Rome, the Temple of Janus, Stability and War

[Tim O]

From the time of the mythical war with Alba Longa to the defeat of Marc Anthony by Augustus, it is said that Rome was only at peace once, in the immediate aftermath of their victory in the first Punic War.

Janus also has a temple at Rome with double doors, which they call the gates of war; for the temple always stands open in time of war, but is closed when peace has come. The latter was a difficult matter, and it rarely happened, since the realm was always engaged in some war, as its increasing size brought it into collision with the barbarous nations which encompassed it round about. But in the time of Augustus it was closed, after he had overthrown Mark Antony; and before that, when Marcus Atilius and Titus Manlius were consuls, it was closed a short time; then war broke out again at once, and it was opened.[1]

Obviously, states in Paradox games don't function like this, attempting to be at war for hundreds of years at a time will lead to disaster. You'll be beset by various penalties that will eventually be your undoing, war exhaustion, manpower drain, stability drop, etc.

Well, manpower drain is a result of reverses on the battlefield, but the others feel like they could be changed for the Romans. They were stubborn and wanted to wage total war 'till the end rather than admit defeat.

In fact for the Romans, perhaps stability could be raised by declaring war. What do you guys think?

 

[FLESH HUNTER]

It could work that if a Military Focused person/faction/nation wins a war they get cheaper stability upgrading cost

 

[CaptinObvious]

In fact for the Romans, perhaps stability could be raised by declaring war. What do you guys think?

That would be too OP

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Perhaps war exhaustion will only count "significant" wars?

If you are in a war that is causing less of a drain on manpower than your recovery rate, it wouldn't count?

Winning a war and declaring a triumph could raise stability, but would also raise the popularity of the victorious general/senator, and cement the loyalty of his legion(s).

I'd probably (as far as the gates of the temple are concerned) count rebel squashing as "at war", especially in the recently acquired fringes of the empire. The same goes for dealing with barbarian raids at the border.
Although these arent formal wars in the sense that most paradox games would recognise, Rome would probably count it as still being in a war of pacification against those hostile tribes.

 

[klopkr]

Did places even get 'war exhaustion' back then if they weren't losing?

I think it would make sense that as long as nobodies coming in and wrecking your lands that it didn't seem to matter if you were perpetually at war back then, so long as your troops are paid and happy.

 

[classicist]

[...] Romans. They were stubborn and wanted to wage total war 'till the end rather than admit defeat.

Not really - the idea of 'total war' is wholly anachronistic for antiquity. That is just the sort of impression that our modern ideas of warfare elicit. For much of the Early and Middle Republic - when the cult of Janus developed, and incidentally also when the base game of Imperator seems to be centred on - warfare meant just a regular summertime campaigning, which every community would practice as a matter of course. After the sowing of the fields there was very little need for large-scale agricultural work before the harvest, and to raid and harass your neighbours was essentially the way to keep the young(ish) men of the society out of causing trouble internally.

Later on, in the significantly larger-scale warfare of the Middle Republic (against Carthage, for instance), the only reason why Romans could go on fighting after the sort of defeats that they suffered was the fact that due to their Latin allies and enfranchised communities, they already had a vastly larger pool of manpower than any other state around them. We know that Rome admitted defeat for instance in the Social War - but this was exactly because it directly influenced their manpower: they could not have gone on fighting through reliance on just their own citizens, not against all their former Latin and Italian allies. In the case of the Second Punic War and other cases of 'stubborn' resistance, I would argue that Roman policy makers simply calculated that the relative weakness of Hannibal's supply lines would enable Rome to regroup.

 

[SwordOfCentury]

From the time of the mythical war with Alba Longa to the defeat of Marc Anthony by Augustus, it is said that Rome was only at peace once, in the immediate aftermath of their victory in the first Punic War.



Obviously, states in Paradox games don't function like this, attempting to be at war for hundreds of years at a time will lead to disaster. You'll be beset by various penalties that will eventually be your undoing, war exhaustion, manpower drain, stability drop, etc.

Well, manpower drain is a result of reverses on the battlefield, but the others feel like they could be changed for the Romans. They were stubborn and wanted to wage total war 'till the end rather than admit defeat.

In fact for the Romans, perhaps stability could be raised by declaring war. What do you guys think?

Seems plausible!
in EU-Rome:1 modd ROA it actually could be positive
as we se in todays political climate ex:
Russia invading Chrimea etc to boost the poor populus
the Tsar (Caesar) did the exact same thing the Emperors
did back then.
Go to war, find an incitement (Casus Belli) to start a war.
Thats wat i liked with ROA,
cant start a war?
-Well assasinate their leader with a populus low charisma assasin...
Besides that, war always fill your gold (coffins) so the senate
can sleep good at night ...LOL