Vae Victis - Development Diary VI

[Enewald]

Ohho!

Can players also choose their own wives?
And characters who are not ruling also marry?
And produce kids, enough to feed the army?

 

[unmerged(61634)]

Mainly on the grounds of the general instability of many of the regimes. You couldn't shake a stick at 'em without finding a brother-killer or revolting general somewhere.

This implies that these had some kind of ability to marshall support. Presumably from elites of various kinds.

Yes; focusing on the Hellenes again, Guiscard mentions Poliorketes, who was run out of Athens because he tried to rape a youth (who committed suicide to avoid the man-sex). That little tidbit is from Plutarch's lives (the only source I've read on the era).

His ascension to the status of a god seemed to be the most vulgar and insincere form of flattery. It was forgotten in an instant, and I don't recall any temples, priests, or sacrifices maintained for him after his disgrace. It seems odd that a god could become so human so quickly. Also, any political status he had was more a matter of Athens viewing him as a liberator, and his military might, not his "Godhood." His "divinity" was known to have arisen from mundane success, rather than vice versa, which I think is telling.

No doubt his example can be modeled by having a very powerful and successful usurper be supported by the other officials. A multi-generational God-king monarchy in mainland Greece seems horribly unreal to me.

 

[unmerged(110049)]

Ohho!

Can players also choose their own wives?
And characters who are not ruling also marry?
And produce kids, enough to feed the army?

produce enough kids to feed the army?? What happened to grain?

 

[Cheexsta]

Yes; focusing on the Hellenes again, Guiscard mentions Poliorketes, who was run out of Athens because he tried to rape a youth (who committed suicide to avoid the man-sex). That little tidbit is from Plutarch's lives (the only source I've read on the era).

Just be wary, Plutarch (along with most other historians from antiquity, it seems) has a habit of over-dramatising such things and arranging his stories to emphasise a certain point. Chickens flying out of coops, lightning bolts hitting people and statues crying blood all seem to happen at once whenever something bad is about to happen.

 

[unmerged(54948)]

Back on topic when is the expansion vae victis being released?

 

[nresteiner]

Back on topic when is the expansion vae victis being released?

Gamersgate says Nov 19.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Gamersgate says Nov 19.

Thats soon ... I need some money ...
Just before VV is released I get my new phone! This is a bad event change if I've ever seen one.

 

[Scipio Aemilius]

Just be wary, Plutarch (along with most other historians from antiquity, it seems) has a habit of over-dramatising such things and arranging his stories to emphasise a certain point. Chickens flying out of coops, lightning bolts hitting people and statues crying blood all seem to happen at once whenever something bad is about to happen.

Just a little specification here: Plutarch is NOT an historian, he's a biographer, which, in antiquity, makes a HUGE difference. Historians tell tales of the past. Biographers shows examples of great and bad men to follow / learn from. Just a bit like hagiographies in late antiquity and early middle age, truth in biographies is an option. Plutarch was a priest and a very religious man, therefore he sees signs everywhere, and his heroes are (mis)treated just like they should have been, and not necessarily as they were (death of Pyrrhos of Epirus, for example). Plus, he writes something like 4 or 500 years after the events he describes...

The least unreliable source for that period is Polybius: he lived in the second half of the second century BC, so he's quite close to the events he describes. He doesn't describe omens and even debates what other previous historians have said (which proves 1- he's read a lot and 2- he can think by himself) and apart from some "racist" comments (against Cretans, for example), he's quite neutral.

So, there was my contribution to this debate.

 

[Nyrael]

Could you make a new tread for your historical debate rather then go off-topic here, please?

 

[Cheexsta]

Could you make a new tread for your historical debate rather then go off-topic here, please?

So...talking about history...in a history-related game thread...is off topic?

I have to agree with Scipio Aemilius regarding Polybius' relatively neutral stance in writing history. I'm quite fond of Polybius, since he's a good non-Roman reporting on Roman history. I'm not sure of the historian/biographer distinction of Plutarch, though: if anything, biography is a subset of history, so making such a distinction is irrelevent in the context I was using.

Edit:

The least unreliable source for that period is Polybius: he lived in the second half of the second century BC, so he's quite close to the events he describes. He doesn't describe omens and even debates what other previous historians have said (which proves 1- he's read a lot and 2- he can think by himself) and apart from some "racist" comments (against Cretans, for example), he's quite neutral.

He's also pretty bitter towards the Aetolians at times, too, which always makes me chuckle

 

[Scipio Aemilius]

Could you make a new tread for your historical debate rather then go off-topic here, please?

It is not off-topic, but more side-topic as it helps answer someone's concerns about historicity of in-game succession and absolutism of monarch's power. We're not directly answering him, but more debating sources, because whenever you talk about history, you need to debate sources, that's the primordial law. And in this case, sources like Plutarch are debatable.

I have to agree with Scipio Aemilius regarding Polybius' relatively neutral stance in writing history. I'm quite fond of Polybius, since he's a good non-Roman reporting on Roman history. I'm not sure of the historian/biographer distinction of Plutarch, though: if anything, biography is a subset of history, so making such a distinction is irrelevent in the context I was using.

Well, since Plutarch nearly always compare two lives (one Greek and one Roman) and judge of the quality of his models by comparing deeds and attitudes, I doubt he has historical truth in mind. I'm not saying he's lying his butt off, but I'm saying he's not quite as reliable as you might think, because he places morality before truth. For example, I mentionned Pyrrhos' death.

From what Plutarch says, he was killed when entering victorious in a conquered town. An old woman threw him a roof-tile and it killed him. It might be true, but considering one of his last deeds was to pillage a temple (an outrage in Plutarchs mind), and that the worst death possible for such a general is exactly not to die in battle, in a fair fight, you'll realise that being killed by a tile thrown by a woman is more than probably Plutarchs way to avenge the Gods.

 

[Nyrael]

It deserves a seperate tread because the debate became too big for a tread where other things can be discussed but other posts are unnoticable because of the debate posts or other posters don't want to look like a black sheep for posting something unrelated with your debate thus the tread can't fullfil many of its tasks.
Sometimes a debate just becomes too big and movement is advised.

 

[darktalon]

So, what happens when you appoint a character to be Chief Eunuch???

It's a shame the timeline is too late for Alexander the Great. We could have Rimmer's past self.

 

[The Andy-Man]

So, what happens when you appoint a character to be Chief Eunuch???

If no cheif Eunuch is available, your chief torturer will arrange one.