Rise and destruction of civilizations

[Plushie]

Exactly, The main reason Rome was able to engorge most of Europe was because it almost always assimilated the cultures it conquered. Most of the roman technological advances weren't theirs at all, but merely adapted from other cultures.

?

A (presumably Latin-influenced) form of Gallic was still spoken in Gaul in the 5th century. It's now understood that the Roman form of colonization involved setting down major urban centers to dominate the surrounding country-side and then leaving anything in the green belt to be.

 

[lwarmonger]

You fundamentally misunderstand how the Romans expanded their empire. Ceasar was able to be successful in Gaul precisely because he was able to make so many local allies. His Cavalry and auxillaries were all made up of allied Gauls. The reason the Gauls did not immediately revolt again when Ceasar crossed the Rubicon or after his death was because the elites within the Gaulish tribes realized they had it good as a Roman province.

Roughly a third of the entire Gallic population died in that war, and when Caeser went south over the Rubicon he took only a single legion with him (the rest were in Gaul for a reason). Those were strong reasons for not rebelling.

The Gallic tribes of southern France and northern Italy (who contributed considerable portions of the auxillaries you mentioned) had been under Roman rule for quite some time, and were far less prepared to revolt.

That the was the genius of Roman expansion - make it worthwhile for the local elites to accept Roman dominance.

Sometimes... generally those promises of wealth and happiness were backed up by the threat of a lot of pain if the locals refused.

BTW your reference to have the fighting men of Gaul is highly suspicious. One of the ancient sources does refer to over 1 million killed during the Gallic wars (although the first couple of years were spent fighting Germanic tribes crossing over the Rhine and the Gauls fighting together with the Romans to repulse them) but historians no doubt the numbers were as large as were reported.

The depopulation was considerable throughout the entirety of Gaul. Not all of them were killed in combat, but war was hardly gentle. I've read a number of histories that all agree on this point. The Gallic population was decimated (rather worse than decimated, that only being the killing of every tenth). If you can show me differing reasonable estimates I am all ears... I do like to learn. But this is the information I have, and I haven't ever really seen anything refuting it.

Carthage was Razed because it was the one power that had ever seriously challenged Rome. Corinth was the exception to the the normal manner in which Rome conquered.

Carthage was razed in memory of Hannibal, and Corinth was razed as an example to the rest of the Greek city states... Rome was generous to conquered enemies, but only the ones who stayed conquered. Rebels (specifically "nationalist" rebels) it was absolutely ruthless towards.

Also, think of how easily Rome assimulated the Selecudes, Macedonians and Egyptians. There was some trouble with Mithridates but even his son realized that rule under Rome was preferable.

Those were already conquering elites though... hardly broad based governments. The Selecudes had one moderately large (70,000) army to lose and their empire fell apart on its own... Ptolemiac Egypt didn't even really have that. Rome was merely mopping up already rotten governing structures at that point. Macedonia was largely countered by Greek's with limited Roman support.

 

[crazy canuck]

Roughly a third of the entire Gallic population died in that war, and when Caeser went south over the Rubicon he took only a single legion with him (the rest were in Gaul for a reason). Those were strong reasons for not rebelling.

You keep saying a third. Not sure where you are getting that from. More on that later. He only took the 13th but then he soon took the rest of the legions out as well. Why didnt the Gaulish tribes rebel then? And you havent answered why the didnt rebel during the civil war after his death. There were no legions in Gaul during that period either. If the Romans only ruled through fear then that would have been the perfect time for Gaul to throw off its status as being a Roman province.

The Gallic tribes of southern France and northern Italy (who contributed considerable portions of the auxillaries you mentioned) had been under Roman rule for quite some time, and were far less prepared to revolt.

I am not sure what you mean by considerable. According to the sources most of his cavalry came from his Gaulic allies north of Transalpine Gaul which he had gathered intially to repulse the Helvetti from crossing into south Western Gaul. Those Gallic tribes were only too happy to help since they viewed the Helvetti as a common enemy. In the next campaigne season he then sent another Germanic tribe (who's name escapes me for the moment) again with the help of the northern Gallic allies. Beyond men, they also supplied him with grain and other food stuffs. The fact is Caesar would never have succeeded in Gaul without the aid and assistance of the allies he was able to acquire in the north (ie outside of the Roman controlled areas) of Gaul. Which again brings us back to the question of why? Surely not purely out of fear. If that was the only motivation then one would think they would have just starved him out since he was dependant on their grain. The facts are better supported by the fact that the Romans offered a genuine improvement for many of these elites.

Sometimes... generally those promises of wealth and happiness were backed up by the threat of a lot of pain if the locals refused.

These assertions would be a lot more pursuasive if you could back it up with some fact. The only concrete examples you have been able to mention are Corinth and Carthage which even you acknowledge are special cases.

The depopulation was considerable throughout the entirety of Gaul. Not all of them were killed in combat, but war was hardly gentle. I've read a number of histories that all agree on this point. The Gallic population was decimated (rather worse than decimated, that only being the killing of every tenth). If you can show me differing reasonable estimates I am all ears... I do like to learn. But this is the information I have, and I haven't ever really seen anything refuting it.

Try Goldsworthy's recent book "Caesar". He describes the Gallic wars in quite some detail and gives compelling reasons why some of the estimates in the ancient sources for the amount killed are not reliable and inflated. I will grant you that there was significant devestation in the North East after the 14th legion was destroyed but I don't think you can generalize that kind of destruction to the rest of Gaul.

Carthage was razed in memory of Hannibal, and Corinth was razed as an example to the rest of the Greek city states... Rome was generous to conquered enemies, but only the ones who stayed conquered. Rebels (specifically "nationalist" rebels) it was absolutely ruthless towards.

But that is just the point isnt it. Everywhere did stay conquered. The question is why. Rome could never have governed that vast a territory through fear alone as you seem to suggest. Citizenship within the empire brought real advantages. That is why.

Those were already conquering elites though... hardly broad based governments.

Now you are really going out on a limb. Broad based governments? There was no such thing during this time period. Even in Rome.

 

[lwarmonger]

You keep saying a third. Not sure where you are getting that from. More on that later. He only took the 13th but then he soon took the rest of the legions out as well. Why didnt the Gaulish tribes rebel then? And you havent answered why the didnt rebel during the civil war after his death. There were no legions in Gaul during that period either. If the Romans only ruled through fear then that would have been the perfect time for Gaul to throw off its status as being a Roman province.

Rome had just conquered and smashed them. Thoroughly. They were beaten. You also assume a knowledge of current events by the average Gallic tribe that is a bit modern.

I am not sure what you mean by considerable. According to the sources most of his cavalry came from his Gaulic allies north of Transalpine Gaul which he had gathered intially to repulse the Helvetti from crossing into south Western Gaul. Those Gallic tribes were only too happy to help since they viewed the Helvetti as a common enemy. In the next campaigne season he then sent another Germanic tribe (who's name escapes me for the moment) again with the help of the northern Gallic allies. Beyond men, they also supplied him with grain and other food stuffs. The fact is Caesar would never have succeeded in Gaul without the aid and assistance of the allies he was able to acquire in the north (ie outside of the Roman controlled areas) of Gaul. Which again brings us back to the question of why? Surely not purely out of fear. If that was the only motivation then one would think they would have just starved him out since he was dependant on their grain. The facts are better supported by the fact that the Romans offered a genuine improvement for many of these elites.

That is true of anywhere that Rome conquered though. Enough Gallic tribes lined up against the Romans that they had to go smash them. Repeatedly. Doesn't sound like they were lining up to join to me.

These assertions would be a lot more pursuasive if you could back it up with some fact. The only concrete examples you have been able to mention are Corinth and Carthage which even you acknowledge are special cases.

Lets see, the Judean revolt, Iberia was only conquered after a lengthy counter-insurgency campaign, Hellenism was largely wiped out in Mesopotamia through sacks during one of the interminable wars there, then the already mentioned Carthage and Greece... the particularly brutal campaign waged in Gaul, Boudicea's revolt in Britain, the Jewish revolt in Egypt.... the areas where we aren't seeing some brutal repression against nationalist revolts are growing thin.

Try Goldsworthy's recent book "Caesar". He describes the Gallic wars in quite some detail and gives compelling reasons why some of the estimates in the ancient sources for the amount killed are not reliable and inflated. I will grant you that there was significant devestation in the North East after the 14th legion was destroyed but I don't think you can generalize that kind of destruction to the rest of Gaul.

The largest damage to the existing area from this point was from foraging.

But that is just the point isnt it. Everywhere did stay conquered. The question is why. Rome could never have governed that vast a territory through fear alone as you seem to suggest. Citizenship within the empire brought real advantages. That is why.

I never claimed that the governed through fear and fear alone. Never once. In some of these other threads I make arguments for their ability to assimilate being part of the reason for the longevity of Rome. I am, however, saying that their empire was acquired mostly through force or the threat of force. Local peoples weren't just lining up to join without some kind of resistance, and most of the time once they had conquered the area the Romans did have to deal with some kind of nationalist revolt.

Now you are really going out on a limb. Broad based governments? There was no such thing during this time period. Even in Rome.

Rome managed to mobilize hundreds of thousands of men from Italy, multiple armies and fleets, during the first two Punic Wars. Armies and fleets were destroyed only to be rebuilt in the pursuit of victory. While none of the governments were what we would consider broad based for a modern nation state (hell, Rome didn't even have a police force or anything other than a local jail for pre-trail), that is an unfair standard to hold them to. The Romans were able to mobilize the population on the Italian peninsula... while the Selucids and Ptolemies were unable to achieve anywhere near that degree of mobilization in the territories they possessed. They were not broad based in that they didn't have access to much of the manpower living in their lands. That is not me going out on a limb at all to say.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Lets see, the Judean revolt, Iberia was only conquered after a lengthy counter-insurgency campaign, Hellenism was largely wiped out in Mesopotamia through sacks during one of the interminable wars there, then the already mentioned Carthage and Greece... the particularly brutal campaign waged in Gaul, Boudicea's revolt in Britain, the Jewish revolt in Egypt.... the areas where we aren't seeing some brutal repression against nationalist revolts are growing thin.

Don't forget the Social War against Rome's Italian allies and vassals, an area traditionally seen as the most "assimilated" and "Romanised".

 

[Jolt]

Don't forget the Social War against Rome's Italian allies and vassals, an area traditionally seen as the most "assimilated" and "Romanised".

True. I think the visual concept of the general population of "Romanization"
Is an unwashed, half-naked, long hair and beardy barbarian, with woolen loose clothes grunting and howling like lions, dragging their women by their hairs, until the Romans arrive and Romanize. When that happens, the Barbarian just goes "Poof!" With smoke surrounding him, and when the smoke goes away they behold, a perfectly composed, short-haired, shaved-beard, man with nice clothing, sandals and a skirt.

And the cities go from Wood, Stone and Straw, to paved roads, Stone buildings and Marble statues every five feet.

The truth is even Italians were all too eager to join Hannibal against Rome when he came to the European Boot.

 

[crazy canuck]

Don't forget the Social War against Rome's Italian allies and vassals, an area traditionally seen as the most "assimilated" and "Romanised".

The social war was just that - and it wasnt much of a war. After a few skirmishes the Senate quickly have the Italians the recognition they sought. It wasnt a rebellion per se but more social unrest that Rome was not giving recognition quickly enough for what already existed.

Indeed your example reinforces my point. This was not rule by fear - the Italians wanted in - not independance.

 

[crazy canuck]

Rome had just conquered and smashed them. Thoroughly. They were beaten. You also assume a knowledge of current events by the average Gallic tribe that is a bit modern.

You lack a certain nuance in your analysis of the Gallic Wars. First of all Rome did not "smash" the Gallic tribes. Indeed up until the revolt eventually led by Vercengetorix Rome had occupied the whole of Gaul by allying itself with most of the tribes. I think you are making the mistake of thinking that Caesar set off to conquer Gaul and made war on all of Gaul to occupy it. It is a common misconception but is simply wrong.

It was only during the revolt (after Gaul had been occupied) that many of the tribes who had previously been allied to Rome joined the fighting against Rome. Some modern historians have posited that this change of opinion was due, at least in part, to the fact that the peace that Rome brought to the area reduced the ability of local leaders to maintain their individual war bands and prestige through raiding their neighbours (which had been a common occurance before the arrival of Caesar).

You are the one that wants to put a modern construct on the Gallic Wars by viewing them as Gaul vs. Rome. It was not. In each campaigne season Caesar picked a different target (and in the first few years those tribes where not even Gauls by rather Germanic tribes trying to enter Gaul).

That is true of anywhere that Rome conquered though. Enough Gallic tribes lined up against the Romans that they had to go smash them. Repeatedly. Doesn't sound like they were lining up to join to me.

See above. Your understanding of the Gallic War is inaccurate.

Lets see, the Judean revolt, Iberia was only conquered after a lengthy counter-insurgency campaign, Hellenism was largely wiped out in Mesopotamia through sacks during one of the interminable wars there, then the already mentioned Carthage and Greece... the particularly brutal campaign waged in Gaul, Boudicea's revolt in Britain, the Jewish revolt in Egypt.... the areas where we aren't seeing some brutal repression against nationalist revolts are growing thin.

Ok lets analyze that a bit. The Judeans sent troops to aid Caesar when he was in Alexandria. The revolt arose from religious conflict within Judea against the ruling Judean elites. I think we have to disagree about Iberia as well. Many of the Iberian tribes were clients of Rome and were particularly strongly allied to Pompey. Hellenism was certainly not wiped out. Indeed by the time of Caesar Roman aristocrates were expected to be able to write and speak Greek. Bouducea's revolt was directly related to abuses by an incompetant govenor. Indeed this particular rebellion is a bad example for you because her husband, the head of the clan, had been a very close client of Rome.

I never claimed that the governed through fear and fear alone. Never once. In some of these other threads I make arguments for their ability to assimilate being part of the reason for the longevity of Rome. I am, however, saying that their empire was acquired mostly through force or the threat of force. Local peoples weren't just lining up to join without some kind of resistance, and most of the time once they had conquered the area the Romans did have to deal with some kind of nationalist revolt.

You are forgotting then the ruler in Asia minor that bequethed his territory to Rome in his will, the many allies in Gaul that did line up with the Romans, the Iberian tribes that did ally with the Romans, the "African" tribes that lined up with the Romans etc etc etc....

The largest damage to the existing area from this point was from foraging.

You are absolutely wrong about that. Read a bit about the retribution Caesar extracted for the destruction of the 14th. The archeological record shows that because of the devestation that north east area was significantly poorer for several generations.

Rome managed to mobilize hundreds of thousands of men from Italy, multiple armies and fleets, during the first two Punic Wars. Armies and fleets were destroyed only to be rebuilt in the pursuit of victory. While none of the governments were what we would consider broad based for a modern nation state (hell, Rome didn't even have a police force or anything other than a local jail for pre-trail), that is an unfair standard to hold them to. The Romans were able to mobilize the population on the Italian peninsula... while the Selucids and Ptolemies were unable to achieve anywhere near that degree of mobilization in the territories they possessed. They were not broad based in that they didn't have access to much of the manpower living in their lands. That is not me going out on a limb at all to say.

I am losing what your point is now. You are the one that deflected my statement that the Hellenistic empires were easily absorbes by saying they were not broad based governments. I take it you are now agreeing with me that there were no broad based governments at the time. The fact that Rome was determined in their war with Carthage does not detract from the fact that they easily absorbed the east - with the exception of Mithridates, as I said earlier.

 

[Mauso]

You fundamentally misunderstand how the Romans expanded their empire. Ceasar was able to be successful in Gaul precisely because he was able to make so many local allies. His Cavalry and auxillaries were all made up of allied Gauls. The reason the Gauls did not immediately revolt again when Ceasar crossed the Rubicon or after his death was because the elites within the Gaulish tribes realized they had it good as a Roman province.

That the was the genius of Roman expansion - make it worthwhile for the local elites to accept Roman dominance.

BTW your reference to have the fighting men of Gaul is highly suspicious. One of the ancient sources does refer to over 1 million killed during the Gallic wars (although the first couple of years were spent fighting Germanic tribes crossing over the Rhine and the Gauls fighting together with the Romans to repulse them) but historians no doubt the numbers were as large as were reported.

Carthage was Razed because it was the one power that had ever seriously challenged Rome. Corinth was the exception to the the normal manner in which Rome conquered.

Also, think of how easily Rome assimulated the Selecudes, Macedonians and Egyptians. There was some trouble with Mithridates but even his son realized that rule under Rome was preferable.

Its been a while since I have done any serious reading about this period of history, so please dont be shy about correcting me if I'm not quite right here.

Its important to understand who dealt with the Guals before Ceasar, and the steps (promises) made allowing it to happen. Gaius Marius (if I spelt that right) reformed the military allowing those other than landowners to join the legions in order to get the man power. In return those new recruits were to be rewarded based on the success of the general on the campaign.

Seeing as this was new model, and Marius was indeed successful I feel its safe to assume that those who joined him (thus saving Rome) would have been treated with a degree of generosity. As a result, this would have promoted a degree of stability in the area. Now to fast forward a few years to Ceasar, who were those allies and "elite within the tribes" made up I wonder?

Also, you dont believe all of those 1 million people all died during actually fighting do you? Along with references to those 1 million should be a mention to villages and towns which ceased to exsist. Rome by no means had a problem with accepting those they conquered as new allies. Rome also had little problem simply removing those who would not see reason or the wisdom to accept they have been conquered (such as the reference to Carthage).

 

[Mauso]

The fact that Rome was determined in their war with Carthage does not detract from the fact that they easily absorbed the east - with the exception of Mithridates, as I said earlier.

The Greece/Macedonia were by no means easily absorbed... No that it really takes away from your point much.

 

[unmerged(74186)]

And incidently, American and British troops were saints compared to their German, Japanese or Russian counterparts. Seriously... get a grip, and save your revisionist history for someplace else.

No revisionism in saying that there are no saints in war; also no evidence establishing a league table of soldiers atrocities by country (and please notice that I mean soldiers, not Gestapo or secret services). Believe it or not all of those countries had soldiers shooting guys in their backs, rapping, murdering prisioners, robbing, etc, etc, etc. No credible accounting was ever made, it seems the victims cannot or would not talk. When it comes to war, the last thing you want to be is the stage, no matter who's invading or who's defending.

And by the way, I'm gald, really glad, thar WWII ended like it did, when compared with the alternative scenario(s). Potentially the only thing that could beat the actual outcome would be an earlier ending or never happening.

No revisionism yes, but not naive also. Things are what they are.

 

[crazy canuck]

Its been a while since I have done any serious reading about this period of history, so please dont be shy about correcting me if I'm not quite right here.

Its important to understand who dealt with the Guals before Ceasar, and the steps (promises) made allowing it to happen. Gaius Marius (if I spelt that right) reformed the military allowing those other than landowners to join the legions in order to get the man power. In return those new recruits were to be rewarded based on the success of the general on the campaign.

Seeing as this was new model, and Marius was indeed successful I feel its safe to assume that those who joined him (thus saving Rome) would have been treated with a degree of generosity. As a result, this would have promoted a degree of stability in the area. Now to fast forward a few years to Ceasar, who were those allies and "elite within the tribes" made up I wonder?

Also, you dont believe all of those 1 million people all died during actually fighting do you? Along with references to those 1 million should be a mention to villages and towns which ceased to exsist. Rome by no means had a problem with accepting those they conquered as new allies. Rome also had little problem simply removing those who would not see reason or the wisdom to accept they have been conquered (such as the reference to Carthage).

Its a good point, but the allies and elites I am talking about are from outside Transalpine Gaul.

But your point is well taken because with the Marian reforms, non citizens could hope to benefit. Indeed Caesar went a step further and promised citizenship for those within Transalpine Gaul.

 

[crazy canuck]

The Greece/Macedonia were by no means easily absorbed... No that it really takes away from your point much.

Yes, correct. By east I was thinking about the kingdoms in Asia minor (other then Pontus) the selecuids (I can never remember how to spell that properly) and the Ptolemies.

 

[lwarmonger]

You lack a certain nuance in your analysis of the Gallic Wars. First of all Rome did not "smash" the Gallic tribes. Indeed up until the revolt eventually led by Vercengetorix Rome had occupied the whole of Gaul by allying itself with most of the tribes. I think you are making the mistake of thinking that Caesar set off to conquer Gaul and made war on all of Gaul to occupy it. It is a common misconception but is simply wrong.

Not at all. Divide and conquer was one of Rome's conquering axioms. However it was one of their methods of conquering... and many weaker tribes would take advantage of Roman military strength to stand up to stronger ones. Given the Roman Republic's continual history of warfare during after the Punic Wars, I would say that peoples weren't lining up to join, especially when they fully understood what joining meant. If they were, why fight so many wars?

It was only during the revolt (after Gaul had been occupied) that many of the tribes who had previously been allied to Rome joined the fighting against Rome. Some modern historians have posited that this change of opinion was due, at least in part, to the fact that the peace that Rome brought to the area reduced the ability of local leaders to maintain their individual war bands and prestige through raiding their neighbours (which had been a common occurance before the arrival of Caesar).

See above.

You are the one that wants to put a modern construct on the Gallic Wars by viewing them as Gaul vs. Rome. It was not. In each campaigne season Caesar picked a different target (and in the first few years those tribes where not even Gauls by rather Germanic tribes trying to enter Gaul).

When did I saw it was Gaul vs Rome? There were two Gallic federations and one of them backed Rome while the other revolted, however the group of Gauls that backed Rome was considerably weaker than the one who opposed.

See above. Your understanding of the Gallic War is inaccurate.

Not at all. How much warfare occured around the Roman armies that their historians didn't really notice?

Ok lets analyze that a bit. The Judeans sent troops to aid Caesar when he was in Alexandria. The revolt arose from religious conflict within Judea against the ruling Judean elites.

And that little civil conflict occured right up until the Romans were outside Jerusalem. However they then united and put up one hell of a fight.

I think we have to disagree about Iberia as well. Many of the Iberian tribes were clients of Rome and were particularly strongly allied to Pompey.

That is true, however how long did Rome have to continue sending troops and establishing military colonies? Rome allied withe weak against strong, and used the weak as spoilers. That doesn't mean that the strong were willing to accept the outcome. Rome spent much of its empire days allied with the Germanic tribes on its borders against whichever Germanic tribe seemed to be a threat. Those tribes engaged in the alliances because it served their needs. That didn't stop them from coming into the Empire whenever they sensed weakness.

Hellenism was certainly not wiped out.

Hellenism in Mesopotamia was. Think later, under the Empire. I think it was Emperor Trajan's campaigns, but it could have been Marcus Aurelius.

Indeed by the time of Caesar Roman aristocrates were expected to be able to write and speak Greek. Bouducea's revolt was directly related to abuses by an incompetant govenor. Indeed this particular rebellion is a bad example for you because her husband, the head of the clan, had been a very close client of Rome.

Not really a bad example... he was a client while it served his interests, and it served his interests because four legions had come north and conquered lowland Britain, and then substantial forces stayed there. Note that when Caeser came conquering with five legions the Britons temporarily submitted (after the largest tribes capital had been taken by storm), but then renounced Roman rule as soon as he left.

It is really east to "line up to join" when there is the threat of overwhelming force around... but that kind of proves the point I'm trying to make.

You are forgotting then the ruler in Asia minor that bequethed his territory to Rome in his will, the many allies in Gaul that did line up with the Romans, the Iberian tribes that did ally with the Romans, the "African" tribes that lined up with the Romans etc etc etc....

Most of them did so to beat their local (and usually stronger) enemies. The Europeans practiced the exact same method of divide and rule when they were establishing their empires. It is effective, but hardly the locals being won over by superior culture or society.

You are absolutely wrong about that. Read a bit about the retribution Caesar extracted for the destruction of the 14th. The archeological record shows that because of the devestation that north east area was significantly poorer for several generations.

Not at all. Armies lived off the land in this time period, and soldiers were not gentle in their exactions. Most damage to the civilian populations was done outside of campaigning. Look at any war where both (or even one) army lived off the land.

I am losing what your point is now. You are the one that deflected my statement that the Hellenistic empires were easily absorbes by saying they were not broad based governments. I take it you are now agreeing with me that there were no broad based governments at the time. The fact that Rome was determined in their war with Carthage does not detract from the fact that they easily absorbed the east - with the exception of Mithridates, as I said earlier.

I was saying that they (the Hellenistic dynasties) were already conquering elites, so things didn't really change for them under the Romans. However, Roman control in the East was just as light (and easily removed) as their predecessors there.

Rome was a broad based government by the standards of the time because it commanded loyalty from its population (at least in Italy), and had the ability to mobilize its population to a degree that most other societies didn't save in extreme circumstances like self-defense. The Hellenistic Empires couldn't even do that, hence they were not broad based.

 

[crazy canuck]

Lwarmonger. I think the people administering this thread have let us go on long enough. Let me just say that your understanding of Roman history is much different then mine. I started to type a line by line rebuttle to everything you said - some of it just factually wrong (for example there was no such thing as two opposing Gallic "federations"). But I realized I would be taking us far from the purpose of this forum.

So I will simply agree to disagree and go back to enjoying the bits about the game itself.

 

[lwarmonger]

Lwarmonger. I think the people administering this thread have let us go on long enough. Let me just say that your understanding of Roman history is much different then mine. I started to type a line by line rebuttle to everything you said - some of it just factually wrong (for example there was no such thing as two opposing Gallic "federations"). But I realized I would be taking us far from the purpose of this forum.

So I will simply agree to disagree and go back to enjoying the bits about the game itself.

Alright, been a pleasure.

 

[unmerged(78438)]

If PI is too pansy to add in exterminations, then we'll do it ourselves, just like the swastika mods for HoI.

Censorship is for the birds

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

Is the ability to enslave the populace going to be in? That means that the percentage of slaves all over the realm is risen by about 1% or just the neighbouring provinces?

Let's hope whatever Paradox comes up with, it's good!

 

[.Spartan]

We are the Romans. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

So true for so many for some centuries.

Wow! There are some egregious comments in this thread. To many to even consider a reasonible rebuttal or informative digression. Anyway suffice it to say, I hope things are modeled realistically based on historical data of which there is an awful lot to pull from. I would hate to see the game mired with politically correct bullshit.

 

[unmerged(16407)]

Which is why the Romans had to kill roughly half the men of military age in all of Gaul? Raze Carthage and Corinth to the ground?

Generally cities wanted to become Roman because the Roman general outside their walls would say "you got food for ten years huh? Well my army will be here for eleven."

maybe you have read too much Asterix comics because IIRC it didnt happen that way, even in Greece (to the guy who talked about Greece and the cruelty of the roman soldiers)...but google the name T. Quinctius Flamininus (spelling ?) and learn some real history for once.