Pointless playing Romani?

[fenix3279]

My feelings exactly. The Celts were lucky when they sacked Rome the first time. IIRC, the Roman army still consisted of mostly hoplites during that time. Afterwards, the Roman military had been reformed into maniples specifically designed to counter the Celts way of fighting thus ending any chance of victory in their war against Rome. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right winning with certain factions. The only factions I can see actually conquering most of the world in real life would be either the Romani or any of the successor kingdoms. Maybe even Carthage at it's height of power but they were never really interested in expansion anyway.

[Celtic_Punk]

what about parthia? rome never destroyed parthia... id say they reached the VC's

[||Lz3||]

Yeh... I feel the same... that's why I've only played that kind of factions...

Rome, Arche Seleukeia, Makedonia and Pahlava.

[Celtic_Punk]

I like changing the lines of history. there is one faction though ive thought was a little pointless playing... Saba. they seem so remote and boring. I know very little about them though

[fenix3279]

True, Parthia was never really defeated in war but look at it from a larger scale. Let's say Rome and Parthia became mortal enemies and neither side would rest until the other had been completely destroyed. Who do you think would come out on top in that war? Horse archers are tricky but they can be countered assuming one's treasury is up to the task and Rome was quite wealthy. The war would be a long one but my money's on Rome.

[Celtic_Punk]

I do not know what enemies Parthia had to deal with. but I assume they didn't have the shit Rome had to deal with in the Northern forests. My money's on the East. but thats only cause Rome never conquered all of europe. Had they all of Germania, Britain and Gaul under their belt it would be a different story.

[Conqueror]

Civil strife ran so deep in the barbarian blood

It's nothing to do with blood, it's about society and politics. Rome itself would come to suffer a great deal from brutal civil wars, political fragmentation and weakening of centralized government.

Had they all of Germania, Britain and Gaul under their belt it would be a different story.

I don't see how that would really change much of anything, at least not to the advantage of Rome. They would still need massive resources invested to keep such frontier pacified. With great distance and lack of communications the local gorvernors would find it all too easy to ignore Rome and set themselves up as petty kings. In return Rome wouldn't get much, especially from Germania where agriculture was very limited due to lack of necessary technology.

Anyway, logistical difficulties alone would make it extremely unlikely that either empire could refuse to "rest until the other had been completely destroyed". In such hypothetical situation they'd more likely exhaust themselves as in the last Romano-Persian war which set the table for the Islamic expansion out of Arabia...

[Tollheit]

Let's say Rome and Parthia became mortal enemies and neither side would rest until the other had been completely destroyed. Who do you think would come out on top in that war?

Not Rome, and not Parthia. They would have both been destroyed by other enemies, who'd have seized the opportunity.