View Full Version : What does everyone have against Rome?
Everytime i see someone post that they're playing as Rome i see people boo'ing and whatnot. What gives? :juggle2:
Pharnakes
11-30-2007, 22:32
They're roman?
Sorry:shame:
Probably because they conqured everyone else, so anyone who likes just about any other faction by default hates the romans.
Malik of Sindh
11-30-2007, 22:32
I dislike them because they were only lucky,nothing more.And noone likes those who conquared the world.
Kromulan
11-30-2007, 22:43
ONLY LUCKY??
I think not. They were persistent, well organized, lucky, and (after ~mid 2nd century BC) very rich.
But I prefer to play other factions because I like to sack Roman cities.
The General
11-30-2007, 22:50
I dislike them because they were only lucky,nothing more.
Not true.
Luck did play a part, but the Romans didn't just "get lucky".
And noone likes those who conquared the world.
More likely.
I personally, for example, tend to side with the smaller states/losing empires (the Celts, Byzantines, or for example, Finland in the Winter War [nationalistic feeling aside]).
L.C.Cinna
11-30-2007, 22:50
It was surely not pure luck...
I guess the main problem is that until mid 20th century (and even later) classic historians viewed the Roman Republic and classical Athens as the one and only great cultures or something like that (you know what I mean) and other cultures were seen as "minor" or "barbaric" when indeed each culture has it's own interesting and outstanding features.
now some people seem to react a bit sulky even and try to play the game the other way round ("Romans suck, they stole everything there ever was and were soooo cruel and everyone else was nice and so on and so on").
In the end each culture had its hights and lows and none is better and if you look at ROmans and Greeks for example they both benefited greatly from each other.
In the end each culture had its hights and lows and none is better and if you look at ROmans and Greeks for example they both benefited greatly from each other.
Just out of curiosity, how exactly did the Greeks "benefit" from the Romans? :laugh4:
By getting conquered? :beam:
Long lost Caesar
11-30-2007, 22:57
i guess its a running joke between a lotta the guys here. nothing more to it really.
Rodion Romanovich
11-30-2007, 23:09
I have nothing against the early roman republic, which I in fact admire in many aspects - primarily their policy and concept of casus belli and bellum iustum. I do however dislike the late roman republic and the entire roman empire era, because of their moral decline (in terms of foreign politics), undermining of the concept of bellum iustum and casus belli, and the consequences of that - leaving Europe as a big mess. I also dislike the roman propaganda that still has left some traces today. Mainly two things: the disrespect for the other cultures of the time, giving them an image of brutality and primitivity, while Rome takes the credit for inventions that barbarians really came up with (such as soap, desert irrigation, aqueducts, good roads, quincunx, scutum, gladius, pilum, being protective to arts science and philosophy and "saving the works of the greeks from the barbarians", taking all credit for the greek philosophy, sometimes taking all the credits for everything that any person living in rome - whether roman or not - achieved, etc). The other thing is the constant curse over Europe that the aspiration to "create a new Rome" has been.
Rome is a good illustration of a simple point: that a comparatively good-hearted and morally superior faction can gain strength by applying this systematically - but not to an exaggerated extent. But also a proof that when it gets too powerful, it doesn't matter how good it was when it was weaker - enough power corrupts any empire.
Just out of curiosity, how exactly did the Greeks "benefit" from the Romans? :laugh4:
By getting conquered? :beam:
*pops out of lurking*
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
*runs off and hides again*
TWFanatic
11-30-2007, 23:12
Just out of curiosity, how exactly did the Greeks "benefit" from the Romans? :laugh4:
By getting conquered? :beam:
Freedom from the Macedonian yoke. Albeit they traded one master for another, but apparently the Rome was preferable to them as they asked for their assistance. More importantly, the ceaseless warfare finally came to an end.
Not to mention the benifets of Roman culture and technology, much of which was simply taken from the Greeks and improved upon by the Romans.
But I'm not going to get involved in another "pro-Rome vs anti-Rome" debate. Getting a little tired of them tbh.
Pharnakes
11-30-2007, 23:17
This is the first one I've seen here. TBH, I have to admit that the romans did bring one, and just one advantage to the greeks. But I have to admit it was a very important one. And that was stability.
quackingduck
11-30-2007, 23:31
*All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?*
monty python teaches us so much
Starforge
11-30-2007, 23:47
monty python teaches us so much
QFT!
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the :furious3: Judean People's Front! :laugh4:
I think many times it boils down to 2 things: A cultural component (they beat up my ancestors) or an attempt to view them through 21st century morals and ethics.
So from what i can gather, people hate Rome because:
They conquered the world
They perfected inventions and then passed them off as their own
They became the most corrupt and 'immoral' people in history
That's really no reason to hate them. Anybody that has some form of power in a large and powerful nation becomes corrupt. Look at Alexander, he thought he was a god, exterminated many innocent people to make sure there was no rebellion, and carved an empire bigger (or just as big), richer and potentially more powerful than Rome ever was, at least it would have been if he could have held it together instead of dying and giving chunks to his generals, who went on to squabble and kill each other until they were destroyed by Rome. :laugh4: And yet everybody loves Alexander.
Anybody in those days that carved an empire even half the size and half as powerful as Rome would have become greedy, corrupt and 'immoral', it's the human way. Even in todays world, where we are considered to be more civilized than ever before, there are still extremely corrupt people in government. Even in the west which is pretty much the most developed part of the world the governments are just as corrupt as any Roman emperor ever was, perhaps with the exception of Denmark which is just lovely altogether. :yes:
All this is no reason to hate them, anybody else would have been just like them.
Rome was the player controlled faction in history and thus Rome is the most popular faction to play as EB... Do you see what I'm getting at :dizzy2: :clown:
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
12-01-2007, 00:04
Rome was the player controlled faction in history and thus Rome is the most popular faction to play as EB... Do you see what I'm getting at :dizzy2: :clown:
If this was the case, how could mankind pass 14 AD? And how could Rome finally crumble?~:confused:
Good one, Dayve...I see another fat thread comin' on...can't wait to see how it unfolds...
If this was the case, how could mankind pass 14 AD? And how could Rome finally crumble?~:confused:
Well, when you get bored of RTW you started playing BI and you played some as the Goths, then as the Franks and then went to MTW or M2TW and you started fooling around with the factions. The truth is out there... :yes:
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
12-01-2007, 00:29
I think certain people hate the Romans for the same reason people hate the Yankees, the Raiders, and the Lakers.
L.C.Cinna
12-01-2007, 00:31
If this was the case, how could Rome finally crumble?~:confused:
because the add-on was bugged
Right on, MAA...I agree completely.
You see so much of the same nonsense when browsing through some of the WWII sim sites and somebody talks about their experiences as playing the "German faction" (so to speak) and how that relates to their own knowledge of the strategic and tactical elements of the German war machine of the early- to mid-1940s. Unfortunately, they all too often are met with vile rants against them, labeling them as "Nazi fanboys" -- supposedly nothing more than Hitlerjugend wanna-be's that were born a generation or two late in history.
It all seems to be a bit silly to me...I'm personally fascinated by the way in which the average German soldier dealt with the experience of battle on the Eastern Front in the 1940s, and I'm now fascinated -- thanks to RTW and EB -- in a similar understanding of the Roman soldier's experiences in battles across the sands of Africa, the forests of Germania, and the steppes of Asia. Does that make me a "Roman fanboy"?? I think not!
Pharnakes
12-01-2007, 00:51
I just admire the eastern greeks and Pontus especialy (ok, I know they not strictly greek) far to much to ever like the romans. Aknowlodge their greatness, yes, like them no, hate them, no, say I hate them to see how others will respond, defininately.:beam:
Get shouted at afterwards by bovi, probably.:clown:
NeoSpartan
12-01-2007, 03:03
LOL!!!
nah I don't hate the Romans, and I don't think most people here "hate" the romans.
Now to answer Dayve question.
I believe the persieved hostility is due to a the many threads that sprung up a month where people were whining about:
-why are my legions not Uber
-why are my legions taking so many casualties against Classical Hoplites
-why can't my legions beat a phalanxs in a frontal assult
-etc, etc...
and when members and experieced EB players explained they just ingonored those posts and whinned some more.
But it didn't stop there the whinning got so bad the EB team members just lost it and started telling to those people to F*** off! Something they RARELY do.
As a result there is still a knee jerk reaction to remind (sometimes in a not so friendly matter) those who post "praise the all mightly Romans" type threads that the Romani were NOT the uber mofo's they are made out to be.
Emperor Burakuku
12-01-2007, 03:21
I think certain people hate the Romans for the same reason people hate the Yankees, the Raiders, and the Lakers.
You mean Real Madrid, Manchaster United and A.C Milan, right? I mean I could hate them like that, but I don't have anything agains the Lakers. Who are the Raiders?
BerkeleyBoi
12-01-2007, 03:35
You mean Real Madrid, Manchaster United and A.C Milan, right? I mean I could hate them like that, but I don't have anything agains the Lakers. Who are the Raiders?
People hate Manchester United? Everyone in China loves them... I assumed the world did too...
beatoangelico
12-01-2007, 03:39
You mean Real Madrid, Manchaster United and A.C Milan, right? I mean I could hate them like that, but I don't have anything agains the Lakers. Who are the Raiders?
actually in Italy the most hated team is Juventus FC :laugh4:
actually in Italy the most hated team is Juventus FC :laugh4:
You mean people actually like Italian teams? They're the dirtiest teams out there, they'd murder the entire opposing team the night before to assure a win if they thought they could get away with it.
You mean Real Madrid, Manchaster United and A.C Milan, right? I mean I could hate them like that, but I don't have anything agains the Lakers. Who are the Raiders?
are you not american?
Mouzafphaerre
12-01-2007, 04:14
.
Surprisingly there are a handful people out there who are not American. :laugh4:
As a matter of fact, the ORG is a Dutch colony. :stare:
.
lol well i knew that! I was asking him personally because the raiders are an american football team, so if he wasnt he prly wouldnt know what MAA is talking about.
pseudocaesar
12-01-2007, 04:42
its a case of tall poppy syndrome. Romans were the best at everything, so naturally everyone nowadays hates them. Its pathetic and ridiculous. Its just immature kids that dont actually know anything about history, and cant appreciate the real accomplishments of the Romans. Il just pick ONE example...Concrete. Where would we be without that invention. Several hundred technological years behind i tell ya that much.
Mouzafphaerre
12-01-2007, 04:45
.
Hehe... I was trying a joke. Can scarcely make them work. :shame:
.
NeoSpartan
12-01-2007, 04:47
uhm...... I see where ur going but concrete is bad example though. With the fall of rome the knowledge of concrete was lost until it was "rediscovered" by the 1700's by a British scientist-guy.
Many things were lost with the fall of the Roman empire, concrete is probably one of the less important of them.
I never knew art of conjuring concrete was not known to Byzantines. Intresting. How so?
Oh, I see it, in fact they were greeks and thus underdeveloped in comparison to Ze "Best at everything" uber-romans.
And, since the discussion went this way, please tell me about the rest of rome glorious achievements that these filthy pervert greeks somehow managed to forget or diminish.
Thanx in advance
its a case of tall poppy syndrome. Romans were the best at everything, so naturally everyone nowadays hates them. Its pathetic and ridiculous. Its just immature kids that dont actually know anything about history, and cant appreciate the real accomplishments of the Romans. Il just pick ONE example...Concrete. Where would we be without that invention. Several hundred technological years behind i tell ya that much.
First I felt anger towards this post, but then I just felt sorry for you.
Laughable.
oudysseos
12-01-2007, 08:41
Personally I don't play as Romans because I already know how that scenario turns out, so it's boring to me. I play EB to imagine how history might have been different. I do think that the Roman faction in EB was marvelously done though.
tapanojum
12-01-2007, 09:05
I dont play Rome because I like pretending my faction leader has turned a small and doomed nation around into a military machine and later a great empire. I already know Rome conquers the world so it's hard to role-play or imagine that part.
I hate Rome because of the language. I mean, who replaces U with a V? Come on!
Rodion Romanovich
12-01-2007, 11:50
QFT!
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the :furious3: Judean People's Front! :laugh4:
I think many times it boils down to 2 things: A cultural component (they beat up my ancestors) or an attempt to view them through 21st century morals and ethics.
And the popular front of Judea! ~:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
Just out of curiosity, how exactly did the Greeks "benefit" from the Romans? :laugh4:
By getting conquered? :beam:
Some Greeks might have found an end of the about 500 years (or more) of constant state of war in Greece desirable?
Pharnakes
12-01-2007, 12:24
First I felt anger towards this post, but then I just felt sorry for you.
Laughable.
Thank you Sarcasm. :bow:
Now I don't need to bother typing that.:beam:
Justiciar
12-01-2007, 12:26
Mash the dirty red scum! Kick 'em in the teeth where it hurts! Kill! Kill, kill! Filthy bastard Rommies! I hate 'em! I hate 'em! Aaaargh! Aaaargh! *Shakes fist*
Some Greeks might have found an end of the about 500 years (or more) of constant state of war in Greece desirable?
Those of them who happened to be citizens of Korinth, did not had enough time to enjoy it, compliments goes to Lucii Mummii ;-)
(Not that I feel any simpathy towards EB Korinthoi, in my KH campaign they used to be the most "gifted" of all my precious family)
I hate Rome because of the language. I mean, who replaces U with a V? Come on!
If i'm not mistaken it was them who actually replaced V partially and added the U to the alphabet.
The Romans are too easy.
Not as easy as in 0.81.
Some Greeks might have found an end of the about 500 years (or more) of constant state of war in Greece desirable?
Yes actually they did seem to like warfare between cities. God knows why, but they did.
To make an example, let's say a few European countries start a war. No genocide or much civilian casualties, just scrapping. By your logic the best solution would be if China came and conquered Europe. And then the Europeans should be happy for it :dizzy2:
its a case of tall poppy syndrome. Romans were the best at everything, so naturally everyone nowadays hates them. Its pathetic and ridiculous. Its just immature kids that dont actually know anything about history, and cant appreciate the real accomplishments of the Romans. Il just pick ONE example...Concrete. Where would we be without that invention. Several hundred technological years behind i tell ya that much.
:laugh4: yeah clearly you are very mature and unbiased
CirdanDharix
12-01-2007, 13:49
Utlimately, the Romans weren't really worse than most of their competitors; they were just better at mass-murder, mass-slavery and mass-rape than them. Thus, to modern sensibilities they appear to be a bunch of bloodthirsty fascist scumbags, but in fact, most of humanity has been for most of its history a bunch of bloodthirsty fascist scumbags. Nowadays, even most of the 'civilised' people who aren't bloodthirsty fascist scumbags are actually repressed bloodthirsty fascist scumbags.
Now, I still prefer Carthaginian perfidy to Roman perfidy. R0M4nZ R t3h SuXX0rz!!!
pseudocaesar
12-01-2007, 14:14
First I felt anger towards this post, but then I just felt sorry for you.
Laughable.
Yeh well, im sure i could have planned out my post a bit better, looking back it is pretty crap. But it gets to a certain point where you do just get sick of people constantly bagging out Rome for no decent reason whatsoever. You see it all the time, on every RTW forum around, so it does get annoying. If you can provide a valid reason for hating the Romans then be my guest and provide it for us all.
If you can provide a valid reason for hating the Romans then be my guest and provide it for us all.
Valid is, unfortunately, a relative term. What is valid for one might not be for somebody else...
Yes actually they did seem to like warfare between cities. God knows why, but they did.
To make an example, let's say a few European countries start a war. No genocide or much civilian casualties, just scrapping. By your logic the best solution would be if China came and conquered Europe. And then the Europeans should be happy for it
Well, there is a reason why a lot of Europeans don't like the US.....
Decimus Attius Arbiter
12-01-2007, 19:59
It's like Rebels Vs Empire in Star Wars. People want to kick Imperial ass.
Pharnakes
12-01-2007, 20:21
Actualy, I support the imperials in star wars.
The rebels have such a ridicoulously and impracticaly fluffy view of the universe. The imperialists are realists. The rebels on the other hand don't seem to appreciate that only the power is power, and no matter how much honour you have and how noble your goals, the universe doesn't give a damn.
It always annoys me so much in books and films when the good guys win from what is to any intelegent person a clearly untenable position, with a logistical nightmare, and yet they resoundingly and over-whelmingly crush the bad guts, with mimimum casualties, except for one or two carefuly chosen characters, who you know are as good as dead five minutes into the film/50pages into the book. God, why can't the bad guys win for once? At least it would provided a bit of variation.:beam:
There is no good or bad in history.
Just different shades of ugly...
Actualy, I support the imperials in star wars.
The rebels have such a ridicoulously and impracticaly fluffy view of the universe. The imperialists are realists. The rebels on the other hand don't seem to appreciate that only the power is power, and no matter how much honour you have and how noble your goals, the universe doesn't give a damn.
It always annoys me so much in books and films when the good guys win from what is to any intelegent person a clearly untenable position, with a logistical nightmare, and yet they resoundingly and over-whelmingly crush the bad guts, with mimimum casualties, except for one or two carefuly chosen characters, who you know are as good as dead five minutes into the film/50pages into the book. God, why can't the bad guys win for once? At least it would provided a bit of variation.:beam:
Wow, I'm making a bad habit of actually posting. I'm ruining my amazing lurkiness! I've actually made more than one post in the same thread now! What's next, actually posting on a regular basis?!:furious3:
Anyway, try reading 1984. It has a suitably depressing ending.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
12-01-2007, 21:28
Wow, I'm making a bad habit of actually posting. I'm ruining my amazing lurkiness! I've actually made more than one post in the same thread now! What's next, actually posting on a regular basis?!:furious3:
Anyway, try reading 1984. It has a suitably depressing ending.
That's funny, I was just thinking about the exact same book when I read that post.
Or you could treat Star Wars Episodes I-III as a seperate entity from the other films. Then a scheming Palpatine wins.
1984 is good for that, but it was the result of Orwell's anti-Stalinist political view (although he supported communism in the Spanish Civil War). It was a Warning. As was Animal Farm, which had a similarly dark ending.
In Catch-22 the protagonist (would you call Yossarian a hero? I would, but, yannknow...) escapes, but the bad side of authority is still in authority.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
12-01-2007, 21:43
Episodes 1-3 are separate. The first trilogy was made by a visionary, episodes 1-3 were made by a capitalist. :wall:
Am I sufficiently off topic? :beam:
EDIT: One of the things that needs to be emphisied about 1984 is that it isn't just about Stalinism. It is a warning to all peoples in all places. If you follow current US politics, the book is extremely frightening. But now I'm off topic in an area that isn't permitted in the forum.
Actually, I support the imperials in star wars.
The rebels have such a ridiculously and impractically fluffy view of the universe. The imperialists are realists. The rebels on the other hand don't seem to appreciate that only the power is power, and no matter how much honor you have and how noble your goals, the universe doesn't give a damn.
It always annoys me so much in books and films when the good guys win from what is to any intelligent person a clearly untenable position, with a logistical nightmare, and yet they resoundingly and overwhelmingly crush the bad guts, with minimum casualties, except for one or two carefully chosen characters, who you know are as good as dead five minutes into the film/50pages into the book. God, why can't the bad guys win for once? At least it would provided a bit of variation.:beam:
Imperials have cool walkers and stormtroopers, rebels are... rebel scum :whip:
I usually tend to side with the "evil" side because in most cases the "good" guys are too naive, spineless and/or gay *cough*Luke Skywalker*cough*
Emperor Burakuku
12-01-2007, 22:31
I always wanted to be a jedy but it seems I am unable and I always turn sith. :embarassed: And it's women's fault! :wall:
Maksimus
12-01-2007, 23:08
Many things were lost with the fall of the Roman empire, concrete is probably one of the less important of them.
I agree realy, especially if you are talking for the Western Europe and The Western Roman Empire... Eastern'r Romans never lost that knowledge. Even today it is belived that after the finall fall of Constantinopolis (in 1453) ..
Renaissance in the catholic world begun manly in the Mediterranean Cities.. Cities that have represented the route of the books distributions from ancient times (found in Constantinopolis) that Turks gave or sold out to Italian city-states after 1453... It is realy one historic fact..
Even Columbos went west after inspiration he gained by reading an ancient script originatet from Ravena in 6 century .. In time while Eastern Roman's reclaimed Italy (that script came from a greek monarch)
but this is no time or place for such discussion ..
Can anyone help me how to add a link and a picture that would be like avatar and stand down after all my posts? I would like to add the link to the EB -ALex thread and some nice picture... I don't know how!?:help:
Pharnakes
12-01-2007, 23:22
First make the picture, then host it to image shack or the like, then edit the link for hotlink into your sig. (done in the usser cp).
Maksimus
12-01-2007, 23:35
Oh... thanks alot.. but how do I refer people to use the picture as a link?
NeoSpartan
12-01-2007, 23:37
I always wanted to be a jedy but it seems I am unable and I always turn sith. :embarassed: And it's women's fault! :wall:
u ain't the only one :laugh4:
Pharnakes
12-01-2007, 23:57
Oh... thanks alot.. but how do I refer people to use the picture as a link?
Do you mean make the pic in the sig into a link that takes you to the mod page?
If thats what you mean, sorry but I dunno.
If i'm not mistaken it was them who actually replaced V partially and added the U to the alphabet.
I know none 'bout none and I'm not afraid to admit it.
Emperor Burakuku
12-02-2007, 10:51
If i'm not mistaken it was them who actually replaced V partially and added the U to the alphabet.
As far as I know this happened in Claudiu's time, third emperor if I remember correctly. No, fourth... Yes I think so. Octavian, Tiberius (also my name), Caligula... Claudius... Hmm I think I am right. And yes, he added U to the alphabet. What about it?
P.S To NeoSpartan: women are evil dude.
tapanojum
12-02-2007, 11:10
People constantly diss the Romans but wait a minute....when you guys first bought this game BEFORE even knowing about EB....what was the title...ummm ugh..
Rome: Total War?
Yeah thats it...and I believe the Romans were the default faction to play.
Hmmm....interesting!
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 11:42
To be fair, Tapanojum, anyone who had access to the internet and a passing interest in the game would probably have known that there were a number of other playable factions - they could well have bought the game with a fierce hatred of Rome already brimming in their hearts.
Me, I've been hankering to play as the Romans again since the days of playing Centurion(TM) as a wee lad. "Submit now, or be destroyed". I can still remember the drums sounding as the battle began...
"What does everyone have against Rome?"
Nobody likes cheaters, i guess.
To be fair, history has very few honest players.
Emperor Burakuku
12-02-2007, 11:58
OK... Repeating myself but if I need to, I need to. Like I said before, I am tired of people saying: Romans were cheaters, Greeks were gay, Persians loosers, etc, etc, etc. Some of them are our ancestors and some ppl get offended by this attitude. Not all Romans were bad, it's nothing wrong with homosexuality, Persians were a great empire and they proved it by rebirth, etc. What is wrong with the human race? Can't we just get along. And I don't think it's about english.
pseudocaesar
12-02-2007, 14:22
...
Jaywalker-Jack
12-02-2007, 14:39
I think for a lot of people its because of their experiences playing vanilla. In that you had THREE Roman factions, as if one wasnt already tough enough, and every single campaign you played you would always have to fight them sooner or later. Many is the time I went to all sorts of lengths just to kill those three factions and give Italy to someone else, so it wouldnt be ROMANS ROMANS ROMANS plastered all over the map down the line.
hellenes
12-02-2007, 15:46
Freedom from the Macedonian yoke. Albeit they traded one master for another, but apparently the Rome was preferable to them as they asked for their assistance. More importantly, the ceaseless warfare finally came to an end.
Not to mention the benifets of Roman culture and technology, much of which was simply taken from the Greeks and improved upon by the Romans.
But I'm not going to get involved in another "pro-Rome vs anti-Rome" debate. Getting a little tired of them tbh.
Makedones were Hellenic people...so did the Hellenes liked the persians when they finansed the Peloponnesean war? For "Freedom from the Athenian yoke"?
Rodion Romanovich
12-02-2007, 17:34
Imperials have cool walkers and stormtroopers, rebels are... rebel scum :whip:
I usually tend to side with the "evil" side because in most cases the "good" guys are too naive, spineless and/or gay *cough*Luke Skywalker*cough*
Yes, the rebels in SW are definitely in need of an internal revolt to overthrow the joke of a leader and leadership they have, since they're risking the safety of all who support the rebel cause. I still support their faction more than the tin-cans that the other faction is :laugh4:
Moosemanmoo
12-02-2007, 23:46
Like many others have said, I dislike Rome because my favourite factions i.e. Iberians, Macedonians, Carthaginians etc were defeated and ruled over by Rome.
+Nobody really supports the favourites, everyone loves an underdog
++They're really fun to massacre with big germanic axes
Kikosemmek
12-03-2007, 01:19
My answer is biased: Rome sucks because Carthage is the sh*t.
Boyar Son
12-03-2007, 01:26
My answer is biased: Rome sucks because Carthage is the sh*t.
Then why'd they lose?:laugh4:
Like many others have said, I dislike Rome because my favourite factions i.e. Iberians, Macedonians, Carthaginians etc were defeated and ruled over by Rome.
+Nobody really supports the favourites, everyone loves an underdog
++They're really fun to massacre with big germanic axes
Macedons and Carthaginians underdogs? One conquered other nations, defeated one of the greatest empires in the ancient world and created one itself, basically the same as the romans did... and the other one also was a powerfull nation with lots of capabilities.
Then why'd they lose?:laugh4:
Not enough troops?
Boyar Son
12-03-2007, 02:17
Not enough troops?
Tell that to hannibal
Then I guess they're not the "sh*t"
CaesarAugustus
12-03-2007, 02:31
They're just "sh*t".
To be fair, history has very few honest players.
Yeah, but Romans were ones who constantly trumpeted their own "honesty" out loud, which makes it twice as bad. As for example, standard roman procedure in many bad situations was to sign unfavorable peace (thus saving the troops), regroup, and then discard that peace, blaming anything on some single person... That happened in Caudine Forks, in Numantia, in Numidia, to name a few - and no doubt in many other smaller episodes. And constant backstabbing of their own allies? And the whole 3rd Punic war prologue... utterly disgusting.
Not to say that the whole roman concept of "just war" is absolutely laughable.
...so did the Hellenes liked the persians when they finansed the Peloponnesean war? For "Freedom from the Athenian yoke"?
In fact, "Athenian yoke" wasn't a joke. ;)
Just read Thucydides and Xenophontis.
Tiberius Nero
12-03-2007, 04:07
Yeah, but Romans were ones who constantly trumpeted their own "honesty" out loud, which makes it twice as bad.
Who didn't and who wouldn't?
Kikosemmek
12-03-2007, 07:44
Then why'd they lose?:laugh4:
They lost because political complications within their senate denied Hannibal access to Carthage's full military potential. Hannibal received no reinforcements from Carthage by way of sea while he rampaged throughout the Roman peninsula. He was also denied the thousand-strong Sacred Band cavalry, which were well within their power to tip the tide of Zama. One of the main factors, if not _the_ main factor in Hannibal's loss to Scipio was the service of Numidia's cavalry to Rome. Had Hannibal received seige equipment or additional men during his time in Roman heartlands, he'd have probably ended the empire then and there.
Luckily for Rome, Carthage had a working senate with actual differing factions at that point.
Also, Carthage being "the sh*t" has nothing to do with them winning or losing wars. I like their mythology and child sacrifice. I hate children. Every time an kid annoys me I think to myself about tossing him into a chasm. I then smile and quietly walk away. They probably sacrificed retarded, handicapped, mishapen, disorderly kids. You know, kids the Spartans would throw away.
Who didn't and who wouldn't?
A lot of other people of the same era. IMO.
Then why'd they lose?
Because they were short of just one another Hannibal. ;) They only needed to send the second guy either into Iberia or Sicilia to fix things there (hell, they could even just leave him in Africa, judging by Hannibal's own efficient post-war rule of Carthage) - and that would be enough.
Fionnlagh
12-03-2007, 13:29
I'd probably say the reason I'm not fond of the Roman empire is that they destroyed and enslaved so many different Cultures. That is just something that really bothers me, screwing with other peoples beliefs and Culture really annoys me for some reason; maybe its the fact that Celtic Culture has been kicked in the nuts so many times and that Celtic Culture is apparently the wrong way to live.
Those "inferior" cultures were then replaced with Roman laws, language and Religion.
Then again this is my biased opinion because of what they did to the Gauls, Britons and all Celtic peoples.
I think the world would be better if Brennus had just killed off the Romans after he sacked Rome in 390 B.C.
But pay me no mind:P
CirdanDharix
12-03-2007, 16:28
They lost because political complications within their senate denied Hannibal access to Carthage's full military potential. Hannibal received no reinforcements from Carthage by way of sea while he rampaged throughout the Roman peninsula. He was also denied the thousand-strong Sacred Band cavalry, which were well within their power to tip the tide of Zama. One of the main factors, if not _the_ main factor in Hannibal's loss to Scipio was the service of Numidia's cavalry to Rome. Had Hannibal received seige equipment or additional men during his time in Roman heartlands, he'd have probably ended the empire then and there.
That's a massive oversimplification. The Barcid faction held a majority of votes in the Senate at least until Scipio landed in Africa; they did send Hannibal reinforcements by sea--not on the scale he needed or wanted, but that was due to factors neither Hannibal nor the Senate could control, chiefly due to Hasdrubal Barca being defeated on the Ebro a few months only after Cannae, so that the second shipment of reinforcements which had been scheduled for the summer of 215 BCE was sent to Spain instead. Despite their Spanish setbacks, they also shipped large expeditionary forces to both Sicily and Sardinia. The Carthagianian war effort in the years following Cannae was incredible, if we follow Serge Lancel's analysis then it was more intensive that at any time before in the city's (known) history, not even when Agathokles threatened her very walls.
Also, claiming Hannibal would have ended Rome there and then is misjudging his intentions. He meant to reverse the situation created by the First Punic War, and (as he declared to Italic prisoners) restore his city's dignitas and imperium--her prestige and her power. Carthage was not the expansionistic, imperialistic power Rome was; even the most aggressive of the Barcids and their supporters simply wanted Carthage to hold the first place among the states of the Mediterranean. Hannibal didn't set out with the intention of conquering Rome, but of humbling her and removing her as a threat to Carthage. His political project appears to have been the creation of an Italic federation in Southern Italy, as a check to Roman power and expansion; Capua was probably meant to be the chief city of this confederation, or at least Hannibal accepted that this would have to be the case when he was there. Ultimately, Hannibal desired to safeguard Carthaginian interests by treaty, a policy Carthage had successfully followed for almost three centuries when Roman perjury had first imperiled this system. Hannibal may have regreted not attempting to force destiny after Cannae, when he led a raid to the foot of Rome's walls in 211BCE; but by then it was to late.
You also appear to underestimate the difficulties of naval operations for the Carthies during the Second Punic War. The Romans had far more ships, especially the era's line-of-battle ships--quinqueremes/pentereis. They had massive numerical superiority whenever their fleets sailed against Carthaginian fleets, despite keeping a powerful squadron in the Adriatic at all times. Yet, and this is a powerful testimony to the skill of their sailors and admirals, the Carthaginians managed several times to raid the Roman coast, attack undefended convoys of supplies sailing to Spain, and even land troops behind enemy lines. They could do this and escape back to friendly waters, because their ships were more skillfully constructed, their rowers better trained, and their captains better navigators. But when they faced the Roman fleets in battle, their lack of numbers told against them; the Carthaginian squadron in Spain was destroyed at the mouth of the Ebro, where it faced hopeless odds. Also, I'd like to add that, even if it is eclipsed in history books by his ignominious defeat on land and early death, Mago Barca's sailing from Ibiza to Liguria, in a straight line and in record time, was an amazing feat of navigation.
Luckily for Rome, Carthage had a working senate with actual differing factions at that point.
Indeed. Carthage was more politically fragmented than Rome at this point; despite having a majority of the Senate, and a preponderance in the popular assembly, the Barcids faced greater opposition than the Roman warmongers. Perhaps if they had been able to better prepare the war beforehand, instead of having Carthage mobilise fully two years after Rome, then they would have been able to win despite the odds.
Also, Carthage being "the sh*t" has nothing to do with them winning or losing wars. I like their mythology and child sacrifice. I hate children. Every time an kid annoys me I think to myself about tossing him into a chasm. I then smile and quietly walk away. They probably sacrificed retarded, handicapped, mishapen, disorderly kids. You know, kids the Spartans would throw away.
Well, there are some scholars who deny that the Carthaginians actually sacrificed live kids, and instead view the tophet and the skeletons of burned infants as evidence of some kind of ritual to allow babies who were stillborn or who died very young (perhaps before they were named) to have an afterlife. The main proponent of this school of thought among archaelogists was Sabatino Moscati. The most convincing argument against child sacrifice is the extreme rarity of infants in the Carthaginian necropolis, although studies of nearby cities from the Roman period indicate very high infantile mortality and a high proportion of still births (or of cases where both the mother and the child die during labour); this infantile mortality cannot plausibly have been much lower in Punic Carthage.
Nevertheless, I don't buy all of Moscati's argumentation. Some of the skeletons found in the tophet of Carthage were as old as four, and in some later-era vases we find the skeletons of more than one child--sometimes as many as three, although in those cases two of them are always twins. Some scholars (e.g. S. Lancel, 1992) have concluded from this that, in cases where the god was "robbed" of a promised sacrifice by a still birth, a live child was sacrificed instead. Moreover, the finding of vases which contain the remains of infant animals, rather than humans, point to a sacrifice by substitution (molkomor rather than molk). That said, it is still likely that the majority of the infants found in the tophet were dead of natural causes or were very likely to die of natural causes (in which case, as you've pointed out, the Spartans or even the Romans themselves would have culled them anyway).
Another consideration: the Carthaginians seem to have sacrificed infants, when the need was great. But, based on the skeletons' positions, these infants were dead when their bodies were burned. In similarly exceptional circumstances, the Romans sometimes buried adults alive.
delablake
12-03-2007, 18:48
For the same reason people prefer Pirates to the British Navy: puerile romanticism...
Mouzafphaerre
12-04-2007, 04:23
.
What does everyone have against Rome?
This! ~D
https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3518/158lusotanadestroyspqrvi0.jpg
They looked for it! Out of the blue they blockaded my ports. I kindly asked them not to but they muttered about mock philosophies and war not waiting etcetera. Then I took a few towns, crashed a few columns, slaughtered and raped a few thousand citizens and most graciously got them under my protection. But would they behave themselves? :no: Worst of all, you know what? They had WMD! ~:pissed:
.
Kikosemmek
12-04-2007, 07:17
Also, claiming Hannibal would have ended Rome there and then is misjudging his intentions. He meant to reverse the situation created by the First Punic War, and (as he declared to Italic prisoners) restore his city's dignitas and imperium--her prestige and her power. Carthage was not the expansionistic, imperialistic power Rome was; even the most aggressive of the Barcids and their supporters simply wanted Carthage to hold the first place among the states of the Mediterranean. Hannibal didn't set out with the intention of conquering Rome, but of humbling her and removing her as a threat to Carthage. His political project appears to have been the creation of an Italic federation in Southern Italy, as a check to Roman power and expansion; Capua was probably meant to be the chief city of this confederation, or at least Hannibal accepted that this would have to be the case when he was there. Ultimately, Hannibal desired to safeguard Carthaginian interests by treaty, a policy Carthage had successfully followed for almost three centuries when Roman perjury had first imperiled this system. Hannibal may have regreted not attempting to force destiny after Cannae, when he led a raid to the foot of Rome's walls in 211BCE; but by then it was to late.
I don't know if I believe that. What evidence have we that Hannibal did not intend to simply put Rome out completely? I am aware that Carthage solved its problems more civilly than the Romans did for quite a while, but I don't think they'd have taken Rome as just any other threat they've faced. Were I a senator during that time I'd probably have been the most disgusting war-monger in the Carthaginian government, because Rome has by far and large trumped and outdone any other enemy that Carthage had ever faced. I'd have regarded them as medical practicioners regard cancer today, and would have tried my best to make sure they are never heard from again.
However, I did do once during my olde vanilla days what you described to be Hannibal's true intentions, and I found it amusing that I ran into this picture randomly today.
https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8829/carthagovictaqr7.jpg
Cheers!
Rottweiler
12-04-2007, 08:31
Everytime i see someone post that they're playing as Rome i see people boo'ing and whatnot. What gives? :juggle2:
1. Some people are jealous as Romans accomplished more than their "favorite faction".
2. Some people are still bitter that their probable ancestors were conquered by the Romans.
3. Some people think that Romans are overrepresented over the other late ancient peoples in the mainstream history. (I kind of suspect that most EB modders belongs to that category...)
4. Some people are snobbish and hate anything popular.
add:
5. Some people always side strongly with the underdogs as a matter of principle. Thus they also likely more or less hate Romans. (But they should remember that Romans were underdogs too...)
CirdanDharix
12-04-2007, 16:50
I don't know if I believe that. What evidence have we that Hannibal did not intend to simply put Rome out completely? I am aware that Carthage solved its problems more civilly than the Romans did for quite a while, but I don't think they'd have taken Rome as just any other threat they've faced. Were I a senator during that time I'd probably have been the most disgusting war-monger in the Carthaginian government, because Rome has by far and large trumped and outdone any other enemy that Carthage had ever faced. I'd have regarded them as medical practicioners regard cancer today, and would have tried my best to make sure they are never heard from again.
The problem with piecing together Hannibal's intentions is that most of what we have on him is third-hand and from a Roman or, at best, Greek viewpoint. He had an official historian with him, Silenos, whose works must have told an official Carthaginian (or, perhaps more accurately, Barcid) version of the campaign, but his works are lost, as are those of historians who used Silenos as a primary source, e.g. Coelius Antipater, of whom only some rare fragments survive. Livy drew extensively on Coelius Antipater (among other sources such as Fabius Pictor), but that means that he gives, at best, a third-hand account distorted by the interpretation of two different Romans, not to mention Livy's habitual embroidery and his lack of general knowledge, especially geography, which makes his work at times incoherent and almost incomprehensible (for instance his chronology of the events leading up to the Second Punic War). Hannibal also left a bronze stele at Cape Taenarion (IIRC), but this was destroyed and we only know of the details he gives of his army's size and composition, thanks to Polybius. We also have copies of some of the treaties he signed, notably the one with Philip V of Macedon; and the sometimes awkward phrase construction in Polybius tends to indicate that he was translating from the Punic version of this treaty, rather than copying down the Greek one, IIRC.
So, there must always be some doubts as to Hannibal's intentions, his character and even some of his actions. I must say I rather agree with you when you say that, had you been a contemporary of Hannibal, you would of stood for the utter destruction of Rome. But we have the benefit of hindsight, and it's difficult, if not impossible, for us to make abstraction of later events, especially the "Third Punic War"--or should we be saying the Punic Genocide?
However, from what we know, the most likely conclusion is that Hannibal had not intention of destorying Rome. He left his heavy siege materiel in Iberia; perhaps he was intending to have it brought to him later, but at any rate, he did not anticipate having to capture important cities as soon as he reached Italy. He didn't attack Rome until it was to late, and when he did, only with the intention of drawing Roman forces away from Capua and preventing that city's fall (in which he failed). Now, there were valid military objections to a march on Rome, and they are the same at the time of Cannae and at the time of Trasimene, namely that Hannibal lacked heavy siege equipment and the manpower to seize Rome, which was already a huge and well-fortified city; and that, if a prolonged siege was allowed to turn the war into one of positions and fortifications, then all of Hannibal's advantages would be negated and he would certainly succumb to superior Roman numbers. However, a bold attack on Rome, relying on surprise to storm the city, might have succeeded, especially after Cannae. It would have been a risky enterprise, effectively betting the outcome of the war on a single action. But the capture of Rome and her Senators, the liberation of most the allied hostages would have allowed Hannibal to achieve a total victory. This he did not seek to do, perhaps out of caution. The famous Maharbal quote is probably apocryphal, as are so many of the speeches in Livy; but nevertheless, after Cannae Hannibal had his best chance to take Rome.
The main obstacle to assuming that only prudence prevented a Punic attack on Rome, is that there is no evidence for Hannibal to have planned to besiege the city in the future. In fact, from what we know of Mago Barca's report to the Carthaginian senate, the requests he put in for reinforcements are consistent only with a continuation of the mobile warfare, in the open country, which Hannibal had practised so far. The first shipment was to consist only of elephants and cavalry; the second of infantry, cavalry and more elephants, but not (as far as we know) siege weapons. Moreover, rather than concentrating on a single theater, the Carthaginian policy was to open new fronts (in Sardinia and in Sicily), their goal being apparently to defeat the Romans in all their overseas possessions rather than striking at the heart.
Then, there is Hannibal's policy in Southern Italy. He reportedly told the Capuans he would make their city the capital of Italy; he worked to detach cities from the Roman alliance, even though many of them probably stayed loyal to Rome on account of their hostages more than any other factor, at least at the start when Hannibal appeared invincible. He strove to build a strong, anti-Roman, alliance in Southern Italy, and he never mentioned join operations in Italy during his dealings with the Macedonians. He behaved generally more as a liberator than as a conqueror.
Finally, there are the speeches of Hannibal to his prisoners, claiming that he waged, not a war of extermination, but one to restore his homeland's prestige; and his offer to sell his prisoners back to the Romans. This is told by non-Punic and non-contemporary historians, so the usual grain of salt applies; but it at least tells us what the ancient tradition was.
However, I did do once during my olde vanilla days what you described to be Hannibal's true intentions, and I found it amusing that I ran into this picture randomly today.
https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8829/carthagovictaqr7.jpg
Cheers!
:2thumbsup:
L.C.Cinna
12-04-2007, 17:28
especially the "Third Punic War"--or should we be saying the Punic Genocide?
I'm sorry but there was no such thing like a "Punic Genocide". Only the few people who stayed in Carthage fell victim to the Roman massacre. Carthage was refounded with still major punic population and the other punic towns on the northern african coast weren't even touched. they even kept their autonomie, a switch to roman names only occurs during the 1st century BC to AD, inscriptionas are in punic and latin throughout most of Roman history. Septimius of Lepcis became emperor and his ancestors were senators and they all spoke punic (actually the family only changed their punic name around the time of Augustus as Birley suggests)
So there was hardly a punic genocide
just on a sidenote
Digby Tatham Warter
12-04-2007, 18:41
As far as gameplay is concerned Rome bothers me. They have it to easy, take to much and spam out armies like there's no tomorrow. By the time I get near central Europe they have nicked more than their fare share, leaving me with a lack of cultural diversity to war against. So I have taken the extreme measure of becoming Romes jailers, by blocking one of the bridges at the north end of Italy.
I have done this in a Seleukid and Mak campaign, and have to fight a large bridge battle every 2 turns or so for my trouble, using a modest blocking force. But at least Rome can exsist to train my troops and Generals. I'm so generous to regale them with the honour.
And yes I'm aware that the situation could easily be reversed for the Roman player, to go east, and find the Grey death in charge of some major real estate. But it's not a dead cert, whereas Romes greed in my experience seems to be a matter of course.
Tiberius Nero
12-05-2007, 12:01
For the same reason people prefer Pirates to the British Navy: puerile romanticism...
Word.
CirdanDharix
12-05-2007, 13:06
I'm sorry but there was no such thing like a "Punic Genocide". Only the few people who stayed in Carthage fell victim to the Roman massacre. Carthage was refounded with still major punic population and the other punic towns on the northern african coast weren't even touched. they even kept their autonomie, a switch to roman names only occurs during the 1st century BC to AD, inscriptionas are in punic and latin throughout most of Roman history. Septimius of Lepcis became emperor and his ancestors were senators and they all spoke punic (actually the family only changed their punic name around the time of Augustus as Birley suggests)
So there was hardly a punic genocide
just on a sidenote
I never said they succeeded. Jews still exist, Armenians still exist, hell, there's even a residual population of indigenous American tribes. Cato's party in the Roman Senate did try to erase all traces of Carthage (the city was refounded by Augustus more than a century and half later, which has no relevance to actions in the time of Scipio Aemilianus). Despite the tradition of the libri punicihaving been given to the sons of Massinissa, the only traces of Punic scholarship that have survived are fragments of Mago's treaty on agronomy, which proved to be so useful the Romans just had to translate it; in all likelyhood the Romans probably destroyed most of Carthage's libraries. As to the Punic language surviving into the times of Saint Augustine, that's largely due to its entrenchment among the native 'Libyan' population. The letters of the Tiffinagh script, still occasionally used today, are derived from Punic letters, a testimony to the resilience of Punic culture.
Moosemanmoo
12-05-2007, 13:12
because their settlements never revolt when they're the AI
and im still bitter about a battle where 2 urban cohorts slaughtered 90% of my army, and how they were immune to missile fire
(all in the unmodded version ofcourse)
and im still bitter about a battle where 2 urban cohorts slaughtered 90% of my army, and how they were immune to missile fire
(all in the unmodded version ofcourse)
Ah, good old vanilla :sweatdrop:
As Rome i used armies with urban cohorts, praetorians, wardogs, ninjas and gladiators. Gladiators were pretty cool :yes:
LuciusCorneliusSulla
12-05-2007, 16:46
5. Some people always side strongly with the underdogs as a matter of principle. Thus they also likely more or less hate Romans. (But they should remember that Romans were underdogs too...)
And here we have the most perfect explanation for our irrational hatred of the Roman Faction (not me, I'm a roman buff and have been recently tattooed with Latin inscriptions)
Underdog syndrome - the love of that which strives to excel under harsh conditions, and a disdain for an agent of the exact opposite, the 'overdog'
And just to set the record straight - luck? Come off it sunshine, they survived and thrived because of one simple fact - they learned and adapted.
Ovid - it is right to learn, even from the enemy
If you fight one losing battle in EB that you dont learn from, you truly have lost the battle
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.