Europa Barbarorum fourm game

Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:9 -1 = 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 19 +1 = 20
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 14
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 18
Romani: 17
Sweboz: 12

Epeiros+1
Arverni-1

Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:8-1=7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 20+1=21
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 14
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 18
Romani: 17
Sweboz: 12

Makedon+1
Quarthadast-1

Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 21
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 17
Sweboz: 12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Any sources for that, and which year would it be? In the late period, the saxons conquered southern Britain and they were even more cruel than the romans according to the sources, because Rome conquered and killed the most advanced barbarians, and in the process the wisest romans got killed. Plus Rome had by then brainwashed everyone that Rome was the centre of Christianity etc. etc., so Christians liked other Christians better than they liked pagans.

Plus, have you heard of Bouddica? When the Iceni tribe was conquered, she was raped and whipped by the romans for no reason, he parents murdered. She started a rising, which was ruthlessly beaten down. Her followers were slaughtered in front of their families without being given any chance to surrender. Or Caradog of the Welsh, who rose against the British conquerors? Or the Picts who tried hard to keep their freedom in Northern Britain? Or the Great Conspiracy, where Britain gladly accepted to be ruled by a coup maker?

One thing about Britain was that in the late period, Britain was half cut off from the rest of Rome, so they didn't get to live through the same terror the others lived through, and Britain had some possibilities to influence how they were treated. While political bonds with Rome were loose, the trade bonds were firmer, and allowed the benefits of the roman system without the terror of it. Nobody in Rome really cared that much about the at that time insignificant island Britain, so they didn't install the same levels of terror and allowed more freedom there, while using massacres and similar more often in the eastern parts of the empire. So yes, in the very last phase of the roman empire, the British had some benefits from the occupation, but in the early and middle phases of Britain being under roman occupation (the middle part of the decline phase of Rome), the British population suffered from a lot of terror just like all other nations and tribes conquered by Rome. Apart from the Germanic and Celtic tribes that were conquered, Rome also destroyed the high-cultures of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Carthage. They destroyed the high culture of the Getai, and part of Greek high-culture - philosophy and art - was also ruined by roman rule. For instance several forms of philosophy were forbidden. Olympics continued, but were eventually abolished during roman rule.

You obviously seem to have ignored some of the passages I've written. For instance Roman law was NOT an improvement for most people, as it was very arbitrary and tended to favor roman citizens over non-citizens. However, in a far away insignificant province like Britain I can imagine there were fewer citizens than anywhere else so perhaps there weren't that many cases of citizens oppressing non-citizens with the law on their side. Coinage was already widely deployed in Britain by the time the romans came. And rugs and exotic foods were hardly any improvement, in fact the Phoenicians (and Carthage) had trade contacts with the British all the way from the Middle east before Rome conquered Carthage. Roman conquests cut off that link for a long time, then you're thankful for them reestablishing the link they cut off?!!! And your final phrase "Just like every other place they conquered.", clearly shows you know nothing about the late roman republic and the roman empire. Is it flourishing when you mass execute people for no reason, when you terrorize and eradicate culture, when you torture and brainwash? Arbitrary massacres, unprovoked wars, followed by humiliation. The humiliation of saying to the conquered that they have no chance and that rome can do anything they wanted to them. The fall of Rome teaches us that a person who oppresses someone, and humiliates them for being oppressed, gets utterly destroyed, no matter how much power they had to consume when they begun their rampaging terror. It also shows that worthless brats (as the wiser romans would have described the new generation that took over at the time of the Punic wars) who use the power and strength created by their forefathers, while fooling themselves and others that their successes were due to not the potential created by their forefathers, but by some own genius they in reality obviously lacked, bring nations and empires into destruction. It also teaches us that a large empire can hardly be created without bloodshed and unprovoked attacks of neighbors, so even if it could keep internal peace and safety for it's citizens (which Rome could not by the way - at least one maniac emperor per generation, and additionally almost one internal coup/civil war problem per generation), it causes more problems to mankind than it solves, because a large empire causes tremendous disorder and warfare when it falls, and since it got large by unprovoked attacks and terror, it must fall, because everyone will fight for it's destruction. Finally, Rome shows that if you cruelly suppress rebels that are only fighting for their own freedom, rebels that would accept a peace treaty with your empire if only given freedom, only the brutal rebels who won't stop fighting until your empire is completely crushed the rebels who do not discuss but only kill and burn, are left. So the brutal total destruction of an empire is usually that empire's own fault.

No technology is worth such a high cost. And to be honest, can you think of one invention that you wouldn't have today if Rome hadn't conquered your country? If you live in Britain, then most of your culture today is either Saxon or Gaelic, and most of your ancestors (including those who were murdered and raped) were Saxon or Gaelic.

---

Sorry, i'm just learning all this. What little they taught us about the Romans in school, i grew up to think the Romans were this wonderful people, so i'm finding it difficult to accept that every city they conquered, they executed 50% and made the other 50% slaves, which is what you keep suggesting, but i know this isn't true because i know that later in the empire the mistreatment of slaves was abolished and forbidden, and i also happen to know that when the Romans conquered somewhere, they let them govern themselves, after of course they had taken what slaves they wanted. (Which every nation did, took slaves i mean).

I also know that only if a city rebelled would they go in and slaughter every living thing and burn down everything flammable... But people have to be taught that they can't rebel and get away with it... And this is one way of teaching them that. The way i see it though, a conquered people will always want their freedom, even if their conquerors have their best interests at heart... It's happening right now. Although this is arguable, the Americans and British invaded Iraq to free its people from tyranny... Yet they are still killing soldiers and demanding their freedom... So no matter how you treat your people, they will always be rebellious. There's a simple solution to this... Don't rebel if you value being alive.

I also know that the Romans didn't at all destroy culture, because they allowed conquered peoples to worship their gods, but gradually introduced Roman gods by combining their names, since most people had the same gods only with different names. So the picture you're painting of the Romans going into a city, terrorizing all its people, burning everything, making everybody slaves, mass slaughter, eradication of culture, is pretty much untrue. For some places, like Greece, the people were more free and liberated than when they were being governed by a Greek... Especially the women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

For each eliminated faction, there are 10 new points distributed over the surviving factions, so the average should increase for each faction that is eliminated, making the game more and more tiresome for each faction that is eliminated... But the total number of points should remain 20*10=200. Somehow, 1 point that shouldn't be there seem to have been added, because now total points are 201 instead of 200.

---

Stert all over start all over

Arverni -1
Romani:+1


Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:6
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 21
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 18
Sweboz: 12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

every city they conquered, they executed 50% and made the other 50% slaves, which is what you keep suggesting

---

Can you point out where I wrote this, because I can't recall suggesting this anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Especially the women.

---

In most celtic and germanic cultures women held a much higher status than they did in Rome. Even Tacitus admits that women held a higher status among germanic people than in Rome in his "Germania". Actually women in Rome had quite bad conditions, and their conditions can hardly be considered better in Rome than in Greek societies either.

You didn't say it outright, but this is what you're making it seem like. For someone who knows nothing about ancient Rome reading this thread, they would think that the Romans were the nazis of the ancient world, because this is what you're painting them as.

Dayve, I'd have to say LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix knows what he is writing. Many people like to see Rome today as something greater and more ideal place than it really was.

Myself I love Roman history, but remember there is huge difference between what Rome really was, and how public and media consider it. Rome is admired commonly for its greatness, army, and tolerance for conqured nations, but this is not all black and white as it sounds to be. Many of its great flaws seems just be forgotten in the schools history lessons.

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix is not making Rome anything else what it really was in the past. Dont put words in his mouth.

We're just having a debate.. Nothing wrong with that. I find his posts very informative and interesting. But he is basically saying that everybody in the Roman empire was terrorized daily by their evil Roman rulers and that the Roman empire, apart from the city of Rome, was one big body of mass suffering...

You're telling me that the people in the conquered cities of Rome weren't allowed to live their daily lives uninterruopted by terrorization, get a job, raise a family, perhaps become rich and succesful?

Epeiros +1
Romani -1


Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:6
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 22
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 17
Sweboz: 12

Romani +1
Averni -1

Aedui: 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 5
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 22
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi: 13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 18
Sweboz: 12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

You're telling me that the people in the conquered cities of Rome weren't allowed to live their daily lives uninterruopted by terrorization, get a job, raise a family, perhaps become rich and succesful?

---

I don't know about city life, but life on the land from the 4th century onwards was far from free. While the first 2 or 3 centuries of the empire were a golden age of stability and prosperity, the increasingly large tax burden of maintaining huge armies for civil wars and border protection and several other factors resulted resulted in a spiral of stagnation. Economics as a science did not exist, so the emperors sat idly by, until Diocletianos and after him Constantine came with the "solution" of introducing what can be described as a state of martial law. The empire became a despotic police state, the dominate (versus the earlier principate) Basicly, it was aimed at statism. Everyone was to be kept at their place. Serfs were tied to their soil and deprived of any possibility to resettle, so entire generations worked the same job at the same place, paying taxes. Social mobility came at a screeching halt. The conditions of the peasants were so bad, that they were called servi (hence serf), the unfree, wich formerly was only used to designate slaves.

That said, Rome's history is certainly fascinating even if if it isn't the utopia it's made out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

We're just having a debate.. Nothing wrong with that. I find his posts very informative and interesting. But he is basically saying that everybody in the Roman empire was terrorized daily by their evil Roman rulers and that the Roman empire, apart from the city of Rome, was one big body of mass suffering...

You're telling me that the people in the conquered cities of Rome weren't allowed to live their daily lives uninterruopted by terrorization, get a job, raise a family, perhaps become rich and succesful?

---

Sorry if I have given you that picture im against good debate. Actually if I wouldnt enjoy this debate I would not give it my opinion :bow:

In my opinion Roman rule in conqured regions, and later European colonism have much similarity. Romans exploited conquered people with heavy taxes and slaving them that made their living quite hard.

Roman governors were allowed to do almost anything with native population as long riots were controlled and taxes brought back to Rome. This lead many times Roman invaders showing their brute force to civils in region with cruel, and bloody way. So yes, I think we can say Rome was terrorizing conquered land in some degree. If not actually terrorizing, at least showing their strenght with cruel hand once in a while to keep rebellions at bay.

Especially in later periods it wasnt only conquered nations that suffered fom Roman rule. Peasants and lower classes of actual city of Rome had also heavy taxes, poor conditions for living, criminality and disease to make their lives quite hard. Only if you were important person your murder meant anything and unemployment was big problem in ancient Rome.

I would say that Rome had lot to offer those who had some wealth, for working class, everyday must had been a struggle inside walls of Rome.

Just my opinions, I might be completely wrong as Im not professor in this subject or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

Roman governors were allowed to do almost anything with native population as long riots were controlled and taxes brought back to Rome. This lead many times Roman invaders showing their brute force to civils in region with cruel, and bloody way. So yes, I think we can say Rome was terrorizing conquered land in some degree. If not actually terrorizing, at least showing their strenght with cruel hand once in a while to keep rebellions at bay.

---

Well you could replace "Roman" with just about any occupying power in above statement throughout history so no news there and since they(the romans) were the ones that made sure that their version got told a lot more no wonder that is the more popular version (just look at Iraq coverage by CNN and AlJazeerait's like 2 different planets).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

Well you could replace "Roman" with just about any occupying power in above statement throughout history so no news there and since they(the romans) were the ones that made sure that their version got told a lot more no wonder that is the more popular version (just look at Iraq coverage by CNN and AlJazeerait's like 2 different planets).

---

This is the point i'm trying to make... Everybody treated their conquered peoples harshly in those days... And for a lot of people their own governors treated them harshly.. All men back then had the duty to serve in their nations armed forces for periods of time... Just look at how badly the spartans treated their slaves, for example, or how the Gauls slaughtered the city of Rome when they conquered it... Everybody did this stuff, and everybody who wasn't born rich in the ancient/medieval period had a very hard life, no matter where the hell they came from, whether they were part of an empire of part of a 'free' people... It's the way life works... In parts of the world today slaves are still being used, people have life so hard that they die from hunger/thirst, it has been like this always, and will always be like this.

So why paint the Romans as being the most evil people of ancient times? It's not their fault entirely that the peoples of their empire had a hard time... It's how life works. There are unfortunate people who are likely to die before the age of 30... There are the middle class who can live comfortably (compared to the lower) and there is the upper class who is lucky enough to be born with wealth and have an easy work stress free life ahead of them... It's like this under every nation, even in modern America there are homeless people who can't afford to live... So stop painting the Romans as the doers of all evil within the ancient world.

It's like looking back fondly at the greeks and Athens as being the cradle of democracy and forgetting that 90 % of the population couldn't vote since they were slaves or women

Dayve, I know Rome is not only nation to do this in history. I was just giving my opinion regarding this post you made before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Everywhere in western Europe the Romans went, their technology followed, and WE was unified for the first (and last?) time ever and flourished like it never had before.

---

It was my point to show that it wasnt under Roman rule when Western Europe flourished. Rome didnt brought unification to conquered nations, it brought only slaving, murdering and exploiting of these lands. Actually I could debate that Rome tried to kept western europe as ununified as possible to keep alliances of western europe at bay and this way stopping possible rebellions.


What I tried, was to give you my view of what Rome was really like. Not like it was ideal empire of prosperity in all nations under it living in a "golden age" with no conflicts or misery, while conquered nations were civilized in roman ways and started to build cities now, instead of mud huts, while chasing mooses with their wooden clubs.

Does this make Rome evil, in my opinion no. Did Rome brought prosperity and golden age to regions under it, again no.

Rome was an empire of great achievements and many flaws. That it what makes it so damn inresting to me.

well if it wasn't for the romans we'd all be worshipping Baal Milquart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

well if it wasn't for the romans we'd all be worshipping Baal Milquart

---

Or perhaps any other pantheon out there. Saying that western europe would be under rule of carthage without Rome is quite long shot.

Every great nation falls at some point, carthage wasnt any different from others, as it was proven in history. How can we tell what problems Carthage would had seen if there wasnt for Romans.

Well this conversation is taken straight out of Life of Brian which reminds me : without romans no christianity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

Dayve, I know Rome is not only nation to do this in history. I was just giving my opinion regarding this post you made before.



It was my point to show that it wasnt under Roman rule when Western Europe flourished. Rome didnt brought unification to conquered nations, it brought only slaving, murdering and exploiting of these lands. Actually I could debate that Rome tried to kept western europe as ununified as possible to keep alliances of western europe at bay and this way stopping possible rebellions.


What I tried, was to give you my view of what Rome was really like. Not like it was ideal empire of prosperity in all nations under it living in a "golden age" with no conflicts or misery, while conquered nations were civilized in roman ways and started to build cities now, instead of mud huts, while chasing mooses with their wooden clubs.

Does this make Rome evil, in my opinion no. Did Rome brought prosperity and golden age to regions under it, again no.

Rome was an empire of great achievements and many flaws. That it what makes it so damn inresting to me.

---

I'm actually in aggreance with most of what you say, but when you say the Romans took with them slavery, most places they conquered were already used to hardships and slavery... So like Stalin said, this is nothing new whatsoever. And that the Romans had no golden age of prosperity... Well, they did... I forget which emperor it was, he lived a very long time, and under him the empire was unified, no civil wars, and prospered greatly... This i believe was Rome's golden age, sometime from 50AD-150AD... After which it began to slide down the slippery slope of no return...

You say Rome was an empire of great achievements and many flaws... But has any empire ever been any different? No... All empires rise over a period of time, go through a golden age, reach their peak, and from that point slide down the same slope the Romans slid down... Until eventually corruption eats away and the empire at some point ceases to exist... But what sets the Roman empire aside from all the rest, is how it stayed so large for so long...

The Roman empire reached it's most impressive point at what, 50AD? And at what point did the empire split into two? I have no idea of this... But even when it split into two the eastern half were still Roman as the eastern lands had been under Roman control for so long... And the emperors were all of Roman descent, but before this, the Romans held onto this large impressive empire for so long before the western half eventually started to be so badly impacted by corruption and disloyalty that you can no longer consider it a superpower... But even after that point it continued to exist, and the eastern half went on to exist for like 500 years (my history of the Byzantine empire is almost nil) after the western half was ravaged by barbarians and ceased to exist as the Roman empire...

Sorry for rambling so much... But if we are to look at the Roman empire as backward, evil, corrupt and basically did no good for the world whatsoever, then we must look at every empire that has ever existed in the same light, as they all have the exact same thing in common... The people at the top are selfish, greedy, corrupt and power hungry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Sorry for rambling so much... But if we are to look at the Roman empire as backward, evil, corrupt and basically did no good for the world whatsoever, then we must look at every empire that has ever existed in the same light, as they all have the exact same thing in common... The people at the top are selfish, greedy, corrupt and power hungry...

---

Especially the current edition of Rome with Nero at the helm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

Well this conversation is taken straight out of Life of Brian which reminds me : without romans no christianity

---

I agree with you staling, that without romans we would not had christianity,in current scale, at least. Im not believer myself so I cant really tell you would that be positive or negative. What I know world wouldnt be the same.:book:

EDIT:

Moved edited part to latest post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

I agree with you staling, that without romans we would not had christianity,in current scale, at least. Im not believer myself so I cant really tell you would that be positive or negative. What I know world wouldnt be the same.:book:

---

Well the positives would be... No crusades in which hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in the name of the pope because they were 'enemies of christ', no Spanish inquisitions where countless numbers were slaughtered because they weren't christians...

The positives of christianity... Well they do a lot to help the suffering of the people in places like Africa... But then again it is the west's fault that Africa is in the state it is in... Because of all the colonies and conquests there during the last 300 years... They have left it rotting and dying... And i honestly don't believe it will ever recover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

Especially the current edition of Rome with Nero at the helm

---

:laugh4:

Yeah dubya is a bit of a Nero isn't he...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

:laugh4:

Yeah dubya is a bit of a Nero isn't he...

---

Wasnt Neros mother mainly reason why he got emperor seat?

Dayve, edited post before to answer couple of your posts.

Thanks for great debate so far :bow: :bow: :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

Wasnt Neros mother mainly reason why he got emperor seat?

Dayve, edited post before to answer couple of your posts.

Thanks for great debate so far :bow: :bow: :bow:

---

To tell you the truth Raga... I don't know. I only became interested in Rome when R:TW was released... I was a fan of anything strategy, and this one looked like a real winner so i bought it... I've always been a fan of history but my main body of knowledge lies in the WW2 period... But over the last two years i've become fascinated with Rome and have been eating as much info about it as i can google... But one part of Rome i haven't studied so much yet, is it's emperors! :laugh4: So long story short, i have no idea if Nero's mother helped him into power... I know Nero was one of the crappier Roman emperors, introduced the fire tax everybody hated so much, and it's believed that the great fire of Rome was started by Nero himself so he could impose this tax and also buy up lots of cheap burned property, as i believe this was a hobby of his... Property buying.

I also know he was a complete maniac... And that when he competed in chariot races, they used to give him the winning trophy, even though he never won one race... Also know him and his mother were both as corrupt as corrupt gets, used their power for selfish gains and didn't care whatsoever for the Roman people or the Roman empire... And i know he had the praetorian guard murder his mother, because didn't she try to have him killed?

But that's as far as my knowledge of Nero goes... :bow:

Yeah. Nero was complete maniac, its believed that he burned Rome just so he could build luxury bath mansion in replace burned region.

If I remember right he wasnt even emperors son, hes mother married emperor and made emperor to make Nero as his heir. Unfortunately Nero killed his mother becasue he didnt want to share power with her.

I moved couple answers to your posts to this reply from previous one. I think you missed them as I edited them there later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

And that the Romans had no golden age of prosperity... Well, they did... I forget which emperor it was, he lived a very long time, and under him the empire was unified, no civil wars, and prospered greatly... This i believe was Rome's golden age, sometime from 50AD-150AD... After which it began to slide down the slippery slope of no return...

---

It doesnt mean that if civil wars didnt break out, conquered nations were united and happy current situation. It was Roman politics that made conquered nations to compete each other rather than common enemy Romans. Divide And Conquer was how Romans did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

What I tried, was to give you my view of what Rome was really like. Not like it was ideal empire of prosperity in all nations under it living in a "golden age" with no conflicts or misery, while conquered nations were civilized in roman ways and started to build cities now, instead of mud huts, while chasing mooses with their wooden clubs.

---

I was referring that conquered nations didnt benefit of Roman prosperity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

we must look at every empire that has ever existed in the same light, as they all have the exact same thing in common... The people at the top are selfish, greedy, corrupt and power hungry...

---

That's probably because all empires are exploitative and oppressive.

Surely not just the city of Rome benefitted from having an empire? The cities conquered were given all the technological advancements they lacked, like sewers and aquaducts and that good stuff... The quality of life must have improved with this in the conquered lands...