Anybody feel like defending the honor? :)

[eadingas]

If anybody is bored and feels like defending the honor of the barbarians in a discussion, go to this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...d=1#post659498

[sharrukin]

If anybody is bored and feels like defending the honor of the barbarians in a discussion, go to this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...d=1#post659498

Doesn't sound like the guy is willing to listen to reason and to point out the obvious wouldn't help if he isn't willing to listen.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I know Pindar's oppinions well. He posted some things, long ago, at the first EB thread in the Colosseum. I'm sorry to say that he is just an ignorant. Not worth my bother. But maybe you could whip some sense and culture in to that limited mind.

[DemonArchangel]

Pindar=Brilliant in the tavern. (Except he's a damn dirty conservative)
and of course
he's a MORMON.
What do you expect?

[Ranika]

Hey, I'm a conservative, mostly economically and geopolitically, though, you'd find a lot of professional historians and antiquarians are. And he just seems like too much of a bother to argue with. If one is bent on a preconception of history and would refuse to listen to reason, no amount of proof can be offered to put to rest that manner of thought. You could explain all day that barbarians like Gaul didn't control single 'provinces', but rather large kingdoms, or that the Ptolemies built quality road networks, that the Celts had well maintained fleets (consider the Vascones immigrating to Hibernia in a large enough manner to construct a large city there, using what we believe to be the southern tallships in Ireland, was considering them as one of the fleet types for barbarians? I'll mention it in the proper thread sooner or later), that non-Romans had elaborate coinage, metalwork, clothing, etc. He won't care. If one has steeled themselves to accept a view of the ancient world, regardless of mountains of evidence, and flat out proofs, to the contrary, they aren't going to budge. It's just a way to start arguments, and heaven forbid we should seek them out. We'll have plenty of arguments about history on this project, but at least we have people who can be worked with. If you need a fix for arguing, argue here.

[Stefan the Berserker]

he's a MORMON

However, in my understanding of the word "barbarians" the Mormons are barbarians.

[The samnite]

What exactly is your definition of barbarian then? Any religious person?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's Pindar. Great debator, from what I've seen in the Backroom. And a great conservative ally. I think you just need to show him some good sources of information about "barbarians" to sway him.

[Stefan the Berserker]

What exactly is your definition of barbarian then? Any religious person?

I use the modern word "barbarian" for a couple of negative attributes on people, which behave against my viewpoint of Morale and modern Culture.

September 11 2001 was Barbarian.
Persecution of Homosexuals is Barbarian.
Death Penalty is Barbarian.
Destruction of Nature is Barbarian.

The Mormons are a fundamentalist christian sect which interprets Jesus Message in an very arch-conservative way which is mostly based on lies.

Of Course, now you may call me intolerant but Mormons are a variant of Christianity, my own religion. So I can't accept their radical viewpoints because then I would rely my own ones.

Because their arch-conservative viewpoints are so radical and unacceptable they are barbarian to my view.

In other words, "Barbarian" is equal in meaning with "Stupid Butthole", "People from Yesterday" or "Junkie".

[Stefan the Berserker]

Oh and yes: Historical Research is religious behaviour. Why?

Well, in Germany the interpretation of the national identity is based on the Family. Karl Marx developed an equal theory on the development of modern Society: Families in the Stoneage founded Grandfamilies incluedeing mostly all relatives, together the group of Humans could survive. In the Toolage and later those Grandfamilies combined to Tribes, like the Celtic and Germanic Tribes were subdivided into Familyclans. Then the Tribes combine into loose Alliances, which were later replaced by tight alliances called "Nation" and this process will never end.

A dead body of a Celtic Chieftain is the rest of an Ancestor or your People, maybe even a direct Ancestor of your own person. If you knew it was direct Ancestor of your own Person, of course then you would favor he did get a proper grave rather than beeing exposed in a Museum.

The western Germanic people are the Ancestors of the medieval teutonic-germans, the medieval teutonic-germans are the ancestors of the modern Germans. The Slavs in Ancient are the Ancestors of modern Slavs an so on.

You shall honor your Father and Mother.

This includes all of your Ancestors, who deserve a honorful treatment.

----------

If you are still not convinced start calculating 270 B.C. -> 2004 A.D. = 2274 Years. Theoretically every generation got 80 Years to live, that would make ~ 28 Generations to go backwards in time. You have two parents, they got two parents, so you have four Grandpartents, those have parents and you have eight Grand-Grandparents... Then you start on trying out who many 'parents' you have, 2 x 2 for the first and then again take the result with x 2 for 27 times: 268.435.456 Individuals are theoretically your Grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grandparents living in 270 B.C. !

That means calling Celts, Germanics, Slavs etc. your Ancestors is a biological Fact. Even if my calultion is wrong, and it is unless not every generation lived 80 years, you can see how many Individuals' Blood floods in your veins.

If someone could makes a more proper calculation on that thing, it could deserve its own thread!

[khelvan]

Just to be clear, any flame war, regardless of who started it, will be deleted from this forum.

Please make sure to keep the heated ones over in the Backroom ;)

[Big_John]

love your mod guys.. so are mormons going to be in the barbarian culture? that'd be sweet.

um, wait a sec, wth does any of this have to do with EB? shouldn't this whole thread be in the tavern or something?

anyway, i'm really, really, really looking forward to your product, i wish i could help, but i have neither the time nor the talent :/

[khelvan]

I have defended the honor!

[Big_John]

wait.. you guys have honor? since when?

[khelvan]

I don't, personally. I was defending the honor of the barbarians, who did!

[Big_John]

[The Panda Centurion]

That fool Pindar seems to have slithered into the shadows once more, the barbarians' honour is preserved!

- Panda

[Nowake]

It is futile to argue with Pindar. I had a 5 pages long argument with him once about morals and relativity. It doesn't matter we went from Einstein's theory to Kant, Nietzsche and Sartre, he kept going that morals are absolute, and communities have no power in shaping values. An horizont too narrow.


He never backs down, so why bother? This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time (is it plagiarism if we put it in another context? )

[Colovion]

plagiarism is a facade anyway, it assumes that only the person who spoke or wrote an idea is the only one who has ever had that idea

this is obviously not true, and to spread ideas more freely people should be more ready to disolve any notion of idea ownership and allow others to take, utilize, and expand on ideas already in practice.

believing in plagiarism is pure selfishness and poisons progress. If you must sign an idea as your own, dont' get upset if someone else uses it to prove a point of their own, it's just flattery, and you're not losing anything anyway.

ps - oh and about absolute morals, that's also bollocks; founded by relgious types and bred over millenia of religious oppresion. Now adays, moral codes are habit, even if they're really absurd. Just assume society doesn't know what they're talking about and go where your desires take you, not where their doctrine dictates.

[Nowake]

believing in plagiarism is pure selfishness and poisons progress. If you must sign an idea as your own, dont' get upset if someone else uses it to prove a point of their own, it's just flattery, and you're not losing anything anyway.

Hmm, yes, indeed, well, it's just that I wanted to draw attention on the fact that my last sentence is not to appear as original. A rethorical question

ps - oh and about absolute morals, that's also bollocks; founded by relgious types and bred over millenia of religious oppresion. Now adays, moral codes are habit, even if they're really absurd. Just assume society doesn't know what they're talking about and go where your desires take you, not where their doctrine dictates.

broadly, my point exactly, eventhough not all should go where their desires take them

[Colovion]

Hmm, yes, indeed, well, it's just that I wanted to draw attention on the fact that my last sentence is not to appear as original. A rethorical question



broadly, my point exactly, eventhough not all should go where their desires take them

well of course it's within reason, mainly structured by not harming others - other than that, go wild

[Brenus]

About the barbarians: Are barbarians the Others, The Aliens. Alexander was a Barbarian for the Greeks, his father at least, if you believe the Phillipiques.
The barbarians defended their honors, the only problem they had: It wasn't the same than the Romans'one.
Julius Cesare wrote he slaughtered quarter of the population of Gauls, enslaved an other quarter, and occupied what left. After a rebellion (I don't remember the name of the place -Bibracte- not sure), he blinded all the prisoners except one on ten whom he "just" took one eye to allowed the poor defeated warriors to go back home as an example... Who were the barbarians...
When, according some texts, the Gauls took Rome, the Romans complained they (the Gauls) were cheating on the weight of the ransom, the chief of the Gauls, throwing his sword on the balance just said "Vea Victis".

[Ellesthyan]

barbarians have a beard.

[Paul Peru]

It is futile to argue with Pindar. I had a 5 pages long argument with him once about morals and relativity. It doesn't matter we went from Einstein's theory to Kant, Nietzsche and Sartre, he kept going that morals are absolute, and communities have no power in shaping values. An horizont too narrow.

Not very EB related anymore, but religious fundamentalism is just so tragic. There's just no arguing with an almighty invisible friend whose logic defies the understanding of mere humans etc.
How can we ever get along if it's impossible to have a rational dialgoue
Unfortunately it seems that a tendency to strong religious feelings and irrational beliefs is genetically determined, and they do tend to get more children, don't they, so that proves all of their gods exist and up mine and Darwin's big time.

Regarding EB: I'm really looking forward to it! Am I ever? Oh yes!

[therecanbeonlywar!]

If one is bent on a preconception of history and would refuse to listen to reason, no amount of proof can be offered to put to rest that manner of thought. You could explain all day that barbarians like Gaul didn't control single 'provinces', but rather large kingdoms, or that the Ptolemies built quality road networks, that the Celts had well maintained fleets (consider the Vascones immigrating to Hibernia in a large enough manner to construct a large city there, using what we believe to be the southern tallships in Ireland, was considering them as one of the fleet types for barbarians? I'll mention it in the proper thread sooner or later), that non-Romans had elaborate coinage, metalwork, clothing, etc. He won't care. If one has steeled themselves to accept a view of the ancient world, regardless of mountains of evidence, and flat out proofs, to the contrary, they aren't going to budge. It's just a way to start arguments, and heaven forbid we should seek them out. We'll have plenty of arguments about history on this project, but at least we have people who can be worked with. If you need a fix for arguing, argue here.

The funny thing being that if I had proposed that the Eastern Han army was qualitatively better, especially regarding military technology, than the Imperial Roman army, no doubt that all of you would take the stance that Pindar took, despite the fact that I would offer mountain loads upon loads of flat-out evidence. I'm going off topic a bit, but it was just my observations and something very common I noticed happening.

[khelvan]

Obviously you haven't tried to make the argument to this group, if you think that you would get that sort of reaction. This group being the EB members. We have a few that would give you a knee-jerk reaction, but most would be open to scholarly debate.

[conon394]

therecanbeonlywar!

I imagine you might feel I’m in the knee jerk crowd.
But overall the historical record is so thin there is room to make and take a lot of diametrically opposed arguments and views with respect to Roman, or Han Chinese or Greeks or Celts of 2000 years ago. Honestly I think you can in all like hood marshal the proverbial mountain of evidence both for Rome or China as militarily superior. In disclosure I'll admit I think Rebublican Rome would defeat Han china (not so sure about the Empire)...

[The_Emperor]

The old sterotypes of "Barbarians" are hard to shake off...

The problem is with Roman Written records being taken as gospel for so long, especially as the documents themselves were not written as an attempt to record history accurately but rather to give personal prestige and political influence to the authors.

History is written by the victors.

And in today's terms it would be like having the Nazis win WW2 and future generations being forced to rely on Goebel's records as the only surviving sources...

In comparison with Written history, Archeology on the other hand has come up with some very surprising artifacts and finds that demonstrate that the Celts were skilled craftsmen and metalworkers, and archeology (much like forensics) builds up a picture of how all sorts of people lived in general.

History is written by the victors and the Romans knew that well. You only need look at what they did to Carthage to understand that.

[biguth dickuth]

And in today's terms it would be like having the Nazis win WW2 and future generations being forced to rely on Goebel's records as the only surviving sources...

You don't need to assume any alternative historical outcome. The americans and the soviets were both claiming to have been tha actual victors of WW2. Their peoples believed (and still believe, regarding the americans mostly, since there are no soviets anymore) that what their governments told them the truth. But which is the historical truth?
The greek state teaches children in history classes that the turks raped, slaughtered and deported the greek-speaking population of ionian cities like Smyrne in 1922. They conveniently "forget", though, that the greek army did the same to some of the turkish-speaking population of asia-minor, about a year before that. The turkish state, on the other hand, has a lot to teach to the children about the attrocities performed by the greek soldiers but doesn't really mention much about the ones performed by the turkish ones.
Where is the historical truth there? My point is that we don't need to use an unreal turn of events to prove how history is written by the victors. Actual events give us a lot of examples about how any authority creates a version of history that better suits it's interests.

[therecanbeonlywar!]

Obviously you haven't tried to make the argument to this group, if you think that you would get that sort of reaction. This group being the EB members. We have a few that would give you a knee-jerk reaction, but most would be open to scholarly debate.

therecanbeonlywar!

I imagine you might feel I’m in the knee jerk crowd.
But overall the historical record is so thin there is room to make and take a lot of diametrically opposed arguments and views with respect to Roman, or Han Chinese or Greeks or Celts of 2000 years ago. Honestly I think you can in all like hood marshal the proverbial mountain of evidence both for Rome or China as militarily superior. In disclosure I'll admit I think Rebublican Rome would defeat Han china (not so sure about the Empire)...

http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...showtopic=5422

http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...pic=5015&st=40

Though I might, at some point, post in those threads when I have the time to, I simply won't now because I am too exhausted and lack enough time to give complete replies to the various ignorant statements made. I laughed when I came upon these threads since the Roman/European supporters showed absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on the historical militaries of the empires of China and their comparisons were based on inaccurate and baseless assumptions of the supposed "lack of physical strength of 'Asians'" and that all "Asian" militaries were either Japanese (16th century Sengoku Jidai era ashigaru troops) or Persian (they assumed the Chinese armies were not much different from the Persians that were defeated by the Spartans at Thermopylae and thought that would happen to the troops of the Han Dynasty as well; Persians are Indo-Iranians, and therefore, Indo-Europeans, and the Persians are much more connected to the western world in terms of culture, linguistics, ethnicity, history, and military than the peoples of East Asia, obviously).

Referring to the first thread, not even mentioning that when one would take an objective stance and view the primary and reliable secondary sources at hand that the Western Jin (I have to admit that it was in a state of civil war and political instability, though again I was comparing the efficiency and effectiveness of the troops and not necessarily the political state of the two empires) troops were qualitatively and quantitatively (there is obviously no contention to this since the Eurocentric Roman supporters would usually try to enforce an inaccurate "huge waves upon waves of weak, little Chinese peasants wielding pitchforks and other farm equipment" type of stereotype on the Chinese armies) better than the contemporary Imperial Roman troops of circa 300 AD, there is almost no possible way 4th century Roman troops would take on and win against a 13th century "Chinese" (again, I doubt the Roman supporters know anything about Chinese history since they make no mention of what empire they were specifically referring to, it could either be the Jin, Xi-Xia, or Southern Song) army that was literally light years ahead of the 4th century Imperial Roman army. Even the much less militant troops of the southern Song woud still be able to take on and defeat the 4th century imperial Romans due to sheer technological superiority (yes, in this case, the technology of the southern Song, especially regarding their crossbowmen would've played a decisive factor in a given battle), much less the militant Jurchen ruling and military elite of the Jin and their superb cataphracts (I know 4th century Imperial Romans had clibanarii, but the Jurchens, being a semi-nomadic people from Manchuria would've been much more skilled cavalrymen than the Romans and most other cavalrymen of sedentary peoples for that matter; furthermore, when they captured northern China and had in their possession the blast furnaces and fineries, they had much more high-quality weaponry than the 4th century Imperial Romans) or the troops of the Xi-Xia Tanguts.

Again, I would be more than glad to offer my sources if any of you want them and this is rather a short reply. If I had the sufficient time right now, I would post a complete reply but I don't, so I'll post more later. And if it seems like I'm trying to hijack this forum or something with this stuff, then any of the EB people here (whose objective to make a mod that's based on historical accuracy as the top priority, which I do admire) could debate it with me in the Monastery (I don't know if there is already a Rome vs. China thread already but I usually don't check anywhere else except the modding forums).