Quote Originally Posted by paullus View Post
SlickNica, I'd never thought of actually using the primary sources...

And I guess I should stop using my Clausewitz to design EB2... you do grasp, right, that that's what Dodge is arguing against? He's railing against extensive, revisionist anachronism by modernists and armchair historians entertaining inquiries into antiquity. Is there some reason you think we're guilty of that?

C'mon dude, what's the beef? Upset about something? We make extensive use of primary sources. In fact, Polybius in most respects is just an early secondary source (he can also be read as a primary source, and is a primary source for some things). Alongside our ancient historians, we use archaeology, epigraphy, papyrology, and scholarly works in various fields of inquiry to craft our depictions of the ancient world.
No beef man. But, to further the conversation, give me an example where any of your modern sciences successfully refuted something that the classics themselves haven't already, that would apply to the game? I don't feel any "beef." All I feel is that I get the feeling that some people, if reading a source that is inaccurate (such as various instances of Livy) we take that as an authorization to develop a theory. Rather, I believe theories should only be developed if ALL sources have been looked at, and are deemed inaccurate. You feel me? Such as, like I said, the fable of Romulus and Remus. Livy, per my example, constantly goes off-hand on speculation, but we have Polybius as the remedy. Since we have the remedy, there is no need to operate...