If by "educating" you mean tying them with ropes and walking them back to Rome where they were "gainfully employed", then, yes, they were educated.ComradeOm said:
-
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.
Gwalcmai said:
Okay then, sorry. From your reply it sounded like you were mocking me
I can imagine the HRE function converted over to the roman senate and other such delicacies. there will be so many great "advisors" available, great generals, etc. this has the potential to be an immensely successful title for Paradox.
Will the scope be worldwide, so we can lead the Zulus or the fierce tribes of Papua New Guinea to prominence?
RELee said:If by "educating" you mean tying them with ropes and walking them back to Rome where they were "gainfully employed", then, yes, they were educated.
I know there was one Emperor that blanketed citizenship on all free denizens of the Empire, which was quite alot. Barbarians could also earn citizenship after time in the army. Life in the Roman Empire wasn't all getting tied to stakes and attacked by lions.
Hmm looks much better than the game greatest invasions!
Would love to test it a bit!
Would love to test it a bit!
Exactly. The two strong points of the Romans imho, that allowed them to conquer such a vast empire were:English Patriot said:
1) Constant integrating of the best ideas, especially military, of whatever other people they came into contact with. Exp: The roman legionaries sword the Gladius was copied from Spanish design, Julius Ceasar used Germanic cavalrymen to fight the Gaulish Cavalry.
2) Effective integrating of other people into roman society via roman citizenship.
The first part may be more glamorous and more often shown, but as far as keeping the empire together the second part was just as if not more important imho. The Romans rarely just went ahead, send in a legion and took over. They always tried to use a combination of bribery, diplomacy and military force to take over the area. The local rulers that were fiercely independent were beaten and send back to Rome as slaves, but the other were bribed and convinced to join Rome, often getting Roman citizenship as a reward. Then after the conquest, most of these local rulers would try to further endear themselves with the Romans by adopting roman dress, hiring roman tutors for their children, and living in roman mansions. Exp: There's a huge very Roman-style palace in Fishbourne, Britain, that was supposedly build by a local 'barbarian' chieftain who had submitted to Roman rule.
Over time this spread down to the rest of the population as well, the end result being that by the second century a peasant from Britain to Carthage would call themselves as much a Roman as anything else.
Zoston said:
True. But speaking of the northern barbarian areas conquered, real roman citizenship was only conferred to the few best families. The rest were perigrini or provinciales , that is to say foreign citizens (even though they lived in the Roman empire) and even though they had more rights than freedmen were did not enjoy the rights the roman citizens did.
Full citizenship for most subjects was a thing of the later empire, and so not (yet) a part of this game.
Yes, but since we know there will be characters, those few best families can actually be represented in the game. Roman citizenship should definitely be a part of the game, and imho conquering a province should be more then simply taking over and look now you rule it. The local politics, the divide and conquer strategy of pacification, the colonization with veterans and roman settlers, should have their representation.Swamp Rat said:
Let's not forget the Social War, a massive three year rebellion of many of the Italian city-states, demanding roman citizenship. (The end: Romans win, then give the Italians citizenship anyways. :rofl: )
You really think there's market for this after Rome: Total War(or is that exactly what you thought)?
Pretty pathetic all in all...looks like EU 3 mod at best.
Pretty pathetic all in all...looks like EU 3 mod at best.
Yes let's forget that R:TW is a glorified RTS whose 'strategic' element is nothing more then a sappy excuse for why you're fighting these battles in the tactical game. The tactical part of R:TW is arguably great (not mentioning the AI that even a trained monkey could beat) but the strategic part is worthless and more akin to what you'd expect from an RTS. Paradox is quite right that we could use a grand strategy game set in the Roman era, and they're the ones to deliver.
Zoston said:
Please, gentlemen! I used a smiley, and yet you both deign to speak down to me? Grow a sense of humor, for crying out loud.
In the period covered by this proposed game, nations, or city-states if you prefer, who contested Roman leadership were routinely not merely defeated. The city was razed, the populace enslaved, and good Roman citizens, soldiers who had served the Republic well, were given land grants in the newly-conquered areas. That 2nd century Carthaginian citizen you mentioned didn't exist, as Carthage had been not only plowed under after the 3rd Punic War, but the land salted to prevent any recolonization from survivors who may have been missed by the slave trains, according to the tales. Of course, this came about simply because during the Punic Wars, the name of Hannibal was greatly feared by Rome since they couldn't seem to be able to buy a successful land campaign against the two Carthaginian generals who bore the name. Luckily for Rome, like the US in Vietnam, Hannibal won all the battle sbut ultimately could not win the war. The fear instilled in the Romans came with a high price. Throughout the rest of the Roman period of ascendancy, this fear seems to have remained within the Roman psyche, since this method of dealing with anyone who contested their leadership remained in effect. By the time of the Christian Era, if memory serves me, Corinth had been rebuilt after being razed by the Romans, rebuilt due to its great strategic location for trade, and effectively repopulated with Roman citizens and slaves.
It is true that the Romans avoided open warfare where they could, preferring the other methods that you correctly mentioned, but the gods save those poor misguided souls who attempted to even share the pedestal of world leadership with the Republic. Even Jerusalem in 70 AD finally earned the wraith of the Romans due to their constant and irritating rebellions and were finally razed to the ground. Jesus prediction of no stone left upon another came true within 40 years of His crucifixion. Yet, if you showed wisdom and allowed them to move in as the BC Good Fellas they were, then they might just cut you in on the profits.
If I remember correctly, the practice of purchasing citizenship came later in post-Republic Imperial Rome, but I'm not 100% on that one. I don't believe you could buy your way out of slavery in the early days.
EDIT: Ah! Swamp Rat already noted that last part.
Graphics look very nice. Just as good but a different style as RTW, one of my favorites. Just take your time developing it. I'm getting behind in Paradox titles!!
I never spoke down to you, sorry if you got that impression. It's that so many games focus solely on the part where Romans squash those who resist, I'd hope paradox pays some attention to the fact that a large part of Roman conquest involved using other methods too to, to use a modern term, win the hearts and minds of the local rulers. The Pax Romani was peace under the 'comforting' heel of the Roman Boot, but it wasn't the Romans just walking over everybody with their invincible armies. As you mentioned Hannibal he's a good example of this, Hannibal beat every army send against him, but he like Phyrus before him failed in large part because the rest of the Italian city-states sided with Rome and refused him aid. I doubt they'd been so loyal, and Rome would ever have amounted to anything, if the Romans hadn't as you put it, let local allies cut in on the profits.
Slaves afaik could always buy their freedom, though a freed slave was still the second-lowest class. But it wasn't until sometime in the second century that an Emperor extended Roman Citizenship to be something universal, I believe he extended it to all freeborn residents of the empire.
It's that so many games focus solely on the part where Romans squash those who resist, I'd hope paradox pays some attention to the fact that a large part of Roman conquest involved using other methods too to, to use a modern term, win the hearts and minds of the local rulers. The Pax Romani was peace under the 'comforting' heel of the Roman Boot, but it wasn't the Romans just walking over everybody with their invincible armies. As you mentioned Hannibal he's a good example of this, Hannibal beat every army send against him, but he like Phyrus before him failed in large part because the rest of the Italian city-states sided with Rome and refused him aid. I doubt they'd been so loyal, and Rome would ever have amounted to anything, if the Romans hadn't as you put it, let local allies cut in on the profits. Slaves afaik could always buy their freedom, though a freed slave was still the second-lowest class.
But it wasn't until sometime in the second century that an Emperor extended Roman Citizenship to be something universal, I believe he extended it to all freeborn residents of the empire.
I believe it was Septimus Severus who conferred citizenship on everyone. It was a ploy to raise more taxes.
