An Irish protest

[oudysseos]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

[oudysseos]

Here's a great example from Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...=ILCNETTXT3487

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Here's a great example from Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...=ILCNETTXT3487

Thanks for that link, it re-inforces what I have begun to suspect more and more; that the history Rome has handed down to us (of Rome 'civilising' the Barbarian world) is far from being an accurate portrayal of events. I get a little hot under the collar when I see documentaries just re-hashing that tale. I think that alot more work needs to be undertaken to understand the cultures that existed prior to Roman hegemony - I know that there is a fair bit ongoing (cmaq's great Lugione preview highlights a fair deal, and the discovery and works at the many Boii 'oppida', not to mention such places as Bibracte, Gergovia and Avaricum) but.....more could be done, and it'd be nice to see some of that work hauled together and publicised a little more.

[Kikaz]

Hm, I'm not particularly keen on making part of Ireland (or Scandinavia) unconquerable... If the areas had no government structure, then they should be made part of a nearby province; even so, it's not as though those areas didn't have a unique culture or didn't have people, that alone should make some sort of province justifiable, otherwise you basically have to sit there and look at a place that is, for all non-cartographic intents and purposes, not there. A simplification: A basic, generalized settlement being present, would be more realistic than nothing at all.

[antisocialmunky]

Could you in addition to the Eremos change make a PSF in each of the ungovernable areas and use a garrison script to spawn uber stacks of rebels if the PSF is attacked or held by the player?

[cmacq]

Not to draw too fine a point, yet if anyone here could please explain what the tree-rings of Irish Oaks tell us about the near total absence of any archaeological evidence of human settlement, of any significance in the LpRIA or early RIA, either in Erie or northern Alba, that would be really great.

And, I quote:

D Rumsfelt
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

May I add:

Yours Truely
There are those so-called known knowns we think we know, but all too often what we think are know as known, are in fact total BS.

I hope this may help.

[Brennus]

Not to draw too fine a point, yet if anyone here could please explain what the tree-rings of Irish Oaks tell us about the near total absence of any archaeological evidence of human settlement, of any significance in the LpRIA or early RIA, either in Erie or northern Alba, that would be really great.

And, I quote:


May I add:


I hope this may help.

I live with a Palaeoecology student, I will ask her and see if she can shed any light on it for you.

[fightermedic]

Not really a response to the thread as such, just an idea thrown out there: if you look at the areas that the Hellenic kingdoms and the Romans after them conquered and held in a reasonably stable, orderly fashion, they are largely areas that already had dense (by contemporary terms), cohesive, organized societies. The Romans could make 'good' provinces out of Gaul and southern Britain because the basic conditions for centralized control of the areas already existed: all the Romans had to do was co-opt the existing order. And even better example is Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia: after only three major battles (and some sieges and so on), he inserted himself into the existing power structure, which he left largely unchanged, excepting that he was now in charge. The situation would have been much different had there not already been a highly organized central government for him to take over.

Does this mean that the converse is true, i.e., are the areas that Rome did not conquer bound to be ones without advanced societies? I don't want to group all non-Roman areas of the world under one rubric, but there might be a grain of truth to that idea.

This could very well be the truth i think, as it reminds me very much of the situation in Chile, the natives living in the south had been as good as not conquerable as they were extremley decentralised and only when weapons were MUCH more advanced in the spanish north they were able to conquer the south

[Ca Putt]

for europe that may very well be true(I actually agree with you in that point) but it's certainly untrue for asia.

the other continents are much more mushy in that context.