What is safe to destroy?

[Unintended BM]

From a roleplaying point of view. I'm being the Romans, and I just took over Kart-Hadast and the town south of it. It would probably be right from a roman perspective to destroy some of Kart-Hadast's wonders, but which ones? And other cities too. Like, I don't know if the romans would keep the Makedonian royal tombs, or the Colossus, etc.

[Ludens]

Safe? We'll, there will be no lasting consequences to destroying them, other than that you lose the bonuses associated with it. Romans were practical people, and they respected local customs, particularly religion, unless these became focal points of rebellion. I would leave burial monuments alone and only tear down others if you have particular reason for hating that faction.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Safe? We'll, there will be no lasting consequences to destroying them, other than that you lose the bonuses associated with it. Romans were practical people, and they respected local customs, particularly religion, unless these became focal points of rebellion. I would leave burial monuments alone and only tear down others if you have particular reason for hating that faction.

But the Romans did hate Carthage more than most other enemies due to Hannibal's exploits in Italy. Also they hated the Carthaginian religion, which involved human sacrifice, which Romans thought was barbaric.

Rome didn't always respect local religions. Look how they treated the Druids in Britain - wiped them out.

[Watchman]

Mainly on account of troublemaking - the Romans had a pretty Assyrian approach to that kind of thing. Not like they gave a damn otherwise, and I can't out of hand recall reading of a comparable suppression of Druids on the continent...

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that all the other Punic cities the Romans took didn't get the same "raze to ground and salt the earth" treatment Carthage got singled out for.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that all the other Punic cities the Romans took didn't get the same "raze to ground and salt the earth" treatment Carthage got singled out for.

But during the Punic Wars, the only truly Carthaginian city was Carthage itself. The other 'Carthaginian' cities were allied Numidian, Spanish, African, and Libyan cities, under Carthaginian domination. Not actually Carthaginian cities.

Just like the Romans at that time. The only truly Roman city was Rome itself. The other 'Roman' cities were allied Italian, Sicilian, Greek, Etruscan, Ligurian, Gallic and Spanish cities, under Roman domination. Not actually Roman cities.

So with that attitude in mind, it makes sense for the Romans to only destroy Carthage itself and treat the other former Carthaginian-controlled cities as being 'liberated' from Carthaginian 'tyranny' and now safe under the 'protection' of Rome.

For the record: the Romans were not entirely opposed to human sacrifice. They did it themselves after Cannae. And their resistance is somewhat hypocritical to modern eyes, as the Romans did celebrate human slaughter in the form gladiatorial games (which also had a religious origin).

But the Romans sacrificed a Gaul and a Greek after Cannae. Enemies, in other words. Not their own people. And then only in the direst of emergencies. Unlike the Carthaginians, who routinely sacrificed children of their own blood. In Roman eyes, that was a key difference.

Gladiatorial games, again, a different matter, because gladiators were just slaves, not Roman citizens. Slaves in the arena were mostly captured enemy warriors, who deserved nothing better. So that wasn't hypocritical, in Roman eyes.

[Ludens]

But the Romans sacrificed a Gaul and a Greek after Cannae. Enemies, in other words. Not their own people. And then only in the direst of emergencies. Unlike the Carthaginians, who routinely sacrificed children of their own blood. In Roman eyes, that was a key difference.

Gladiatorial games, again, a different matter, because gladiators were just slaves, not Roman citizens. Slaves in the arena were mostly captured enemy warriors, who deserved nothing better. So that wasn't hypocritical, in Roman eyes.

So what the Romans were opposed to was religious sacrifice of citizens rather than humans?

I can understand their reasoning, but that does not change the fact that they did commit human sacrifice. Unless, of course, one argues that enemies/slaves do not count as humans, which simply leads to another form of hypocrisy.

[Ludens]

But the Romans did hate Carthage more than most other enemies due to Hannibal's exploits in Italy. Also they hated the Carthaginian religion, which involved human sacrifice, which Romans thought was barbaric.

Rome didn't always respect local religions. Look how they treated the Druids in Britain - wiped them out.

Rome did indeed hate Carthage; but that was in history, not in the OP's campaign. If he won an easy victory over Carthage there is no reason why he should treat Carthage harsher than other cities.

I wrote that Romans left religions alone "unless these became focal points of rebellion".

For the record: the Romans were not entirely opposed to human sacrifice. They did it themselves after Cannae. And their resistance is somewhat hypocritical to modern eyes, as the Romans did celebrate human slaughter in the form gladiatorial games (which also had a religious origin).

[Ibrahim]

But the Romans did hate Carthage more than most other enemies due to Hannibal's exploits in Italy. Also they hated the Carthaginian religion, which involved human sacrifice, which Romans thought was barbaric.

Rome didn't always respect local religions. Look how they treated the Druids in Britain - wiped them out.

and that is from a people who buried a few slaves in the aftermath of Cannae, in order to appease the Gods. (IIRC)

now to topic: I would suggest not tearing any wonders down, as they may come in handy in the future. but one can tear down all the other non-wonder buildings

[johnhughthom]

Well the Romans were pragmatic enough that keeping any wonder that gives you a bonus is well within role-playing in my view. I doubt they would have destroyed the Colossus and there was enough respect for Alexander within Roman society to envisage a respect for Makedone royal tombs even if he wasn't buried there. As for Carthage, destroying everything and enslaving the populace could work roleplay wise. Personally I see it as a waste of a great city and don't think it's too much of a stretch too argue a section of the Senate, or a charismatic general conquering it, arguing to keep it intact and winning out.

[Julianus]

Concerning how the republic and early empire Romans looked upon Alexander and his military might, I came across two interesting sources.

In his History of Rome, 9.17 - 9.19, Livy argued that if Alexander did invade Italy he would be utterly destroyed. And in the life of Pyrrhus, Plutarch recorded the Romans of that time also made the same assertion.

Those two were both armchair historians, not sure if Arrian or Polybius ever made similar predications.

[alexanderthegreater]

Concerning how the republic and early empire Romans looked upon Alexander and his military might, I came across two interesting sources.

In his History of Rome, 9.17 - 9.19, Livy argued that if Alexander did invade Italy he would be utterly destroyed. And in the life of Pyrrhus, Plutarch recorded the Romans of that time also made the same assertion.

Those two were both armchair historians, not sure if Arrian or Polybius ever made similar predications.

Just looked that up (yay for google). Livius seems to be be making a rather strong argument. Im going to make a threat about that.

On-topic, I destroy all the wonders that give me no bonusses due to my faction (such as the docks of carthage when playing rome) Anything that gives me bonusses I leave standing, because you cant rebuild it. I only destroy those wonders when playing on VH and you really need money.

[bobbin]

You should also bare in mind that any structure in a city that doesn't belong to your factions culture group (which given the romans have their own culture group AFAIK would mean any non roman structure) reduces public order.

[johnhughthom]

Concerning how the republic and early empire Romans looked upon Alexander and his military might, I came across two interesting sources.

In his History of Rome, 9.17 - 9.19, Livy argued that if Alexander did invade Italy he would be utterly destroyed. And in the life of Pyrrhus, Plutarch recorded the Romans of that time also made the same assertion.

Those two were both armchair historians, not sure if Arrian or Polybius ever made similar predications.

Now that you mention it my basis for Roman respect for Alexander was based on two likely mythical events, Scipio's conversation with Hannibal about great generals (and what it implied Roman opinion on Alexander to be) and Caesar's depression on his birthday at not achieving what Alexander had at the same age. I am sure I have read other cases of favourable opinion toward Alexander, but I can't think of any...