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

[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.