Help a newbie create a Roman (space) Empire

[Ivankovsky]

Helo, I recently started playing Stellaris and got to grips with the game with a United Nations of Earth campaign, now that I am done playing as the lame humans I want a game with the proper humans..
Commonwealth of Man looks ok, but why play as them when you have that SPQR names list?

So I decided on the totally original idea of creating a Roman Empire, but I need help choosing the right traits.
To elaborate;

- I want a Roman Empire modeled after its peak (Augustus).
- Its is NOT moddled after the Roman Republic (I might do that later).
- The Empire is running on the assumption that its current form of government somehow held perfectlly until space exploration, that is, obviusly Rome never fell, "Emperor" titles are given to the heir.
- Rome, somehow, managed to conquer the whole world.

These are the traits I have chosen for now:

Government type - Imperial
(I am aware this was not always the case historically, but remember I am modelling this after Augustus and I'm saving oligarchic for the republic)
Ethics - It has to have some level of Militaristic and Authoritarian, how much or what else I haven't decided.
Civics - Maybe Distinguished Admiralty and Warrior culture? or Slaver Guilds?
Species traits - I'd say Decadent, Agrarian and Natural engineers?

Full on, all the way in shameless Latin for all the names!
Species name:
Noun: hominum
Plural: homines
Adjective: humanum

Empire Name: Imperium Romanorum?

Leader title: imperator/imperatrix
Heir title: princeps?

Sol default system
Homeplanet: Terra

Open to your suggestions, and take it easy, I'm no historian or Latin speaker, this is mostly for a fun RP.

 

[Dmitrius]

Yeah I had a blast doing this a few months back. Definitely one of my favourite playthroughs.

You're roleplaying a post Marian reforms empire obviously but I enjoyed calling my corvettes hastati, my destroyers principes and my cruisers triarii. I believe I got got stuck with battleships and ending up calling them ballistae which at least makes half sense.

Have fun man.

 

[Dreadlord]

Paradox got you covered with Human (SPQR) namelist,

-I'd suggest Dictatorial authority since Military & Senate usually declare their own heir the moment an Emperor bites the dust alongside his own designated heir. Civil wars was quite the norm but there is no way to model that in game...
-Fanatic Militarist & Authoritarian. For civics I'd avoid slaving guilds at the start and don't caste system for humans as slavery was abolished quite few centuries ago, Warrior Culture & Cutthroat Politics maybe?
-Regular Human Traits should be fine.
-Imperium Romanorum sounds something like Empire of the Romans, Imperium Romanum? At any rate, I'm not sure which one they actually used and my Latin is rusty as hell.

Other than these, I think you're good to go

 

[WhapXI]

Honestly, the best advice to give would be to play what feels good to you.

Rome wasn't really called the Roman Empire kind of, and its ruler never called Emperor. These are terms we've derived from this period of history and then applied them retroactively, which kind of taints our understanding and assumptions about what it was actually like.

The period of history you're talking about is generally referred to as the "Principate". Formally speaking the "Empire" was still called the Roman Republic (Senatus et Populus que Romanus - The Senate and People of Rome). Formally still, the sovereign power rested with the people, that is, Roman citizens, and the "Emperor" bore the official title of Princeps, which meant something along the lines of "first citizen" or "first among equals". The idea of an almighty monarch who was far above his subjects in diginity and honour and divinity didn't exist at the time (at least in this context). The first few centuries of "Emperors" were dictators who ruled via Republican trappings.

I would argue for something like dictatorial authority with materialist/militarist ethics but to be perfectly honest arguments could be made for literally anything. The empire did a lot of different stuff at different times.

Just make the Roman Empire as you understand it or want it to be. Just have fun! Play your dignified space emperors and enslave millions!

 

[aQuilaSwe]

Most fitting Civics for an Imperial Romanesque Stellaris Civilization IMO:

• Aristocratic Elite: The Romans had an entrenched nobility class. It was very difficult to join the upper echelons of Roman society, when not born into it. High Offices (e.g. Governors, Generals, Legates etc...) where excursively given to the uppermost nobility.
• Nationalistic Zeal: The Romans had a very strong sense of nationalistic pride. They thought their civilization was the greatest and all other civilizations where Barbarians.
• Citizen Service: The Romans gave citizenship to non-Romans if they served in their auxiliary troops. Only Roman citizens were allowed in the Legions. Being promoted through the military was the primary way of becoming nobility.

Also fitting candidates for Roman Civics:

• Efficient Bureaucracy: The Romans had very an efficient bureaucracy for the time period.
• Functional Architecture: The Romans had very functional architecture.
• Cutthroat Politics: The politics in Roman society was very dangerous and cutthroat. (Also not for Imperial)
• Distinguished Admiralty: For Roman nobility serving in the military as tribunes and later possibly as Legate and General was a step in the carrier ladder. If you during your time as Legate led your Legion to many victories, that would be good for your political carrier.

Why I think that these don't fit:

• Slaver Guilds: Yes, the Romans had slavery. But there weren't any large slaver guilds that had political power in the government.
• Warrior Culture: While the Romans had a strong professional Army, their culture did not evolve around Martial Prowess.

Regarding Ethics I would go with Fanatic Militarist and Authoritarian.

 

[Valfoutre]

Post Auguste-Rome?

Well, spiritualist of course, and militarist.
I would put xenophile, because romans always integrate conquered cultures, but that's a personnal taste. Maybe fanatic militarist, or a bit authoritarian... Since at this time, big scale slavery is still a thing, until the III or IV century at least.

For the Name, a simple SPQR would fit. Nobody said Empire or Emperor.
You can call the ruler a lot of things... Octavius was Imperator 21 time, princeps for life, pater patriae, pontifex maximus, consul a lot of time (but not every year) and of course, Auguste (which is a title, not a name).
So, I would go with is official title from 27 BC: IMPERATOR CAESAR DIVI FILIVS AVGVSTVS.

Also, no U nowhere at this time. ;-)


Regarding civics, I agree with everything the man just above said.

Also, regarding the state, you can go with dictatorial, or imperial (the Julio-Claudian were all from the "same" bloodline. It will be latter that ruler choose the next by adopting it, and not choosing the hereditary sons).

 

[Ursul]

I designed a Platypus Roman Empire once; went with citizens service and efficient bureaucracy, militarist, spiritualist and authoritarian. I can’t recall the species traits aside from decadent.

 

[Ivankovsky]

Thanks for all the replies!

Manny of you seem to be talking about the imperator/imperatrix title or just the name Roman Empire, I am aware that those were not the official titles, I'm going to try elaborating a bit further on what I'm trying to do:

My Rome, err.. "timeline" would split during the peak Augustus reign, from there imagine everything goes perfect for the Romans, no unfortunate Teutoburg accident, no innefective to lackluster rulers, just straightforward expansion of the empire, things are going up so well that the people just roll with it to the point of merging our present "tainted" image of the Roman empire and just accept their "emperor" and "empire" titles.

The reason I'm picking "Imperial" type of government and "imperator" ruler is because, well, I just want that scarlet "imperial" feel to my game tbh, but without losing the Roman identity, just merging it a little with the "tainted" look we have of it. It sounds totally far-fetched but hey, we are talking about space faring Romans so yeah.

Those above are the things I dont wanna change, but I've seen manny good suggestions here for the rest too:

- Removing slaver guilds, yeah never heard anything about large roman slaver guilds
- Efficient Bureaucracy, fitting and goes in line with "everything going perfect for the romans"
- Functional Architecture, fitting
- Cutthroat Politics, saving it for the Republic
- Distinguished Admiralty, very fitting
- citizens service, saving it for the Republic
- Nationalistic Zeal, how could I forget about roman sense of superiority!?
- materialist, fitting
- Aristocratic Elite, republic
- xenophile/Xenophobe, love or hate for other species is not ringing my roman bells..
- spiritualist, conflicted due to the (mostly) secular nature of rome, or intregation into the roman pantheon, is this even related to religion? spiritualism is kinda confusing for me.

I think I just need to mix the pot and see what also fits best gameplay wise.
Thanks again for the suggestions!

 

[Ezumiyr]

Most fitting Civics for an Imperial Romanesque Stellaris Civilization IMO:

• Aristocratic Elite: The Romans had an entrenched nobility class. It was very difficult to join the upper echelons of Roman society, when not born into it. High Offices (e.g. Governors, Generals, Legates etc...) where excursively given to the uppermost nobility.
• Nationalistic Zeal: The Romans had a very strong sense of nationalistic pride. They thought their civilization was the greatest and all other civilizations where Barbarians.
• Citizen Service: The Romans gave citizenship to non-Romans if they served in their auxiliary troops. Only Roman citizens were allowed in the Legions. Being promoted through the military was the primary way of becoming nobility.

Also fitting candidates for Roman Civics:

• Efficient Bureaucracy: The Romans had very an efficient bureaucracy for the time period.
• Functional Architecture: The Romans had very functional architecture.
• Cutthroat Politics: The politics in Roman society was very dangerous and cutthroat. (Also not for Imperial)
• Distinguished Admiralty: For Roman nobility serving in the military as tribunes and later possibly as Legate and General was a step in the carrier ladder. If you during your time as Legate led your Legion to many victories, that would be good for your political carrier.

Why I think that these don't fit:

• Slaver Guilds: Yes, the Romans had slavery. But there weren't any large slaver guilds that had political power in the government.
• Warrior Culture: While the Romans had a strong professional Army, their culture did not evolve around Martial Prowess.

Regarding Ethics I would go with Fanatic Militarist and Authoritarian.

I would disagree with two general ideas in this list.
First, it doesn't make sense to say they had a very strong sense of NATIONALISTIC pride. Nationalism is simply something that didn't exist. Romans were proud to be citizens of the center of the world, as well as the most civilized people on the planet (both from their pov of course). They also promoted the use of latin everywhere in the western part of the Empire. But that's pretty much all, and that's not enough to be called "nationalism". (as a side note, speaking about roman nationalism will get you immediately associated with Mussolini and fascism in certain countries. Be aware that most historians call nationalism an anachronism before the 18th century).
Secondly, I would disagree that serving in the military was the core of the political carrier. It was certainly an important step for many aristocrats, but if you intended to make a political career, you were better off doing the cursus honorum, which was heavily centered around rhetorical skills. Military skills only became primordial in the late empire, or even later. But the most important asset in fact, was simply to be very, very wealthy, because of how politics worked (the clientelism system). More generally, the ROman society didn't promote militarism that much - there's a strong argument for Citizen Service, but IMO that's the only militarist civic that really seem roman-defining, even if it works a lot better for the Republic than the Empire.

Overall, the Roman Empire can certainly be considered as Militarist because of the importance of the army in the Roman history, however I don't think it would be fanatic militarist, and the importance of armies and wars is generally vastly overestimated in the public. Let's see the other possibilities:
- Xenophobe/Xenophile: I don't think Xenophobe makes a lot of sense for the Roman empire. Yes, they commited some genocides, and yes, they often enslaved conquered populations, but overall they integrated far more people within their empire - and in fact, it would make sense to make the Roman Empire Xenophile given how easily they integrated foreign elites within their society. They seem to work quite well with the Authoritarian/Xenophile combo.

- Materialism/Spiritualism. This one is tricky. On one hand, their society and even their traditional religion was very materialist (you exchanged some sacrifices for services from the gods, you gave food for the dead etc). On the other hand, the Roman Empire was christian for a longer time than it was "pagan", and christianism is those times was strongly defined by the belief in an afterlife (rather than by a karma-like system). I can see arguments for both sides.

Some other civics (besides Aristocratic Elites, Functional Architecture, Citizen Service, Efficient Bureaucracy and Cutthroat Politics) I think work well for a Roman Empire (or at least certain visions of it):
- Philosopher King. They add several emperors who deserve to be called "philosopher".
- Police State. While Rome wasn't exactly a police state, this civics provides unrest and piracy reduction, and it's true that during its golden ages, the roman empire had very harsh policies against banditism and piracy.

 

[M4_HeretiC]

I agree with the above post but will give my 2 cents regarding species traits

Species traits - I'd say Decadent, Agrarian and Natural engineers?

Natural engineers - Sure , Rome was famous for their construction skills
Agrarian - yes , Romans were also very skilled agriculturists and Roman Senators had to own land and have their main income from it. Mining probably would be ok but trading would be seen as not appropriate. Still the advancements in agriculture were more a necessity then a roman live style trait. Think about the big cities in the Empire with Rome standing out - this was not really an agrarian culture. Veterans were given land because it was a honorable way to ensure they have a living but still Rome was to urbanized to be counted an agricultural society and in the future this certainly would have changed even more.
Decadent - Probably but I would not consider Rome decadent at the times of Augustus so probably I would stick with the human wasteful trait.
I could see Romans rather as Talented , Communal or Quick Learners in addition to Natural engineers

 

[Ivankovsky]

I would disagree with two general ideas in this list.
First, it doesn't make sense to say they had a very strong sense of NATIONALISTIC pride. Nationalism is simply something that didn't exist. Romans were proud to be citizens of the center of the world, as well as the most civilized people on the planet (both from their pov of course). They also promoted the use of latin everywhere in the western part of the Empire. But that's pretty much all, and that's not enough to be called "nationalism". (as a side note, speaking about roman nationalism will get you immediately associated with Mussolini and fascism in certain countries. Be aware that most historians call nationalism an anachronism before the 18th century).
Secondly, I would disagree that serving in the military was the core of the political carrier. It was certainly an important step for many aristocrats, but if you intended to make a political career, you were better off doing the cursus honorum, which was heavily centered around rhetorical skills. Military skills only became primordial in the late empire, or even later. But the most important asset in fact, was simply to be very, very wealthy, because of how politics worked (the clientelism system). More generally, the ROman society didn't promote militarism that much - there's a strong argument for Citizen Service, but IMO that's the only militarist civic that really seem roman-defining, even if it works a lot better for the Republic than the Empire.

Overall, the Roman Empire can certainly be considered as Militarist because of the importance of the army in the Roman history, however I don't think it would be fanatic militarist, and the importance of armies and wars is generally vastly overestimated in the public. Let's see the other possibilities:
- Xenophobe/Xenophile: I don't think Xenophobe makes a lot of sense for the Roman empire. Yes, they commited some genocides, and yes, they often enslaved conquered populations, but overall they integrated far more people within their empire - and in fact, it would make sense to make the Roman Empire Xenophile given how easily they integrated foreign elites within their society. They seem to work quite well with the Authoritarian/Xenophile combo.

- Materialism/Spiritualism. This one is tricky. On one hand, their society and even their traditional religion was very materialist (you exchanged some sacrifices for services from the gods, you gave food for the dead etc). On the other hand, the Roman Empire was christian for a longer time than it was "pagan", and christianism is those times was strongly defined by the belief in an afterlife (rather than by a karma-like system). I can see arguments for both sides.

Some other civics (besides Aristocratic Elites, Functional Architecture, Citizen Service, Efficient Bureaucracy and Cutthroat Politics) I think work well for a Roman Empire (or at least certain visions of it):
- Philosopher King. They add several emperors who deserve to be called "philosopher".
- Police State. While Rome wasn't exactly a police state, this civics provides unrest and piracy reduction, and it's true that during its golden ages, the roman empire had very harsh policies against banditism and piracy.

Thats a compeling argument on "Nationalistic Zeal", I think you convienced me there. These traits are very prone to be influenced by our intrepertation I see.
On Materialism/Spiritualism I agree with you, seems way too tricky, don't think I'm touching that for the Roman Empire.
"Philosopher King" fits very well for what I'm trying to do, and with the government type, good suggestion.
"Police state" the term does not fit but the description does:
"To quash any traces of dissent, the population in this repressive society is carefully monitored and controlled by a large internal police force.". Going to consider it.

Thanks for the suggestions!

 

[Ancillary]

Might I suggest Augustus for your Ruler Title and Caesar for your Heir? That was the convention in the later Dominate period when designated successors became more formalized.

 

[WhapXI]

- spiritualist, conflicted due to the (mostly) secular nature of rome, or intregation into the roman pantheon, is this even related to religion? spiritualism is kinda confusing for me.

To answer this point, Spiritualism is kind of a "religious" option. Spiritualists are focused on the sanctity of the mind and body, and accept that reality transcends the mortal realm. Materialists are basically the opposite. The here and now is all there is, so best to make the most of it.

In gameplay terms, Spiritualists have greater Unity and fit well into a Psionic Ascension, while Materialists do better at Research and fit well into a robotics-heavy playstyle, with a Synthetic Ascension.

Rome and Religion were a funny mix, in that they kept stealing them from Greece. Though there were a lot of religious traditions and posts in Rome, I don't think I'd call the society on the whole spiritually-minded.

 

[Ivankovsky]

Might I suggest Augustus for your Ruler Title and Caesar for your Heir? That was the convention in the later Dominate period when designated successors became more formalized.

I strongly considered that, but I don't think the title will merge well with the rulers names and I don't think I can pass this oppurtunity to use "imperator".
But still, I am trying to model this after Augustus...
Dilemmas...

 

[Arkangilos]

I would disagree with two general ideas in this list.
First, it doesn't make sense to say they had a very strong sense of NATIONALISTIC pride. Nationalism is simply something that didn't exist. Romans were proud to be citizens of the center of the world, as well as the most civilized people on the planet (both from their pov of course). They also promoted the use of latin everywhere in the western part of the Empire. But that's pretty much all, and that's not enough to be called "nationalism". (as a side note, speaking about roman nationalism will get you immediately associated with Mussolini and fascism in certain countries. Be aware that most historians call nationalism an anachronism before the 18th century).
Secondly, I would disagree that serving in the military was the core of the political carrier. It was certainly an important step for many aristocrats, but if you intended to make a political career, you were better off doing the cursus honorum, which was heavily centered around rhetorical skills. Military skills only became primordial in the late empire, or even later. But the most important asset in fact, was simply to be very, very wealthy, because of how politics worked (the clientelism system). More generally, the ROman society didn't promote militarism that much - there's a strong argument for Citizen Service, but IMO that's the only militarist civic that really seem roman-defining, even if it works a lot better for the Republic than the Empire.

Overall, the Roman Empire can certainly be considered as Militarist because of the importance of the army in the Roman history, however I don't think it would be fanatic militarist, and the importance of armies and wars is generally vastly overestimated in the public. Let's see the other possibilities:
- Xenophobe/Xenophile: I don't think Xenophobe makes a lot of sense for the Roman empire. Yes, they commited some genocides, and yes, they often enslaved conquered populations, but overall they integrated far more people within their empire - and in fact, it would make sense to make the Roman Empire Xenophile given how easily they integrated foreign elites within their society. They seem to work quite well with the Authoritarian/Xenophile combo.

- Materialism/Spiritualism. This one is tricky. On one hand, their society and even their traditional religion was very materialist (you exchanged some sacrifices for services from the gods, you gave food for the dead etc). On the other hand, the Roman Empire was christian for a longer time than it was "pagan", and christianism is those times was strongly defined by the belief in an afterlife (rather than by a karma-like system). I can see arguments for both sides.

Some other civics (besides Aristocratic Elites, Functional Architecture, Citizen Service, Efficient Bureaucracy and Cutthroat Politics) I think work well for a Roman Empire (or at least certain visions of it):
- Philosopher King. They add several emperors who deserve to be called "philosopher".
- Police State. While Rome wasn't exactly a police state, this civics provides unrest and piracy reduction, and it's true that during its golden ages, the roman empire had very harsh policies against banditism and piracy.

I would disagree about the spiritualist/materialist points you brought up. Early Church didn't have an afterlife like the Greek and Roman paganism. Heaven was just temporary while waiting for the bodily resurrection, where as the Greeks and Romans had several different after life areas that were forever, and with no bodily resurrection. In early Christianity the body and soul two parts of one complete unit, and so you weren't complete without both, where as the Hellenistic belief was the opposite. Also Christians made offerings to God as well, and believed those offerings would help, much like pagans did. They were just different offerings.

Honestly I would just say leave spiritualism/materialism as neutral because they were both more middle of the scale between the two.

As for cut throats politics, the principate was full of them. There was a reason why the Praetorian Guard was dissolved, and why military support was so important.

Honestly if you were going to go with Imperial lineage the Dominate would be the best period of Rome. Otherwise like others said the dictatorship is the closest.

 

[WhapXI]

I strongly considered that, but I don't think the title will merge well with the rulers names and I don't think I can pass this oppurtunity to use "imperator".
But still, I am trying to model this after Augustus...
Dilemmas...

I might be remembering this wrong but I'm like 90% sure you can actually edit the title in game. It isn't hardlocked. Same with the Empire name. The only things locked are your flag symbol and colours.

If you're sticking with Imperial authority, make the ruler title "Princeps" or "Imperator" and leave the heir blank (sort of like an appointed successor but without any own title). Though Emperors could appoint successors I don't think there was any sort of official "title" denoting such.

 

[aQuilaSwe]

First, it doesn't make sense to say they had a very strong sense of NATIONALISTIC pride. Nationalism is simply something that didn't exist. Romans were proud to be citizens of the center of the world, as well as the most civilized people on the planet (both from their pov of course). They also promoted the use of latin everywhere in the western part of the Empire. But that's pretty much all, and that's not enough to be called "nationalism". (as a side note, speaking about roman nationalism will get you immediately associated with Mussolini and fascism in certain countries. Be aware that most historians call nationalism an anachronism before the 18th century).

Regarding the civic "Nationalistic Zeal", it doesn't IMO have to refer to the modern term Nationalism. I only meant that the Romans thought they belong belonged to the most superior civilization of their time and that their sense of superiority was present in the majority of Roman citizens of all classes, from Freemen, to Plebeians, to Patricians.

Secondly, I would disagree that serving in the military was the core of the political carrier. It was certainly an important step for many aristocrats, but if you intended to make a political career, you were better off doing the cursus honorum, which was heavily centered around rhetorical skills. Military skills only became primordial in the late empire, or even later. But the most important asset in fact, was simply to be very, very wealthy, because of how politics worked (the clientelism system). More generally, the ROman society didn't promote militarism that much - there's a strong argument for Citizen Service, but IMO that's the only militarist civic that really seem roman-defining, even if it works a lot better for the Republic than the Empire.

I agree with this. I just have the compulsory need to point out that I did not write that it was a "core" of a political career, only that it was a "step" in a political career that could lead great political influence. This is why I added it to the list of candidates.