major religions, but even from a theological perspective!, isn't a little odd to you that, with the exception of Buddhists and Hindus, the vast majority of people on this Earth believe in only one God? That trend, of a common human progress, is the essence of what I'm talking about.

I'm interested in how this single "standard of humanity" is represented in the varying forms of subjugation of people within political-geographical areas. I certainly see that there is a movement against the Western hegemony which has latched itself, for the most part, to a 'brand' of Islam... I just don't see the hippy happy hoppy "concept of humanity" and 'civilsed progress' that you seem convinced is the reality of the 21st Century.

Wait, so Terrorism, to you, is something that is destined, or can be destined, to advance humanity? It is not just a fanatical movement destined for its very aim of destruction and strife? Do you really think humanity will accept Terrorism as the method of warfare for the future??? Please explain!

But as for my explanation, take, for example, the invention of the gun. It was made in China but ultimately transformed the way MAN, not just the Chinese, fought and died, regardless of the "political-geographical area." Think of Christianity and how it subjugated the invading barbarians. Think of the Italians and their Renaissance. Think of ALL the great things that have been passed on not just from relative to relative, or countryman to countryman, but MAN to MAN! Aren't those things the greatest of them all?!

As for the Muslims 'following on' from Rome.....what a lovely, tidy recant of 'history'... Wasn't quite like that though, was it?

No, Gracchus, but if you want, you can wait 2 more years until I finish my state-of-the-art time machine so you can go back yourself and find out EXACTLY what is was like without the aqueducts and roads and sense of freedom (relative to 600 AD).

I'm glad you've brought the muslim world up though, because they didn't just fuse the mathemeatics/science/literature of the East and West... they saved the west from it's own 'civilised' prejudices. Many of the great Greek works only exist because of the muslim translation movement; because the true followers of Rome, in that ever so progressive march forward, had destroyed many of the Greek writings as pagan muck.

So you diss the Latins, but for what purpose? That is not the subject my friend. That is your main problem. You always seek to win an argument by derision and slander. If I were like you, I would say that true followers of Rome weren't actually Romans, but barbarian usurpers. What does anything they did have anything to do with the Romans?!

This is very obtuse....

Then help my obtuseness by helping me figure out what your boy meant.

[MisterFred]

Heh, that was just hilarious. I can never tell if he's trolling or not.

There's not really any need to respond to anything here, but I'll take a second to say I'd rather live a humble life in pretty much any crappy ancient civilization than be a crackhead. I've had the unfortunate experience of knowing a crackhead. That stuff messes you up, and no amount of modern amenities changes that.

[antisocialmunky]

Whatever happened with the Rome Killer group? You would think they would be all over this.

[SlickNicaG69]

Ahhh... I see. It's gone from being a question of 'civilisation' to a question of the ability to be 'great', a very subjective term which basically means - could they be like the Romans..

Nothing that frustrates me more than when people have no idea what they're talking about. But to make it clear: Call it "civiliation" or "greatness," if you can interpret English, you will know what I mean. What I mean is Rome, Carthage, Athens, Macedon, Egypt, Persia. What you mean is Gauls, Vandals, Goths, Britons, Huns, Picts, Lombards, etc.

What it says about their government is that it was already in thrall to Rome. What it says about the people is that they were ripe for action asgainst those who had, essentially, betrayed them.

So by Caesar accounting that some Gaulish tribes were given to the luxuries of modernization is reflective of only a select few within the tribe but not of the whole? That just doesn't make sense. An epidemic, as he described the Belgae to view the "corruption" undergone by the other Gauls, is not of a select few, but of the greater whole, is it not?



Also, how does the story of Avaricum fit in with this suggestion? The Gauls were always a divided people, incapable of anything greater than the tribal structure of government.

Caesar only just defeated the Gauls, make no mistake. There were plenty of times that his forces were close to being overrun. Had it not been Caesar (and his very capable legates)..........?

As the saying goes: "In war, important events result from trivial causes." Tell me of all those close calls, when did they occur because the circumstances were not trivial or a product of Celtic treachery? When were they rather a product of the use of sound military strategy. The only one I think that can support your argument, would be Vercingetorix's scortched-earth policy, but that really achieved nothing due to cities such as Avaricum.

What the Gallic wars showed was that there was a recognition of a Gallic 'nation', that to be a 'Gaul' had meaning in itself, even beyond the socio-political entity of a tribe or pagi;

So in the midst of all this Gallic nationalism I ask again, why?, my friend, did Avaricum not listen? Why did Caesar still have Gallic allies?

...that, with a defeat over the Romans there could very well have been - under the right ruler, a charismatic and powerful noble who had proved himself superior to the Romans - a 'revolution' in Gaul. The pro-Roman aristocracy would have lost their power base, and so new institutions would have replaced their 'senates'. What you fail to acknowledge is that these institutions represented the law, that there was a system of taxation and duties.

How does this prove anything bro??? This is all speculative. Kinda like if the Romans were all only 2ft tall, then yes, I agree that the Gauls would've defeated the Romans and become the major Mediterranean power that Rome was.

What you claim as being the cornerstones of modern civilisation ("read, write, practice modern science, and adhere to a common religion") were all present within the various Gallic polities.

This is something that is so far from fact I feel compelled not even to deem it worthy a response but I will for your sake. Gauls never had a native writing method. Gauls never practiced anything close to modern science... THEY BELIEVED IN DRUIDS NOT REASON! They couldn't develop seige equiment to assault fortified towns. So what makes you believe they were so advanced for their time?

And yet.... you continue to dismiss them as 'civilised'.... oh, sorry, now it has become a question of the measurement of 'greatness', hasn't it.

Because when I earlier had said that the main distinction from Romans and Barbarians was the essence of civilization, someone took the literal, technical approach of saying: "Oh but Gauls had a civilization with Senate, trade, economy, etc." So I had to change the term so that it would be more understandable to most of you.

I think you misunderstood my point. Whereas most Western polities have followed (more or less) Roman (late) practices in terms of governance, which tends to skew this idea of 'progress' as if it is, naturally, linear and inevitable (along a given path defined by modern Western political structures), Switzerland followed a different model.

Which is why Switzerland has always been the standard of mediocrity. All that capital, but no motivation to use it. Kinda like the Rhodisians... lol. Wait, that would be dissing the Rhodisians... -_-

By which standard the Romans were illiterate, given that their alphabet is simply an evolution of the Etruscan alphabet, which is itself an evolution of the Western Greek alphabet..... That is not what is meant by claiming the Gauls were illiterate.

Fyi... The Romans were once Etruscans.

[SlickNicaG69]

Whatever happened with the Rome Killer group? You would think they would be all over this.

What is the Rome Killer Group?

[Ludens]

It seems that everybody in this discussion has stated their position, and is not going to be moved from it. If you disagree with my assessment, please PM me, but I am closing this thread.

Thread closed.

[SlickNicaG69]

Heh, that was just hilarious. I can never tell if he's trolling or not.

There's not really any need to respond to anything here, but I'll take a second to say I'd rather live a humble life in pretty much any crappy ancient civilization than be a crackhead. I've had the unfortunate experience of knowing a crackhead. That stuff messes you up, and no amount of modern amenities changes that.

True, but not if you're a crackhead and you're high on crack! Hahahaha.

But in regards to being a troll, this would be enough for the classification:

Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless one places unreasonably high values on cows and pigs) than your average Puritan.

Hahaha. I'm just imagining how better it was for the typical Indian who went to take a leak at his local pond, not realizing it was rival chief's pond instead, and getting shot through the the penis with an arrow for trespassing. At least the Puritans all could urinate in peace.