Iberia -1
Sweboz +1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 8
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 21
Sweboz: 13
Printable View
Iberia -1
Sweboz +1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 8
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:12
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 21
Sweboz: 13
Romani -1
Ptolemaioi +1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 8
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 13
Getai -1
Epeiros +1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 17
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 8
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 20
Sweboz: 13
Romani -1
Iberia +1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 17
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 14
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 19
Sweboz: 13
KH +1
Romani -1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 17
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 18
Sweboz: 13
Iberia +1
Sweboz -1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 17
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 18
Sweboz: 12
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni: 8-1=7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 17
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani: 18+1=19
Sweboz: 12
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 17
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 10-1=9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani:19+1=20
Sweboz: 12
We should let teh Romani win since out of that list, they did the most for western Europe... The Romans were the only ones willing to spread their culture and civilisation throughout western Europe. I don't care what anybody says about the Romans being evil as opposed to being good before around 250BC, and i don't care if the Romans didn't invent most of the things they gave to western Europe, but the fact is that 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.
ROMANI ARE TEH PWN
Sure they were. Other nations were forced to spread their culture and civilization trought the known world. But really, Rome didnt spread their culture into new regions as much as they were affected by conquered lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
Dont forget, where Romans went, their slave mines and exploitation of conquered lands followed. Rome really wasnt one united empire that lived together in harmony. Most of nations that lived in Roman Empire lands were exploited by Roman nobles so much that Romans were hated commonly everywhere outside Italy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
Did Rome flourished after 1.AD, I would argue about that. Especially Western Rome was in serious problems with riots, corruption and generals hungry for power.
Sure other people may have spread it eastward, like Alexander for example, but western Europe was just a collection of tribes living in huts... And about slaves, every nation used slaves, at least they could eventually buy their freedom and become citizens...
But even somebody who hates the Romans must admit that they did a lot for western Europe in terms of technological advancement...
Getai +1
Epeiros -1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17
Romani:20
Sweboz: 12
I would argue against this.People often consider "Barbarians" as some peasants living in huts and gathering squirrel skinsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
(well maybe in here Finland they were :laugh4: )
In fact they were much more advanced then we like to think many times. Metallurgy of these nations was much better than Romans had. Even Europa Barbarorum, mod for RTW, was started long time ago to correct these mistakes people often make about "barbarians". It was later when EB team decided to expand their work to other nations as well.
Remember, it wasnt Rome superior in technology that lead them to victory in Western Europe, it was civil war between Gauls and some other factors that were favourable for Romans at that time.
Also remember that Rome was the place that was raided before by gauls but not considered important enough to begin govern the town.
Almost every nation used slaves in those times, true. Rome wasnt only using slaves in large scale, but exploiting conquered lands in ways many regions had never seen before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
Rome had much more important factor in advancment of politics and religion(christianity made empire official religion later) than in actual technological advancment.
And actually I love Rome and its history. I love it good sides as I love its bad sides. It wouldnt be same without negative sides, wouldnt it :book:
I just wanted to give you my opinions regarding what I disagreed.
But if everybody was so much more advanced than Rome, as everybody here seems to keep saying, then how come one city, insignificant in the eyes of the Gauls who conquered it earlier in its history, manage to carve out the most impressive ancient empire of all ancient times, and hold onto it for hundreds of years? There has to be something they had over their European, African and eastern neighbours...
You can ask same question about Carthage and empire of Alexander the great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
Its just the fact that super powers such as Romans sometimes rise. I doubt that there is one specific reason for some nations to grow super powers. This time odds just favored Romans, but with couple different factors it could had been any other nation.
Who do people think was the strongest power at the start of the game?
Rome didn't have a manifest destiny to rule, it could have lost either of the first two punic wars. In addition the story of the rise of Rome is also the story of the faliures of Alexander's sucessors IMO.
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 17+1=18
Romani:20-1=19
Sweboz: 12
Qarthadast takes the lead.
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 18 +1 = 19
Romani: 19 - 1 = 18
Sweboz: 12
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16
Getai: 16
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 19 + 1 = 20
Romani: 18 -1 = 17
Sweboz: 12
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:7
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 16+1=17
Getai: 16-1=15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 20
Romani: 17
Sweboz: 12
Arverni+1
Romani-1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 17
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 15
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 20
Romani: 16
Sweboz: 12
Epeiros +1
Macedonia -1
Aedui 12
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:8
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 18
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 14
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 20
Romani: 16
Sweboz: 12
Arveni+1
Aedui-1
Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:9
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 18
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 14
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 20
Romani: 16
Sweboz: 12
Like I've explained, it was their good organization, and their early ability to build up a rumor of being trustworthy that granted them such power. Then they entered a conquest and consumption phase, where they gradually lost all their strategical strength while gaining some short term benefits. Most empires enter a conquest phase after establishing a secure home frontier and a solid power base. The main differences between Rome and any earlier or later empire are the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
- Roman power base was stronger than what most other empires create in their early phases. It's pretty unique for an empire to have an rumor of being a trustworthy as ally. Almost unqiue for the ancient period was also the good rumor that made several trust them for being so merciful that they could put down their arms and surrender without a fight in front of them.
- During the expansion phase the romans still managed to maintain part of their good rumor because at some points the roman opponents attacked first rather than being attacked first, so they didn't need to use as much backstabbing and aggression as most other empires. That slowed down the consumption of good rumor.
- During the expansion phase, Rome happened to have luck in that at many times their opponents were already weakened by previous internal conflicts. For instance Gaul, Iberia, Karthage and all of the Diadochi.
- Roman expansion happened at a time in history where very crucial inventions went from being small scale implementation to large scale implementation. Switching from bronze to iron, for example. There was also a time where several key inventions were made in different parts of the world, at the time that Rome had reached a fairly large extent but had nearly lost it's momentum. Rome was lucky in that it happened to reach that extent at a time where all these crucial inventions were made, and could incorporate all of them, while most others could only use one or two of the key inventions.
Edward Gibbon stated that "the good question isn't why Rome fell, but why it survived so long". I and others have in previous posts already mentioned what moral, political, technological, scientific and philosophical decline Rome went through from 250 BC to 200 AD, and how backwards Rome was from 200 AD and until it's fall, which were good reasons for why Rome really should have fallen much more quickly than it did. But above I've mentioned some of the as I see it key factors behind why Rome didn't fall more quickly, and why Rome in the first place could expand to a geographical extent larger than many other empires, but Rome is by no means the largest empire ever to have existed, for instance the Mongol and British empires were a lot larger IIRC. To create an empire at all isn't that difficult, as history has shown many have been able to do so, and many who had the chance didn't bother doing it because of the simple fact that an empire comes at a high cost. So above I've only mentioned the main factors that differs the roman empire from other empires, the factors that make an empire at all aren't of interest in this discussion. What we can learn from Rome, and other empires, is that sooner or later most powerful and strong of factions (like early Rome) seem to be taken over by people who like to spend the resources built up by wise leaders, often creating a short term prosperity and high living standards, but at the cost of also creating oppression and terror for both it's own citizens and citizens of other factions, and in the end causing the destruction, and often massmurder of their own people at the hands of external and internal enemies who had enough of the oppressive rule of their later leaders, after the empire has massmurdered internal and external people who had little quarrel with that empire in the first place. That is the cost of most empires, and is the explanation for why so few factions who could easily have created an empire never really bothered doing so. One can in fact question how many of the current Italians are as much Romans as they are Germanics (lombards), Samnites, Italic and Etruscans.
In fact, several Roman writers - most of the roman elite as a matter of fact - thinks of the changeover from clementia to nova sapientia at the outbreak of the first punic war as a crucial point in Rome's history, and most of the roman elite seems to have been aware of the fact that it would cause Rome's fall. Unfortunately for the wiser romans, they had built such a strong roman power base that Rome would expand very far and for a very long time before reaching the turning point. Imagine how difficult it was for those romans to explain to their people that they were rushing towards their own destruction after the early victories of the younger "nova sapientia" generation!
Finally, lower technology level doesn't necessarily mean lower living standards. Many people who live freely in nature are a lot happier than people living in crowded cities. People who live in cities generally commit suicide a lot more often, and seem to more often be criminals. Nobody gets nicer or more clever because they get a mobile phone or a computer when they're 3 years old. It's about whether they have a desire to get clever and learn stuff that determines if it helps them reach some kind of enlightenment. One may in fact question whether today's western societies are at all that enlightened. Surely our brightest scientists make new discoveries, but as state-financing of research in all western countries has almost completely ended, the only further research that can be made is decided by what companies want to research, including biased tests that prove that their products are best, rather than finding the truth. Philosophy and logic isn't widespread, and education systems are falling apart. We have some bright guys in our nations, but are our nations enlightened because of it? Will they remain so if we keep taking away the financing of science and philosophy? Are you enlightened if you buy the latest mobile phone just because someone says it's cool to do so? Do you think freely, or is your opinion formed by others? How much are you controlled by your own fear, fear of being different, or fear of not being different enough and be forgotten among the masses? Can you say after reading Aristotle and Socrates, that your wisdom is greater than theirs? Have you ever invented something? Do you consider yourself superior to African and Middle east countries with less technology? Do you consider yourself better than them, because your country has more technology? Do you consider yourself clever, because others in your country have invented such things, or are you working with technology and inventing stuff yourself? If your country conquers, do you consider yourself superior because your country conquers? Then - are you part of these conquest? If not, how can you consider yourself enlightened and superior, and take honor and feel skilled over what you had no part in? And look at all others who feel pride over themselves because of achievements of their nations. Aren't most of them too also feeling honor and pride over something that isn't theirs at all?
I think the answer to all of your questions there are no... Aren't you a little patriotic toward wherever you come from? I am, but only very slightly. I feel more patriotism toward the ancient Romans for CONQUERING my country and bringing with them all the wonderful things they brought, and allowing through trade exotic foods and rugs and god knows what else to be brought in from the east, and through coinage and law allowing ancient England to flourish like it never had before... Just like every other place they conquered.
If the Romans were so bad and so evil, then why did the nobles of Britain write a letter to the emperor after he abandoned Britain and practically beg for him to return? Or maybe they were mean to everybody else, and only nice to the English?
Oh and before i forget.
Romani+1
Carthage-1
Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:9
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 18
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 14
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 19
Romani: 17
Sweboz: 12
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
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.
Romani+1
Carthage-1
Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:9
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 18
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 14
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 18
Romani: 18
Sweboz: 12
Romani -1
Epeiros +1
Aedui 11
Arche Seleukeia: 12
Arverni:9
Baktria: 13
Casse: 13
Epeiros: 19
Getai: 15
Hayasdan: 11
Iberia: 9
Koinon Hellenon: 15
Makedonia: 14
Ptolemaioi:13
Qarthadast: 18
Romani: 17
Sweboz: 12
sonething isn't right. They all started with 10's and now there are factions with 18, 19 and 17 while the lowest is 9. Where did all those points comefrom?
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.