Pritanoi (and Casse) Generals-Innacurate?

[Moros]

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

[SlickNicaG69]

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There is a distinctive difference in writing what (according to you) is/was happening, and writing history. History does not merely seek to establish what is/has happening, it seeks to establish understanding of what is/was happening (causes, consequences and context).

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

[vartan]

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

+rep @ Maths analogy. Possibly one of the best ways to imagine your idea!

[seienchin]

History is just a matter of believe, mirroing your own ideals and today its also part of a scientific market. People need and want to make money and to justify the position of history as a scientific discipline.
It is of cause really hard to see this as persons who are in this circle.
Just one simple fact:
Most people cant even remember, what they ate 2 days ago and every information we store into our brains is altered from reality. Even worse is what happens to a message after communicating it to other people. Even more worse is translating between to languages, which is why most movies get worse after translating and to read ancient textes without any native speakers, who know the feeling and true meaning of words and the way of thinking. Even in written documents in a still spoken tongue (Even in english) people debate over things that were written, because there isnt anything like 100%truth in written or spoken words. So, if there is one document we read about lets say the roman army in latin, the possbility of someone really knowing the thruth afterwards are less than winning in the lottery.
Still, some people claim to know with a high possibility what happend in EB Timeframe? The fact that there are people who claim roman superiority and people who qualify that statemen or openly disagree is further proove that it is a matter of believing.

People, who studied 100years ago thought they knew something for sure. 100years of scientific and philosophical improvements later we know that this is not true.
It is funny, how the archaelogy in anglosaxon countries is so modern in its methods, but still there are so archaelogists, who dont believe or recall that they are only humans and have only evidence. They arent looking for the truth, they are looking for probabilities.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

History is just a matter of believe, mirroing your own ideals and today its also part of a scientific market. People need and want to make money and to justify the position of history as a scientific discipline.
It is of cause really hard to see this as persons who are in this circle.
Just one simple fact:
Most people cant even remember, what they ate 2 days ago and every information we store into our brains is altered from reality. Even worse is what happens to a message after communicating it to other people. Even more worse is translating between to languages, which is why most movies get worse after translating and to read ancient textes without any native speakers, who know the feeling and true meaning of words and the way of thinking. Even in written documents in a still spoken tongue (Even in english) people debate over things that were written, because there isnt anything like 100%truth in written or spoken words. So, if there is one document we read about lets say the roman army in latin, the possbility of someone really knowing the thruth afterwards are less than winning in the lottery.
Still, some people claim to know with a high possibility what happend in EB Timeframe? The fact that there are people who claim roman superiority and people who qualify that statemen or openly disagree is further proove that it is a matter of believing.

People, who studied 100years ago thought they knew something for sure. 100years of scientific and philosophical improvements later we know that this is not true.
It is funny, how the archaelogy in anglosaxon countries is so modern in its methods, but still there are so archaelogists, who dont believe or recall that they are only humans and have only evidence. They arent looking for the truth, they are looking for probabilities.

I think it would be better to say that, while they are looking for the truth, all they have to work with is probabilities....

[Captain Trek]

*Resists urge to weigh in on the pissing-contest*

That raises a good question... I wonder if the Pritanoi infantry bodyguards will have the same movement points as cavalry to reflect that they would ride to battle on chariots.

Another way to do this might be to give all Casse generals an automatic "rides a chariot" trait, which would give them a campaign-map movement bonus that would (assuming no other bonuses or penalties) put them up to the calavry movement rate... How does that sound?

[Moros]

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

History written by contemporaries still is synthesis and analysis and evaluation of sources,... unless you're talking about a diary? And amazingly you're still writing a reconstruction of the past.

You seem to be thinking in very simple, not to call idiotic, ways it seems...