To destroy or not to destroy (unique buildings)

[Zim]

I was just wondering what most players do with the unique buildings in settlements they conquer. Do you ever destroy them? I just had a very difficult war with Carthage (still going on, actually), losing one of my best settlements and many soldiers, and just finally managed to take Carthage itself. Now I'm trying to convince myself to sack their unique building for the money (and revenge) but I'm having trouble bringing myself to actually do it...

[Megas Methuselah]

Destroy. And don't forget to dump all the salt on the ruins.

[HunGeneral]

I ususally act like my faction would. ÍFor example as Makedon I destroy the Colossos of Rhodus because it is a memory for a makedonian defeat - something no true makedonian would allow to stand.

As with Carthage: if you are palying as Romani then don't hesitate to ruin there unique buildings: they give no bonus to you, you can get lots of money this way and you cause harm to your enemy which he can't repair.

As some factions you can leavy many unique buildings standing, if your wish or if it provides you any bonuses. As barbarians or nomads I destroy wonders not connected to my own culture.

[Zim]

I am playing as the Roman (played EB for several years, since .8 came out and never played as them for more than a dozen turns or so before...). It does seem to be the rp thing to do, and all I get from the temple of Baal is a slight increase in tradeable goods and +1 morale or something, nothing like the big bonus Carthage gets.

It's just so hard for me to destroy anything historical... :clown:

I'll probably go ahead and do it. It does help knowing other people destroy unique buildings. Feel less sacriligeous.

[HunGeneral]

Sacriligeus?

Youre "playing" the future lord of the world in this game - in 90% of all cases your dinasty or empire will be the one who writes history so they will say what is "sacriligeus" (anything your enemies have done to you and your people) and what is "not sacriligeus" (anything you have/are/will be doing):laugh4:

Now seriously most of the time some empires or kingdoms would have destroyed these "buildings" - the Romani Barbaroi destroyed most of Karthadast and any culture that got into there path. The epirotes plundered the royal makedonian tombs, and there are many such cases in history...:whip:

And like it is said "History is written by the victor.":yes: (does anyone know the latin or greek term for it?:sweatdrop:) So don't hesitate to do what you must do for your empire and your people.

[Chris1959]

I tend to leave well alone, doesn't do to offend local Gods! Of course playing as Romanii you can afford such generosity as money is not a problem.
Also in reality most would be plundered not destroyed, and remember we don't get the negative hit from touching such sites, destroying the Temple in Jerusalem should, say, come with a 50 year -90% unrest!

[MerlinusCDXX]

Playing as Pahlava, I mostly leave buildings alone, since the Pahlavans were pretty tolerant of most local customs, except when the building in question has anything to do with Alexander. If so, it gets immediately torn down. No Parthian king would leave such a monument to one who conquered his lands standing.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I usuallly destroy all that doesn't give me bonuses.

[Jebivjetar]

Long time ago when playing with Pontos i was in HUUGE debt so i've destroyed mausoleum at Halicarnass. After that i was ashamed and from that time i don't destroy any unique buildings. :shame:

[Maion Maroneios]

If you want to be like the rest who do, then go on and destroy them.

Maion

[mountaingoat]

i usually leave them , even if they are damaged ... in my current getai campaign , the parthenon is half destroyed (due to my raid on atheni) ... just a bit over 1000 years early.

[Apázlinemjó]

For faction-rp purpose I destroy some of them if needed.

[mountaingoat]

apparently you can demolish the mountain in sarmiszegethusa :laugh4:

[Ibn-Khaldun]

IIRC, then you can "destroy" those unique lakes in Tolosa as well. :dizzy2:

[Aemilius Paulus]

apparently you can demolish the mountain in sarmiszegethusa :laugh4:
That is messed up. I agree.


IIRC, then you can "destroy" those unique lakes in Tolosa as well. :dizzy2:
But this is not. For one, draining lakes is usually quite simple in comparison. Unless they are mountain lakes, as those can be formed in natural pits in the solid rock. But anyway, the reason why that lake can be drained is because tonnes of valuables were sacrifice there. In the building description it says that you can either destroy (drain) it for money or leave it for happiness (Which it does give you regardless of your faction.

As for myself, I used to destroy useless unique buildings (including the ones with morale and/or trade bonuses, as both did not work), but now I do not destroy anything. I like the uniqueness.

[Satyros]

I have only destroyed one building .

As Epeiros , when captured Roma after a bitter early game struggle against Romaioi ( nope , never got their hands on precious Taras , just tried once and I cut them from the shoulder down ) I happily destroyed the Temple of Jupiter Maximus ( or something like that ) .

You see I needed the 20k , and wanted the Romaioi to cry a river .

Both objectives accomplished , I was a richer and happier man .

So a tip from me about any Epeiros players out there : DO NOT DISBAND YOUR ELEPHANTES INDIKOI or any units for that matter ! If anything train some more Phalangites Deuteroi with your starting money and move them all across after you capture a couple of Mak cities . You should leave the northernerns and the southerners to their own struggle , strike a peace deal with the Makedonians ( which should be easy after you capture Demetrias ), then focus on the Romaioi , don't even go near Rhegion . To the north . To the downfall of the Romaioi . It took me 5 years of bitter struggle and many battles against all odds but I wiped the Romans , making the Megale Hellas a reality . Yep , the elephants did the trick . Had only one elephant remaining ( = 3 unit str ) , by the time that campaign was over , with 2 golden chevrons .

Then turn to your Greek cousins , Sicily and empire building .

You owe it to Pyrros , you know you do .

Oh , as soon as finances permit DON'T FORGET TO STRENGTHEN YOUR GARISSON IN DEMETRIAS , to discourage any offensive from the Maks and the KH against you in an attempt for any of them to gain the upper hand in what seems to be an even battle . In my game I resolved this simply by picking who to destroy first , it was the KH . Soon after that I attacked and made the Maks my protectorate , so now I am looking towards the east .

Ride the breeze of better times
where there are enemies to die
High fame and honour
won on the fields of battle .



Satyros

[Alsatia]

I just leave them alone, if I am in debt I usually demolish the useless ones.

[Saldunz]

apparently you can demolish the mountain in sarmiszegethusa
That is messed up. I agree.
I believe it's not so much you 'demolishing' the site as it is you plundering it, much one can plunder Delphi. Any holy place tends to be rich in booty.

It's good to know other people feel dirty about demolishing these buildings too. I can never bring myself to do it.

[Chris1959]

I actually "repaired" the cedars of lebanon and next turn got a nice little message aknowledging my plans to stop the damage to the forests!

[Apázlinemjó]

I actually "repaired" the cedars of lebanon and next turn got a nice little message aknowledging my plans to stop the damage to the forests!

Ancient Greenpeace, lawl.

[Maion Maroneios]

LOL at the Greenpeace comment :beam:

I remember repairing the Temple of Artemis once for a whooping 20,000+ or something like that. I thought I saw around 2,000, so you bet I was surprised to see my incomes high in the red the next turn.

Maion

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Oh, THAT unique buildings! I thought we were talking about foreign governments/barracks!

i never destroy unique buildings, i like to read their description.

[Maion Maroneios]

Oh, THAT unique buildings!
Well, isn't it obvious? :inquisitive:

Maion

[Urg]

I usuallly destroy all that doesn't give me bonuses.

Me too.

[Vasiliyi]

Ive never destroyed those unique buildings. I think that later in the game after Ive conquered the world Ill look back and think of what a benevolent ruler Ive been.

[Knight of Heaven]

Yes i never destroy any of those unic buildings, in some cases i even reapair then if need be. I never feel the need to fill my coffers i have always alot of monney,main expection is in the start turns.
im doing a makedonian campaing and a romani one. i thought to destroy those temples in Cartage but i didnt do it...yet i belive ill do not for the need but for role play. ill also destroy the temple in jerusalem, when ill conquer it as romani. Alltough ill not destroy any other wonder.

"History is written by the victor."
This was said by Wiston Churchill

[Gunzak]

Ok maybe I am not understanding but are you saying that unique buildings only help the faction that built them? I am playing a Roman campaign right now, conquered about 40 cities around 230BC, and have not destroyed any unique buildings just baracks, local militia and the foreign governments. If they offer no benefit then I might as well destroy them.

[Macilrille]

Ok maybe I am not understanding but are you saying that unique buildings only help the faction that built them? I am playing a Roman campaign right now, conquered about 40 cities around 230BC, and have not destroyed any unique buildings just baracks, local militia and the foreign governments. If they offer no benefit then I might as well destroy them.

Some do, some do not is the short answer. The long one is that to the original owner or anyone of same culture, there is a large bonus, for others there is a smaller one, sometimes none. In my current Sweboz campaign I destroy some, but leave some, Stonehenge still stands for example, while the lakes at Tolosa is drained for all the gold. Rome was dead anyway, so Caepio could not do it ;-)

[Cute Wolf]

2 Options:

1 - As The Nomad / Barbaric King (Alter ego 1)
Naah, I'm actually not so benovalent nor humane... especially when playing with those nomads... I DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT MADE ME MORE MONEY... Mwahahahaha..... (with exception trade bonuses)

2 - As A good, Philosophical Hellene Strategos(Alter ego 2)
Oh... only if I have a really sore need of money, but then, in my non money-cheating KH campaign, usually The Colossus on Rhodos, and Makedonian tomb got destroyed... As Makedon, I usually get Epirote temple and Oracle of Zeus Destroyed, and in all campaign, Temple of Jupiter Maximus and the Getic Mounntain will be destroyed (Hate both Romani and Getai) I need the money...

[Atraphoenix]

I never destroy uniques, even repair them I wish there would be such charismatic trait when you do repair them.
I only destroy gov buildings and barracks. But in sacking campaigns I raze the the cities to the ground again except uniques.

[Andy1984]

I too never destroy unique buildings. In my latest Pahlava campaign, I even spend the last hard-pillaged earned 6K to repair the gates at Babylon once I arrived there. Because I felt ashamed because the Arche allowed rioters to damage it, I spent the money I badly needed to train reinforcements on a building. One has to know his priorities in a time of dire financial struggles. :yes:

[Darth Stalin]

Destroy. And don't forget to dump all the salt on the ruins.
Yep. As the Romans I usually destroy all the unique buildings in Carthage herself - I want to RP my faction; however I usually tend to preserve other uniquities, as I like to see them - they are also a great piece of work done by the EB team, and I haven't known about many of them before playing EB...
Maybe the treasure lakes in Tolosa will be drained and plundered too...
Yet usually in Carthage I try to destroy everything - though it depends on the game I play, yet if I want to RP the Romans correctly, all must be destroyed to the ground, only to be build from scratch as the Roman colony. However, once I left the public utility buildings and also the Great Harbor - it gave me something like a nice bonus for my fleet...

[Reality=Chaos]

It kinda depends... i tend not to destroy unique buildings unless there is a very good reason for it.... Humbling Rhodos.... I might have to do something about those pesky KH myself... I'm playing as Epeiros... Makedonia had conquered Thermon and I was just about to do something about that, when my allies the KH betrayed me and besieged Demetrias (where Phyrros was residing at the time... In the ensueing Battle I beat the KH, and Killed their General.... Only was Killed by the treacherous cretins early on in the battle.... I might "just" enslave Sparta (it was a Spartan General, but the greeks will know my wrath:evilgrin:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Since I am a cultured Hellen, I never destroy the unique buildings, except I deem it necessary. :clown:


The Lakes of Tolosa: Few turns after I had conquered Tolosse, I drained the lakes since inside are the precious treasures that the smelly Keltoi had looted at Delphi.
The Kolossos Rhodou: I destroyed it immediately since it is a sign of humiliation to Makedonia, having been built from Demetrios Poliorketes' siege works' sale proceeds.
Left the Wonders of Rome alone! Oh Generosity! Oh Humanity! I must be a god.
Left the Wonders of Karchedon alone! Oh Generosity! Oh Hu... :clown:
After riots in Pselkis, the Temples of Philai, Edfu and Abu Simbel were damaged... payed generously 20,000 M to restore them. I believe the benefacting governor was "Devoted to the Gods of Upper Aigyptos."
After the Hellenic Uprising of 219 - 217 BC, the Akropolis of Athenai was severely damaged. I left it standing damaged as a warning sign to future generations. Since in the Civil War the Athenaioi were loyal to their rightful Basileus Limendas, although all around them were not, I made Assandros, brother to the Basileus spend 20,000 M from the Royal Treasury to restore it as a sign of gratitude and reconciliation. It was the Makedonian governor though who decided on which side the city should be, not the Athenians, but anyway...

[satalexton]

Oh the generosity, kind Fatherland. All Hail Makedonia!!!

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The historically accurate course is not to destroy any temples, since it would be sacrilege for a Classical religion to profane the local Gods. Later these get upgraded to temples of my culture.

Except, of course, if I'm not Hellenistic or Rome. In this case they go down rather quickly.

[Antinous]

I say leave buildings up unless they belong to the romanii.(long hard war with them as the KH)

[Alsatia]

.....

[teh1337tim]

i usually leave all of the wonders alone (except colosus... makedonians must destroy it...)


UNLESS they are related to the romani... those smelly barbaroi throwing pointy stuff at my phalangites will be crushed by my theurophia and hoplite! their smelly temples and city shall be made into ruins and SALT be put onto the ground!

[Alsatia]

So many roman haters.......

I saw a unique building in the city below Roma and it cannot be destroyed (or so it says to me).

[Maion Maroneios]

i usually leave all of the wonders alone (except colosus... makedonians must destroy it...)


UNLESS they are related to the romani... those smelly barbaroi throwing pointy stuff at my phalangites will be crushed by my theurophia and hoplite! their smelly temples and city shall be made into ruins and SALT be put onto the ground!
Well, well. If it isn't another Romaioktonos. Why don't you click on my signature link?

OT now, my Strategos Demetrios Argeades happened not to destroy a single building upon capturing Barbaropolis (aka Roma). For those of you that think we are all bad guys :clown:

Maion

[TruePraetorian]

Quite honestly it depends on what faction I am playing as and how I am roleplaying. Typically I leave unique structures alone, but if I am playing as a Gallic faction or such I destroy unique buildings where I see fit (such as Temple of Jupiter if I sack Roma).

But as a rule of thumb I usually leave everything alone in Greece and Makedonia, seeing as they need all the "sparkle" they can get :yes:

[Alsatia]

Greeks only reserve their admiration for Greece and Greece alone...

:shame:

[Fierro]

How can I find out which unique buildings work with which factions?
In my current Saka campaign when short on cash I've been destroying a few of those unique buildings that give 2000 or 5000 mnai a pop and only provide a negligible 5% happiness bonus.

[Maion Maroneios]

If the description says the bonuses only apply to certain cultures (like Greek, Nomad, Roman etc.) then they are more or less useless to you and destroying it would not affect you in any way. Other buildings simply give bonuses to all factions, and that you can verify if there is no reference to any culture at all.

But of course if you are a true EB fan, you wouldn't destroy a single unique or wonderous building. Unless you're a RPer like many of us here.

Maion

[fleaza]

if im really annoyed with that faction i demolish their ass into oblivion. usually i leave them alone. i have NEVER demolished a unique greek building. greek culture is just too cool to defile.

[Andy1984]

When I'm annoyed with a faction, I prefer to give them a ridiculous death on the battlefield. Last time a vast majority of Lusotanni poured into my city, I reconquered the gates knowing that I would loose that way. (The AI can't escape if they control no gateway and no gates are broken, so they'll fight to the death.) Hundreds of ill-equiped peasants died in flaming oil. Out of their ca. 3500 soldiers, over 75% died, and rightly so.

There is no way I would retaliate towards a faction by destroying my unique building.

[Hegix]

I play as I wish the real ancients would have "played". Never ever destroy unique buildings, repair them if neccesary and roleplay taking good care of them. They are all part of the world's cultural heritage.

[Maion Maroneios]

That depends on which kind of "ancients" you played, I'm afraid. A Hellen, Roman or Iranian would probably respect a culture's "unique buildings" more. On the other hand, I doubt an "uncivilized" German or Celt would show the same respect and instead choose to loot or even completely destroy them.

Don't take me wrong here. We Greeks demolished the colums of our own Parthenon to get the Lead in them, which we in turn used to make bullets and fight against the Turks. I say this so that no idiot calls me a Hollywood-fan or that I say Germanics are the worst and Greeks the best.

Maion

[Hax]

Just destroyed the Aigai in Makedonia playing as Pontos. I left the Akropolis of Athenai alone, though!

[Rahwana]

Just destroy them all except with those trade bonus... unhapiness means my army will be withdrawn when red fac shown, and if those city rebels, they deserve enslavment (extermination). Nothing could stop my Gladius from drawing blood!

[Ludens]

That depends on which kind of "ancients" you played, I'm afraid. A Hellen, Roman or Iranian would probably respect a culture's "unique buildings" more. On the other hand, I doubt an "uncivilized" German or Celt would show the same respect and instead choose to loot or even completely destroy them.

When the Goths and Vandals sacked Rome, they were actually a good deal more careful then when the Romans took Carthage and Corinth. Although the two "sacks" of Rome had a devastating ideological impact, the actual damage done was small. The Vandals apparently only destroyed one building, while the Romans joined the Goths in hymns when the latter appropriated a few Christian Relics (yes, the Goths were converts at this time, and IIRC so where the Vandals). This seems unlikely to have occurred if the Goths were destroying everything in sight. The Vandals also took from the city a former empress and her daughter, at the ladies' request. This went into history as a "kidnap".

Similarly, the sack of Carthage by the Vandals was supposed to have put an end to the city, yet archaeology does not bear this out. The city was already decaying before the Vandals moved in, and would continue to exist until the seventh century. One contemporary Christian chronicler actually welcomed the Vandal take-over because they put an end to the debauchery in the city. Certainly, archaeologists found that the consumption of fortified wine and gourmet oysters declined sharply, so he probably was right.

Terry Jones (of the BBC series "Barbarians") uses this to argue that the Barbarians were far more humane than the Romans. This may or may not be the case, but it does show how much contemporary prejudice against barbarians skewed our view of history.

[Starforge]

And like it is said "History is written by the victor.":yes: (does anyone know the latin or greek term for it?:sweatdrop:)

Plato - Those who tell the stories rule society.

I'll let the greeks and kin here translate appropriately.

[Reality=Chaos]

That depends on which kind of "ancients" you played, I'm afraid. A Hellen, Roman or Iranian would probably respect a culture's "unique buildings" more. On the other hand, I doubt an "uncivilized" German or Celt would show the same respect and instead choose to loot or even completely destroy them.

Don't take me wrong here. We Greeks demolished the colums of our own Parthenon to get the Lead in them, which we in turn used to make bullets and fight against the Turks. I say this so that no idiot calls me a Hollywood-fan or that I say Germanics are the worst and Greeks the best.

Maion

He said he plays like he WISHED the ancients would have done it, not how it actually happens:yes:

[Darpaek]

When the Goths and Vandals sacked Rome, they were actually a good deal more careful then when the Romans took Carthage and Corinth.

"CAREFUL?!"

What did the Vandals do? They showed up in Africa and they "lived there." Maybe they destroyed a church or two and replaced it with an Arian one... but that's hardly care!

The Romans spent a years worth of time, manpower, and money devoted to the care of Carthage! Every single brick and stone in Carthage received attention from "careful" Roman hands! ;)

[Maion Maroneios]

@ Ludens:

I never said the "civilized" people didn't sack or enslave/loot cities and "unique buildings", or that when they did it was justified. Nor that the peoples I aforementioned (Germans, Celts) always sacked cities unthinkingly or with zero respect to another culture. I just see that, according to History, the aforementioned people practised looting and sacking in a much higher frequency than more "civilized" nations like the Romans, Greeks and Iranians.

Maion

[Andy1984]

Plato - Those who tell the stories rule society.

I'll let the greeks and kin here translate appropriately.
That is more or less the opposite of 'history is written by the victor', and - imo - a far more intelligent quote.

[Starforge]

That is more or less the opposite of 'history is written by the victor', and - imo - a far more intelligent quote.

I see what you're saying but it's one you can read either way depending upon how cynical you look at it. Perhaps it's more clear translated. My 4 years of unused German 30 years ago doesn't really help here :).

Web searches admittedly, but I found that as being attributed to the basis for the "history" quote which, while Winston Churchill said it, most figured it for a trueism and not attributeable to him.

[Cute Wolf]

Well, we shall start giving traits like "Oppressor" or "Cruel Governor" if a civilized general destroy a wonder... and this trait gives some hapiness penalties as well, so anyone will think a second time to destroy a wonder

[Ludens]

I just see that, according to History, the aforementioned people practised looting and sacking in a much higher frequency than more "civilized" nations like the Romans, Greeks and Iranians.

And who wrote that history? ;)

Seriously, my impression is that when it came to expert sacking, it was the Carthaginians and Romans who could write the book, not the Celts or the Germans. This was probably because the barbarians were very poor at siege warfare, so they had trouble taking walled towns in the first place, but according to Polybius the Romans took systematic plundering to a new level.

[Maion Maroneios]

And who wrote that history? ;)

Seriously, my impression is that when it came to expert sacking, it was the Carthaginians and Romans who could write the book, not the Celts or the Germans. This was probably because the barbarians were very poor at siege warfare, so they had trouble taking walled towns in the first place, but according to Polybius the Romans took systematic plundering to a new level.
Erhm, I think they would have reasons for writing what they wrote of them. So you don't have to play smart and wink to me. Did they write the Greeks sacked and plundered at will? I don't think so. They just magnified some "weird" (for them) aspects and made them look like "inferior" people.

But don't take me wrong, I don't say the Celts and Germans were cave-dwelling and uncivilized brutes. But there are just so many occassions in which the aforementioned pillaged and sacked for (seemingly) the pure reason of satisfying their materialistic needs, that my logic tells me to come to the conclusion that they were masters of the art. It wasn't a rare thing for the Germans to invade hostile lands and return after having satisfied their needs by pillaging, and we all know (at least I assume that) it was very common for a village or city defeated by a Celtic army to be left to the army general's mercy. Purely, that is. Nobody to keep him check, so it would be only logical for the option of sacking a captured settlement to be more frequently chosen.

And not only the Romans wrote about the Celts and Germans. Ever heard of the invasion of Greece? I severely doubt the descriptions and details of the specific invasion was so much interpretation romana or graeca, at least containing some bits of truth. But then again, wasn't it a plan for sacking and looting Greece from the first point?

Maion

[Macilrille]

I cannot say much about the Greeks, though I seem to recall that a Polis had the chance to surrender until the Ram had touched the wall/gate. After that it was no mercy.

As for the Romans they took brutality to a new level, being in general a very brutal and warlike people. When they took a town it would often be sacked, all inhabitants enslaved or killed, all animals slaughtered, all treasure carried away. The sowing of salt is probably am yth, but it expresses the Roman way of war very well. They were incredibly brutal.

[Ludens]

And not only the Romans wrote about the Celts and Germans. Ever heard of the invasion of Greece? I sevrely doubt the descriptions and details of the specific invasion was so much interpretation romana or graeca, at least containing some bits of truth. But then again, wasn't it a plan for sacking and looting Greece from the first point?

I am not arguing that Barbarians didn't sack either. However, I have trouble understanding your argument. Greek chroniclers were shocked when Celts rampaged through their country, but how does that prove the Celts were worse? What do you think the Celts experienced when Caesar was looting Gaul? Sadly, the Gauls did not write down their history, so we have no accounts of outraged druids describing these destructions. In any modern war you will observe how supporters of one side will always loudly declaim the atrocities of the other, while waiving away or completely ignoring their own. Why would the past be different in this?


Erhm, I think they would have reasons for writing what they wrote of them. Did they write the Greeks sacked and plundered at will? I don't think so.

I wonder, would they have written "Pah! These Celts don't know how to sack a country. When we invaded Persia, we were far less gentle!" even if it were true? ~;)

Again, I am not saying that barbarians were better or worse when it came to sacking a town. It probably varied over time and place. What I am arguing against is taking classical sources about the Barbarians at face value, especially since we don't have the barbarians POV to compare. I also remember that Polybius described Romans as being the most efficient at sacking a town, and goes on to describe why, so clearly not all Greeks thought that Celtic barbarians were the worst.

EDIT: I only saw your addition after I typed my reply. Yes, the Celts and Germans enjoyed raiding. However, putting it down to purely materialist needs is incorrect: it was part of their social system, a way for warriors and leaders to gain glory and influence, as well as wealth. And, frankly, the Romans had similar motivations when going to war. The leaders of successful campaigns became hugely wealthy and could gain much influence this way.

[Reality=Chaos]

There is also the point that Germanic and celtic tribes did raid amongst themselves quite extensively... but it is one thing to raid a neighbouring town and quite another thing sacking and razing a city... which they managed on a few occasions but then often due to the circumstances, the sack of Rome is a good example... The gauls managed to get into the city cause there was virtually no defensive force in Rome at the time, and they were not able to effectively assault the palatine.... I'd say that the Romans were most probably the most effective at what they did. they were very methodical... During the sacking of Carthage they rotated the soldiers that did the killing to preven them from going totally crazy... The fact that they knew the cost of sacking a city all to clearly yet still went o and did it, is for me a clear example of their effectiveness at sacking

[johnhughthom]

Reading what Caesar was able to do with the "profits" of his time in Gaul is pretty good evidence of the Roman ability to sack and pillage.

[moonburn]

barbarians had it as part of their culture

i remember reading about the lusitanians that every year all youngman who weren´t the 1st born would gather together and go out on a rampage to try and get some booty so they could start a new life (since the heard lands boats marketplace went always to the eldest of the sons).

it was part of their culture and one of the reasons why iulius caesar found it so dificult to control the lusi even after 100 years of romanisation (the romans just considered those groups as bandits and would sometimes fight them other times ignore them cause no matter how many times you batled them each year they would gather together and go out trying to find their booty to start a new life)

anyway the small raiding parties wanting sheeps gold slaves or even just glory can hardly be compared with the entire armies of rome lead by people such as galba (spit) who lied abused their power used corruption and enslaved entire people robbing them of their pride and dignity using state funds

at least a barbarian didn´t went with smiles and promisses of eternal friendship and weren´t abusing their own people´s power to get rich they used their charisma and where fairer with their own warriors spoils.

the bituriges did it to prevent wars on gaul by forcing several parts of small groups to migrate, thus in the end altough still opressive to their targets they did it for a good reason, while romans and greeks except for some pretty exceptional individuals did it for themselfs (as individuals trying to better themselfs at the expense of their own kin).

one should remember that the reason why ceasar was forçed to advance on italy (start the civil war) was because he knew he would be judged for the way he attacked and hostilized "friendly" barbarian people and used the power of rome for his own personal gain

if we must quote individuals on diferent grounds then there´s no greater example on how much more savage the romani where then galba the defiler of lusitania that caused his people the loss of tens of thousands of men and millions of gold at the hands of several later lusi chieftains (most notably viriathos but there where others) when he betrayed/lured the lusitanian with the promisses of land just to enslave them.

another example was the roman tax collecter that raped the queen of the iceni in britain to try and get more gold from her people.

or alexander the great who when fighting in gaza tortured and killed the garrison comander instead of being the greater man and recognising the man´s brilliance and courage by standing up to him.