Greco-Roman Peoples React To Modern World

[Zyobot]

Jul 22, 2021 12:02:39 GMT simon darkshade said:

Hearts of Iron? I believe that, once they could grasp the concept of a computer game, war simulation and all the rest, they would view it as a novelty, but ultimately a childish game extremely divorced from reality. This would be especially true of any great commanders.

Why? HoI, even in its older and more rigorous versions, gets caught up in its own numbers and formulas that are utterly divorced from reality. There is depth, but only of their own terms and systems. The more modern versions, such as HoI4 are much more dumbed down and caught up in its own hubris, it’s own language and its own definitions.
It mostly deals with logistics and economics quite airily and from the start of the game, it becomes unimportant; the nadir of this was the decision not to include money, GDP or any real sense of an economy in HoI4.

Simply put, there is little relationship with reality. Consider, for a moment, the ideal divisional template of 7 infantry and 2 artillery battalions. This has no basis in anything real and is simply ideal because it fits their arbitrary parameters on divisional ‘width’, something that doesn’t really come up in any real sense outside of a very narrow set of circumstances. The fighting power of a division is similarly arbitrary and very much wrapped up in the tactical/gear head mindset, rather than any of the actual work done by the likes of Van Creveld.

Paradox did have a survey out at one point and I saved this response:

“HoI4 is more disappointing than frustrating, as it sets its sights low and consistently fails to achieve them. At its heart, it is dumbed down and glorifies in it, particularly in its abstractions that have little relationship with reality. It sidelines the economy and money, pays lip service to a decent air warfare system, lacks any depth of events and mistakes shallow choices for real meaning and veracity. It has pared back the best features of previous installments in favour of...graphics and music? It isn’t hard to play, but it is tedious. There is little sense that the player is actually doing anything meaningful, whilst at the same time the AI is so constrained as to present little challenge.”

I really don’t think that Alexander or Caesar would be impressed by it.

A thorough, if harsh assessment, but one that I lean towards myself. Per what I said above, I'm sure they'd catch on to how it grossly oversimplifies things and is based more on what a limited team of game developers think, rather than in line with historical realism and able to successfully account for the bajillion micro-factors that go into determining how events unfold. Still, I think you're right that they'd find it novel, if mainly as a recreational exercise rather than as a serious teaching tool.

However, given that it's adjacent to a subject that'd greatly interest the giants of Antiquity anyway, I wonder what some good resources on modern history are for them to either watch or read up on? We already mentioned some war documentaries and books on the more decisive conflicts of the age (such as Julius Caesar reading The Guns of August in his study), but I'm curious as to whether there's anything you'd recommend to them (or otherwise add)?

[simon darkshade]

Churchill's History of the Second World War would be stylistically familiar in some ways to the likes of Caesar; not sure about Hannibal or Alexander. It would be interesting for the Romans to get a bit of Gibbon.

[stevep]

Jul 22, 2021 12:02:39 GMT simon darkshade said:

Hearts of Iron? I believe that, once they could grasp the concept of a computer game, war simulation and all the rest, they would view it as a novelty, but ultimately a childish game extremely divorced from reality. This would be especially true of any great commanders.

Why? HoI, even in its older and more rigorous versions, gets caught up in its own numbers and formulas that are utterly divorced from reality. There is depth, but only of their own terms and systems. The more modern versions, such as HoI4 are much more dumbed down and caught up in its own hubris, it’s own language and its own definitions.
It mostly deals with logistics and economics quite airily and from the start of the game, it becomes unimportant; the nadir of this was the decision not to include money, GDP or any real sense of an economy in HoI4.

Simply put, there is little relationship with reality. Consider, for a moment, the ideal divisional template of 7 infantry and 2 artillery battalions. This has no basis in anything real and is simply ideal because it fits their arbitrary parameters on divisional ‘width’, something that doesn’t really come up in any real sense outside of a very narrow set of circumstances. The fighting power of a division is similarly arbitrary and very much wrapped up in the tactical/gear head mindset, rather than any of the actual work done by the likes of Van Creveld.

Paradox did have a survey out at one point and I saved this response:

“HoI4 is more disappointing than frustrating, as it sets its sights low and consistently fails to achieve them. At its heart, it is dumbed down and glorifies in it, particularly in its abstractions that have little relationship with reality. It sidelines the economy and money, pays lip service to a decent air warfare system, lacks any depth of events and mistakes shallow choices for real meaning and veracity. It has pared back the best features of previous installments in favour of...graphics and music? It isn’t hard to play, but it is tedious. There is little sense that the player is actually doing anything meaningful, whilst at the same time the AI is so constrained as to present little challenge.”

I really don’t think that Alexander or Caesar would be impressed by it.

  I've played Arsenal of Democracy, which I think is a spin off of HoI2 which is fairly complex but then as you say a lot of trivial features so glad I never moved onto something like HoI4.  Prefer depth to my games and preferably a good deal of realism - having said that my favourite game currently is based in Middle Earth.

[stevep]

Jul 23, 2021 6:26:15 GMT simon darkshade said:

Churchill's History of the Second World War would be stylistically familiar in some ways to the likes of Caesar; not sure about Hannibal or Alexander. It would be interesting for the Romans to get a bit of Gibbon.

  Given that Gibbon is viewed as anti-Christian by some sources that could set up arguments between the classical down-timers and those from after Constantine's rise to power.

[simon darkshade]

Jul 23, 2021 9:19:22 GMT stevep said:

Jul 22, 2021 12:02:39 GMT simon darkshade said:

Hearts of Iron? I believe that, once they could grasp the concept of a computer game, war simulation and all the rest, they would view it as a novelty, but ultimately a childish game extremely divorced from reality. This would be especially true of any great commanders.

Why? HoI, even in its older and more rigorous versions, gets caught up in its own numbers and formulas that are utterly divorced from reality. There is depth, but only of their own terms and systems. The more modern versions, such as HoI4 are much more dumbed down and caught up in its own hubris, it’s own language and its own definitions.
It mostly deals with logistics and economics quite airily and from the start of the game, it becomes unimportant; the nadir of this was the decision not to include money, GDP or any real sense of an economy in HoI4.

Simply put, there is little relationship with reality. Consider, for a moment, the ideal divisional template of 7 infantry and 2 artillery battalions. This has no basis in anything real and is simply ideal because it fits their arbitrary parameters on divisional ‘width’, something that doesn’t really come up in any real sense outside of a very narrow set of circumstances. The fighting power of a division is similarly arbitrary and very much wrapped up in the tactical/gear head mindset, rather than any of the actual work done by the likes of Van Creveld.

Paradox did have a survey out at one point and I saved this response:

“HoI4 is more disappointing than frustrating, as it sets its sights low and consistently fails to achieve them. At its heart, it is dumbed down and glorifies in it, particularly in its abstractions that have little relationship with reality. It sidelines the economy and money, pays lip service to a decent air warfare system, lacks any depth of events and mistakes shallow choices for real meaning and veracity. It has pared back the best features of previous installments in favour of...graphics and music? It isn’t hard to play, but it is tedious. There is little sense that the player is actually doing anything meaningful, whilst at the same time the AI is so constrained as to present little challenge.”

I really don’t think that Alexander or Caesar would be impressed by it.

  I've played Arsenal of Democracy, which I think is a spin off of HoI2 which is fairly complex but then as you say a lot of trivial features so glad I never moved onto something like HoI4.  Prefer depth to my games and preferably a good deal of realism - having said that my favourite game currently is based in Middle Earth.

I can definitely recommend the AoD mode named CORE for its depth, events, relative realism and immersive quality. If that had been translated across to HoI4, with its better graphics and bells and whistles, it would have been much better.

As it stands, even the most grognard-friendly mod such as Blackice cannot make up for the immense flaws hard coded in the game.

I could go on in my criticisms of that game and Paradox, but shall find an appropriate computer game thread.

[simon darkshade]

Jul 23, 2021 9:20:54 GMT stevep said:

Jul 23, 2021 6:26:15 GMT simon darkshade said:

Churchill's History of the Second World War would be stylistically familiar in some ways to the likes of Caesar; not sure about Hannibal or Alexander. It would be interesting for the Romans to get a bit of Gibbon.

  Given that Gibbon is viewed as anti-Christian by some sources that could set up arguments between the classical down-timers and those from after Constantine's rise to power.

I do concur with the criticisms of Gibbon from that angle, as well as his generally Whiggish slant. I’m unsure, though, the extent to which classical chaps would take in the necessary knowledge, culture and outlook to “get” where he was coming from. Time is, I think, a greater divider.

[Zyobot]

Jul 23, 2021 10:25:58 GMT simon darkshade said:

Jul 23, 2021 9:20:54 GMT stevep said:

  Given that Gibbon is viewed as anti-Christian by some sources that could set up arguments between the classical down-timers and those from after Constantine's rise to power.

I do concur with the criticisms of Gibbon from that angle, as well as his generally Whiggish slant. I’m unsure, though, the extent to which classical chaps would take in the necessary knowledge, culture and outlook to “get” where he was coming from. Time is, I think, a greater divider.

Yes, time being a chasm-sized divider has been an oft-discussed theme of this thread. And with good reason, in many cases.

Speaking of generational differences, though, I wonder what they'd think of how us uptimers separate different age brackets of people into separate generations, each with their own era-specific upbringing and values? Certainly, it'd dovetail with just how fast society has changed over the last century alone, and how that trend shows no signs of stopping anytime soon.

Generations X, Y, and Z: Which One Are You?

[stevep]

Jul 23, 2021 17:02:55 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 23, 2021 10:25:58 GMT simon darkshade said:

I do concur with the criticisms of Gibbon from that angle, as well as his generally Whiggish slant. I’m unsure, though, the extent to which classical chaps would take in the necessary knowledge, culture and outlook to “get” where he was coming from. Time is, I think, a greater divider.

Yes, time being a chasm-sized divider has been an oft-discussed theme of this thread. And with good reason, in many cases.

Speaking of generational differences, though, I wonder what they'd think of how us uptimers separate different age brackets of people into separate generations, each with their own era-specific upbringing and values? Certainly, it'd dovetail with just how fast society has changed over the last century alone, and how that trend shows no signs of stopping anytime soon.

Generations X, Y, and Z: Which One Are You?

  Is that anything more than a marketing tool?

[Zyobot]

Jul 24, 2021 9:42:54 GMT stevep said:

Jul 23, 2021 17:02:55 GMT Zyobot said:

Yes, time being a chasm-sized divider has been an oft-discussed theme of this thread. And with good reason, in many cases.

Speaking of generational differences, though, I wonder what they'd think of how us uptimers separate different age brackets of people into separate generations, each with their own era-specific upbringing and values? Certainly, it'd dovetail with just how fast society has changed over the last century alone, and how that trend shows no signs of stopping anytime soon.

Generations X, Y, and Z: Which One Are You?

  Is that anything more than a marketing tool?

I’m not sure if it’s being disseminated strategically or with an ulterior motive in mind, but I’d think that given the historical conditions that certain age brackets live through, their experiences would produce common demographic characteristics, thus dividing them into separate generations with their own unique upbringings.

Dividing lines between one generation and the next may be fuzzy, but I’d think that there’s a gulf of difference between the collective birth years and experiences of the Lost Generation, and those of their Millennial grandchildren and great-grandchildren more than a century later. Hopefully, the rationale there would make sense to Greco-Romans, though it again uniquely dovetails with the unprecedented pace of change following the Industrial Revolution.

[stevep]

Jul 24, 2021 10:45:43 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 24, 2021 9:42:54 GMT stevep said:

  Is that anything more than a marketing tool?

I’m not sure if it’s being disseminated strategically or with an ulterior motive in mind, but I’d think that given the historical conditions that certain age brackets live through, their experiences would produce common demographic characteristics, thus dividing them into separate generations with their own unique upbringings.

Dividing lines between one generation and the next may be fuzzy, but I’d think that there’s a gulf of difference between the collective birth years and experiences of the Lost Generation, and those of their Millennial grandchildren and great-grandchildren more than a century later. Hopefully, the rationale there would make sense to Greco-Romans, though it again uniquely dovetails with the unprecedented pace of change following the Industrial Revolution.

  My question was because to my knowledge there never used to be such a fragmentation of age groups.  A clear if still possibly artificial divide was made between teenagers and 'adults' but not the partitioning of every 5-10 years of population groups and it looked more like something to generate more fashion cycles possibly.

[Zyobot]

Jul 24, 2021 11:21:08 GMT stevep said:

Jul 24, 2021 10:45:43 GMT Zyobot said:

I’m not sure if it’s being disseminated strategically or with an ulterior motive in mind, but I’d think that given the historical conditions that certain age brackets live through, their experiences would produce common demographic characteristics, thus dividing them into separate generations with their own unique upbringings.

Dividing lines between one generation and the next may be fuzzy, but I’d think that there’s a gulf of difference between the collective birth years and experiences of the Lost Generation, and those of their Millennial grandchildren and great-grandchildren more than a century later. Hopefully, the rationale there would make sense to Greco-Romans, though it again uniquely dovetails with the unprecedented pace of change following the Industrial Revolution.

  My question was because to my knowledge there never used to be such a fragmentation of age groups.  A clear if still possibly artificial divide was made between teenagers and 'adults' but not the partitioning of every 5-10 years of population groups and it looked more like something to generate more fashion cycles possibly.

Ah, so that’s what you’re asking.

I don’t know the history or strategy behind generational divisions, I’m afraid. The absence of classifying generations before the last century rolled around is a weird phenomenon, despite the nineteenth century also being a period of fundamental changes that completely separated those at its inception from those at its finale.

Maybe more attention was given to the concept after World War I, considering how the young men who came of age then were uniquely damaged, and thus had far uglier collective experiences that were removed from those of their parents and grandparents? Not saying that it’s the right catalyst for dividing up generations based on decade-long birth-year intervals, but intuitively, it strikes me as a thought process that might’ve gained traction at the time.

[stevep]

Jul 24, 2021 11:30:50 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 24, 2021 11:21:08 GMT stevep said:

  My question was because to my knowledge there never used to be such a fragmentation of age groups.  A clear if still possibly artificial divide was made between teenagers and 'adults' but not the partitioning of every 5-10 years of population groups and it looked more like something to generate more fashion cycles possibly.

Ah, so that’s what you’re asking.

I don’t know the history or strategy behind generational divisions, I’m afraid. The absence of classifying generations before the last century rolled around is a weird phenomenon, despite the nineteenth century also being a period of fundamental changes that completely separated those at its inception from those at its finale.

Maybe more attention was given to the concept after World War I, considering how the young men who came of age then were uniquely damaged, and thus had far uglier collective experiences that were removed from those of their parents and grandparents? Not saying that it’s the right catalyst for dividing up generations based on decade-long birth-year intervals, but intuitively, it strikes me as a thought process that might’ve gained traction at the time.

  There were considerations of certain age groups being affected by significant events, such as the 'lost generation' after WWI or the term 'the greatest generation' in the US for those who served in WWII but they tended not to greatly impact on how society viewed age groups at anything like the level of fragmentation I see now.

[Zyobot]

Jul 24, 2021 11:54:14 GMT stevep said:

Jul 24, 2021 11:30:50 GMT Zyobot said:

Ah, so that’s what you’re asking.

I don’t know the history or strategy behind generational divisions, I’m afraid. The absence of classifying generations before the last century rolled around is a weird phenomenon, despite the nineteenth century also being a period of fundamental changes that completely separated those at its inception from those at its finale.

Maybe more attention was given to the concept after World War I, considering how the young men who came of age then were uniquely damaged, and thus had far uglier collective experiences that were removed from those of their parents and grandparents? Not saying that it’s the right catalyst for dividing up generations based on decade-long birth-year intervals, but intuitively, it strikes me as a thought process that might’ve gained traction at the time.

  There were considerations of certain age groups being affected by significant events, such as the 'lost generation' after WWI or the term 'the greatest generation' in the US for those who served in WWII but they tended not to greatly impact on how society viewed age groups at anything like the level of fragmentation I see now.

Huh. Interesting comment, I hadn’t really thought of that.

I’d need to do considerably more reading, but now that you brought it up, I wonder if somewhat contrived generational divisions have affected the collective psyche of the corresponding age brackets, by causing them to behave as a group with their own experiences and distinct values? In which case, it’d essentially amount to a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the contrivance (or even expectation) of different generations leads to people born within a certain interval of years behaving in a similar way that binds them together—even without really realizing it. Not a thoroughly thought-out theory, I’ll concede, but one that your comment got me thinking about nonetheless.

In any case, I think you’ll get lots of Greco-Romans asking similar questions, once they learn how classifying generations of people is a suspiciously recent phenomenon that first took off long after the start of the Industrial Revolution and logarithmic pace of change that came with it.

[Zyobot]

We've touched on it more than once, but I still don't think slavery has gotten enough attention. Specifically, the political implications of Modernity's fierce anti-slavery campaign making inroads on the Twin Islands.

For one, I can imagine Abolitionism experiencing a massive revival, both within and outside of the Greco-Roman settlement. Uptimers coming out against it would be obvious, complete with news publications churning out article after article and broadcast after broadcast denouncing it and reminding audiences of not only slavery's more contemporary horrors, but also describing the Greco-Romans' approach and highlighting its worst excesses (even if it was technically still less evil than the Triangular Trade and American slavery, though that'd hardly matter when the point is abolishing it altogether). Ditto with the UN pressuring them to free and give restitution to their slaves expediently, as well as private uptimer groups taking matters into their own hands. You might even get some attempts at reviving the Underground Railroad, though they'd still have only limited success, for both legal and logistical reasons. Although, I can certainly imagine particularly brave slaves mounting escape attempts reminiscent of Cuban refugees back in the day, with uptimer maritime forces regularly patrolling the Ionian Sea for contingents of swimming, malnourished slaves.

Reactions within the Twin Islands, on the other hand, would vary considerably more. Reactionary backlash is a given, as are the massive economic concerns raised about who will do all the work in the slaves' absence (to which uptimers would respond with a mix of free labor and production-enhancing technology). However, I also wonder if more compassionate downtimers might surprise us, such as by forming their own abolitionist clubs or vocally speaking out against it. I'm not knowledgeable enough to name specific names, but it'd be quite an applause-generator to watch downtimers senators make a heel-face turn and denounce slavery, at least among uptimers tuning in and reading retroactive news commentary on their speech. Downtimers would have much more "mixed" feelings, unfortunately.

Something else that I think dovetails well with this is whether more "socialistic" ideals would gain steam among particularly brutalized slave communities? Your mileage may vary depending on where and from whence these communities come, but for the Helots in Sparta, I fear that a combination of both their numbers and history of oppression would generate some vicious backlash, as a firestorm of slave revolts becomes full-blown revolution. It's impressionistic, but I can imagine a V.I. Lenin expy speaking to a mass of clamoring Helot revolutionaries who've taken up arms and have started chanting communist slogans, before unleashing their own, Bolshevik-inspired terror campaign unto their former masters, and encouraging their "enslaved comrades" elsewhere to follow suit. Which only poses further problems, as I fear a critical mass of radicalized slaves--while not necessarily on board with the totalitarian models of Stalin, Mao, or the Kim Dynasty--would still act on their long-accumulating bitterness and carry out their own "Red Terrors", with their vaguely "Trotskyist" outlooks of decentralized workers' councils and constant revolution that might rise up being no better. Cures just as bad, if not worse than the disease, indeed.

[stevep]

   To be frank I can't see slavery surviving given up-time attitudes and power.  In things like mines its one of the most brutal versions of slavery that ever existed.  Which also presents another problem as since their not going to be allowed to obtain new slaves number would quickly decline if traditional methods were allowed to continue.

  However given the small size of the down-time colony I can't see it being able to prevent the modern world from interfering to stop the system.  Which of course requires deciding what to do with the freed slaves as they wouldn't be safe in the down time colony without a continued presence by the up-timers. 

  Can't remember whether its been said before but there are other reasons for intervention such as to maintain order in neighbouring waters and providing security on both sides against diseases that might run rampant.  Coupled with its location and that the bulk of the population would be considered white and I can't really see the down-time islands being under de-facto control, probably of the EU as the nearest great power for at least a decade or two once it arrives.  Which could well become permanent given the small size of the islands and the culture shock their likely to face as well as the EU's reluctance to ever give up power.