Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

[Zaarin]

It's rather easy to argue... I'm not currently speaking Latin. (And before you say it, the language I'm speaking is far more German than Latin.)

In a world where Carthage never fell, I have a hard time imagining English ever becoming more than a provincial language in the most backward part of the most backward continent. (Though yes, the argument that English is a "creole" or "mixed language" is made by people who don't understand how languages work. English is a pretty standard Germanic language that just happens to have a significant number of loanwords from Latin, Greek, and Romance. It's not relexified nearly on the level of Armenian or Korean, which are also not creoles or mixed languages.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In a world where Carthage never fell, I have a hard time imagining English ever becoming more than a provincial language in the most backward part of the most backward continent. (Though yes, the argument that English is a "creole" or "mixed language" is made by people who don't understand how languages work. English is a pretty standard Germanic language that just happens to have a significant number of loanwords from Latin, Greek, and Romance. It's not relexified nearly on the level of Armenian or Korean, which are also not creoles or mixed languages.)

History has stranger things, like the language of a little city-state satellite of Etruscany having any influence on many of the modern languages of Europe 2800 years later.

Chance has a way of warping Events. The Ottomans became The Power in the Middle East partly because they had a string of 7 straight rulers who were competent - a sequence almost unknown among dynastic monarchies anywhere else in the world at any time. A similar sequence among the rulers of some Briton/Celtic tribal state sheltered from the Sturm and Drang of the continent on their drippy little island and Who Knows?

 

[Zaarin]

History has stranger things, like the language of a little city-state satellite of Etruscany having any influence on many of the modern languages of Europe 2800 years later.

Chance has a way of warping Events. The Ottomans became The Power in the Middle East partly because they had a string of 7 straight rulers who were competent - a sequence almost unknown among dynastic monarchies anywhere else in the world at any time. A similar sequence among the rulers of some Briton/Celtic tribal state sheltered from the Sturm and Drang of the continent on their drippy little island and Who Knows?

Indeed. I think it's the sheer number of, "Well, who would have expected that?" events in history that make it interesting--and notoriously difficult to simulate for games that actually try to be a simulator.

 

[AriochIV]

Just because Carthage never fell doesn't mean Rome disappeared. I don't see Carthage dominating northern Europe despite Rome's influence.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just because Carthage never fell doesn't mean Rome disappeared. I don't see Carthage dominating northern Europe despite Rome's influence.

Not Carthage and not a defeated and weakened Rome: a Gallic State unbothered by Rome is far more likely to have become the dominant and influential Power in northern Europe - they already had surveyed and well-built roads, an influential intellectual class and the beginnings of urbanism when Caesar cut them off.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

It's also hard to argue with we might well be speaking Punic if it weren't for the bloody Romans.

If Carthage never fell we you might have very strong anti-Carthage bias instead - Rome could be the obscure civilisation that fell before it's prime.

Just because Carthage never fell doesn't mean Rome disappeared. I don't see Carthage dominating northern Europe despite Rome's influence.

You have a point though Rome would've struggled without the Iberian silver and African gold. The Numidians could've risen and conquered them both!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If Carthage never fell we you might have very strong anti-Carthage bias instead - Rome could be the obscure civilisation that fell before it's prime.

You have a point though Rome would've struggled without the Iberian silver and African gold. The Numidians could've risen and conquered them both!

The Numidians might barely possibly have conquered, but they could not influence or hold on to them: not enough Numidians. They would have been swamped and co-opted by the numbers of urban populations in Carthage and Italy - see the example of Mongols in China, who wound up producing a single Dynasty but were far more influenced by their conquests than influencers.

The Gauls had the numbers, though. - And already had a history of smacking the Romans around.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Without the threat of Carthage, does Rome go to Spain? Without Spanish colonies, does Rome care about the people north of the Alps? Without Rome as a juicy target, do the people north of the Alps care about going south?

Picking the course of history a priori reminds me of the sporting joke: at the start of the year, the chances of any team winning the championship is so small, it's a wonder that any of them ever win it.

 

[BuchiTaton]

All this talk reminds me of my locally modified EU4 Extended Timeline start scenario with Carthage. On that occasion I preserved Gauls, Etruscans and Thracians so my Germanic neighboors at the north diverted their invasion over the Slavs, by 20th century there were no Slavs anymore.

 

[Zaarin]

If Carthage never fell we you might have very strong anti-Carthage bias instead - Rome could be the obscure civilisation that fell before it's prime.

You're assuming I have the American unqualified predilection for underdogs, which I do not. My beef with Rome is that they conquered the world without the decency of having the slightest notion of art or culture. E.g., I have no quarrel with the Achaemenids or Assyrians for their conquests, nay, not even their conquest of Canaan. Rome wasn't boring because it won; Rome was boring because it was a society of unimaginative engineers and philistines romans.

Just because Carthage never fell doesn't mean Rome disappeared. I don't see Carthage dominating northern Europe despite Rome's influence.

One of two powers was going to dominate the Mediterranean: Rome or Carthage. One's ascendancy meant the other's decline. If Carthage survived, then it would have been Rome that was sacked and plundered. (Which Hannibal was on the verge of doing before...things happened that are unclear. Why Hannibal halted his campaign is a mystery, but it cost him the war. Had he pressed his attack, instead of "Carthago delenda est," we'd have heard, "Nafol Rūm"--"Rome is fallen.")

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

it would have been Rome that was sacked and plundered. (Which Hannibal was on the verge of doing before...things happened that are unclear. Why Hannibal halted his campaign is a mystery, but it cost him the war. Had he pressed his attack, instead of "Carthago delenda est," we'd have heard, "Nafol Rūm"--"Rome is fallen.")

Hannibal had no siege train or equipment with him. That made an attack on even a poorly-manned walled city potentially very expensive. Had he used some of those infamous elephants to haul the parts for siege towers, rams and catapults across the Alps it would have been a very, very different story.

 

[Siptah]

Just start up a game of Imperator and bring that Carthage never fell dreams to virtual life. It‘s a fun campaign, a bit on the easy side though.

 

[Kjimmet]

Every civ has two attributes and on reddit their meaning was clarified:

(Found it from here)

 

[Guandao]

Why did this thread turned into discussions of alternate histories?

 

[Josephias]

Shh, I'm just trying to accuse the Romans of being creatively sterile technology plunderers who conquer all the interesting civs and rob them of their innovations. (Unfortunately, even I have to acknowledge that the Pantheon is a work of art.)

Sorry to go a page back on the discussion, but I need to point out that, clearly, this defines the Romans as the quintessential engineers

 

[Guandao]

Romans had their arts too. Check out the Pompeii frescoes.

Spartans would be a more accurate society devoid of art.

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry to go a page back on the discussion, but I need to point out that, clearly, this defines the Romans as the quintessential engineers

Without a doubt. As a humanities major, I tend to think of engineers as even more my antithesis than scientists.

Romans had their arts too. Check out the Pompeii frescoes.

Spartans would be a more accurate society devoid of art.

They probably hired a Greek or Etruscan artist; heaven knows a Roman couldn't paint.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Every civ has two attributes and on reddit their meaning was clarified:
View attachment 704268
(Found it from here)

That's interesting, thanks for sharing! I like it.

 

[The Fanatical]

Romans had their arts too. Check out the Pompeii frescoes.

Spartans would be a more accurate society devoid of art.

Still, Spartans weren't at war with art. They created statues, monuments, vases, temples.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Still, Spartans weren't at war with art. They created statues, monuments, vases, temples.

Actually, even their contemporary Greeks regarded the Spartans as Uncultured. They didn't export any statuary, pottery, or leave behind any monumental buildings or temples. They were regarded as very good Poets, but being very conservative, didn't write much of it down, so our examples of 'laconic' (Spartan-style) poetry are mostly from non-Spartan poets who adopted the style, like Simonides, who produced the absolute masterpiece of laconic poetry in the inscription on the stele erected at Thermopolye.