Europa Barbarorum fourm game

Quote:

---

Up till the Punic wars, Rome was fairly tolerant, inventive, and flourishing in art and science. During a long changeover period between the punic wars and around 200 AD, Rome steadily declined, grew more intolerant, and economically unstable. Looking beyond the surface, the post 200 AD Rome looks just as much as the dark age as any of the barbarian cultures after 400 AD.

---

When elements of roman society were still actively fighting the influences of greek culture and Rome just begun to produce it's own historians and playwriters it was more tolerant than in a time when emperors and leading man of the state itself wrote philisophical books?

Most of cities during the principate flourished and reached their peak, several companies operated accross half of the empire and whole fleets traded directly with india directly through the ocean. The econmy of italy itself declined not of the empire.

In a time when the cults of douzends of gods from the east and the europe as well spread through the roman world and entered their pantheon Rome grew more intolerant? A time when senators and emperors came from all part of the empire and nearly everyone could achieve citizenship

Quote:

---

It also becomes apparent that Rome after around 0 AD hardly invented anything,

---

Technical progress hardly slowed down through the empire, though it was slower than what we are accustomed today, but industrial civilisation can't be a scale. For example on the military side they invented a new artillery design, based on metall frames, more powerful pieces with greater accuracy than the hellenistic designs. By the consequent use of cement architecture reached a peak during this era, unsurpassed for well over a millenia and more. The dome of the pantheon in Rome should stay widest one until the construction of St. Peter in the 16th century, the artificial harbour of ostia was the greatest of antiquity, several damns were already build in the lighter half ovular form spreading the pressure to the flanks of the surounding hill instead of blocking the water only with their sheer mass. Watermills become a coomom sight, something as the great mill factory in Barbegal producing flour for nearly 80.000 people was without example in medieval europe again. The bridges of the road network are sometimes used to the present day. Medicine and law steadily improved, the effiency agriculture increased etc...

Quote:

---

all it did was exhaust it's treasury, ban different forms of philosophy, and carry out several massacres of Christians, Jews, Isis cultists, Druids, Rebels and Freedom fighters, as well as starting wars with new tribes they had no quarrel with.

---

The roman empire during the principate was by far more tolerante than any monotheistic states in europe 1500+ years. Everybody could worhsips his own gods and religion without harm as long as he respected roman authority. What would happened if somebody tryed to establish a pagan cult in medieval europe? Pesecutions of christians were rare until the great purges of the late third and early fourth century AD and isolated events. As soon as the christian church dominated imperial administration they begun to wipeout all other cults by force and law, then the roman empire become intolerant.
The great rebeliions that caused that much destruction were not started by Roman administration, but selfish forces within local socities trying to enlargy there own power and religous fanatics or conflicts between ethnic and religous groups. The difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is only the point of view.

Quote:

---

Most inventions traditionally attributed to Rome were in fact invented by barbarians - many things such as aqueducts and irrigation were implemented in all major Middle east cultures many centuries before the romans came.

---

It's to blame Rome for not inventing things that already existed. Fact is that theg greeco roman civilization that developed during the late republic and the principate incorporated all the knowledge and technology of their precedessors and douzends cultures of europe and mediteranean becoming more advanced than any of them alone and raising the living quality considerably. The size of the empire and it's extensive infrastructure made it possible for most areas to flourish as never before. As said europe needed more than 1000 years to rise to this level again.

Quote:

---

One of the saddest events in history was perhaps when Rome decided to attack Carthage in the first punic war, thus starting the changeover into the dark age which took place during the following 300-400 years.

---

For me it's decline of rome after the principate in 3rd century or perhaps the day when Varus army was detroyed and the rest of germany wasn't allowed to enjoy roman rule.

You can as well make the rise of christianity and islam responsible for the destruction of the great ancient cultures and their way of life. They changed society more than anything else.

Aedui:13
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Eleutheroi: 3
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani: 13
Sauromatae: 6
Sweboz: 11

@cunctator: It's my impression that all achievements after around 250-200 BC were direct results of the momentum and solid power basis built up before then. There were a few cases were Rome responded to outer attacks (Mithradates for example) after the Punic wars, but it was a changeover into more hostility and conquest for conquest's sake. Before the first punic war Rome held the moral high ground and represented civilization in that they showed clementia and seldom attacked first, seldom started wars. For every unprovoked hostility, Rome worsened the situation for themselves. Don't underestimate the problems that civil disorder and rebelliousness caused! The turning point of roman expansion, in 117 AD, rebellions all the way from Cyrenaica to Mesopotamia destroyed part of Trajan's enormous army used in the Parthian war, and threatened to cut off the rest of it. Rebellions in Illyria diverted 5 legions from the conquest of Germania - without that rebellion Arminius could hardly have had time to prepare the Teutoburg forest massacre. There were also plenty of rebellions in Iberia and Gaul. Dacia rebelled at least twice. Eventually the demands for equal terms and citizenship through violence and rebellion pressured Rome to accept that more non-romans reached positions of power. That included barbarians who still hated Rome, and didn't necessarily want that power to act in the best interests of Rome. Civil disorder also kept most of Rome's legions locked to territories and lowered their mobility, costing money while doing nothing good. The rebellions and wars with tribes on the outside together caused the death of so many romans that eventually the empire considered it unbearable to take such losses of good romans, so they started employing more auxilia. The idea didn't work out that well. The idea of secure natural border lines proved to be a fallacy - in fact borders drawn at the borders of defeated hostile tribes had worked a lot better than going to war with several neutral or even allied tribes just to obtain straight, short borders. I'm saying that in around 100-200 AD Rome had degraded into dark age, but the changeover period was from 250-200 AD to 100-200 AD. In that changeover period there were some bright spots of culture and similar, but that entire period was based on spending resources such as economical strength, recruitment base of loyal troops, loyalty and popularity, and the rumour of being trustworthy, just and merciful. Wars gave short term economical gain, but spend recruitment base, loyalty, popularity and good rumor. When those things were spent, economy was destroyed by the need to hire so many troops against enemies outside and within. Money was spent on culture and architecture, giving higher living standards in a short term perspective. When most of the money was spent, there was nothing left of what the early republic romans had created. While the "spending phase" begun in 250 BC, it wasn't really until 100-200 AD that the resources started to run short. This shows how amazing state leaders the early republic romans were. Their followers were not, all they did was spend resources. It hardly takes any genius to do that, especially as the early roman republic senators had built up not only these resources, but also tradition and a sense of strategy.

Footnote: when I say period x was full of y, z etc., I don't necessarily mean the entire period contained all those things. For example the intolerance came in shorter bursts - Nero, Domitian, then a pause, then it came again during the end of Trajan's rule and during Hadrian's rule. Then it started again a bit later. And intolerance is still intolerance even during the periods when the intolerance was only directed at minorities.

Romani 13+1=14
Epeiros 14-1=13

Aedui:13
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Eleutheroi: 3
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani: 14
Sauromatae: 6
Sweboz: 11

Epieros +1
Sauromatae -1

Aedui:13
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Eleutheroi: 3
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani: 14
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Hey LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix I got a sig just like yours!

Eleutheroi: 3-1=2
Romani: 14+1=15

Aedui:13
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Eleutheroi: 3-1=2
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani: 14+1=15
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:13
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Eleutheroi:2-1=1
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani:15+1=16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Rome is teh win!

Vive la Rome!

Getai +1
Eleutheroi -1

Aedui:13
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

OMG! You killed Kenny! You bastard! :furious3:

Getai +1
Romani -1

Aedui:13
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani:15
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

I'm game.

Romani +1
Aedui -1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 11
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:11
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Hmmm How many times can one because I see Certain people wote for one specific faction time and again up to six times..... I guess all know what I mean.... Can you restrict yourselves like voting once a week?

Baktria+1
Iberia-1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 7
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 14
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Qarthadast+1
Pontos-1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 13
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Breaking point in Rome history that nobody mentioned (and i think was crucial)was the great desease carried from the east by Marcus Aurelius' army.
The second was giving citizenship to everybody.

both events combined destroyed roman army allowing barbarians to came in.

not to mention augustus' last will not allowing to conquer germania and shortening border.

Makedonia +1
KH -1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

@cunctator: It's my impression that all achievements after around 250-200 BC were direct results of the momentum and solid power basis built up before then. There were a few cases were Rome responded to outer attacks (Mithradates for example) after the Punic wars, but it was a changeover into more hostility and conquest for conquest's sake. Before the first punic war Rome held the moral high ground and represented civilization in that they showed clementia and seldom attacked first, seldom started wars. For every unprovoked hostility, Rome worsened the situation for themselves.

---

Yes, this small and peaceloving pre punic war city state conquered all off italia and had to subdue all it's neighbours thourgh nearly constant warfare only for the sake of self defence. This sheme can be used to describe nearly all wars of Rome if you want to.

The quick victory over the sucessors after the 2nd punic war were certainly caused by the highly experienced army and their commanders, but I don't think crediting ALL sucesses to the early republic is not justified. After the this generation of experienced veterans of the wars with hannibal and the successors had faded away the romans already had some serious military problems, from the third punic and macedonian war, in iberia, southern gaul and numidia. Of course the romans profited from the size and resources of their territories but when Caesar invaded gaul, the political situation there, the quality of his own army and his polital and military talent were much more important than the deeds of his ancestors.

Many wars of the late republic, begun by warlords as caesar and crassus, were conquest for conquest's sake. But in the early empire things changed. Augustus campaigns were more aimed to secure and stabilize his empire, closing gaps between roman territories by occupiyng illyria, dalmatia, the alps, raetia and the last part of spain, or creating buffer zones. He made peace with the parthians and concentrated activity to the northern border more directly threatening Rome. In germania Drusus early campiagns appaerently were targeted to creat a chain of client states around roman territory only after this strategy failed they tried to conquer and romanize the germans.

After Augustus the principate can be considered as much less agressive as the republic. Tiberius recalled Germanicus when he tried to subdue germania gain. A few decades later as Corbulo was called back when he wanted to move into german lands and was called back, he lamented that the republican generals were allowed to wage war on their on will while he was not allowed to gain glory.

What great unprovocked conquests can be credited to the empire? The romans invaded britian ok, but besides that major new territories were only gained by annexing client state as Mauretania or Thracia. The dacians and sarmatians raided roman territory unprovocked since the beginning of the flavian dynasty. After decades of warfare along the danube and several high casulaties Trajan's offensive mainly tried to make an end to this threads. His parthian war was certianly for the sake of conquest. But arguable you can also say that the empire ultimately failed because their foreign policy stayed to defensive and their wars missed the stubborness of the republic's. Without conquering their enemies along the frontier, while the empire enjoyed the pax romana and the wealth that came with it, they grew strenghter until it was too late. The later wars of the 2nd century were again largely unprocked by rome when first the parthians and then the marcomanii invaded roman territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Don't underestimate the problems that civil disorder and rebelliousness caused! The turning point of roman expansion, in 117 AD, rebellions all the way from Cyrenaica to Mesopotamia destroyed part of Trajan's enormous army used in the Parthian war, and threatened to cut off the rest of it. Rebellions in Illyria diverted 5 legions from the conquest of Germania - without that rebellion Arminius could hardly have had time to prepare the Teutoburg forest massacre. There were also plenty of rebellions in Iberia and Gaul. Dacia rebelled at least twice. Eventually the demands for equal terms and citizenship through violence and rebellion pressured Rome to accept that more non-romans reached positions of power. That included barbarians who still hated Rome, and didn't necessarily want that power to act in the best interests of Rome. Civil disorder also kept most of Rome's legions locked to territories and lowered their mobility, costing money while doing nothing good.

---

During the principate narly the whole army was concentrated along the external borders, far away from most popaltion centres. Greece and Asia minor (except the border) were nearly completly without military. Only a single legion was based in iberia, as well as northern africa, leaving much of the peninsula and whole gaul without a garrison. With below 400.000 soldiers the roman army was much too small to keep the empire together by force.

Without greedy republican governors trying to regain the expnses of prvious election campaigns most provinces profited far more from imperial rule than republican. Lost politcal freedoms and the excesses of some emperors were mostly limited to the roman upper class that formelry ruled the republic, further stabilizing the system of the principate in it's early years.

Most great rebellions as in illyria, germania, britannia and gaul followed directly a few years or decades after the roman conquest. Iberia stayed peaceful after Agustus conquered the last not roman territories and the troops bound on the peninsula were contoiusly reduced to the one legion force mentioned above until falvian era. The great rebellions there were fought against republican armies not the empire. Later ebellions in gaul after Julius Sacrovir during Tiberius, can only be considered as inner roman fighting. Vindex was the official roman governour and rebelled mainly against Nero's rule. Galba who joined his uprising become emperor therafter, without Vindex defeat by loyalist legions from rhine perhaps he would have suceeded Nero. For the great rebllions in the tensions between jewish and greek/pagan provicials were the dominating factor, not roman rule for itself.

The principate didn't give citizenship to the violent and rebells, it rewarded prooven men and their peolple which served the stae loaly. Surely there were some mistakes as giving citizenship to Arminius, but that's the risk of integration. The roman had recognized that their sucess was based on integrating the various peolple into their state, not by brute force alone.

This speechs hold emperor Claudius before the senate when it was debated to let the leading men of the aedui join it, it shows the true spirit behind Rome's sucess:

Tacitus Annales XI 24

Quote:

---

In the consulship of Aulus Vitellius and Lucius Vipstanus the question of filling up the Senate was discussed, and the chief men of Gallia Comata, as it was called, who had long possessed the rights of allies and of Roman citizens, sought the privilege of obtaining public offices at Rome.

...

These and like arguments failed to impress the emperor. He at once addressed himself to answer them, and thus harangued the assembled Senate. "My ancestors, the most ancient of whom was made at once a citizen and a noble of Rome, encourage me to govern by the same policy of transferring to this city all conspicuous merit, wherever found. And indeed I know, as facts, that the Julii came from Alba, the Coruncanii from Camerium, the Porcii from Tusculum, and not to inquire too minutely into the past, that new members have been brought into the Senate from Etruria and Lucania and the whole of Italy, that Italy itself was at last extended to the Alps, to the end that not only single persons but entire countries and tribes might be united under our name. We had unshaken peace at home; we prospered in all our foreign relations, in the days when Italy beyond the Po was admitted to share our citizenship, and when, enrolling in our ranks the most vigorous of the provincials, under colour of settling our legions throughout the world, we recruited our exhausted empire. Are we sorry that the Balbi came to us from Spain, and other men not less illustrious from Narbon Gaul? Their descendants are still among us, and do not yield to us in patriotism. "What was the ruin of Sparta and Athens, but this, that mighty as they were in war, they spurned from them as aliens those whom they had conquered? Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations on the very same day. Strangers have reigned over us. That freedmen's sons should be intrusted with public offices is not, as many wrongly think, a sudden innovation, but was a common practice in the old commonwealth. But, it will be said, we have fought with the Senones. I suppose then that the Volsci and Aequi never stood in array against us. Our city was taken by the Gauls. Well, we also gave hostages to the Etruscans, and passed under the yoke of the Samnites. On the whole, if you review all our wars, never has one been finished in a shorter time than that with the Gauls. Thenceforth they have preserved an unbroken and loyal peace. United as they now are with us by manners, education, and intermarriage, let them bring us their gold and their wealth rather than enjoy it in isolation. Everything, Senators, which we now hold to be of the highest antiquity, was once new. Plebeian magistrates came after patrician; Latin magistrates after plebeian; magistrates of other Italian peoples after Latin. This practice too will establish itself, and what we are this day justifying by precedents, will be itself a precedent."

[11.25] The emperor's speech was followed by a decree of the Senate, and the Aedui were the first to obtain the right of becoming senators at Rome. This compliment was paid to their ancient alliance, and to the fact that they alone of the Gauls cling to the name of brothers of the Roman people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

The rebellions and wars with tribes on the outside together caused the death of so many romans that eventually the empire considered it unbearable to take such losses of good romans, so they started employing more auxilia.

---

The romans always had relied heavily on allied troops. When during Augustus reign the auxilia became a regular part of the army it was not only to save money and created a reliable more powerful force of cavalry and special troops but also to adequatly participate the provinces on the defense of the empire. After the end of the civil war there were more legionaries mobilized than ever before, and with the continous romanization of the provinces and increase of the citizten population until 212 AD most of these regular auxilia were often as roman as the frontier legions. In the 2nd century AD they employed numerii and nationes unit of more ethnic characrter similar to the late republican auxila, but there numbers where not significant and manly a way to employ quickly mobilized local troops or special recruits, as the sarmatians after Marcus Aurelius victory. What happended in the chaotic days of the later 3rd and in the late empire is different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

In that changeover period there were some bright spots of culture and similar, but that entire period was based on spending resources such as economical strength, recruitment base of loyal troops, loyalty and popularity, and the rumour of being trustworthy, just and merciful. Wars gave short term economical gain, but spend recruitment base, loyalty, popularity and good rumor. When those things were spent, economy was destroyed by the need to hire so many troops against enemies outside and within. Money was spent on culture and architecture, giving higher living standards in a short term perspective. When most of the money was spent, there was nothing left of what the early republic romans had created. While the "spending phase" begun in 250 BC, it wasn't really until 100-200 AD that the resources started to run short. This shows how amazing state leaders the early republic romans were. Their followers were not, all they did was spend resources. It hardly takes any genius to do that, especially as the early roman republic senators had built up not only these resources, but also tradition and a sense of strategy.

---

Compared to the rebuplic the principate considerably enlarged his recruitment base, by giving citizenship to provincials far more generously than before. The shift from a militia artmy raised to full strenght only in case of war to a professional force permanetly garrisioned along distant borders much more reduced their loyalty towards state and his people towards their commanders and the emperor that paid them than any looses. Through it was certainly a huge mistake to pay subsidies to friendly tribes and states to stabilize ceratin border regions only for the sake of buyed peace.

The money spent by the empire wasn't inherited and taken from any secret buried treasury of the Republic. It was from the taxes payed by the current inhabitants of the roman world, generated by the empires economy. Rarely an emperor had build up reserves during his reign (Tiberius and Vespasian) mostly as most modern states the roman empire spent immidiatly what they got. The great buildings projects and the army of the principate, which wasn't much bigger than mamy modern forces, and rather small compared to the size of the empire, were financed by the flourishing economy during the centuries of the pax romana and not the treasuires of the ancients. Some of the extraordinary building priojects as the trajan's forum and the expansion of ostia artificial harbour were financed by the large booty from the dacian wars, but the countless iles of streets, aqueducts and ordinary public buildings that really raised the quality of living were not. In fact most provincial improvements weren't build by the empire, but paid by the rihcer citizens and cities directly, what become only possible due their gneral good econimal situation. The system collopased in the 3rd century when external and civil wars demanded for more soldiers and thus higher military expense the same time these crisises destroyed the base of the empire's wealth and economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Footnote: when I say period x was full of y, z etc., I don't necessarily mean the entire period contained all those things. For example the intolerance came in shorter bursts - Nero, Domitian, then a pause, then it came again during the end of Trajan's rule and during Hadrian's rule. Then it started again a bit later. And intolerance is still intolerance even during the periods when the intolerance was only directed at minorities.

---

You can't blame whole roman society for the deeds of certain emperors, that were additionaly very limited in time and space. During Nero's reign and the whole jewish war Tiberius Alexander,of jewish origin himself enjoeyed a remarkable career, becoming prefect of egypt and finally even praetorian prefect under Vespasian. Especially Hadrian tried it's best to better integrate the various peolple of his empire and travelled through all countries to know his citizens and promote them, especially the greeks.

There are always exceptions to any statement made about something that involves several million human beings and several centuries. But in summarizing the events, the Punic wars to 200 AD period was a period of spending, the period before that had more character of buildup. After all it was the pre-punic war Rome that easily managed to survive Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae, while Crassus' Rome had problems surviving Carrhae, Augustus' Rome had problems coping with Teutoburg forest, and Trajan's Rome that didn't cope with the lost Parthian war. Early Rome wasn't 100% peaceloving, neither was late Rome a 100% oppressive rule. But if the view is simplified, and the most important factor for the fall of Rome is sought, this is the strongest factor, as it gives rise to each of the events that historians agree directly led to Rome's fall. Indirectly behind them, this is the factor that caused the factors that caused the fall. Since I've already discussed this in the other thread I won't repeat all details of it here, but if you have direct responses to my comments in the other thread you may want to reply to them there, rather than forcing me to say the same things twice, which would be tedious.

In any case, any explanation of causality of anything in nature needs to be a simplification. It's only matter of which level of simplification we want our model to have. If we want the model to consist of one factor, the model I presented gives the highest accuracy for describing reality. If we want a model described in 100 factors, the view of modern historians is more accurate, but it's quite complex and might hide part of the overview, which serves as a good example for political and diplomatical theory.

Early Republican Rome conquered much of the Italian peninsula through diplomacy. Most people wanted to be part of Rome by free will. Rome also stood up to alliances, even if it meant destruction of much of the roman army at times (samnite wars). To deny that this good rumor played a major part in roman expansion would be a fallacy! Much of roman conquests were entirely diplomatic, and so many wouldn't have allied to Rome if Rome hadn't got a long time reputation for always being a trustworthy ally. This changed in the Imperial period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

Most great rebellions as in illyria, germania, britannia and gaul followed directly a few years or decades after the roman conquest.

---

Yes, but there's always a revolt attempt after a conquest of any province, almost always in history. But usually if you conquer a country that attacked you first, the conquered people tend to give up if they lose their first rebellion attempt. They eventually accept the occupation as something else than occupation, because they know the occupation is their own fault. This works very well when it's an entire tribe or nation that almost unanimously decides to go to war with another, and lose (but doesn't work as well when the war is driven by only a few). If the aggressor when defeated is also shown mercy and given a chance to integrate, they gladly become a part of such a just entity, for an entity that is so just, also gets strong by being so just.

But in the Imperial period, conquests faced rebellions much later than after the actual conquest - for example in Jewish, Greek and Pagan territories. You're indeed admitting that:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

For the great rebllions in the tensions between jewish and greek/pagan provicials were the dominating factor, not roman rule for itself.

---

This tension was due to the very fact that: 1. the roman occupation was not a response to any hostility towards Rome, 2. the roman occupation refused to allow these people to maintain their culture.

Thus - the imperial roman expansionism philosophy was indeed the cause of the rebellions. While the Republican armies seldom faced more than one rebellion, the Imperial armies faced repeated rebellions. They used more fear and terror measures to scare people from rebellion. That sometimes removed the initial after-conquest rebellion, but long term unrest was much stronger. Plus the people from conquered areas, when coming to a position of power, seldom acted in the interest of Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

Vindex was the official roman governour and rebelled mainly against Nero's rule.

---

This shows very well that the Imperial system wasn't working, because it could make a person like Nero emperor. That's a very good reason to dislike roman expansionism and fight for independence - if the constitution of the faction that conquers you is so bad that it allows for oppressive maniacs to become rulers, then fighting for freedom is very reasonable, even if during the few situations where good emperors come to power, life can be more technologically advanced. Advanced technology is not something that makes people happy, it's just a way of keeping the mind away from the real concerns for safety, justice and freedom. In safety and living standards, a high lowest-level is more appreciated than a high top-level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

The principate didn't give citizenship to the violent and rebells, it rewarded prooven men and their peolple which served the stae loaly. Surely there were some mistakes as giving citizenship to Arminius, but that's the risk of integration. The roman had recognized that their sucess was based on integrating the various peolple into their state, not by brute force alone.

---

The integration became more difficult in the Empire period because Rome was growing more oppressive and unjust, and no longer kept the moralistic ideals that it had kept in the early phase, which had led people to trust the words of Roman representatives. For example - clementia (mercifulness), standing up for allies, and not conquering too many others than those who were aggressive to Rome first. The nova sapientia following after the Punic wars undermined this trust. There were roman representatives who in the period after the Punic wars said things like: "drop your weapons and we'll give you mercy", and then slaughtered all opponents when they had surrendered. There were alliances that were backstabbed. There were conquests merely to link up conquered territories, much like Hitler's attempt to seize the Polish corridor in 1939, only the romans did that kind of thing a dozen times, especially in the Imperial period. Such things removed the trust towards Rome, that had enabled so many diplomatical conquests and internal stability.

The Empire period integration was about burning and destroying rival culture, not about making people feel loyal to Rome. That was a major fallacy - it's more important to make people be loyal to and loving to their conqueror than eradicating their earlier culture. The Jews for instance didn't rebel much in the early phase after they were conquered, because Rome accepted their culture and ideals. Thus the Jews were fairly well integrated from a political point of view, but not from a culture point of view. They were often loyal to Rome, as in the example Tiberius Alexander that you gave. But the following empire period attempt for integration was based on the fallacy that eradicating culture and forming a state religion and a state culture would increase unity, which it didn't. Early roman tolerance was built upon keeping foreign temples. Late roman "tolerance" was to force roman state religion upon the conquered, but making some gods of the conquered be part of that state religion. It wasn't a way of allowing foreign religions, but rather a way of convincing the people that "you're already believing in the roman state religion, see - your God is a part of it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

You can't blame whole roman society for the deeds of certain emperors

---

Not the whole roman people, but the roman system was obviously seriously flawed when it allowed such emperors to get the full executive power over it's legions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

that were additionaly very limited in time and space

---

Nero, Claudius, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Commodus, Heliogabalus - for a period there was at least 1 nutcase per generation. That's quite a lot. Would you like to live in an empire were at least once in your life time you'd have to put up with a nutcase leader?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunctator

Hadrian tried it's best to better integrate the various peolple of his empire

---

Hadrian gave the impression of wanting to eradicate cultural differences, not increase loyalty, understanding and communion. Hadrian was a fan of Greek culture, especially the homosexual parts of it, and wanted to spread the ideals of old men having sex with small boys around the empire. He made a statue to a boy (Antinoos) who had drowned himself in the Nile after being Hadrian's lover, possible as a result of becoming suicidal by the sexual abuse. Hadrian carried out a genocide of the Jews of the Bar Kochba revolt. IIRC he also held one of the longest gladiatorial games with most death fights so far in the history of the empire. Hadrian also wanted to destroy the remnants of the Jewish temple, and build a Jupiter temples in it's place, and he is also responsible for expelling the Jews from Jerusalem, expelling those he didn't kill, that is. Hadrian thus created the beginning of post-roman antisemitism, which later made it into the Christian culture. Do you call that integration?

Way too much text in this game, I am out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forgus

Hmmm How many times can one because I see Certain people wote for one specific faction time and again up to six times

---

You're allowed to vote once a day.

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 15 (+1)
Getai: 16 (-1)
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

OK then

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 16 (+1)
Getai: 15 (-1)
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 5
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17 (16+1)
Sauromatae: 4 (5-1)
Sweboz: 11

Getai +1
Sauromatae -1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 15 +1=16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 4-1=3
Sweboz: 11

Ok Forgus! Ighe!

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10
Epeiros: 16 -1=15
Getai: 16 +1=17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 10+1=11
Epeiros: 15
Getai: 17-1=16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Getai +1
Epeiros -1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 17-1=16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 14
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17+1=18
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 13 (-1)
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15 (+1)
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:18
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Romani -1
Qarthadast +1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 16
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Romani -1
Getai +1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 16
Romani:16
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Getai-1
Romani+1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 16
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Day has downed

Getai-1
Epeiros+1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 16
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Ighe Forgus!

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 14 -1=13
Getai: 15 +1=16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:10
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 16
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

To show my sense of fair play (and your complete lack of the most basic mathematical skills:laugh4: ) 14-1=13

Either way, it makes the last to additions to the game pointless.

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11+1=12
Iberia:10-1=9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 16
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 6
Baktria: 12
Casse: 11 +1 = 12
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:12
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 16 -1 = 15
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Gotta save the poor Arverni...

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7 (+1)
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11 (-1)
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 3
Sweboz: 11

Epeiros +1
Sauromatae -1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:17
Sauromatae: 2
Sweboz: 11

Sauromatae: 2-1=1
Romani:17+1=18

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:18
Sauromatae: 1
Sweboz: 11

Getai +1
Epeiros -1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 17
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:18
Sauromatae: 1
Sweboz: 11

Romani+1
Getai-1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 7
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:19
Sauromatae: 1
Sweboz: 11

Makedon +1
Phalav -1

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:19
Sauromatae: 1
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 13
Getai: 16
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:19+1=20
Sauromatae: 1-1=0
Sweboz: 11

Sauromatae is gone ..lol

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 13+1=14
Getai: 16-1=15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 6
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:20
Sweboz: 11

Aedui:12
Arche Seleukeia:12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15
Hayasdan:11
Iberia:9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 6-1=5
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani:20+1=21
Sweboz: 11

Romani -1
Sweboz +1


Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 5
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Getai +1
Pontos -1


Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 15 +1=16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 5 -1=4
Ptolemaioi:11
Qarthadast: 15
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 4
Ptolemaioi:11+1=12
Qarthadast: 15
Romani: 20-1=19
Sweboz: 12

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 4-1=3
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 15+1=16
Romani: 19
Sweboz: 12

Romani -1
Qarthadast +1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 12
Makedonia: 16
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 3
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 18
Sweboz: 12

If each faction started off with 10 points, and there were eighteen factions, that would come to a total of 180 points.. and since we're adding 1 and taking 1.. shouldn't the scores add up to 180?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

If each faction started off with 10 points, and there were eighteen factions, that would come to a total of 180 points.. and since we're adding 1 and taking 1.. shouldn't the scores add up to 180?

---

The Sauromatae, Eleutheroi and Yuezhi are already eliminated, there were 20 factions from the start.

So the scores should add up to 200 but they add up to 201 so there's obviously some one who made a mistake.

Oh aye.. I was counting from CHB's origional post. Still.. -1 Pontos? Edge them closer to death? :2thumbsup:

KH+, Mak-

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 3
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 18
Sweboz: 12

Romani+
Carthage-

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 3
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 19
Sweboz: 12

Romani +1
Pontos -1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 2
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Iberia +1
Sweboz -1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 2
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 11

Pontos -1
Qarthadast +1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 6
Pontos: 1
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 11

Yay I get to kill a faction!
Pontos -1
Arverni +1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 6
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 11

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 14 +1 = 15
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 6
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17 -1 = 16
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 11

:cheerleader: Go Epeiros! :cheerleader:

Sweboz +1
Pahlav -1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 15
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 5
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Epeiros +1
Pahlav -1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 4
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

We get to play once a day, right?

Arverni -1
Romani +1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 12
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 4
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 21
Sweboz: 12

Once a day yes.

Baktria +1
Romani -1

Aedui: 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 12
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 4
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

PS. I think it would be better to be able to vote when there are more than 10-15 new posts, rather than every day once.

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 12+1=13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 4-1=3
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 3-1=2
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 20+1=21
Sweboz: 12

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Pahlav: 2-1=1
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 21+1=22
Sweboz: 12

Copperhead, post only once a day.

Getai +1
Pahlav -1

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 17
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 13
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 22
Sweboz: 12

Getai-1
KH+1

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16
Romani: 22
Sweboz: 12

EDIT: If copperhead is from GMT+0 or GMT+1, he did post once per day.

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 16+1=17
Romani: 22-1=21
Sweboz: 12

Arverni+1
Romani-1

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Qarthadast +1
Romani -1

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 18
Romani: 19
Sweboz: 12

Qarthadast-
Romani+

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Arverni +1
Romani -1

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 9
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 19
Sweboz: 12

Due to the Averni "problem" I am forced to offer a solution
Arverni -1
Romani +1

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 12

Iberia -1
Romani +1

Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 21
Sweboz: 12