Alas! Age of Empires, I've come to a sort of crisis in my life. And by crisis, I mean one of those miniscule inconveniences that are fun to hyperbolize about. You see, I made an unofficial resolution at the library to read more European history. Most of what I already knew about it comes from you, you untouchable, august emperor of RTS games, and I, ever greedy, wanted more. So I checked out a book on Attila the Hun...
...and my world turned upside down. Because, darn it, Age of Empires, if the guy who wrote the book is right, the Romans were worse than Attila, and the great general Aetius was nothing better than a backstabbing opportunist. You got him wrong, man. In fact, the whole point of the book is to show how one Roman historian began to challenge the "civilized Rome vs. barbarian Other" concept. Which brings me to a more serious consideration.
I was about to write simply that I like my ancient barbarians to stay barbarian, because I do. The book was saturated with an irritating kind of multiculturalism, and I was kind of annoyed that the author was trying so hard to put current North American values into the fifth century Roman empire(s). Let's not prissify Attila. On the other hand, it is suddenly apparent that I'm being just like those rotten old Romans of the book, who were more comfortable with the Huns as savages than as equals. Why, exactly, do I want to view the Huns as ferociously filthy fighters on horseback and not as diplomats with all the finesse of Roman VIPs?
Partly because it makes a good story. But why does it make a good story? That opens a frightening can of worms, Age of Empires. And all because you present a suspiciously simple version of events. I don't know whether to be happy that you've made me think about things, or upset that you may have betrayed my trust. Do try to redeem yourself while I ruminate upon these matters. (Upstart book, don't think I trust you, either.)
No comments:
Post a Comment