 |
|  |
 |
|
Cort Haus
|
 |
London
Apr 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
Is Engineering too late in the tech tree for bridge-building?
Whilst discussing the history of London on another forum, I mentioned how the Romans needed a crossing over the Thames, which then needed a substantial garrision, and the city of Londinium was born. ISTR that the archeological/historical record suggests the bridge was built between 50 and 60AD.
Now, it's true that in most of my Civ games the middle ages have arrived by around this time, but at the risk of winding vmxa1 up , I'd say that 2000 years ago is generally considered the ancient era. If was, after all, Rome's day.
So, if a city like London was founded 2000 years ago because of a bridge, is it not fair to say that bridge-building is an ancient tech?
It would certainly help the Iroquois/Gallic Swordie rushes!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000 time: 07:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Cort Haus
Is Engineering too late in the tech tree for bridge-building?
Whilst discussing the history of London on another forum, I mentioned how the Romans needed a crossing over the Thames, which then needed a substantial garrision, and the city of Londinium was born. ISTR that the archeological/historical record suggests the bridge was built between 50 and 60AD.
Now, it's true that in most of my Civ games the middle ages have arrived by around this time, but at the risk of winding vmxa1 up , I'd say that 2000 years ago is generally considered the ancient era. If was, after all, Rome's day.
So, if a city like London was founded 2000 years ago because of a bridge, is it not fair to say that bridge-building is an ancient tech?
It would certainly help the Iroquois/Gallic Swordie rushes! |
hi ,
build a city near a river and you dont need a bridge , .......
have a nice day
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Tiberius

|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000 time: 06:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Cort Haus
According to a guy I read on a forum years ago, the Dacians were an Illyrian tribe, (as the Albanians claim to still be), who were overrun by Rome, and the newcomers changed the name to Romania to reflect the new facts-on-the-ground. |
Not exactly. The roman province was named Dacia, IIRC. The romans stayed aprox. 250 years after which they withdraw. These are facts. From here the rest is speculation.
The romanians claim that only the army and the administration left and that the colonists stayed. The Dacians and their Roman conquerors intermarried and formed what would become the Romanian nation; the process is called Romanization.
Basically everybody else believe (or so I know) that this is only romanian propaganda. Historical evidence also suggest this. So this other theory claims that the romans withdraw for good, with settlers, colonists, kids, dogs, etc, you got it. The romanians came only later from south of the Danube and settled in and around the Charpatian mountains only much later (1000 years later). I found this second hypothesis much more plausible, given the fact that no evidence, none whatsoever was found to prove the first theory. There is a thousand years period of missing data, when countless numbers of migrating tribes and barbarians crossed this area (avars, huns, bulgarians, hungarians, etc ) without mentioning a nation that supposedly lived here, strong enough to resist to all those invaders.
Next facts we know for sure:
- starting with the 10th century hungarian (magyar) colonists settled the area west from the Charpatian mountains, in the Pannonian Fields. They ruled it until the 16th century, when the ottomans conquered basically all of south-east Europe and destroyed the hungarian kingdom, which fell into pieces. The population of Hungary halfed in that period, allowing for other nationalities to fill in the empty space, especially near the border.
The first written source mentioning the Vlachs (romanians) in Transylvania is from the 13th century. The romanians ruled two (small) provinces, Wallachia and Moldavia, most of the time being vassals of their strong neighbours: ottomans, poles or hungarians. No nation called the Vlach people as Romanians until the late 19th century. French crusaders called them "Blach", the neighboring Greeks and Slavs knew them as Vlach, while Hungarians have known them as "Olah", which derives from "Volach".
Anyway, regardless of what has happened after the romans left, the bridge on the Danube is an important historical monument proving once again the greatness of the roman empire.
Sorry for the off topic post.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|