> Jane rules!
I abdicate. No-one rules. No-one should "rule". :)
>> They're not necessarily in chronological order, no, but there's a causality order. >> "I hate you because your future self will kill my brother" works, >> "I hate you because the plot requires me to" doesn't.
> I've been arguing this for years. I'm glad at least one person agrees with me. Or the other way around.
I didn't know you'd been arguing this, but then I didn't see that it required any argument.
> Mentally at least, I've merged the old with the new. When it comes to the army,
> I still see it as very Roman. But the Roman empire was never just about the legions.
Well, no, but they're the "norm", and the new stuff seems to skip the "norm".
> Almost every army had a bunch of allies that were nothing like the legions.
> Light cavalry, slingers, etc. Sometimes even hoplites. So that part still works for me.
yes, units from all the areas they've already conquered. Tarsh being the obvious example.
> The parts about the Brits and the Soviets is an awful lot like the Persian empire to me.
> Greg's been explicit that there's a definite Persian feel to a lot of the Lunar empire,
They make carpets? That's all that "Persian" implies to me. A little bit of "didn't Alexander fight them?" and that's the end of my knowledge on the subject. I actually asked this at the wargames weekend, of a group of well-educated people with an interest in history, and didn't get much more. It just isn't a useful analogue. They could list a few of the elite units, they mentioned watering wine, that's about it. No-one had any idea how the empire was structured, or what a Persian military group in a conquered area to collect taxes would look like, but we all know about the Legions, Boudicca, and Asterix the Gaul.
Powered by hypermail