Cassador_Chris
-
Posts
224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cassador_Chris
-
-
Atheist here. Don't have any religion to speak of. And I would largely agree with Mythos in his above post.
Cheers!
-
On second thought, research in pursuit of the Jastorf Culture might be more productive. I spend a while trying to find out something about the Ananjino Culture, but there is apparently very little about it. JSTOR had a whole one article mentioning the Ananjino, and it was in German I think. I'd have to try my university library, but I'm nowhere near that now.
There seems to be more on the Jastorf Culture, which appears to be influenced by the proto-Celtic Hallstatt Culture. Though they appear to be more centered on northern Germany and southern Denmark than Scandinavia. Either way, it'll be tough to build a civilization on it.
The proposed second release (0-500 AD) will undoubtedly have a Germanic tribe or two anyway. There will be more information on them from that period anyway, rather than just archaeology.
-
^ mod it.
But, I wouldn't have the Vikings. Unless your mod goes medieval on us.
Mind, although the 'flesh and blood' ancestors of the Vikings were probably present in the region, the people there were not Vikings as we know them. They were separated from that culture by a thousand years.
That means, if you want anything historically representative, that would mean no longboats, no chain mail... I would suspect a material culture similar to that available to the Celts at the time, if distinct in design.
Now I'm no expert about ancient Scandinavia (far from it). So instead I found this little tidbit on Wikipedia:
The Iron Age north of the Alps is divided into the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman Iron Age. In Scandinavia, further prehistoric periods follow up to AD 1000: the Migration Period, the Vendel or Merovingian Period and the Viking Period. The earliest part of the Iron Age in Northern Germany and Denmark was dominated by the Jastorf culture.Early Scandinavian iron production typically involved the harvesting of bog iron. The Scandinavian peninsula, Finland and Estonia show sophisticated iron production from c. 500 BC. Metalworking and Asbestos-Ceramic pottery co-occur to some extent. Another iron ore used is was iron sand (such as red soil). Its high phosphorus content can be identified in slag. Such slag is sometimes found together with asbestos ware-associated axe types belonging to the Ananjino Culture.
So, yeah, I'd probably go instead with the Ananjino culture and focus your research for the civilization on them.
-
^ I agree with Aldandil.
Though I think we could make a better judgment on what civilizations there should be if the time line was narrowed a little bit. Perhaps 1500-500 BCE? Or 1000-500 BCE?
-
I would toss out the term Nubians (since it references a much, much earlier period) and instead opt for the Kushite Empire centered around their capital of Meroe. They emerged as a nation by throwing off Egyptian rule around 1000 BCE and were responsible for the conquest of Egypt in c. 750 BCE. They ruled Egypt for over one hundred years until being driven out by the Assyrians in 664 BCE. In c. 590 BCE they moved their capital from Napata to Meroe.
And this is all before the 0 AD time frame.
Kush, however, would remain a powerful kingdom all the way into the common era, dissolving in about 100 CE as a result of a variety of factors. Significantly, they were known to challenge Rome's rule of Egypt during this period, which does make them a good candidate to be included in 0 AD.
AuroN2, you seem to be joking here, but just because you asked, the peoples of the upper Nile were only under Egyptian rule for about 500 years. Immediately prior to Egyptian conquest, the region was ruled by the Kingdom of Kerma (1700-1520).
Time for some perspective!
Comparative Timeline:
Bold denotes independent rule.
Italics denotes rule under a foreign empire or dynasty.
Note: This is very rough.
Egyptians (Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms)
3100 3000 2900 2800 2700 2600 2500 2400 2300 2200 2100 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
"Nubians" (Kerma culture and Kerma and Kush Kingdoms)
?3100 3000 2900 2800 2700 2600? 2500 2400 2300 2200 2100 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Common sense would say that the Kingdoms of the Nubians was most powerful during their periods of independence from Egyptian rule. Empires, although they provide some benefits, generally exist for the benefit of the conqueror, not the other way around.
ALSO: If you're considering Kush as a modded-on civilization in 0 AD, I would also consider the Sa'baean Kingdom of the Arabian peninsula, which flourished alongside Kush as a neighboring kingdom during most of its rule and governed one of the most important trade roots out of the Roman Empire; that with India via the Red Sea.
-
Can I jump into the role of smart-azz here?
Anything government run or assisted in is communism, or some form of socialism. Look at our auto-industry now.To sum up: Socialsm and Communism : two totally different views.
http://img.funtasticus.com/2007/jan8/fail1...008/fail001.jpg
Definitions of Communism:
Webster's New World Dictionary
n. [[see COMMON]] 1 any theory or system of common ownership of property 2 [often C-] a) socialism as formulated by Marx, Lenin, etc. b ) any government or political movement supporting this
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
communism
noun
(also Communism) /ˈkɒm.jʊ.nɪ.zəm/US pronunciation symbol/ˈkɑː.mjə-/ n
the belief in a society without different social classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need.
Historians Nicolas V. Riasanovsky and Mark D. Steinberg from "A History of Russia".
"The doctrine of communism represents a variant of Marxism, based on the works of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin."
"Marxism, especially as it was understood by Soviet ideologists, postulates dialectical materialism as the key to and the essence of reality"
""Materialism" asserts that only matter exists; in Marxism it also led to a stress on the priority of the economic factor in man's life, social organization, and history."
"The fundamental division in every society is that between the exploiters and the exploited, between the owners of the means of production and those who have to sell their labor to the owners to earn a living."
""Dialectical" adds a dynamic quality to materialism, defining the process of the evolution of reality. For the Marxists insist that everything changes with time. What is more, that change follows the laws of the dialectic and thus presents a rigorously correct and scientifically established pattern. Following Hegel, Marx and Engels postulated a three-step sequence of change:: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. A given condition, the thesis, leads to opposition within itself, the antithesis, and the tension between the two is resolved by a leap to a new condition, the synthesis. The synthesis in turn becomes a thesis producing a new antithesis, and the dialectic continues. The historical dialectic expresses itself in class struggle..."
To be clear, Marxism bases itself on the belief/theory of dialectical materialism, which asserts that only matter exists and thus material ownership is the fundamental driver of society, and history can be understood as an epic struggle between the haves and have-nots. This struggle presents a cycle of those with little material wealth ousting those with it, obtaining it, holding on to it, and then being ousted by another group that seeks material wealth. Furthermore, Marxists believe this cycle will have humanity "return to prehistory, when, according to Marx and the Marxists, primeval communities knew no social differentiation or antagonism."
Capitalism was the penultimate stage in this cycle, and a revolution would eventually come where the working class proletariat would over-through the capitalist power structure once and for all and live together in harmony in a society that promised equality and the communal ownership that necessitated that equality.
Lenin makes some changes to this doctrine, most notably including the peasants of Russia as a revolutionary force--Russia was seen as "backwards" and thereby not ripe for the revolution Marx describes.
Definitions of Socialism
Webster's New World Dictionary
socialism
n. 1 a theory or system of ownership of the means of production and distribution by society rather than by individuals 2 [often S-] a political movement for establishing such a system
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
socialism
noun
/ˈsəʊ.ʃəl.ɪ.zəm/US pronunciation symbol/ˈsoʊ-/ n
the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money, or the political systems based on these beliefs
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Dum dum duuuuummmm .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I didn't see anything about government ownership OR anything about socialism NOT being communism.
In fact, we see communism as a form of socialism, which is based upon this idea of dialectical materialism, which states that material is the most important factor in our lives and the source of all conflict, which means history is simply an EPIC battle between the forces of "we gots wealth" and "f-u we gots nothing", which can only be resolved when everybody has the same things--which is impossible under private ownership--and hence means we must all learn to share. HUFF HUFF
Socialism, and hence Communism, is simply an attempt to institutionalize sharing, since people don't seem to do it on their own, and bring about a more utopian age. Socialism today, however, is much more utilitarian, using socialist techniques in an attempt to guarantee equality among individuals, or protect national industries, or whatever.
Mind, if your definition is true, HistoryGuy, you would be calling every government in the world communist. The U.S. has for a long time nationalized industries (like the railway industry) or subsidized industries (like the farming industry) for their own protection. Countless other nations have done the same. Come on guyz.
Economists make a lot of sense with their free-market theories. But no one follows it. Why? Because it would piss a lot of people off! Farmers would have to work harder and make less, anyone working the rails would lose their jobs, people renting apartments would lose them to newcomers who are willing to pay more, etc etc etc.Obama said he DIDN'T want to get involved, ohhhhhh but he HAD to. Imho, the government needs to go back to strict and classic Laissez-faire (sp).
When asked about the West, Mahatma Ghandi replied "I think it would be a very good idea."
Same with Laissez-faire. It's a nice idea, but it would take a brutal dictator (think of the U.S. supported Pinochet government) to put such a system in place, and the system would have to be world-wide. Communism required something similar, eh?
And from what I've read and heard about European health care systems... is that they are very poor, especially when compared to USA's existing health care. So why change something that's been working?Second of all, America has one of the worst healthcare systems as for now. As far as _I_ know. At least that is what we are told. Or hear from people, news and so on.At last, rumors begot rumors. Who the hell knows? I suppose this depends what you want out of your health care systems.
If you want a good perspective on the U.S. health care system, listen to this.
IMHO, Employment based health care is a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, idea.
Think of it this way. Imagine if your employer paid for your grocery bill. For a set fee each month, you would be able to buy as many groceries as you could want. There is hence no reason for you to hold back, correct? Insurance companies have to pay regardless. So where is the incentive to keep prices down? There is none. So the stores raise prices on food, and then the companies raise the monthly fee on people. So, prices go up and up and up with nothing to yank them back down again.
So, the system is insane. We have two solutions. Go the free market way, and let people purchase their own insurance through competing companies (this will not give everyone insurance, but the competition will drive prices down) OR we can create an alternative government-based program that will give insurance to those who don't have it.
One thing is for sure: Health Insurance Industries and Health Care Industries don't want EITHER of these things. Those evil %*^@%&!$@! want their huge profits.
So, to oppose health care reform of ANY kind is a travesty of justice in my eyes.
Sigh.
-
hmmm
then i say, if the aliens arrive now, they will easily conquer the earth. because the fact that they reached the earth means that they have more advanged technics!
we are just noobies in battle technics than. we should make armed space stations!
lol, I know! I'm always complaining about the unquestioned, absurd military budget the U.S. has building all kinds of stupid $h1t we don't need like stealth destroyers and planes that are also helicopters.
Where are the mutha freakin battle stations? Come on, people!
-
Archeology is a part of the greater study of anthropology, which is what your major will be. Anthropology is (in a very simplified explanation) the study of human culture. This could mean anything from interviewing people, to living with another culture and studying it, helping businesses from different cultures interact positively with each other, and digging through trash and logging what people throw away for later study.
Archeology, as you already know, is largely the study of past cultures. Museums, historical societies, governments, businesses, and universities would be the biggest employers. Many archaeologists, in fact, are hired by developing businesses to scan and (should material be found) excavate planned building sites. In the states, these sites are usually burial grounds/old cemeteries, but sometimes something exciting like a village comes up. Museum and university jobs are fewer and farther inbetween, but are probably what you think of when you imagine archaeologists. They are generally given money for expeditions, and are required to publish studies of what they have found afterwards.
Also, its no guarantee that finding a job will be easy. It will in fact be quite hard. So you must work at it. In addition to getting a degree in archaeology, learn another language, become familar with other areas of anthropology, take writing skills classes, take history classes, etc. And you will probably have to go to graduate school. Actually, its more than likely.
I was very much like you when I was in High School. Everyone told me that "there are not any jobs in history". Even when I replied that I wanted to be a history teacher, people would tell me to make sure I know a sport, so I can also coach. <<< This is utterly rediculous. If you are willing to move, work, and learn, you will have a good chance at finding a job.
When I switched from History-Education to just History, which was just recently, people still scoff. That's because a lot of history majors only get bachelors degrees. You can't do much with a bachelors degree in history. You have to dedicate yourself all the way. I'm planning on getting a phd myself. If I can't do graduate school for some reason, I will still know Arabic, which could get me a job with the state department. Which would be a great career as well.
So, three rules:
1. Dedication to your goals: Go all the way. Put all your eggs in one basket, and watch that basket closely. [or, more accurately, put all your eggs in one basket, but make sure they are different eggs! Language is a good example. We need language for our areas of study, but just in case something goes wrong, we can use that knowledge for something different entirely]
2. Make your work your passion: This is probably the toughest bit. Going through college just waiting to get out of class or groaning about homework isn't where you want to be. I might still groan sometimes, but I am actively trying to improve my knowledge and skills. I want professors who are going to challenge me and NOT give me an easy "A". You shouldn't be in college just to get a degree and just to get a job. You should be there because you want a real education.
3. Enter the professional world EARLY. Go to archeology conferences. Talk with professors about what you want to do. Read scholarly journals. These things are incredibly important to learn what your real obstacles are. I went to a Medieval History conference at the end of last semester, and all the professors and grad students were surprised to see me there. While some were less than welcoming, most were enthused when I told them my ideas, and I even had a publishing company tell me to keep them informed about my work! Pretty good for a Sophmore-just-turned-Junior, eh?
The absolute worst thing you could do is give up because others have told you it wouldn't work. Don't be discouraged. Go for what you want. You must remember that these people, even if they are close to you and care about you, have different ideas of work and success. I had a stranger try to convince me to go into working in the petroleum industry, working on sea-rigs and doing ocean surveys because--this was his reason--it is a growing industry, and you'd be able to makes loads of money, which means you could have expensive cars and any girl you want. That may be appealing to some people, but its not what I want. My parents want me to be happy, but they also want me to be able to be able to find a job and pay off my loans. They consider a job a sacrifice, something you have to do in order to make a living. But even as I realize a job is necessary for a living, I know it doesn't have to be a sacrifice. You are your own best ally. Listen to yourself and think about what you want.
Hope that helps a little bit.
If you have more questions, you can pm me and I might be able to help out, but I would take my advice lightly. I'm only a junior anywho. And I'm not an historian nor an archaeologist (yet). This is just my frame of mind. It probably won't be the same for everyone.
-
The game is open-source now, though, ain't it?
-
But you have to put patrionism, chauvinism and nationalism aside when you try to make a realistic game.
Yes, the Persian armies contained lots of crap, face the facts.
Yes, their empire was overtaken almost completely by Alexander the Great in a few years
Yes, small greek city states repelled their attacks...
I come from Belgium, a country of no importance, not now, not in the past ...
You have to learn to see the truth, and we are talking about events more than thousand years ago
This was unacceptably inflamatory, plumo. Please consider that facts for you may not be facts for everyone.
I won't address your statements above because I feel they have already been addressed. I'm no moderator, but I would recommend that you cease and desist this kind of language in the future.
And Forud, son of Siavash in Shahname: We haven't met before because I haven't been on the site for a while, but please accept my welcome to our little online community.
And I understand your concern for your nation's history. Western-dominated history has mislead for way too long. I made a sort of resolution to change the way people think of history---so I decided to become a historian of African history. (People look at me weird when I talk about my career choice, mostly and probably because I'm a white middle class American college student. They say, "But you're not Black!" Then I say "LOL, I know right?")
Peace
EDIT: I evidently can't spell weird correctly.
-
Can the elephants get through the gates without giving their riders a headbump?
Anyway, nice screen as always.
-
Yes, welcome welcome! Tis great to receive new forum members!
-
You have to purchase it? LAME.
lol. Looks cool. Not going to be spending money on games anytime soon though....
-
-
The factions seemed a little generic.
Indeed. And there were only two. That was a big downer. No Japanese. No Russians. No Pacific or Eastern Europe Battlefields. It was very limited in scope, but the value you placed on each of your 'units' and their survival was, I think, a unique aspect of the game. Hearing your infantry detachment scream when a hidden machine gun tore through their ranks was just as tragic as your tank bursting through a cement wall to flank and destroy your opponent's armor was mirthful.
An incredibly awesome game, but it did have limitations, as you say.
I hope R.U.S.E. turns out even better, but by the looks of it, it doesn't look like its going for what CoH went for. We'll have to wait till the game comes out to make a decision on whether both games can actually be discussed in the same category.
-
Hmmm. Dunno. I'll probably try a demo when it comes out, but until then, I still think Company of Heroes is the best wwii rts I've played. Lots of original stuff to it. Flanking, suprise attacks, decoys, etc, etc.
Deception is the best part of strategy.
Hold on, check this out:
Sounds a lot more interesting here.
-
Amen brother.
-
Why not just assume some standard Sogdian or Bactrian semi-arid plain?
That's fine. Most of the area outside Samarkand is just like that, albeit more hilly. I was just assuming a more realistic battleground. But a completely flat plain is actually a better idea, I think. It will keep the Han and Romans on even footing where ever they choose to move.
-
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east...8322829-g_6.jpg
Go there for the map, and your mouse cursor should turn into a magnifying glass. Blow up the image really large, and Samarkand is near the top of the map.
-
let's just assume that both armies are led by more or less equal commanders, and focus on weaponry and common formations at the time, since a good commander will always defeat a bad one.
Didn't I say this a couple of posts up? Anyway, I agree with darthturtle that we should assume general equality between commanders for assessing Han and Roman strength.
Furthermore, let us assume that both commanders are rather poor in skill level--simply meaning that they wouldn't innovate and would use 'standard procedure' for approaching any situation.
To spell it out then, lets look at average army size, composition, weapons, and tactics on the battlefield (meaning that siege weaponry or anything that takes a significant amount of time for assembly should be left out).
Oh, and here's a possible battlefield, outside of present day Samarkand, where our two armies could possibly meet.
Maybe yes, maybe no?
-
can you make it so that we can put our songs in the game?
Can't you just mute the game music and just play your music on media player or somethink? That's what I do. Metal especially is awesome for getting pumped up and playing like there's no tomorrow.
-
What about troop morale, available equipment, etc...?
I don't think it's as simple as the better commander...
A good commander would make sure he provided his troops with the best equipment and would ensure that they were in the fighting spirit. Being a good commander means all of these things. Same goes with good officers. Officers fall under the general word of 'commander', but if we take it as meaning 'supreme commander', we can further say that a good commander awards his good officers and demotes his poor ones. So a good commander ensures good officers, though this may not be necessarily true 100% of the time.
Sun Tzu, I have his book, The Art of War, if you can believe how nerdy I am.I have that book too, though its at home at the moment. In any case though, I think it would be useful to determine to what extent Han generals followed Sun Tzu's advice. In addition, Sun Tzu lived some time before the Han empire, so we need to know if tactics have changed since his time with technology, or if his writings were unappreciated in the time of the Han.
In addition, from what I remember about his book, it was somewhat abstract and not as concrete as to military strategy. For example: "A victorious general wins first and then goes to war." So? What did Han generals do to achieve this? What were their concrete actions?
Obviously, there's a lot of work ahead of us.
-
There's a difference between a game entity and a game actor. An entity is an object that effects the simulation (game) somehow. An actor is simply visual. Birds will be actors that fly around but don't interact with anything else in the game world. smile.gif
IS_NormanDuck, I believe "catapult projectiles" would fall under the "game actor" category.
-
if you read the roman history, there are various generals, commanders, and empreros with great strategies like caesar,aetius,marcus antonius,pompeius,scipio africanus,claudius nero germanicus,etc.........
one of the strategies was a formation called turttle shell to resist arrows,spears,stones,etc.
and the chinesse crossbows is a great adventage in the battle but i doubt that they can stop various legions
True that is, heavy. There were truly incredible Roman commanders who used innovative--and indeed, sometimes truly inspirational--tactics and strategy. On the same token, though, there were also many poor commanders who made serious blunders or paraded around very stupidly.
Anyway, the point I was making was this. How can you say the Romans had superior tactics, when we know so little of Chinese tactics? The same reasoning can be applied to: how do you know you're grandmother's chocolate chip cookies are the best cookies ever if you've never eaten any other chocolate chip cookies? You can't. You must try other cookies to determine which ones are the best.
Anyway, I think we should--for the sake of this argument--leave out the individual skill of the commander of either force and assume they have the same skill level. Obviously, a more skillful commander will beat the less skillful one no matter what empire they are fighting for.
Instead, lets try to focus on the types of tactics used by each empire to determine how they might react to different situations on the battlefield. And that requires that we learn something of normal Han tactics.
What's your Religion?
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
I guess I agree with that. Edited my post above to get rid of fuel for any potential future argument in this thread.
Ah, well, the point is not to 'bash' but to point out the absurdity in the ideas. That last pic was a little bashful though, so I apologize for that.