I don't know whether this has been discussed before and I haven't had much finding a thread covering it. So, if I'm repeating something that's been done to death, I apologise.
In reality, the Romans conquered the majority of Europe and in the process brought with them their advances civil engineering. They changed a great many things through their domination and thus the game is based on the convulsions of their empire.
However, when playing the game it's quite possible to change the course of history; even to the point where the Romans are obliterated. Has there been any thought given to what upheavals another faction might have gone through if it were the dominant force?
As an example, due to their over zealous dedication to Mars, the Romans started a war with my KH faction that they were unable to follow through on. As a result, I'm gradually eating up the Italian peninsula and, as a result of conversations here on the forum, got to wondering what the KH might have done afterwards. If they had held swathes of land, wouldn't they also have gone through military reforms of their own?
While the KH is mostly just out of interest, I think it applies even moreso to the barbarian factions, such as the Casse I have as my secondary campaign. If they had united the gauls into a united army and gone on to conquer a great portion of the civilized world, surely they would have drawn some lessons from these soft southerners? Not least of which would be how to build a decent road!
So, my question is whether there was any thought given, in development, to reforms that didn't happen but might logically have occurred?
Bookmarks