Victoria Sez...

[RisingSun]

Only three barbarian factions will be playable, says Victoria. This is on the 16th of April entry, I believe. One will be the Britons, she indicates. My question- What the hell? That means almost certainly Gauls, Germanians, and Britons. Sorry, but no Dacians. This sucks.

[Basileus]

Dacians will propably be a minor faction and i hope it will be possible to mod them in so that you can play them.

[Scipio]

on the topic of what Victoria says, anybody see the one on having allies set up strategic pinsor attacks etc? Sounds prett cool to me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Ragss]

who is victoria??????

[Basileus]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ April 19 2004,20:52)]who is victoria??????
Advisor for rome at www.totalwar.com under the battle collection cover, press on her pic and she will give some info which changes evryday.

[Leet Eriksson]

why do dacians get a unique unit when we can't play them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

hopefully its an unlockable faction...or modable :p

[squippy]

Dacians as a local unit would make perfect sense.

[The Wizard]

Dacians as part of the Gallic faction would make sense as well, methinks.

If I'm wrong, I wait for the wrath of Nowake http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif



~Wiz

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]why do dacians get a unique unit when we can't play them?

hopefully its an unlockable faction...or modable :p

The Dacians get a unique unit because ALL minor factions will be playable in multiplayer battles. If there were no unique units for minor factions then you might as well make them all 'Rebel' factions with a handful of generic troops types. Expect lots of unique units for the Numidians, Scythians, Iberians, Illryians, etc... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Based on what CA has told us regarding RTW's modability I have every confidence that every single non-playable minor faction can be made playable with a small tweak in one of the game's text files. So relax... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

I can easily see why CA has deemed the Dacians to be a minor, non-playable faction. During the period depicted in RTW the Dacians were still a minor player in their region of the world. It was not until the latter half of the 1st century B.C. and well into the 1st and 2nd century A.D. that Dacia came into its own and posed a genuine economic and military threat to Rome's interests in the region.

[Leet Eriksson]

Ah well that explains..guess MP Will be more interesting with the several playable minor factions.

Speaking on playable factions,in one of the Res Romanae dates it mentions The Seleucids as playable,and they have a unit similiar to the Roman Legionnares.So far i can assume these factions are confirmed and playable:

3 Roman Factions:Brutii,Julii,Scipi.

3 Barbarian Factions:German,Briton,Gallic.

2 of the sucessor Factions:The Seleucids and the Ptolmeys.

The Carthaginians

that leaves 3 other factions for a total of 11.I am suspecting 1 iberian faction will be atleast playable,if you do not count them as barbarian.Parthia and probably a greek faction.

[Spino]

One more time THE list, as provided by CA and numerous publications...

21 Factions:
11 Playable - 3 Roman, 8 Various Major Factions)
10 Non-Playable - 1 Roman, 8 Various Minor Factions, 1 Rebel

The Factions:
Rome: Brutii (Major - Playable)
Rome: Julii (Major - Playable)
Rome: Scipii (Major - Playable)
Rome: Senate
Armenia
Britannia (Minor - Playable, only because of RTW's sizeable UK fan base)
Carthage (Major - Playable)
Dacia
Egypt (Major - Playable)
Gaul (Major - Playable)
Germania (Major - Playable)
Greek City States
Iberia
Illryia
Macedonia (Major - Playable)
Numidia
Parthia (Major - Playable)
Pontus
Scythia
Seleucid Empire (Major - Playable)
Thrace

EDIT - It completely slipped my mind that Armenia was one of the factions shown in a screenshot of the old faction selection screen. I removed the Rebel faction.

[Leet Eriksson]

darnit,no greek faction....

that elimnates the faction speculations....

thanks for the list.

[The Wizard]

Greek faction - Greek City States.

Those states that became free after Ipsus.



~Wiz

[Leet Eriksson]

err i meant playable sorry about that :p

[RisingSun]

I never knew they released the exact list of playable factions, only of the factions in the game...

but if we can make something playable with one tweak of a file... Then why the hell doesn't CA just do it? It's not like it hurts too have too many. HoI has taught us that. If you don't want to play as them, just don't. I don't see the point at all.

[Galestrum]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ April 20 2004,19:21)]I never knew they released the exact list of playable factions, only of the factions in the game...

but if we can make something playable with one tweak of a file... Then why the hell doesn't CA just do it? It's not like it hurts too have too many. HoI has taught us that. If you don't want to play as them, just don't. I don't see the point at all.

Quote[/b] ]Then why the hell doesn't CA just do it? It's not like it hurts too have too many. HoI has taught us that. If you don't want to play as them, just don't. I don't see the point at all.

so when they come out with the patch and/or expansion they can do 5 whole minutes of work and say "10 new playable factions" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Spino]

I apologize for being misleading but that list I provided is NOT official. It is based on numerous forum posts by developers, interviews, published articles and common sense.

[Nowake]

Well, it is on surprise that Dacia will be a minor faction, even if I don't agree. If you take a look at the map of Europe, you'll see that by having Britain, Gaul and Germany in the west corner, you have no playable barbarians ln the east. And what great power were the britons compared to the dacians? At least the dacians were a warlike people who defeated the macedonians in all ocasions, subdued or wiped out celtic, germanic, sarmatian tribes and created a unified state in 1 century BC, that streched from modern Slovakia to Crimeea and from the south Poland to the Balkans, including all greek cities from the Black Sea, which were conquered or forced to submit to the dacian leaders. They defeated some roman expedition in Scithia Minor, same timeline Not to mention the later dacian wars, which were like an Armaghedon when compared to the wars against the britons.


Anyway, also, the dacians should have more than one unique unit, as they had more unique weapons. The falx, the sica, the composite bow with some special kind of arrow (I must look for more info on this) AND very important they, unlike germans or many of the gauls, used mail armour (of course, not the majority, but they had a warrior class) The tarabostes were very similar to the gaellic nobility described by Caesar. And so on, they used phrygian helmets, uniquely decorated large oval shileds etc.


Wizz, you are teasing me .. Dacia and Gaul are far away from eachother. And the dacians were of thracian origin.

[Rosacrux]

If the Greek city states aren't a playable faction, I can't really see the issue in discussing about minor factions that had no practical impact in the broad picture in this timeframe (like Dacians).

My gripes with the RTW faction lineup are:

- No Southern Greek City States
That's plain silly. Why not????

- Egypt (should be Ptolemaic or Lagid Empire - they also held half Palestine, Sinai, Cyprus, a very small chunk of Asia Minor and other places)

- Brittons (they were a ragband of barbaric tribes, not a united cultural and moreso political entity) - but they are the carrot for the Brits so... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

- The Gauls as a "faction". Either make them half a dozen factions scattered all over (to represent the fact that they had a tribal organization and no central government or even any sorts of unity - EVER) or leave them as barbarians.

- Pontus (should be playable... very interesting and powerful kingdom at the respective timeframe).

- Germania. (WHAT Germania? Two dozens of tribes with nothing in common besides the fact that Romans called them all Germanic? How's that a faction?)

[The Wizard]

Rosacrux, take a look at MTW: Russians were a single faction. Seljuq were a single faction. Italians (in a sense, the medieval equivalent of the Greek City States in the Hellenic period of the near east) are a single faction.

For playability's sake they are making it like this.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 21 2004,05:47)]Rosacrux, take a look at MTW: Russians were a single faction. Seljuq were a single faction. Italians (in a sense, the medieval equivalent of the Greek City States in the Hellenic period of the near east) are a single faction.

For playability's sake they are making it like this.



~Wiz
Sure Wiz, I can understand that. But even under that light, leaving out from playable factions the Greek city states is absurd, anyway. And I still stand with my issues about Egypt and Pontus.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Basileus]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 21 2004,04:58)]If the Greek city states aren't a playable faction, I can't really see the issue in discussing about minor factions that had no practical impact in the broad picture in this timeframe (like Dacians).

My gripes with the RTW faction lineup are:

- No Southern Greek City States
That's plain silly. Why not????

- Egypt (should be Ptolemaic or Lagid Empire - they also held half Palestine, Sinai, Cyprus, a very small chunk of Asia Minor and other places)

- Pontus (should be playable... very interesting and powerful kingdom at the respective timeframe).
I agree on those points, Only thing that keeps my hopes up is that we can mod the game easely i persume..and i have a feeling the expansion will have alot of greeks in it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Basileus @ April 21 2004,07:28)]I agree on those points, Only thing that keeps my hopes up is that we can mod the game easely i persume..and i have a feeling the expansion will have alot of greeks in it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Do you know something we don't? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Don't fool yourselves. I've lost any hope... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 21 2004,12:46)]
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 21 2004,05:47)]Rosacrux, take a look at MTW: Russians were a single faction. Seljuq were a single faction. Italians (in a sense, the medieval equivalent of the Greek City States in the Hellenic period of the near east) are a single faction.

For playability's sake they are making it like this.



~Wiz
Sure Wiz, I can understand that. But even under that light, leaving out from playable factions the Greek city states is absurd, anyway. And I still stand with my issues about Egypt and Pontus.

Wouldn't you agree?
Well, I know Syracusae was important in Roman history, but the other Greek City States never really left an impression in the timeline of the game.

Pontus, however, is a shame. So is the decision to make Egypt Pharaonic.



~Wiz

[Leet Eriksson]

Hmmm,i wonder...

If CA would make all factions playable how about making campaigns for minor factions,where the map is scaled down to include the minor factions in a certain area and without the interference of outer super powers,or probably limit their presence,since they won't be relying on territories outside the map,only the territories they own,it not only allows you to enjoy the minor factions but also not get overwhelmed by impending super powers invading you.This would definitly make my day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[The Wizard]

There's something in the FAQ about smaller-scale campaigns... but seeing as the FAQ seems to be outdated...



~Wiz

[Basileus]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 21 2004,07:47)]
Quote[/b] (Basileus @ April 21 2004,07:28)]I agree on those points, Only thing that keeps my hopes up is that we can mod the game easely i persume..and i have a feeling the expansion will have alot of greeks in it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Do you know something we don't? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
thats between me and the oracle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[RisingSun]

I'm with Lord Aymar... Some of the choices CA has made make me want to cry. Is the CA really just a congregation of schoolyard bullies come back to taunt us?

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 21 2004,09:56)]Well, I know Syracusae was important in Roman history, but the other Greek City States never really left an impression in the timeline of the game.

Pontus, however, is a shame. So is the decision to make Egypt Pharaonic.



~Wiz
err... what? What are you talking about? Greek city/states insignificant? Yeah, right... ok... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


Basileus

Nah, you are just teasing... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 22 2004,07:12)]
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 21 2004,09:56)]Well, I know Syracusae was important in Roman history, but the other Greek City States never really left an impression in the timeline of the game.

Pontus, however, is a shame. So is the decision to make Egypt Pharaonic.



~Wiz
err... what? What are you talking about? Greek city/states insignificant? Yeah, right... ok... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Hmm?

Give me one good example of Athens, or another one of the important city-states (Thebes, Corynth, Sparta) making a real impression on the world after the conquest of Philip II.

[Nowake]

Nevertheless, we must not neglect their potential. If the could not make a fine stand anymore because of lack of resources (both human and material) these cities could become powerfull again in the hands of a better leader .. So Athens and its allies, Sparta and Thebes or Corint and Megara should be in as independent; not playable though.

[a_ver_est]

Which is the difference between playable and non-playable factions ?

In fact, in MTW it is easy modded and (I suppose)in RTW it will be too. Are tech tree less developed ?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (a_ver_est @ April 22 2004,08:49)]In fact, in MTW it is easy modded and (I suppose)in RTW it will be too. Are tech tree less developed ?
Easy modded? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif Have you ever modded factions in MTW? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-huh2.gif

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 22 2004,09:47)]
Citera[/b] (a_ver_est @ April 22 2004,08:49)]In fact, in MTW it is easy modded and (I suppose)in RTW it will be too. Are tech tree less developed ?
Easy modded? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif Have you ever modded factions in MTW? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-huh2.gif
He's probably talking about the MINOR to MAJOR mod, not an entire new faction.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]He's probably talking about the MINOR to MAJOR mod, not an entire new faction.


Yes, but many of us are hoping the process of creating a new faction won't be nearly as complicated in RTW as it is in MTW.

The one thing I forsee becoming a painstakingly difficult process in RTW is the creation of new strategic maps (as if the creation of 2D maps for MTW was a walk in the park). I'd love to see someone expand the RTW map further east to include all of Persia and Northern India and add in some new factions as well. We can only hope CA packages the same tools they used to create the strategic map on the RTW discs or in the very least, release them to the public sometime after RTW comes out.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ April 22 2004,11:18)]
Quote[/b] ]He's probably talking about the MINOR to MAJOR mod, not an entire new faction.


Yes, but many of us are hoping the process of creating a new faction won't be nearly as complicated in RTW as it is in MTW.

The one thing I forsee becoming a painstakingly difficult process in RTW is the creation of new strategic maps (as if the creation of 2D maps for MTW was a walk in the park). I'd love to see someone expand the RTW map further east to include all of Persia and Northern India and add in some new factions as well. We can only hope CA packages the same tools they used to create the strategic map on the RTW discs or in the very least, release them to the public sometime after RTW comes out.
Keep dreaming, my friend... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[The Wizard]

It would be nice though. Having factions such as the Han Chinese (who sent an expedition to retrieve the fabled Skythian horses out to central Asia, bringing back a whole slew of Skythian horses and three Parthian horses), the Mauryans, and the Kushans on the map. Especially the Mauryans and the Kushans would make it interesting.

[a_ver_est]

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ April 22 2004,11:00)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 22 2004,09:47)]
Quote[/b] (a_ver_est @ April 22 2004,08:49)]In fact, in MTW it is easy modded and (I suppose)in RTW it will be too. Are tech tree less developed ?
Easy modded? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif Have you ever modded factions in MTW? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-huh2.gif
He's probably talking about the MINOR to MAJOR mod, not an entire new faction.
Yes you're right, my English isn't as good as I want. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif


In MTW I changed some minor factions to major and played a campaign, when I got VI I played again with this factions, now available without making any change, and I haven't found any significant difference.

[Sir Robin]

Apparently there will be historical figures that you can "assign" to your leaders? Vicki has a comment with Archemedes helping your commanders.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (a_ver_est @ April 23 2004,03:11)]
Quote[/b] (Ironside @ April 22 2004,11:00)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 22 2004,09:47)]
Quote[/b] (a_ver_est @ April 22 2004,08:49)]In fact, in MTW it is easy modded and (I suppose)in RTW it will be too. Are tech tree less developed ?
Easy modded? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif Have you ever modded factions in MTW? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-huh2.gif
He's probably talking about the MINOR to MAJOR mod, not an entire new faction.
Yes you're right, my English isn't as good as I want. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif


In MTW I changed some minor factions to major and played a campaign, when I got VI I played again with this factions, now available without making any change, and I haven't found any significant difference.
OK, I understand. Yes, existing factions aren't that hard to make playable in MTW. RTW should have that same hability.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Its not that hard to add factions in medieval after doing a few times(especially after faction shield problem was sorted) and they did say that modding will be easier. They said it about viking invasion and it was. Lets give them a chance till it comes out. Come on, we are going to buy the game. As soon as we saw the movies we couldn't wait to get our hands on it, so lets give it a good bitching after its been released http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Sir William Wallace]

how will the greek city states be presented in RTW?, will it be just called greek city states or will they have the actual city states, well the important ones at least,,such as athens, sparta, thebes, corynth? i think that they should be playable. whether they are or not i dont know

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Maximus Aurelius @ April 26 2004,08:48)]how will the greek city states be presented in RTW?, will it be just called greek city states or will they have the actual city states, well the important ones at least,,such as athens, sparta, thebes, corynth? i think that they should be playable. whether they are or not i dont know
They will be one faction that has two or three cities to start with (though I think it is only two), they will work together and share armies and resources. The map can't support to have them be independant or else they would just be rebels with greek names. There is simply not enough room to have them independant.

About the playability issues (in general).
Well, the Britons, the Gauls and the Germanians were fragmented a lot, but if we left such factions out of the game we can't argue in favour of the Thracians or Dacians either as they too were fragmented at this time. Neither the Scythians nor Numidians, or the Iberians for that matter... That leaves us with only the 'civilized' factions. Basically we would only be able to play as a successor state or as a Roman with a sprinkle of Parthians (or perhaps they were too fragmented too)... Yes, indeed great diversity, but at least it is historically correct. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Remember guys, we aren't exactly the leader like in STW, we are more like the general intelligence behind the leaders of those factions. Thus we can perhaps be a unifying factor in those fragmented factions. The leaders agreeing to fight forreigners and have standing armies for that while others fight among themselves (which we don't see as those are armies beyond our control).

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]how will the greek city states be presented in RTW?, will it be just called greek city states or will they have the actual city states, well the important ones at least,,such as athens, sparta, thebes, corynth? i think that they should be playable. whether they are or not i dont know

I believe the Greek City States faction will be an amalgamation of the Achaean League, Aetolian League, the remaining city states of the Peloponneseus (Sparta included) and the region of Epirus. The Greek City States home territories should encompass at least three provinces. When combined these entities actually create a fairly powerful minor faction. Around 280 B.C. Epirus under the leadership of Pyrrhus invaded the Italian peninsula and Sicily and seriously threatened Rome's interests in Southern Italy so in RTW this faction should not be a pushover.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ April 26 2004,15:39)]Basically we would only be able to play as a successor state or as a Roman with a sprinkle of Parthians (or perhaps they were too fragmented too)...
Well, you wouldn't call the medieval west-European kingdoms fragmented, would you?

If you would, include Parthia in the fragmented factions.



~Wiz

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]Pontus, however, is a shame. So is the decision to make Egypt Pharaonic.


I agree

[Spino]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ April 26 2004,16:17)]
Quote[/b] ]Pontus, however, is a shame. So is the decision to make Egypt Pharaonic.


I agree
There is a silver lining to the Pharaonic cloud. The developers have said that there will definitely be historically accurate Ptolemaic units in Egypt's army list. They felt compelled to go the 'Yul Brynner' rout in light of the populist appeal of the ancient Egyptian dynasties (Hollyweird epics & countless popular museum exhibits and documentaries).

[Trax]

I hope, that the pharaonic units will be pretty much useless.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Trax @ April 26 2004,16:02)]I hope, that the pharaonic units will be pretty much useless.
Oh, well More slots to MOD historical accurate units... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Nowake]

What I was saying is that the gauls, germans and dacians were the most powerfull barbarian people of their time. So these should have been the main barbarian factions.

[Kraxis]

You wouldn't mention the Iberians/Celtiberians/Lusitanians (the Hispanian collection) above the Dacians? I would.

The Romans fought them for much longer time and much earlier than the Dacians.
That doesn't take anything away from the Dacians, but the result was never really in question, while it most certainly was against the Hispanian collection. Yes, Rome was perhaps not as refined as a military state as when against the Dacians, but they fielded many many more troops in Iberia than against Dacia.

[Nowake]

Corect, you're right, but giving the fact that after 300BC Iberia was a "playground" for Carthage and Rome, the iberians were drafted more or less for these conflicts, rather than having an independent policy. Not that the dacians would have been united in 300BC, but they formed a strong bloc, which I think had more potential that all other barbarian people, except for gauls and germans.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ April 28 2004,11:12)]Corect, you're right, but giving the fact that after 300BC Iberia was a "playground" for Carthage and Rome, the iberians were drafted more or less for these conflicts, rather than having an independent policy. Not that the dacians would have been united in 300BC, but they formed a strong bloc, which I think had more potential that all other barbarian people, except for gauls and germans.
Some were hired as mercs by Carthaginians and Romans, but you forget that only the southeastern part of the Iberian Peninsula was occupied by both factions. Effectivelly a large strip of terrain. Most Iberian and Celtiberian tribes were under no foreign domain whatsoever. That only ceased to be so after the final Roman conquest, almost 200 years later. That's how long it took for Rome to conquer all those tribes. In fact, in some periods, there were numerous alliances between them against Rome (Viriato's one is the most important).

[AvramL]

You seem to be forgetting that RTW ends in the year 14 AD.
Dacia would not be a major factor for Rome for some time, whereas Julius Caeser did make an abortive invasion of Britain.

[Oleander Ardens]

@Nowake: Didn't the Dacians use also poisened arrows, like the Scythians. I know to have that read somehere a good time ago, perhaps you as Dacia-fan know the source http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Oleander Ardens @ May 09 2004,07:09)]@Nowake: Didn't the Dacians use also poisened arrows, like the Scythians. I know to have that read somehere a good time ago, perhaps you as Dacia-fan know the source http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I didn't 'know' it either, but didn't more or less all treat the points rather carelessly? Like sticking them into the ground for quick firing and such... That is close to poisoning them.

But if we are talking directly of some special poison, then I wouldn't be surprised either, as the Dacians were of Thracian stock, and they practiced it (after learning it from the Scythians).

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Oleander Ardens @ May 09 2004,15:09)]@Nowake: Didn't the Dacians use also poisened arrows, like the Scythians. I know to have that read somehere a good time ago, perhaps you as Dacia-fan know the source http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Aymar

You forget how those tribes were conquered http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif Iulius Cesar just wiped them out, in his first military campaign, with only 2 legions, a walk in the park, no major clash, no nothing. They were just pushed back. They were not capable of organised resistence.

AvramL

You seem to forget that if Cesar reached Britain, it doesn't mean that the britons reached to Caesar. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Oleander

Yes, it is true. They used snake poison, it accelerated death, so it happened on the battlefield, not because of the infection, as Kraxis sugests. Also, it is said that they were putting vipers into baskets and when the enemy were climbing the ladders onto the city walls, they were throwing them into their heads. It seems that happened at the siege of Genucla, in the last years BC, when a roman army managed to defeated a local tarabostes who fought them.

It also seems they were using some special type of arrow, must look in one of my books and I'll come up with more details.

[Longshanks]

Nowake,

I think you got your quotes and responses jumbled. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[a_ver_est]

In fact, the Romans were defeated in Iberia several times.

A couple examples:

- In 141 bc, Quinto Pompeyo was defeated near Numancia and near Termancia again, finally he is forced to retread.

- In 139 bc, romans try to siege again Numancia city, the defenders attack the roman army and they routed.

- In 138 bc, Cayo Hostilio's army surrounded near Numancia, he was forced to sign a peace treaty and they were send to Rome unarmed.

(sorry for my lame english)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ May 10 2004,02:57)]Aymar

You forget how those tribes were conquered http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif Iulius Cesar just wiped them out, in his first military campaign, with only 2 legions, a walk in the park, no major clash, no nothing. They were just pushed back. They were not capable of organised resistence.

You're wrong, my friend

By the time Caeser interviened, the Romans had already been fighting the several (dozens) tribes that occupied the Iberian Peninsula, for more than 100 years. They had been defeated several times in major battles. In fact, a_ver_est is only refering to the Numantine Wars (a single tribe). The Lusitanians, as well as other tribes, had fought and defeated the Romans several times also. I don't have the dates available now, but will give you further info in a couple of hours time.