Civil War (playing as Rome)

[Bramborough]

@ Backwards, thx for posting, some of my impressions seem supported by what happened with your CW, others maybe I wasn't on the mark. It does increasingly appear that Loyalist troop compositions reflect your own units (rather than tech level available). My thought that they Loyalists would spawn fairly close to Rome, however, may not be true; your Loyalists spawned farther out than I would have predicted. Is Singidum land-locked (I don't have the map up)? Most folks who've commented had same experience as me: 6 armies / 4 fleets of loyalists. I'm somewhat interested that you only had 5 army stacks come against you. Also, your 3rd-Imperium CW (vice 4th-Imp) seems consistent given 83% Senate influence. I'm also wondering if perhaps the fact that you had no Cornelii/Junii generals may have contributed...maybe they get more pissed off if they're not getting choice jobs?

@ Myth, I think everything you say is true...but like so much else in Roman history (or really, any history), there's more to the story. In my mind, one of the Empire's biggest problems was inherent political instability at its very core...in the position of the Emperor itself. Augustus' biggest achievement was also possibly his biggest blunder...informally establishing himself as de facto emperor under a figurehead veneer of continuing de jure Republican institutions (as I'm sure you know, he never called himself "Emperor", just "First Citizen"). Ingenious as this may have been, it left open the question of who exactly qualified to be "emperor" in the first place...a question which was never fully resolved over the coming centuries. It certainly seemed to be dynastically inherited during several periods, but I think this was more because emperors were able to maneuver their sons and kin into positions where they could succeed, rather than due to a legalized monarchical succession. In any case, the biggest military threat to any Emperor came not from Germans, Goths, Persians, or any other external entity, but rather from Roman legions led by potential (and often actual) rivals.

There is little doubt in my mind that the 3rd/4th century Roman Empire had ample economic/military strength to easily deal with the Goth "invasions" ("migrations" might be a better term), whether by repulsion, incorporation/assimilation, or combination thereof....IF it had also had the political cohesion and unchallenged imperial authority to allow a coherent, focused long-term policy. Sulla's and Caesar's ghosts, however, haunted the Empire throughout its duration...civil wars over imperial succession were always a threat and often a reality. As such, the Empire's most pressing problem (Goths, Persians, etc) was often not the Emperor's most pressing problem (his own security). This distraction I think led to some inconsistent, dilatory decisionmaking during the last century of the Western Empire, ultimately resulting in its political demise.

There's really no reason to think that the Western Roman Empire was inherently ripe for collapse in the 400s. It may not have been as rich as the Eastern Empire, but neither was it impoverished, and it was certainly more economically developed and culturally unified than 4-5 centuries earlier when most of these areas had first come under Roman rule. Its inhabitants, moreover, were generally content, even happy. Indeed, most folks didn't even necessarily think of themselves as "under Roman rule", but rather as "Romans" themselves. The biggest driving factor in why the Germans & Goths came across the rivers in the first place wasn't an urge to destroy and replace...instead, they saw a good thing and wanted in on it. Culturally, economically, and/or militarily, the Empire could have handled that...if led by a secure Emperor whose first concern didn't always have to be protecting his own neck.