No no, SwissBarbar. What you can observe in the Italian parliament is the good ol' ancient tradition of settling differences... THROUGH MORTAL KOMBAT!! :beam:
Printable View
No no, SwissBarbar. What you can observe in the Italian parliament is the good ol' ancient tradition of settling differences... THROUGH MORTAL KOMBAT!! :beam:
They sacrificed two couples after the defeat at Cannae, and IIRC again when the Cimbri invaded Italy. That is, off course, not counting bloodshed in the form of gladiator fights, as these were for the sake of entertainment, not religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by John-117
What EB is trying to make clear is that the Romans were only civilized in some aspects, like law and government. In others, for example female emancipation, they were noticeably more barbaric than their "barbarian" neighbours. Hence EB's motto: everyone is a barbarian to someone.
I am not aware what the exact cause is of your ban on the TWC, but you would have been warned for that on the .Org as well. Rule of the thumb: "If you cannot say it nicely, don't say it all". Disagreement and discussion are good, but they have to remain polite.Quote:
Originally Posted by John-117
Just so you know, I'm Swiss, live in Switzerland, but my blood is 1/2 Swiss , 1/4 Austrian and 1/4 Italian. Actually meaning that the greatest part of each is conjoining in me :gathering:
I've been quite many times to Italy
:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
@ machinor: I didn't say it's negative *G*
@ Ludens: IIRC, Gladiator-fights are of Religious origin.
The EB - Motto is absolutely right. You're all Barbarians to me... or wait, how was it?....
Yes... and SwissBarbar is (a) SwissBarbar to everyone. :beam:~;)
So it would seem :2thumbsup:
true that, but the problem is that the entertainment tok on an entertainment vaule later on, so most (not all) gladiator deaths were in enterntainment's name.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBarbar
Yes, they started out as deadly duels to honour famous ancestors. But as Rome grew more powerful, they became more and more crowd-pleasing events. By the time of the early empire, few Romans would argue that gladiator fights were primarly (or even at all) religious events.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBarbar
red could be used for the same reason teh spartans did... Red hides blood.
no, it cannot. blood clots darker than red, a kind of dark russet or maroon color. If cut your arm or something, and let the blood drip onto a kleenex (for demonstration purposes), the blood will be a faded scarlet at first, and then overtime it will darken-it only takes a few minutes, so on the battlefield, it will show. the best color would be a darker shade of maroon or something similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
and what's the purpose of hiding bood? If you wanted to cheat, you could say it was the enemy's blood, that's even better than let your arm being cut off and then pretend that nothing happened.
Actually it could turn out to have the opposite effect. "oh my god, look at all this blood" , but it's only colour :laugh4: The spartans put off their red cape before battle anyway
That's a point for Celtic cleverness because if you can wear a tunic and insist on wearing uncomfortable trousers you are a *insert inoffensive insult of your choice*. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
But I think most of the Celts outside Spain against whom the Romans fought wore trousers or breeches or shorts. Could you give examples for the others? Ok, it's terribly ot, so perhaps we should start a "clothes for the lower limbs or not"-thread. :beam:
haha. but i oculdnt imagine having celts and germans with shorts on....it seems a little cold up there.....
oh i know, we could give the lower regiions barbarians bermuda shorts!
Bean
I seem to recollect from somewhere, that Marius required a few things made en masse for his Head Count armies.
Amongst those the sagum, a particular cape made in Liguria which served to protect the legionaire from cold&rain etc.
I seem to recall this cape was usually red (why escapes me), which might be why we associate romans with red
Do keep in mind that Mars = a red planet. Red was associated with ares and mars and later with mars bellona.
Which might be why they painted the cape red in the first place, dunno.
As for the rest of the topic, uniformisation was present to a certain level.
Especially after Marius, when Quintus Servilius Caepio junior erected massive towns dedicated to make army equipment.
As for the shields, they were probably created uniform (blank) and then painted by the soldiers.
Painting upon production would be both costly and time consuming.
Yes it was always my belief that the Romans became 'red' after Marius. Though this information about the cape is not new to me (I think I learnt this a long time ago and forgot), I did only just reread it while searchin through some of the sites mentioned on this thread. So thanks Mini, keep it up. We'll get to the bottom of this. :2thumbsup:
I suppose the main question would be: In EBII, wll the early Romans still be protrayed as Red (not on the campaign map, that looks great, but rather in their equipment.)? The Triarri and Principes especially have red shields during the Polybian era; will they still have in EB II?
I'm far from an expert on Roman history, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have thought they'd have a mix of shield colours as befits men who provide their own equipment, i.e. reds, beiges, browns etc.
Edit: I realise this is probably a bit of a stupid question but they did still provide their own equipment in the Polybian era right?
until around 122 BC, they provided their equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strategos Alexandros
Thanks. I thought so but I wasn't certain.
Will there be differences between different regions of the legions in the imperial era? i read in a book
(las legiones romanas de Peter Connoly)
A passage from Tacitus, in describing the battle of Cremona, relates that legionaires collected 2 shields of fallen enemies, and hidden after they tried to infiltrate the lines contrary to disable a catapult.
I doubt either shield you have here presented is good for the EB timeperiod-I know the one on the left is from Dura Europos, c.200-250AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithick666
same for the Cremona deal.
We don't even know if we're going to have Imperial Units...its certainly not a top priority for the developers. If EB bins all the Augustrian units (as it should in my opinion), then there will loads of unit spaces freed up for other factions. And with the massive amount of factions EB II will have compared to EB I, and the basically the same amount of unit space, they're going to need all the spare unit spaces they can get.
I don't think that's possible: it would require a unit for every province and that is simply too much. Anyway, if there are going to be regional differences between units, than the Romans with their standardized equipment are probably the last to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithick666
well, if you bin the imperial units than you would have to give rome more specialized units (like some sort of ethnic heavy infantry, and same for other types)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanerz
Whats wrong with the Marians? I'd bet about 3% of all the people that play EB actually make it to and extensively use the Imperial Units. Take that 3% and compare it to all the people that would benefit from new factions with complete unit rosters in EB II. I think that speaks for itself.
3% might be a bit high estimate. ;(Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanerz
Point made then, I think.
It'sa good idea to sacrifice the Roman units for the new factions, at least the team get back something in return like previous cohorts and Praetorian evocata is because the current are fat boys :thumbsdown:
https://img253.imageshack.us/img253/...sevocat5mc.jpg