Does RTW follow a modern idea of war?

It's usually well known here that the AI sometimes gets like a bulldog in war, bites down and won't let go. Often it fights to the last man, without surrendering even against inevitable odds. But I've been looking over many historical wars (the many punic wars). It seems that Carthage lost several wars, and only on the last one were they burned to the ground and wiped out... unlike the AI, where there will be only one Punic war, to the death. At first I used to assume this was a fault in hard-coded diplomacy. But then I got to thinking, isn't that how modern wars are often fought? Iraq, and Japan and Germany in WWII. They fought ferociously all the way back to the homeland, and didn't give up when a few islands were taken by superior forces. Has war, then, changed from the Punic days? Do countries fight to the bitter end more often than they used to? I can't imagine someone invading Puerto Rico with an overwhelming army, and the US saying "Ah, looks like we lost the war, since they got the islands. Let's sign a treaty, and not fight to the bitter end", but isn't that pretty much what happened in the early stage of the Punic struggles? Or maybe all this analysis is silly, and it's just a messed up diplomatic system no matter how you look at it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

Or maybe all this analysis is silly, and it's just a messed up diplomatic system no matter how you look at it. ;)

---

Are you talking about the game or the planet?....in any case the answer is yes....:clown: ~:joker: :tomato:

lol i'm sorry but no offense you cannot compare rtw to modern war
1. rtw even with EB is not historical-real life
2. its 2000 years ago
3. Total war is a concept created in world war one
4. really also the Punic wars weren't total war until the second one because of Hannibal, the Carthaginian senate disapproved what Hannibal did anyways because he cut himself off
5. modern war is basically pushing a button and the enemy goes away/ fighting street to street
6. roman times, armies would legitimately meet or ambush armies on the field
i'm not sure how that would work but they clearly must have some general 'rules of war'

:dizzy2:
:book:

Society's ideas about itself have changed significantly during the interim.

Modern warfare tends to rally people behind the nation state and/or an exclusive religion. As such you can't let yourself be beaten because defeat will result in the percieved destruction of something you identify yourself as part of. Before the evolution of the nation state, and before the popularity of monotheist religions, you might fight to the death over your town, but is it worth it for a city 300 miles away?

RTW is more the result of AI diplomacy that is geared towards war and nothing else. It was never designed as a civilisation simulator. Pity that that is.

I seriously doubt that there were many nations/empires/miscellanious, in ANY historical period that refused to sign a peace treaty (even an unfair one) when they recognised they'd be swept away if they didn't.

When miscellaneous includes towns then there are several in the history of India (mainly in the context of Rajputs making a ritualised last stand against Muslims from the Sultanates, but there were some against the British too I think) and there is also Carthage. The demands were ridiculous, and even if they had moved the city, probably the Romans would have gone even further, but the Carthaginians defied Rome, even though it did mean extinction.

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt that there were many nations/empires/miscellanious, in ANY historical period that refused to sign a peace treaty (even an unfair one) when they recognised they'd be swept away if they didn't.

---

Great examples of this are the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles in WWI. This was the first true "total" war and despite that both Russia and Germany agreed to crippling peace treaties because they knew they were doomed if they didn't. Even the Nazis, in the last weeks of WWII, were clinging to a desperate hope they could exploit tension between the allies to put a separate peace together.

And Will-you-fight, I don't think the topic starter was saying that RTW is like a modern war. He was asking if it had been influenced by our modern perception of war. No need to be snappy.

i would say Romanised diplomacy is more complex than Medieval diplomacy
because its imperialistic but then again barbaric
i have no idea how it would work, except for 'eye for an Eye' concept
rome total war tried to convey this with the computer running the senate and you doing their bidding
but really me contemplating roman politics at this hour is not really what my brain wants todo

it was complex to say the least, but then again not when facing barbarians

i think in Britain they would offer a protectorate - they denied- they get get 'forced' to comply in rtw you cant force to comply anything, you just wipe them out and romanise etc.

Carthage was destroyed because the romans saw they deserved it and they rebuilt it later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeran

When miscellaneous includes towns then there are several in the history of India (mainly in the context of Rajputs making a ritualised last stand against Muslims from the Sultanates, but there were some against the British too I think) and there is also Carthage. The demands were ridiculous, and even if they had moved the city, probably the Romans would have gone even further, but the Carthaginians defied Rome, even though it did mean extinction.

---

I don't know about the Islamic conquests of India, but I figure that the main reason they resisted so fiercely is because they know they'd be forcibly converted (or perhaps extinguished) under muslim rule- that sorta thing simply doesn't apply for RTW's timeframe.
The Carthaginians had no choice. IIRC, their trade caravans were continuously harrassed by Numidians and the treaty they signed with Rome at the end of the 2nd Punic War forbade them from doing anything about them without the consent of Rome, wich they withheld. The Romans deliberately did this to produce a casus belli for the total destruction of Carthage, the idea came from Cato the elder I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will_YouFight_ForME

3. Total war is a concept created in world war one
:dizzy2:
:book:

---

actually general Sherman used it against the confederates late in the American civil war.:laugh4:

(sorry to nit pick your post)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeran

When miscellaneous includes towns then there are several in the history of India (mainly in the context of Rajputs making a ritualised last stand against Muslims from the Sultanates, but there were some against the British too I think) and there is also Carthage. The demands were ridiculous, and even if they had moved the city, probably the Romans would have gone even further, but the Carthaginians defied Rome, even though it did mean extinction.

---

That's because the Carthagians finnaly figured out the romans were just going to settle with beating them and taking their money, they knew the romans were going to wipe them out. Where would you rather die, your beloved city or on the run in the middle of the desert?

technically though, that was the american civil war
every war is a total war if its a civil war
really if you think about it
it isnt classed as 'total war'
because its a nation split in two

total war was when it effected a home front
bombing etc
the zeppelins in ww1 started this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabbitDynamite

Great examples of this are the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles in WWI. This was the first true "total" war and despite that both Russia and Germany agreed to crippling peace treaties because they knew they were doomed if they didn't. Even the Nazis, in the last weeks of WWII, were clinging to a desperate hope they could exploit tension between the allies to put a separate peace together.

---

Brest-Litovsk wasn't really signed because Russia would be losing the war, was it? It was because of internal troubles in Russia (commies had just come to power)
or am I totally messing it up?
Perhaps history turns it that way that nations that didn't sign to these kind of treaties, actually won, won against low odds...

after the two series of Total War the world witnessed in the 20th century, the way of war changed dramatically. I don't mean the weapons and stuff (pressing a button and *boom*) however it certainly has to do with it. What I mean is that nowadays, since the Cold War, alliances and diplomacy is much more important...the Cold War never actually broke out directly, the Capitalist powers won because of...let's say they had better friends (I know this is simplistic and there are other factors as well, but I'm referring to the warfare).
The war in Iraq (Iraq, NOT terrorists) for instance, is quite an ancient manner to settle a conflict.

And Iraq didn't actually fought against the US outside it's homeland

Methinks that EB diplomacy is just what it should be: "Wanna be friends?", "If it's war you want, it's war you get" or "Please don't hit so hard"
The rest of the conflict is determined shield on shield, sword against sword, under the sound of the horns, harps, drums and Screeching Women...:2thumbsup:

"I seriously doubt that there were many nations/empires/miscellanious, in ANY historical period that refused to sign a peace treaty (even an unfair one) when they recognised they'd be swept away if they didn't."

Yes Armenia. Armenia in the 5th century AD had a notion of nationhood and religion (christianity)


Remembering the First Crusade at Avarayr


Vardan The Brave

This week the Armenian Apostolic Church will commemorate a long lost battle fought upon a far away battlefield known as Avarayr and a battle known as Vardanank. The commemoration of a lost battle may at first glance seem a bit odd to non-Armenians. However, the battle of Vardanank fifteen centuries ago on the plains of Avarayr is one of the least recognized, yet profoundly important episodes within the history of Christendom. In 451 AD the Armenian nation led by a nobleman named Vardan Mamikonian engaged themselves in the first recorded struggle in the name of preserving nationhood and Christianity. The historic significance and the subsequent ramifications of this event, however, goes beyond its mere uniqueness within the history of Christendom. The profound historic repercussions of this first 'Crusade' that unfurled fifteen centuries ago would eventually impact the political events of Asia Minor and indirectly impact the development of western Christendom more than five centuries later.

The seeds of Christianity was planted within Armenia soon after Christ’s resurrection by the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew. By a decree of the Armenian King Trdat in 301 AD, Armenia became the first state to officially embrace the new faith. By the sixth century, the Armenian Church had evolved into an autonomous national establishment with its very own Patriarch that administered the ecclesiastical affairs of the nation, independent of the universal church at the time at Constantinople. As a consequence of this autonomy, Armenian kingdoms and principalities would find themselves fighting Pagans, Muslims and Christians alike for their very existence, within each and every century thereafter.

With the official establishment of Christianity within Armenia, the close relationship Armenian kingdoms had previously enjoyed with their Zoroastrian cousins in Persia was soon to be severed forever. By the fifth century AD political strain and cultural animosity between Armenia and Persia had reached its zenith. This was partly due to the complete eradication of the Parthian dynasty in Persia that had previously administered the empire for centuries by the surging Sasanian dynasty. Armenian nobility, being partially of Parthian lineage, had thus become the last vestige of that ancient family and naturally looked upon the Sasanians with suspicion.

Due to the strategic location of the Armenian highlands within Asia Minor, Armenian kingdoms and principalities had always been a serious bone-of-contention between superpowers of the time. With Byzantium frantically vying to get control over the strategic heights of the Armenian highlands, Persian Shahs saw the importance of subjugating Armenia politically and culturally. Moreover, the Persian Shahs began considering the emergence of Christianity within their empire as a direct threat to its security, primarily due to fears that its Christian population would side with Christian Byzantium in future conflicts. Thus, the Persian court believed the new faith had to be eradicated from within the empire and its adherents forced back to Zoroastrianism.

Unfortunately, the political strains Armenia was having with her powerful neighbor to the east coincided at a time when Armenia was in a serious internal political crisis of her own. As a result of severe infighting amongst the Armenian nobility, the Armenian King was dethroned in 428 AD. Soon thereafter, the nation was partitioned between Persia and Byzantium. The nation’s political stability was further compromised as the ever restless nobility at the time became divided into two political camps, one being pro-Byzantine and other being pro-Persian, with both sides vying for absolute power. This internal political instability within Persian-partitioned Armenia was the encouraging sign the Persians needed in order to intervene on behal fof the pro-Persian camp within Armenia.

It was at this pivotal point in history that Vardan Mamikonian entered the pages of Armenian history. Of noble descent, Vardan Mamikonian was the son of Sparapet (Senior Knight/commander-in-chief) Hamazasp Mamikonian of Armenia and was a direct descendent of Saint Gregory the Illuminator. The descendents of the ancient house of the Mamikonian clan hled the hereditary responsibility of administrating the military affairs of the Armenian Kingdom and, thus, was one of the most important and respected offices in the nation.

With the intent of gaining the crucial allegiance of the Mamikonians, the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II (408-450) and the Persian Sassanian Shah Vahram V (421-438) had both bestowed the rank of Hazarapet “General” to Vardan Mamikonian. Vardan Mamikonian, being a devout Christian, was ideologically pro-Byzantine and had visited Constantinople on diplomatic missions many times. However, he was also a commander of the large Armenian military contingents within the Persian imperial army, within which he had an impressive service record of many combat engagements and where he had won acclaim in the campaigns against the Huns and other Turkic tribes that had been threatening the Persian Empire’s north-eastern frontiers.

Shah Yazdgird II ascended the throne in Persia upon Shah Vahram’s death in 438 AD. However, soon thereafter Shah Yazdgird began having extreme difficulty managing his newly aquired vast multi-ethnic/multi-faith empire. Being a despotic man by nature, the new Shah began to take drastic and violent measures to consolidate the holdings within his empire. He also began a systematic campaign of imposing Zoroastrianism upon his subject nations in hopes of creating an easily manageable uniform state religion.

In order to persuade the Armenians to re-embrace Zoroastrianism, the Persian Shah attempted to use diplomacy by the way of manipulating the pro-Persian camp in Armenia. However, the Shah’s political efforts soon failed as Armenians steadfastly refused abandoning their Christian faith. With diplomacy having been exhausted, the threat of a Persian military invasion became increasingly real. A general riot erupted throughout Armenia in 450 AD when the Persian Shah, with the reluctant consent of some bewildered Armenian nobles, sent hundreds of Zoroastrian priests into the nation in order to re-indoctrinate the Christian population.

In the ensuing riots hundreds of Persian nationals and Zoroastrian priests were massacred by unruly Armenian mobs throughout the country. As a reaction to this audacious affront against the empire, a sizable Persian force attempted to enter Armenia from the Caucasus region. This invasion force was quickly and soundly defeated by Vardan Mamikonian who had by then taken charge of the Armenian rebellion. Immediately after the successful military encounter, Vardan Mamikonian, realizing he would not be able to stand up alone to the mighty empire he had struck first, dispatched a delegation to the Byzantine court for help. However, the Vardan Mamikonian delegation was met with bitter disappointment.

Atilla the Hun was threatening Constantinople. The Byzantine emperor, unable to defeat Atilla the Hun in battle, had drained his treasury to purchase peace with the barbarian. As long as the Huns remained a threat at the very gates of the Byzantine capital, no emperor dared irritate the Shah of Persia. It soon became apparent that Armenians had to fend for themselves. By the start of 451 AD a full fledged war between Armenia and Persian was now inevitable.

According to contemporary chronicles, on April 13, 451 AD, a massive Persian force arrived within Armenia at a location between Her and Zarevand (Khoy and Salmast in present-day Iran). The army's center was held by an elite division of 10,000 horsemen known as the "Immortals." Along side them was a herd of armored war elephants, each carrying an iron clad tower within which contained a contingent of Persian bowmen. The rear guard was likewise reinforced by a column of armored war elephants, on one of which sat the commander of the force Mushkan Nusalavurd commanding a full view of the entire battlefield, directing force movements.

The Armenian volunteer forces led by Hazarapet Vardan Mamikonian comprised of a much smaller number of cavalry and infantry and was accompanied by a considerable number of the nation's nobility and clergy. This force advanced south and upon making visual contact with the Persian force, camped for the evening near the village of Avarayr in the Plain of Shavarshakan (modern Maku, in northwestern Iran). That evening, which was to be the night before their engagement, Vardan Mamikonian gave an emotional speech to his volunteer force as he pleaded with them to fight and, if need be, die with honor and to remain faithful to Christ regardless of their plight.

Being under manned, under armed and with no troop reserves, surely these men that had gathered at Avarayr on that fateful day must have known they would not be able to defeat the massive imperial force sent by Persia. Nonetheless, their selfless determination to maintain autonomy for the Armenian nation and their unwavering commitment to Christ was to become a legend within the annals of Armenian history. Eghishé, a contemporary court chronicler of the Mamikonian family, described the battle of Vardanank, to which he was an eyewitness:

"One should have seen the turmoil of the great crisis and the immeasurable confusion on both sides, as they clashed with each other in reckless fury. The dull-minded became frenzied; the cowards deserted the fields; the brave dashed forward courageously, and the valiant roared. In a solid mass the great multitude held the river; and the Persian troops, sensing the danger, became restless in their places; but the Armenian cavalry crossed the river and fell upon them with a mighty force. They attacked each other fiercely and many on both sides fell wounded on the field, rolling in agony."

Upon seeing his left flank crumbling before the onslaught of the Persians, Vardan Mamikonian, on his white stead, led a fierce counterattack that cut-off and scattered the Persian right wing, putting them in flight. Mushkan Nusalavurd, however, rallied his troops and committed his vast reserves of which the Armenians had none. Soon Hazarapet Vardan Mamikonian and his comrades were surrounded by the main vanguard of the Persian force and went down fighting.

When the battle finally ended, 1,036 Armenians and 3,544 Persians lay dead in heaps on the battlefield, and scores of others lay wounded. These losses were devastating for the Armenians because among the dead, wounded and captured were the nation’s finest nobility. Despite the heavier Persian casualties, Mushkan Nusalavurd had won the day. Vardan Mamikonian had fallen in battle and his comrades-in-arms taken to the Persian Capital Ctesiphon as prisoners.

Though beaten, however, the Armenian rebellion was far from destroyed. Vahan Mamikonian, son of Vardan Mamikonian’s brother Hmayak, took initiative and led the Armenians in a guerrilla style war that raged within the Armenian highlands for the next 33 years. During that time, the Sasanid Persian dynasty underwent many political changes and also had to deal with external conflicts with Byzantium and a new wave of Turkic barbarians from the east. Eventually, the Persian Shah at the time reassessed the drawn-out and indecisive conflict within Armenia and sued for peace.

Rebellion commander Vahan Mamikonian took advantage of this historic opportunity and sent a delegation to the Persian court with political demands, the primary one being freedom of worship. The Persian Shah accepted Vahan Mamikonian’s terms and in 484 AD a peace-treaty was signed in the village of Nvarsak. Subsequently, Vahan Mamikonian was appointed Marzpan (military governor) of Armenia by the Persian Shah. This victory of the freedom of worship that Armenians gained through sheer determination and self-sacrifice was the first of its kind in history.

With the martyrdom of Vardan Mamikonian and his comrades-in-Arms, Armenia had regained her national and spiritual autonomy. For his valiant and selfless effort, Vardan Mamikonian was bestowed the title the “Brave” and was sanctified by the Church as a saint. Today, Vardan Mamikonian stands prominently within the vast military pantheon of the Armenian nation. Vardan the Brave is also one of the most important historical figures of Armenia, because in him Armenians see their age old national plight: A long turbulent history of constant warfare and subsequent survival, a perilous history of near annihilation and subsequent revival.

It was through the heroic efforts of gallant men such as Vardan the Brave and many others like him throughout Armenian history that the seeds of nationhood would be planted time and again, through calamity after calamity. The historic significance of the battle at Avarayr cannot be underestimated. Had the noble endeavor at Avarayr in 451 AD failed and Armenia fully reintegrated within the vast Persian Empire, Armenia would not have been able to survive intact as a nation the subsequent tragedies that awaited the region. The embracement and the subsequent stubborn preservation of the Christian faith gave Armenia a unique national character that served as a catalyst for great cultural development and the formulation of a unique national identity that was previously undefined.

Ironically, just two centuries after the battle at Avarayr, in 650 AD, the vast Persian Empire fell to the inroads of Islam essentially without a fight. With the emergence of Islam within the Near-East Armenian kingdoms and principalities would become an island of Christianity within the sea of Islam. Nevertheless, these warlike Armenian kingdoms and principalities would continue to act as an effective bulwark for western Christendom against the relentless stream of eastern barbarians until their eventual demise in the fourteenth century in part due to the treachery of Byzantium and the inescapable circumstances of the region’s long and turbulent history.

From the first crusade at Avarayr, to the establishment of the Cilician Armenian Kingdom, to the near annihilation of the nation at the hands of the Turks, to the subsequent revival of the Armenian nation in 1991, the turbulent and bloody history of the Armenian nation can be accurately described as a continuous crusade in the name of Christ and nation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enguerrand de Sarnéac

Brest-Litovsk wasn't really signed because Russia would be losing the war, was it? It was because of internal troubles in Russia (commies had just come to power)
or am I totally messing it up?
Perhaps history turns it that way that nations that didn't sign to these kind of treaties, actually won, won against low odds...

---

The Russians, or more accurately Lenin and his men, didn't stand a chance. They were on the verge of civil war, food supply was seriously messed up, the armies were practically non-existant due to (potential) mutinees, and above all Russia wasn't and at that point could not be mobilised for total war in the way Germany was. Peace at any cost was the only option open to Lenin if he wanted to keep hold of his power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will_YouFight_ForME

i would say Romanised diplomacy is more complex than Medieval diplomacy
because its imperialistic but then again barbaric
i have no idea how it would work, except for 'eye for an Eye' concept
rome total war tried to convey this with the computer running the senate and you doing their bidding
but really me contemplating roman politics at this hour is not really what my brain wants todo

it was complex to say the least, but then again not when facing barbarians

i think in Britain they would offer a protectorate - they denied- they get get 'forced' to comply in rtw you cant force to comply anything, you just wipe them out and romanise etc.

Carthage was destroyed because the romans saw they deserved it and they rebuilt it later

---

That is total twaddle. Roman diplomacy was not "barbarian." The Romans, like anyone imposed conditions when the won, which they usually did. The idea that the Romans would never sign a treaty and just wipe you out instead is just plain wrong.

Rome was Imperialistic, i.e. the idea was to take over. That sort of means there are a limited number of options. As far as barbarian goes, Romano-Hellenic civilisation was more advanced than Enlightenment Europe in some ways and way ahead of anything before that in every way.

Quote:

---

Brest-Litovsk wasn't really signed because Russia would be losing the war, was it? It was because of internal troubles in Russia (commies had just come to power)
or am I totally messing it up?
Perhaps history turns it that way that nations that didn't sign to these kind of treaties, actually won, won against low odds...

---

Little from column A, little from column B. It's probably true that what made Lenin willing to sign the treaty immediately despite it's cost was his political situation. But he must also have known that Russia had lost the war. The provisional government had attempted to launch an offensive the June before the October revolution, which had to be called off simply because the Russian troops were deserting en masse. Once the Bolsheviks came to power, they deserted all the more because they'd heard the nobility's estates were being shared out and didn't want to miss out. And anyway, the Revolution had come mainly because Russia was so overstretched by the losing war effort and the casualty rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

I don't know about the Islamic conquests of India, but I figure that the main reason they resisted so fiercely is because they know they'd be forcibly converted (or perhaps extinguished) under muslim rule- that sorta thing simply doesn't apply for RTW's timeframe.
The Carthaginians had no choice. IIRC, their trade caravans were continuously harrassed by Numidians and the treaty they signed with Rome at the end of the 2nd Punic War forbade them from doing anything about them without the consent of Rome, wich they withheld. The Romans deliberately did this to produce a casus belli for the total destruction of Carthage, the idea came from Cato the elder I believe.

---

They were eventually conquered by Mongols, who later converted to Islam, thus setting up the Mughal dynasties...

To chime in on what Phillipvs started, the Romans, though militaristic, were not eager to conquer other peoples. The Repbulic was abhorrent of the idea of capturing foreign lands, and the Republic's 'empire' was created quite by accident, you could say. The Senate was famous for its diplomatic envoys, treaties, counter-treaties, and international diplomacy.

I think the Diplomatic aspect needs some Improvement.

For instance we have the option to ask a faction to attack another faction, yet we dont have the option to ask a faction to cease war with another.

Or the possibility of short term alliances, pacts etc. That could help put pressure on a powerfull faction from multiple sides, and both as offensive and defensive measure.

I find diplomacy really one sided and self serving and as a result somehow limited choices which make it simplistic.

Then again, its more of a game based on Conquest and Combat rather than Diplomacy.

Being war-focused is no excuse. Is not war the continuation of diplomacy by other means?

Lenin was in exile in Switzerland. He had a deal with Gen. Ludendorff, that he would install Lenin in Russia and help his revolution, and therefore Lenin would have to sign a peace treaty. A bit ironic that the amount of land given to Germany by the treaty of Brest-Litowsk was so huge, that it kept a really large number of soldiers from the decisive offensive in the west. Instead of fighting there, they were used to guard the waste land in the east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

It's usually well known here that the AI sometimes gets like a bulldog in war, bites down and won't let go. Often it fights to the last man, without surrendering even against inevitable odds. But I've been looking over many historical wars (the many punic wars). It seems that Carthage lost several wars, and only on the last one were they burned to the ground and wiped out... unlike the AI, where there will be only one Punic war, to the death. At first I used to assume this was a fault in hard-coded diplomacy. But then I got to thinking, isn't that how modern wars are often fought? Iraq, and Japan and Germany in WWII. They fought ferociously all the way back to the homeland, and didn't give up when a few islands were taken by superior forces. Has war, then, changed from the Punic days? Do countries fight to the bitter end more often than they used to? I can't imagine someone invading Puerto Rico with an overwhelming army, and the US saying "Ah, looks like we lost the war, since they got the islands. Let's sign a treaty, and not fight to the bitter end", but isn't that pretty much what happened in the early stage of the Punic struggles? Or maybe all this analysis is silly, and it's just a messed up diplomatic system no matter how you look at it. ;)

---

The main difference in warfare diplomatically between then and now is due to the political structures of the nations that were fighting. Back then most nations were monarchies of some fashion or other, in which a single ruler owned the government and the country as his own personnal property. If they went to war it was because they thought there was some profit to be made from it. If a king was losing they would realize that the cost of continuing an unwinnable war would be much higher than accepting the enemies demands, generally speaking. Finnally, civilian populations were typically left alone, unless a conquering monarch wanted to A) Send a message to other would be opponents as to the price of resistence, or B) if plunder was the only reason to attack the city. Otherwise cities and populations were spared because doing so would preserve their value in tax income and whatever else the region produced that the ruler might value.

Total War came about only in the Twentieth century with the rise of government forms based on politicle power from the masses and public ownership of the government (i.e. the rulers dont own the government nor can their offspring inherit it, the ruler just controls the governments operations) in the form of Democracy, and its evil brothers of Fascism and Communism. Since the government is supposedly publicly owned, it becomes every citizens job to defend it. These nation therfore employ conscription en mass as well as the entire nations economy into the war effort. The war becomes not just a conflict of interests between two really powerfull land owners, but a war of annihilation with aspects of a religious crusade (with slogans such as "to make the world safe for democracy") between two entire populations, where victory can only be acheived by destroying the other sides power base, its people and production capabilities. This is why it is called "Total War."

This is illustrated rather well in the first world war. On the Western between the German monarchy and the Europian democracies front, no mercy was shown, no quarter given, as the British starved the German people with its hunger blockade, the Germans sanks civilian ships indescriminantly, and both sides regulary employed chemical weapons. On the Eastern front bewtween Russia and Germany, two monarchies, things were utterly different, with the "chivilrous" rules of warfare being strictly followed by both sides. It was not uncommon for troops of one side having just occupied a building to find that the defenders had left a list of items they had broken during their stay as well as payment for the damages. Needless to say, the second eastern front of WWII was the most brutal conflict in history, being fought between two totalitarian governments fighting literally a war of extermination, from Hitler's point of view anyway.

So, yes, the diplomacy of Rome Total War is acting on the Total War principle more often than not, with peace being nigh impossible to obtain, which is not very realistic.