Similarities through history.

[Jo the Greek]

I have noticed that the iberian units in EB have the same logic with some units of spain in MEdieval 2 like those guys with the javelin called A*******
( i cannot write it) and all those units armed with sword and buckler is any connection?

[abou]

If you want a simliarity, compare the policies of post-Persian Wars Athens to recent US foreign policy.

[KARTLOS]

gesatae = public nudity is more tolerated in france than elsewhere........

[russia almighty]

A general one


Rich prats are the ones with power

[The Errant]

Nations.

Carthage was a nation focused primarily on the aqusition of wealth trough trading. They fought wars to protect their commercial interests, rather than expansion and empire building.

The United States is the foremost speaker for globalisation, capitalism, and freedom trough democracy. Funny how they always manage to get involved in conflicts where their own commercial interests are at stake.

Rome. Highly nationalistic society with dreams of being an empire (until they managed just that). Convinced that they (and only they) know the best way of running the world. If the barbarians don't understand it's better to live under the auspices of Rome. Send a legion or two to teach them how to be good citizens.

The former Soviet Union. Very nationalistic. Equally convinced that their ideals and methods were superior to anyone elses. And should those others resist. Then they shall be crushed under the blessed boot of mother Russia. After all. Free nations cannot be expected to know for themselves, what is best for them.

[Horst Nordfink]

How interesting. The same can be said for America poking it's nose in other peoples business and trying to force "democracy" on countries through the barrel of a gun/blade of a sword. Although, were Rome usually won, America generally gets a good shoe-ing from the peasants they tried to dictate to.

[Foot]

I believe that Athens makes a better comparison to America. It also conquered territories and in some cases forced democracy on the recently conquered inhabitants.

Compare to Persia, who on the whole couldn't care less as long as you sent money to Persis.

Foot

[The Errant]

I believe that Athens makes a better comparison to America. It also conquered territories and in some cases forced democracy on the recently conquered inhabitants.

Compare to Persia, who on the whole couldn't care less as long as you sent money to Persis.

Foot

Personally I don't think the average american citizen gives a rat's ass if anyone in the world outside the U.S is living freedom and democracy. While the war in Afganistan can be somehow justified in getting rid off an openly terrorists supporting nation, their war in Iraq has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with oil. Oil they now control. If that isn't fighting a war for commercial interests and resources, what is?

Of all current nations in existence the U.S reminds me mostly of the money grabbing commercial empire. Just take a look at all the different customs and tariffs they have erected to "safeguard" the domestic industry. All the while they keep complaining that certain nations like China aren't opening their markets to "free trade" by having "illegal" customs against foreign companies.
Their hypocracy stinks all the way to my country. And a live one big ocean and a smaller sea removed from them.

Persia is an example in expedience and practicality. You got an empire that spans roughly the know civilized world. In all that territory you got hundreds if not thousands of different peoples, cultures, languages, customs and religions. How do you manage something that big?
The Persians were happy in letting it run itself trough a large number of vassal rulers who had relatively free hands in running their respective territories. All the King of Kings asks, is that you contribute to the general welfare by paying tribute. A lot of which goes to pay the army that kept them in power.

Both the Diadochi and the Romans had another method. The Diadochi tried making the world greek by setting up colonies troughout their lands inhabited by greeks. Hoping that the culture that was at the top would gradually seep trough to the people beneath. Didn't work as well as they hoped. Even so it left a Greek legacy all over the Middle East.

The Romans were more thourough in making the whole Empire Roman. Taxation, administration, legal systems, agriculture, religion, infrastructure. Everything was exported from Rome to every corner of the Roman world. When the people who have previously been thinking of themselves as Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian, Celt or Numidian start thinking of themselves as Roman, you've won.

I know Athens was expansionistic. But unlike Cartage I don't think the sole reason for their expansion was money and profit.

[Foot]

Personally I don't think the average american citizen gives a rat's ass if anyone in the world outside the U.S is living freedom and democracy. While the war in Afganistan can be somehow justified in getting rid off an openly terrorists supporting nation, their war in Iraq has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with oil. Oil they now control. If that isn't fighting a war for commercial interests and resources, what is?

Meh, and unimportant point. What people care about, and what they want to care about are two different things. Or more generally, the way people are and they way they want to be are invariably different. The former is indicates the psychology, sociology (and to a lesser extent, biology, physics and chemistry) of a people, the latter indicates the philosophy and politics of a people (amongst others). Both tell their story, and in the idealism of America, she believes that forcefully bringing democracy to the world is a good thing - it wasn't called Operation Iraqi Freedom for nothing! Of course it was also a cover for commercial interests, but that they chose freedom and democracy as their cover says a lot.

Foot

[The Errant]

Other similarities with history could be the general region of the Middle East.
Syria and Judea in particular are conflict magnets.

It was a mess during the war between Egypt and the Hittites.

It was a mess during the war between Egypt and Babylon.

It was a mess during the time of the Diadochi.

It was a mess during the wars between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Persians.

It was a mess during the Crusades.

It was a mess during the breakup of Saladin's Empire.

It was a mess during the Mongol invasion.

It was a mess during WWI.

It was a mess after WWII.

And It's still a mess today. The crossroads of the world seem to draw trouble like s*** draws flies.

[Treverer]

Nations.

Carthage ...

The United States ...

Rome. Highly nationalistic society with dreams of being an empire (until they managed just that). Convinced that they (and only they) know the best way of running the world. If the barbarians don't understand it's better to live under the auspices of Rome. Send a legion or two to teach them how to be good citizens.

The former Soviet Union. Very nationalistic. Equally convinced that their ideals and methods were superior to anyone elses. And should those others resist. Then they shall be crushed under the blessed boot of mother Russia. After all. Free nations cannot be expected to know for themselves, what is best for them.

As Political Scientist I must object:

- the idea & concept of a "nation" is relatively new. The time of the French Revolution is considered the first one where this 'concept' appeared. To speak of "Roman Nationalism" in the way you do hurts every member of my science branche ...

- the Soviet Union is viewed as everything, but NEVER as "nationalist", because (soviet) Communism is regarded as an "universalist" doctrine, putting nations aside and propaganding happiness & welfare for everybody. Well, in the beginning, it had a russianphile /-phobic touch, and Communist Parties during / after WWII had "national" traits, but not all and not that heavy.

Apart of these 2 points, I simply second your statements. Especially the one about Roman & Soviet cultural / political IMPERIALISM.

Treverer

EDIT: Fortunately, there is something a certain Mr Kennedy called "Imperial Overstretch".

[NeoSpartan]

I believe you guys are generalising American foreing policy a little too much.

From about 1788-1860 (after the ratification of the Constitution 'till before the Civil War) American's intention was to EXPAND. Weather by taking the land of the Indians, buying it from the French, or taking it from Mexico. Everheard of Manifest Destiny????

But right before the Civil War the issue of Slavery prevented any further expansion North or South of the continent.

After the Civil War America's intention turn to Imperialism (well actually before the Civil War, America had forfully open up Japan to foreing trade, but any further Imperialistic expansion was interrupted by the Civil War). JUST LIKE ALL OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS OF THE TIME. Due to the European Powers already having colonies or economic influences in most of the world, the US turn to open up Japan, and to kick any European powers out of South America, (especifically Spain). That way effectively making "American for Americans". The US also took over Spanish colonies in South East Asia, and took over the Hawaii.

However, WWI started to somewhat put the breaks that Imperialist trend the world powers where having, plus most of the world was already under some power's influence. That is why when Japan started its Imperialistic campains in China and South East Asia, it came into MAJOR diplomatic confrontation with the Europeans and Americans. So bad that the US cut Oil Exports to Japan and Japan decided it cold destroy the US Pacific Fleet (which it almost did) and give itself time to finish up in Manchuria and grow its Navy even more. So it could effectively fight the Americans when they returned.

After WWII, it was the COLD WAR.
The Soviets wanted to expand Communism and the Americans wanted to stop them. Both sides used any means nessesary but comming short of provocing eachother into direct nuclear confrontation. (especially after the scare of 1962).
ex:-The USSR backed North Korea and China during the Korean war but it didn't become directly involved. It did the same in Vietnam. In Angola the USSR equiped Cubans and the MPLA to fight there. (my brother almost went there)
-The US trainned and equiped Cuban exhiles to take Cuba from Fidel. Also the US backed the Mujahadim (sp) in Afganistan. The US backed the Contras in Nicaragua....
.... there are many more "Small wars" in South America, Africa, South East Asia, Middle east, that followed this pattern.

The interesting thing is, that in this time the US decided to take an "Adult Supervision" approach to foreing policy. Where the US and Nato will hold off the Soviets, but the US will share most of the expense. As a result, this didn't compel the other members of Nato to become again a major military power. Plus, the US basically forbade Japan from becomeing another world power by putting in its Constitution that Japan should only have a "Security Force" not a military capable of expanding. (to this day Japan has Security Force)

After the Cold War:
-The US being the sole world Power, and continuing its "Adult Supervision" approach to foreing policy. Goes into war, imposes sactions, etc. to any nation who threatens its ECONOMIC INTERESTS and its SECURITY. Just like any other nation would do in its place and ALL nations, empires, etc have done before.

In the case of Iraq, the leaders here got really overconfident expecting the Invasion of Iraq to flow like the Invasion of Panama in 1989. Which it aint ....

[Zaknafien]

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

[KARTLOS]

As Political Scientist I must object:

- the idea & concept of a "nation" is relatively new. The time of the French Revolution is considered the first one where this 'concept' appeared. To speak of "Roman Nationalism" in the way you do hurts every member of my science branche ...

- the Soviet Union is viewed as everything, but NEVER as "nationalist", because (soviet) Communism is regarded as an "universalist" doctrine, putting nations aside and propaganding happiness & welfare for everybody. Well, in the beginning, it had a russianphile /-phobic touch, and Communist Parties during / after WWII had "national" traits, but not all and not that heavy.

Apart of these 2 points, I simply second your statements. Especially the one about Roman & Soviet cultural / political IMPERIALISM.

Treverer

EDIT: Fortunately, there is something a certain Mr Kennedy called "Imperial Overstretch".

the english formed a sense of english nationalism around the time of the 100 years war.

[KARTLOS]

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

rome completely lacked the radical racialism of the nazis.

[Zaknafien]

rome completely lacked the radical racialism of the nazis.

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

[fatsweets]

Come on people, this is not a political forum let us talk about the game we love and not about nationalism and comparisons between the US and government 2000 years ago. This could turn ugly really quick.

[NeoSpartan]

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

True... the only major difference that comes to mind is that Hitler wanted to "purify" the Reich. All those whom were not considered arian were to be disposed off. While the Romans did most of the genocide in the invasion, but later they tried to win over thier new-found subjects and make them part of the empire and their military.



p.s all this roman talk is making me want to start a new Romani campain....

[abou]

If there is one thing I wish the US could take more of from Rome, it would be the architecture. I think one of the guys said that they really just ripped it off from the Greeks and Etruscans, but having studied it that really isn't something very fair to say at all. The Romans were certainly evolutionary in their application, but many times they were quite revolutionary.

Now, a lot of stuff in DC takes direct inspiration from from Rome, but I really wish there was more of it. A lot of the presidential libraries in particular are absolutely atrocious. That's why if I were to become president my library would be based either on Trajan's forum or the Sanctuary of Fortuna. Hell, that's campaign material right there: Vote for me. I won't have an ugly presidential library.

[KARTLOS]

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

yes but as i said it completely lacked the radical racialism which is at the core of nazism.

rome was a multicultural state, where race was never really too much of a bar to advancement. there was no concept of an ethnically pure masterace or any of the rest of that germanic rubbish.

[Khazar_Dahvos]

in regards on the subject of these postings the romans took the best of what they learned and assimilated it into their culture. for example the gods, also military technologies(example gladius, from the Iberian peninsula and helmets from the gaulic tribes and( the extra layer of chainmail around their shoulders once they ran into the dacian rhomphi I think.)

[Treverer]

Come on people, this is not a political forum let us talk about the game we love and not about nationalism and comparisons between the US and government 2000 years ago. This could turn ugly really quick.

Seconded!
Is there no kinda "off-topic" / "open" (sub-) forum, where threads / discussions like these might fit in? If no, I suggest to create one (a subforum!).

[russia almighty]

^I agree with you on that . There are things that are sorta related to EB like this but don't go along with the main boards focus .

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

yes but as i said it completely lacked the radical racialism which is at the core of nazism.

rome was a multicultural state, where race was never really too much of a bar to advancement. there was no concept of an ethnically pure masterace or any of the rest of that germanic rubbish.

I agree what many people forget, Rome was not a etnical empire....the roman citicenship could be granded virtually to everybody who earned it or pay for it (look Paulus he was not a etnical roman).

About fascism, well I do not entirely agree, of course for those days it was wery advanced, and usually fascist states (mussolini for the first, but also Hitler) tryed their best to copy the romans. But we can not compare a anciet government structure using our modern standart.

[pezhetairoi]

To answer the original query, the Almogavars' being so similar to the EB-era Iberian units are hardly a coincidence. Their armed forces' equipment and fighting style is really decided by the major factors of available resources, and geography. Iberia is hilly, and has few fields that permit massive Cannae-style battles. Fighting in Spain has necessarily been guerrilla, from then until the modern day. That fundamental rule decides the reason why them Iberian fellas are all so identical despite their time period. Firstly, javelins were cheap to produce, could cause helluva damage when hurled from high ground (of which there was plenty in Iberia), and they permitted the Iberians to keep at arms' length from melee combat, which allowed them to melt away quickly without committing themselves to fighting which would cost them as heavily as the enemy. Though to compare the Lusotana and Iberi troops in EB to the Almogavars is perhaps not fully accurate, since the Almogavar were light troops, whose closest equivalent in EB are perhaps the Caetrati. Surely they must have had a larger variety of heavier troops too, though these were necessarily rarer in proportion to the cost and complexity of their panoply.

Hope this answers some part of your query at least.

[Zaknafien]

if you think rome was not based on ethnicity you are highly mistaken, and maybe have watched too many movies...

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

if you think rome was not based on ethnicity you are highly mistaken, and maybe have watched too many movies...

and maybe you have read to few books...

[pezhetairoi]

Rome was the archetypical multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious hodgepodge of a nation that today has become a normal occurrence in the community of nations. Citizenship must not be misconstrued as ethnicity. You are born a race, it cannot be conferred on you. To say the Roman Empire was not ethnic is like saying the USA, arguably the most racially and culturally diverse nation on earth at the moment, is all white people, or African-Americans, or Asians, or any other ethnic group you can name. It's a lot more complex than that.

[Zaknafien]

Of course there were dozens of races within the occupied lands by the Roman government. Many more if you count the millions of slaves. However, power was concentrated in a strict Roman oligarchy with no misconstruing of their racial superiority to others. The fierce fight to grant even the lightest forms of citizenships to even the oldest Italic allies took years and much bloodshed. Don't kid yourself on the supposed benign nature of the Roman government.

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

Of course there were dozens of races within the occupied lands by the Roman government. Many more if you count the millions of slaves. However, power was concentrated in a strict Roman oligarchy with no misconstruing of their racial superiority to others. The fierce fight to grant even the lightest forms of citizenships to even the oldest Italic allies took years and much bloodshed. Don't kid yourself on the supposed benign nature of the Roman government.

there were also NON etnical roman inperators and senators...