Poll: Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?

[Celtic_Punk]

maybe because they are one of the new factions....


i dont think 10 new factions should be added tho... theres still the same amount of units. So unless we can get 10 factions that share most of the already existing units, and get rid of the augustan troops so some of those factions can have thier own factionals, there just wont be enough unit space.

[Ludens]

i dont think 10 new factions should be added tho... theres still the same amount of units. So unless we can get 10 factions that share most of the already existing units, and get rid of the augustan troops so some of those factions can have thier own factionals, there just wont be enough unit space.

I suspect most of these new factions will mostly require new elites, and can draw most of their standard units from existing factions or regional units. For example, if the Boii are included, they will get the current Alpine regionals and Celtic units. All they really need is a bodyguard and one or two high-end units.

[MeinPanzer]

maybe because they are one of the new factions....

Yes, but what evidence is there that there should be a special Pergamene Hoplite unit separate from regular hoplites?

[Megas Methuselah]

Yes, but what evidence is there that there should be a special Pergamene Hoplite unit separate from regular hoplites?

You have the same effect as dumping a bucket of cold water on a drunken man! Anyways, they probably didn't mean it seriously, but were simply throwing the suggestion out there as an example or something. But I support your point completely, MP.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Just to add some thoughts, but the Romans already have a quite unified and bland roster for their campaigns. Most if not all of their infantry is made of a single or two infantry units, no matter the reforms and I found out that other factions have a far more diverse roster and compel me to use them. If they had to cut any part of the Augustan roster they could do it with the Ala Imperatoria (keeping the old roman regionals), the Equites Praetoriani or make the Romani use the greek siege weapon slots, but cutting down too severely will already impact a very restricted roster in practical terms. That's why we see mods such as the konny's allied legions being applied: there is simply a lack of diversity in any Roman army. Whether or not this is historical is a different matter, but fact is that the "lots and lots of units" argument simply doesn't convince me.

And Methuselah know that without that "shabby" city on the Tiber you would probably have no modern legal system, no Republican government, no well developed plumbing systems, no modern civilization, no Christianity, no political and natural sciences (spread by them) and many other things you praise and depend upon. Like it or not, Rome came to dominate the Classical world and no amount of cultural relativism will erase their contributions to society and culture as a whole until our days.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, most or if not all of those existed on their own or rediscovered time and time again. I would argue that it would have taken more time to spread and in the end by less uniform rather than being totally non-existant. To say so would be to underestimate human ingenuity and over simplify the numerous cultural exchanges and additions that make up the modern culture of the west. Again, granted, the Romans with their systematic Romanization of western Europe did indeed help in giving modern Europe a homogeneous base to work off of which is in it self important.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Yes.

I agree that Europe could still develop on her own without the Romans, following a different path. Still this is mostly conjecture, and it is granted that our present society as it developed and is now owes a lot to Rome in Classical Antiquity and their "civilizing" factor that allowed the spread of knowledge and forms well within the rest of Europe.

[antisocialmunky]

It owes its current make up to a lot of things. Though I do think you are right that now-a-days Rome is probably the most important one. However, I think the Rome's greatest contribution is inspiration to those who came after with the shadow of its greatness.

In a word Romanticism. :-p

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes.

I agree that Europe could still develop on her own without the Romans, following a different path. Still this is mostly conjecture, and it is granted that our present society as it developed and is now owes a lot to Rome in Classical Antiquity and their "civilizing" factor that allowed the spread of knowledge and forms well within the rest of Europe.

How much though do we know that the Romans proliferated across Europe that were truly "Roman" inventions and were not just picked up from conquered, assimilated cultures. As an example, I have read many times, that the Romans picked up chain mail from the Gauls, even if the Romans were the ones who adapted the chain mail and brought it with them to other regions where other cultures adapted it and used it for centuries even after the Romans disappeared, should the glory go to the Romans for spreading the armor to those regions or to the Gauls for creating the armor in the first place.

I guess the thought I am trying to convey is that should we be admiring and praising those who make the inventions or those who promote/proliferate/establish/make well known such technology? I wish I could think this thought out more, but nevertheless reading what Basileos and antisocialmonkey posted made me want to type this out.

-ACIN (This might just be my first serious post! )