History to Follow

**paullus** · 08-31-2010, 19:42

Ok Slick, one example: In Polybius' description of the Ptolemaic reforms prior to the battle of Raphia, he says that the Ptolemaic army was reorganized along ethnic lines, each nation to their own unit, and equipped with their nation's weaponry. By studying papyri, we can show this was not the case.

That's a very simple one, but I hope it's sufficient to show what I mean. Besides, I think you missed my point: we're not talking about modern sciences, we're talking about using an alternative, less accessible, often superior type of ancient source.

**oudysseos** · 08-31-2010, 20:34

The bad thing about the OP is that it is so vague and devoid of examples as to allow the poster to weasel out of any challenge. Slick is going to have to apply whatever his actual criticism is to some specific material. Where, precisely, have we not met and/or far exceeded any of the standards that he feels entitled to set for us? Pick one detail out of any of the EB2 previews and we'll go from there.

For example,

where things are uncertain, we must defer to the sources that started the discussion in the first place.

Meaninglessly circular. Essentially this says, "When your sources are vague, refer to other sources". Honestly, not a lot of help.

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.

Trite, trite. If there was one specific example, anywhere, in any of this hogwash, I might be able to better show what an meaningless platitude this is. "The sources", for example, are very uncertain, and in some cases downright erroneous, when it comes to detailed information about the military organization of the lPRIA Britons. Caesar, Tacitus, Diodorus, Strabo: not much actually there and some bona fide errors. There is archaeology, settlement pattern analysis, and some modern scholarship: but these things need an interpretive lens to be of any use in designing a game. So, we need a soi-disant 'theory': a vision of what kind of society we are dealing with, which informs decisions made in modeling and skinning the units.

if his true aim was to write a treatise rather than a report on events, why on Earth would he visit the battlefields to get a first person perspective of such things as the topography? Such work only requires basic knowledge of events and deep critical thought. He was writing history, not an academic paper.

Wretchedly articulated, to be sure. Many false assumptions. Pompous, as well. And as far as I can tell, absolutely no import for EB - like this thread, really.

the world as was then is much different as it is now.

What a stunning insight! I had never considered that!

I hope EB2 is based on all those primary sources which we{*} deem probable, likely, and true, for, after all, the main concern must be that we get things right.

And your point is? This having been the guiding principle of the Europa Barbarorum project since 2004, I think we can safely tag this one, "Well, duh!"

* We, means, of course, the EB team.

Moros really put it best. Slick is concerned that we don't do a good job at assessing the value of our various sources of information (without providing a single example of what he means). Moros, having torn himself away from the SpiceGirls for 3 seconds, correctly pointed out that just 'cos we didn't run it past Slick first, doesn't meant that we got it wrong.

**Megas Methuselah** · 08-31-2010, 20:43

I don't understand Slick's pidgeon-English. I mean, wow. I grew up in the ghetto, and even I didn't talk like that.

**Rahl** · 08-31-2010, 23:20

I'm sorry for the Offtopic, but I really must write this now.
How is it possible that intelligent people waste so much of their time on a troll like SlickNica? Do you really think he is serious about anything he writes? Or don't you know what he writes since he is member in this forum?
I think you're wasting your energy...

**Gustave** · 09-01-2010, 00:09

It looks like slicknica has too much free time too.

**Gaius Sempronius Gracchus** · 09-01-2010, 00:26

Originally Posted by Rahl

I'm sorry for the Offtopic, but I really must write this now.
How is it possible that intelligent people waste so much of their time on a troll like SlickNica? Do you really think he is serious about anything he writes? Or don't you know what he writes since he is member in this forum?
I think you're wasting your energy...

I think, in all seriousness, that SlickNica is no troll. He says it as he sees it. I think he really believes that the use of archaeology is a modern 'fad' and that, basically, anything that doesn't add up to the 'original sources' (which generally aren't original anyway, and are not written as a history as we might understand such now..but rather as polemics, or as 'moral guides' - and I'll refer you to your own words, Slic, in terms of the nature of such 'histories' "Thus, it is important to realize that the world as was then is much different as it is now. Whether better or worse, we cannot assume it worked in the same way it does now.")

I think Oudysseos has given the best reply, in so far as highlighting the paucity of any real argument within the OP, but I think it unfair to dismiss SlicNicka as simply a troll.

**Ludens** · 09-01-2010, 16:56

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

I think, in all seriousness, that SlickNica is no troll. He says it as he sees it. I think he really believes that the use of archaeology is a modern 'fad' and that, basically, anything that doesn't add up to the 'original sources'

I also think that Slick genuinely believes what he says, but I do suspect he is trying to provoke a response. Both here and in the Pritanoi-general thread he has criticized the source-preference of the EB team without giving examples of where they got it wrong. In other words: the posts assume rather than argue that the EB team made mistakes, and the vagueness of the arguments makes it hard for the EB team to counter them. As such, this thread seems intended to provoke rather than help.

Again: it's fine to criticize the EB team, but remember they are human and sometimes emotional about their work. So be specific, bring sources, and don't automatically assume you know better. See Khelvan's request here.

**Gaius Sempronius Gracchus** · 09-01-2010, 00:27

Originally Posted by Rahl

I'm sorry for the Offtopic, but I really must write this now.
How is it possible that intelligent people waste so much of their time on a troll like SlickNica? Do you really think he is serious about anything he writes? Or don't you know what he writes since he is member in this forum?
I think you're wasting your energy...

I think, in all seriousness, that SlickNica is no troll. He says it as he sees it. I think he really believes that the use of archaeology is a modern 'fad' and that, basically, anything that doesn't add up to the 'original sources' (which generally aren't original anyway, and are not written as a history as we might understand such now..but rather as polemics, or as 'moral guides' - and I'll refer you to your own words, Slic, in terms of the nature of such 'histories' "Thus, it is important to realize that the world as was then is much different as it is now. Whether better or worse, we cannot assume it worked in the same way it does now.")

I think Oudysseos has given the best reply, in so far as highlighting the paucity of any real argument within the OP, but I think it unfair to dismiss SlicNicka as simply a troll.

**Bucefalo** · 09-01-2010, 15:22

I have read and re-read the original post and i think that i am starting to understand what was some of the intention of the thread. I think the key is this sentence: "The reason I bring this up is because, in some previous posts, a significant portion of people seem to possess a prejudice for the latest history book or the lastest scientific article."

It looks like what SlickNica was doing is criticising several posts that he read, the problem is that he created a new thread, instead of posting his criticism in the very same place where he read it. I think that is the main reason why the post is so confusing and don´t say anything in concrete. To the OP, if you want to criticise some post made by the EB team, then you should post the source you are criticising too, and allow the author to show his opinion as well. Perhaps you misunderstood the posts, or did not understand them the way the author intended them to be read.

I think is that is SlickNica is not trolling, but is being way too generalist and if he wants a proper discussion he needs to bring into the discussion the EB posts that caused him to write the thread.

As it is now there is not much content in the original post other than: "hey EB team i hope you are doing a good work, because i don´t want to be disappointed and see anything that i don´t consider accurate. So show me your methods and prove to me that you know what you are doing"

I hope i didn´t come off as too harsh, but really you should be more specific and to the point, if you had been your thread would probably have been treated in a more serious way.

**vartan** · 09-01-2010, 15:34

Lessons to be Learned
1) Specificity can and usually does shed a more focused spotlight on the issue(s) at hand.
2) Time management. It is wise to spend time on people and things that will bring about progressive change with regard to said issue(s). Anything else would be unwise management of time.