Civil War (playing as Rome)

[Myth]

Interesting comment, and one with which I agree (at least in terms of "achievements" meaning conquest of additional territory). I've always thought it somewhat ironic that Rome was really at it's most expansionist and "imperial" when it was the "Republic", rather than "Empire". Modern-day France, Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Balkans, and Syria/Levant all came under Roman control during the Republic. The Roman Empire, by contrast, mainly just kinda held on to what had already been won, with Britain and Dacia (I guess that would be roughly modern Romania?) really being the only major additions.

This isn't necessarily because the Empire became somehow "softer". I'm reading an intriguing book right now (The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather) which argues that Roman expansion stopped at the Rhine/Danube rivers not because they were militarily unable to go further vs the Germanic tribes, but rather because socioeconomic development and inherent wealth in those areas simply made it non-cost-effective to do so. Just wasn't worth the blood, time, money, and effort.

I wouldn't say, however, that Rome immediately started to deteriorate upon becoming the Empire. In terms of achievement, the Republic acquired all these areas, but under the Empire during 1st-3rd centuries, these areas thoroughly Romanized, and continued to assimilate and economically develop. Rome itself may not necessarily have become significantly richer and just a better place to live after the 1st century AD, but large areas under Roman rule certainly did. Worth noting, this was not some sort of top-down imposition, but rather enthusastically pursued by indigenous populations. Whatever the reasons for Rome's "fall" (an endlessly complex and fascinating topic), internal dissent and resistance to Roman rule by previously conquered peoples wasn't one of them. It's actually quite remarkable how little such internal disarray the Roman Empire experienced (not saying it didn't happen in places...just that it was surprisingly little given the Empire's size and manner in which it had been acquired).

Back to the game, this is precisely why I stated that I think the "Empire" rewards are probably economic/cultural in nature. This would make sense to me, just as it's logical to me that the Republic bonuses are military recruitment related.

Great analysis! Indeed, the Empire fell because primarily it's economy ran out of steam. They relied on fresh conquests to bring an influx of booty and slaves to Rome and the center of the Empire. Not having those meant stagnation. Also, the bloated borders required more manpower to be kept secure, but those soldiers required pay, food and equipment. That's perfectly fine if they were conquering and looting Egypt for example - they would not only pay for their upkeep but also bring Rome a net profit. But the same soldiers stationed as border guards no longer bring any income to the treasury, instead only draining it. And yes, conquering Germania and beyond made no sense, as the Germanic tribes didn't own cities that one could besiege and take. They did not adhere to the "civilized" rules of war. You can't swing a sword at a forest. You can't kill all the wild game in Germany. You could maybe destroy a sacred grove or spring - provided you could tell that they were sacred. But your men would be cold, miserable, tired, they'd be bled along the way and they would know there would be no sacking of glorious cities and no bags of gold cups and gemstones to haul back to Rome.

In the east, they'd rub shoulders with Parthia but Crassus' military disaster there I think discouraged any serious Roman ambitions to go beyond the coast of the levant.

The Emperors tried to be smart and adopt barbarians as foderati but that was sort of hit-and miss, though at the end (the very end) the opposition to Attila's huns was composed entirely of Gauls and other semi-romanized "barbarians". The Roman spread of culture was and still is to this day, a major factor for Europe. Perhaps THE major factor when we are talking about culture and language. Roman civil architecture and their values on reading and writing elevated the newly conquered peoples, but in the process also transformed their cultures and religions. We would have had a much more diverse and perhaps - interesting Europe today, had the natives kept their culture.

Oh and let's not forget that early Rome a fierce warrior nation. Military success was closely tied with social and political success. The true Roman values and virtues were upheld (for the most part). By the time of the civil war, the values had shifted. One could now buy offices and favour was the new currency of the rich patrician class. This meant a streak of incompetent governors and generals would have a go at it, and boy did they do that! Most, if not all of Rome's major revolts were sparked because of completely selfish, corrupt and/or incompetent governors in that region. Boudicca comes to mind for example.

And let's not forget that with the absolute power of the Emperor we had some disastrous candidates and actual emperors. Then there is the whole Praetorian Guard fiasco...

Splitting the empire to Eastern and Western, with the east being much more rich, was also a mistake IMO.