• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's impossible to say the exact year of the sack of Rome. 390 BC is traditional year, 387 BC is modern estimation. It was a big deal for Romans because it was unusual event that Gauls invaded the city of Rome itself. Other invasions to Roman territory didn't reach the city itself. We have to rely on Roman and Greek written sources about the Celts, because while they are biased there are no other written sources. I was earlier referring to Gallia Cisalpina when I said that power of Gauls was waning in Italy. After Gauls lost in Third Samnite War Rome established itself as the ruling power of Italy and after that they conquered Gallia Cisalpina piece by piece.

And while I have heard about theories that medieval Celts (Saint Brendan and later Madoc) sailed to North America, there is no real hard evidence to support these theories. In any case these claimed expeditions happened many centuries later than what's the game's focus. I would also like to point out that Cú Chulainn means Culann's Hound (He is actually one of my favourite heroes from Irish mythology) and Kukulkan means feathered serpent. Two names have different etymology. Snake and dragon are universal symbols and almost every culture has such symbols, it doesn't mean that traditions are connected.

I asked you to give sources, because what you claimed was in conflict about what I have read about the Roman and Celtic history (both ancient histories and modern academic works) and you asked that these things should be included to game. If you want to name French sources then go ahead, I have read few books in French before, so it's not a problem. Personally I believe that game should be based to actual history and not to unproven theories. However I agree that Gallic tribes in Europa Universalis: Rome fall too early and easily to Romans. I think that the biggest issue is that Roman AI takes conquering the weaker Gallic tribes as their first priority instead of focusing on taking Carthage, Greece and Hispania.

In 500 BC Rome was still a little province, it grow to entire italy only at approx 200BC.
there were lots of fight beetwen roman and celtics tribes, not always at advantage to celtic because they had not discipline as roman pro military, but they were very feared by romans. the battle of allae(the one 387BC) is the most dramatic in roman history but there were a lot more, for example when hannibal traveled spain, claiming help of arvern, volks and allobroges tribes to join his troop they also give severe defeat to roman before being slowly and hardly postponed by romans.

387BC fight and defeat of roman close to allae river, 386 BC rome is sacked except capitol were all the rest of roman were barricaded, they tried to trade their peace with ransom and offered 1000l of gold, Brennus arranged a cheated balance with false weight, roman realise and denunce it, (and that's another huge historical error for the extension of rome) So Brennus added his sword to the balance and reply to him saying "vae victis" which means "misfortune to defeated". source ? Tite Live, roman history, p252-253 (another roman historian but more objective)

about Cuchulainn and Kukulkan :
the proven fail of science is that is based on concrete clues meanwhile in historical books we can found for exemple (sorry it's in french) :

"Les premiers hommes sont venus de l'est, en compagnie de vingt chefs glorieux, portant de longs vêtements flottants et de grandes barbes." source, "Chilam balam from chumayel" (Mayan historical book)

"Les embarcations portaient des êtres à peau blanche, auxquels certaines traditions prêtent une haute taille et des yeux bleus. Ils avaient des vêtements étranges et leur front s'ornait d'emblèmes pareils à des serpents entrelacés. Les naturels qui les virent débarquer reconnurent sur leur visage le symbole du Serpent Sacré qu'ils vénéraient, et surent alors que ces étrangers étaient leurs dieux, descendus du soleil pour les enseigner et les guider." source,Edward Herbert Thompson(American-born archaeologist and diplomat.), "Le Peuple du Serpent, vie et aventures chez les Mayas", 1932 <== ^^.

about Cuchulainn :
Setenta was his name but was renamed Cuchulainn, Cuchulainn means "dog of culan" in reference to his history/legend which begin with his fight with a huge dog, a danish dog logical for nordic people no ? which belonged to the blacksmith nammed Culan. Because of his murder his fate was linked to this date and he dies the day he saw a dog(don't remember the exact story), from irish celtic tales. source , irish tales from "tuatha de danann"
As you would know tales like this one are based on real event because it was the local culture to arrange things, but Cuchulainn was a real lord.
for exemple the well known Arthur and his tales are inspired from a real breton celtic king who invade Britain(Bretagne) in france in approx 700BC.

my other source are far away in bretagne in my father's house, but very serious too.

advice is cheap
also to conclude :
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift" Albert Einstein
 
Last edited:
In 500 BC Rome was still a little province, it grow to entire italy only at approx 200BC.
there were lots of fight beetwen roman and celtics tribes, not always at advantage to celtic because they had not discipline as roman pro military, but they were very feared by romans. the battle of allae(the one 387BC) is the most dramatic in roman history but there were a lot more, for example when hannibal traveled spain, claiming help of arvern, volks and allobroges tribes to join his troop they also give severe defeat to roman before being slowly and hardly postponed by romans.

387BC fight and defeat of roman close to allae river, 386 BC rome is sacked except capitol were all the rest of roman were barricaded, they tried to trade their peace with ransom and offered 1000l of gold, Brennus arranged a cheated balance with false weight, roman realise and denunce it, (and that's another huge historical error for the extension of rome) So Brennus added his sword to the balance and reply to him saying "vae victis" which means "misfortune to defeated". source ? Tite Live, roman history, p252-253 (another roman historian but more objective)

about Cuchulainn and Kukulkan :
the proven fail of science is that is based on concrete clues meanwhile in historical books we can found for exemple (sorry it's in french) :

"Les premiers hommes sont venus de l'est, en compagnie de vingt chefs glorieux, portant de longs vêtements flottants et de grandes barbes." source, "Chilam balam from chumayel" (Mayan historical book)

"Les embarcations portaient des êtres à peau blanche, auxquels certaines traditions prêtent une haute taille et des yeux bleus. Ils avaient des vêtements étranges et leur front s'ornait d'emblèmes pareils à des serpents entrelacés. Les naturels qui les virent débarquer reconnurent sur leur visage le symbole du Serpent Sacré qu'ils vénéraient, et surent alors que ces étrangers étaient leurs dieux, descendus du soleil pour les enseigner et les guider." source,Edward Herbert Thompson(American-born archaeologist and diplomat.), "Le Peuple du Serpent, vie et aventures chez les Mayas", 1932 <== ^^.

about Cuchulainn :
Setenta was his name but was renamed Cuchulainn, Cuchulainn means "dog of culan" in reference to his history/legend which begin with his fight with a huge dog, a danish dog logical for nordic people no ? which belonged to the blacksmith nammed Culan. Because of his murder his fate was linked to this date and he dies the day he saw a dog(don't remember the exact story), from irish celtic tales. source , irish tales from "tuatha de danann"
As you would know tales like this one are based on real event because it was the local culture to arrange things, but Cuchulainn was a real lord.
for exemple the well known Arthur and his tales are inspired from a real breton celtic king who invade Britain(Bretagne) in france in approx 700BC.

my other source are far away in bretagne in my father's house, but very serious too.

advice is cheap
also to conclude :
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift" Albert Einstein

I see that your argument is based on a story about white bearded men on feathered serpent mythology. Chilam Balam was written in 18th century and there are many scholars who think that it's stories have considerable Spanish influence. And there isn't anything in that book which would justify why late preclassic Mayan cities should be included to Rome 2. Don't get me wrong I can enjoy fantasy scenarios and use my imagination (I even bought Sunset Invasion to CKII), but I just don't see why Mesoamerica should be included to Rome 2 (unless it's done in some fantasy expansion), when there is no real evidence of any contact during the ancient era (I don't believe that the ancient Phoenicians or Celts sailed to Americas). However I think that Rome 2 should have larger map, but the realms which should be included are Kush, Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and Scythia (EU: Rome only has Sarmatian part of Scythia). These realms had actual contacts with the Greeks and the Romans.

PS: Cú Chulainn's geis was that he shouldn't eat dog meat.
 
I see that your argument is based on a story about white bearded men on feathered serpent mythology. Chilam Balam was written in 18th century and there are many scholars who think that it's stories have considerable Spanish influence. And there isn't anything in that book which would justify why late preclassic Mayan cities should be included to Rome 2. Don't get me wrong I can enjoy fantasy scenarios and use my imagination (I even bought Sunset Invasion to CKII), but I just don't see why Mesoamerica should be included to Rome 2 (unless it's done in some fantasy expansion), when there is no real evidence of any contact during the ancient era (I don't believe that the ancient Phoenicians or Celts sailed to Americas). However I think that Rome 2 should have larger map, but the realms which should be included are Kush, Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and Scythia (EU: Rome only has Sarmatian part of Scythia). These realms had actual contacts with the Greeks and the Romans.

PS: Cú Chulainn's geis was that he shouldn't eat dog meat.

the chilam balam books are not a story, it's history from maya's yanalté writen hyerogliphic,not fantasy scenario. it was written after spanish colonisation but based on the antic mayan yanalté.
i see your only plaisure is to negate all I say despite i gave you 2 sources, how many do you want ? read more, stop attempting to prove your educated. where are yours ?? what you mean by scholar's ? I talk about real historian and archeologist work.
nowadays we are almost sure that not only vikings went to america, concording to historian theory about celtic travel another recent nordic archeological cite was found in that last years.
About vikings and celtic travel to America, think one thing, if someone gets somewhere why would he go there only one time ?? it is familiar that every neighbour tend to imitate other, watch your actual one, you buy a car, he buy another, why nordic civ should be the only to travel to america thinking they occupy celtic territory with lived next to other celtic civ.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" A.E
you say Maya shouldn't be included in rome 2 but mayan civ exist long before roman first fonded city (Rome ap. 750 BC) archeologist estimate that their culture started on approx 3000 BC.
stop saying nothing.
anyway I won't answer any of yours, just read more.
 
the chilam balam books are not a story, it's history from maya's yanalté writen hyerogliphic,not fantasy scenario. it was written after spanish colonisation but based on the antic mayan yanalté.
i see your only plaisure is to negate all I say despite i gave you 2 sources, how many do you want ? read more, stop attempting to prove your educated. where are yours ?? what you mean by scholar's ? I talk about real historian and archeologist work.
nowadays we are almost sure that not only vikings went to america, concording to historian theory about celtic travel another recent nordic archeological cite was found in that last years.
About vikings and celtic travel to America, think one thing, if someone gets somewhere why would he go there only one time ?? it is familiar that every neighbour tend to imitate other, watch your actual one, you buy a car, he buy another, why nordic civ should be the only to travel to america thinking they occupy celtic territory with lived next to other celtic civ.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" A.E
you say Maya shouldn't be included in rome 2 but mayan civ exist long before roman first fonded city (Rome ap. 750 BC) archeologist estimate that their culture started on approx 3000 BC.
stop saying nothing.
anyway I won't answer any of yours, just read more.

I never claimed that Maya culture didn't exist during that time. I even mentioned cultural period of the Mayan history which corresponds with Europa Universalis: Rome's time period. You gave two examples which mention bearded white man myth. It doesn't say anything about Celts in Mesoamerica. I just asked you to give something which says that Celts were there. Also China existed during this time period, but I don't think that China should be in game either, because it's contacts with Rome were minimal. You asked that I name some source to prove my statements, so here it is: "'The Coming of the White People'. Reflections on the Mythologisation of History in Latin America" by Olivia Harris. You can find the article from JSTOR or from book "Colonial Spanish America: A Documentary History". This article discusses about the modern academic criticism towards white bearded man myth and even presents some theories that Spanish may have invented the whole "we are gods" -thing to fool the natives.

And I never claimed that Vikings didn't visit in North America. I have read the relevant sagas and couple of articles about the Norse colony in Newfoundland.

I don't oppose you violently and it's nothing personal, I just asked you to give valid (preferably academic) evidence to support you claim, because your claim contradicts everything I have ever read about the topic. I'm willing to believe you if you can give me hard evidence.
 
Last edited:
I think the time is right for Rome 2. The question is what would be a good timeline? 280-27BC? 510-27BC? 15000BC-15000AD?

4000 BC to 2000 AD - The Game of Life. :)

In all seriousness, maybe 280 BC to 27 BC and then expansions/DLC to bring in earlier and later periods.
 
If the game is called Rome then it should last to about 350-400 AD

While it might be interesting just for the sake of variety, would there be much to do in the later years of the Western Empire except to see if you could stave off barbarian attacks, or if you could play the barbarians, to see how quickly you could take down the empire?
 
While it might be interesting just for the sake of variety, would there be much to do in the later years of the Western Empire except to see if you could stave off barbarian attacks, or if you could play the barbarians, to see how quickly you could take down the empire?

At one occasion the Roman Empire was divided into three parts during the Crisis of the Third Century. This period when Gallic Empire (260-274 AD) and Palmyrene Empire (260-273 AD) declared independence from the Rome could be interesting to play. But besides that I think that most of the Imperial era doesn't offer enough interesting factions to play, besides Rome and Parthia/Sassanids there are just barbarians (and Barbarians become interesting only during the Völkerwanderung). Scenarios based on the era of 7 kings and early republic however could offer plenty of interesting tribes/city-states to play as (League of 12 Etruscan cities, Umbrians, Samnites, Greek city-states of Magna Graecia etc.)
 
There are some possibilities-maybe a section of the empire could try to reunite the rest, but I think overall game play would become tedious soon apart from a goal of that sort. There's a reason why most games set in the Roman world don't focus on that period-I think it would be difficult to make such a game that is both challenging and stays relatively historical. I think the same thing is why a game from the early Middle Ages would be hard to design unless you are willing to totally throw history away.
 
"Stay relatively historical"... You mean like sacrificing a pig to gain 1 stability, or getting a positive omen that gives you 25% extra manpower?

It can easily cover the era by exploiting the 'what ifs'. What if Christianism didn't happen? What if the empire got divided in a major religious civil war? What if the barbarians appeared before? What if Jesus was born in Persia and the religion started spreading from there? There are so many things that could have happened in this period that could be explored.
 
"Stay relatively historical"... You mean like sacrificing a pig to gain 1 stability, or getting a positive omen that gives you 25% extra manpower?

IMHO that is historical after its own fashion; whereas as a game that extends well into the imperial period where the Vandals convert to a mystery religion and take over the British Isles and discover gunpowder weapons or something like that wouldn't be.
 
Scenarios based on the era of 7 kings and early republic however could offer plenty of interesting tribes/city-states to play as (League of 12 Etruscan cities, Umbrians, Samnites, Greek city-states of Magna Graecia etc.)

You're gonna need a bigger map (and I mean more provinces [but alas I'd love this]).

Cliges said:
IMHO that is historical after its own fashion; whereas as a game that extends well into the imperial period where the Vandals convert to a mystery religion and take over the British Isles and discover gunpowder weapons or something like that wouldn't be.

Truth.
In a city-state or small nation, sacrificing one animal and deriving positive omens (ensured by the gold spent, I suppose), could indeed raise stability. It would at least make the superstitious masses think the gods condone the leaders' actions, and they are less likely to complain/revolt (see the political usage, when a senator would should "bad omen!" in order to end a day's assembly).
As for an omen giving 25% more manpower...I'd say 5 or 10% more is more realistic, but a good omen would possibly make young men more eager to enlist, or cause superstitious bumpkins with nothing to do to flock to the banners seeing holy approval.

One thing I'd like to see is the evolution of an armed forces.
I want to see an army go from seasonal calling-up of propertied men with a small compensation (less expensive but less effective and organized), to accepting volunteers and recruiting propertied men only in times of need for a few years at a time (more expensive--all that food), to accepting volunteers and recruiting all able men for a decade or more (most expensive--most must be armed by the state).
 
Truth.
In a city-state or small nation, sacrificing one animal and deriving positive omens (ensured by the gold spent, I suppose), could indeed raise stability

Yes, that's what I mean. And it's also a game mechanic; if it REALLY bothers someone, I guess it might be called something else other than sacrifice. I think it's fine as it is, but as a last recourse, one can think of it as simply "that thing you do when you want to increase stability for a price".
 
Yes, that's what I mean. And it's also a game mechanic; if it REALLY bothers someone, I guess it might be called something else other than sacrifice. I think it's fine as it is, but as a last recourse, one can think of it as simply "that thing you do when you want to increase stability for a price".

Yes, as an abstract (such as it is in EU3).
 

As I mentioned, you'd need a ludicrously detailed map that enables super-zoom.
The Etruscan city of Veii, 10 miles from Rome, was conquered by it in 357 AUC. Yeah. So I'd imagine the first 400 years or so of the game would be very slow.
 
As I mentioned, you'd need a ludicrously detailed map that enables super-zoom.
The Etruscan city of Veii, 10 miles from Rome, was conquered by it in 357 AUC. Yeah. So I'd imagine the first 400 years or so of the game would be very slow.

I guess there is the alternative of having a different map for different scenarios, with some large, and others as local or regional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.