Do you read historical works from the ancient period? RTR needs you!

[Simetrical]

Rome: Total Realism, as many of you doubtless know, is the most popular modification for RTW, with tens of thousands of downloads of each of its versions. As the name suggests, we're dedicated first and foremost to historical accuracy—but to achieve our goals properly, we need to know what's historical and what isn't. Of course, many of our team members have a historical bent, but there's no substitute for specific primary sources; general knowledge isn't helpful for deflecting outside criticism, although it can serve as a useful baseline.

So essentially, what I'm asking is this. Anyone who wants to help us out should, in the course of reading any historical text dealing with Europe, the Middle East, western Russia, North Africa, or any regions in that vicinity during the period of 400 BCE to 300 CE (much larger than our scope, but still useful) should note down any specific information they see that could possibly help us. Useful areas include, but are not limited to: tactics used in any kind of conflict; formations; army composition; armament; territorial boundaries; specific names (to make the names of in-game characters more accurate); ships; and resources that a specific region produces.

For every note, be sure to include the exact position in the text you're reading (as precise as possible), the translation you're using, what general category of info this falls under (from the above list, or anything similarly helpful), the date, and the relevant peoples involved (e.g., Romans, Helvetii). All this should be easy to jot down as you're reading a text. A summary of the pertinent info would also be very useful, particularly in the case of works with no good online translation, but it's not required if it's inconvenient.

The notes will be posted online, where we'll make sure your name is attached to the notes you've given us. Additionally, you will be credited in the readme for all future versions of RTR and in the in-game credits (which nobody reads, of course, but what the heck).

If you're interested, post in this thread, PM me, e-mail me, or otherwise contact me somehow. We truly appreciate your efforts.

-Simetrical

[caesar44]

for the first place - marian reforms begun in 107 bce no later no sooner you can read this in plutarch (marius) appian (can't remember where) dio cassius and more and more , it is a known fact
second (and not last) - you should use for a roman first names only the names from this list (for the republican era) : marcus , quintus , manius (rare) , publius , caius (or gaius) , sextus , aulus , decimus , servius , kaeso (rare) , gnaeus , lucius , spurius (rare) , tiberius and titus

thanks for the good work

[sheelba]

The second Battle of Cremona took place in the "Year of Four Emperors" following the suicide of Nero (68 ce). I think it is of interest because it was a Roman civl war, and Praetorians, art, light auxilia, legionaires, Roman cavalry and auxilia cavalry were involved. It has been some time since I read this, but I would recommend:

Tacitus: The Histories Penguin Classics. Trans: Kenneth Wellesley 1964 revised 1993

If this is the sort of thing you want, let me know here, and I will contribute every so often.

[Simetrical]

for the first place - marian reforms begun in 107 bce no later no sooner you can read this in plutarch (marius) appian (can't remember where) dio cassius and more and more , it is a known fact

I already knew that, but thank you in any case.

second (and not last) - you should use for a roman first names only the names from this list (for the republican era) : marcus , quintus , manius (rare) , publius , caius (or gaius) , sextus , aulus , decimus , servius , kaeso (rare) , gnaeus , lucius , spurius (rare) , tiberius and titus

For 6.0, we will be using the list of praenomina at Wikipedia, and likewise for nomina.

If this is the sort of thing you want, let me know here, and I will contribute every so often.

That isn't what I was looking for—the occurrence of a battle is not especially useful for RTR. The stuff we want should help us plan troop selection, equipment, and the like, if you understand what I'm saying.

-Simetrical

[caesar44]

the mod begin in 280 bce with a parthian empire , this is nice but not correct as you probably know
the parthian kingdom emerged in c. 247 bce under its first king arsaces (a greek translation)
i know its a problem to play without the parthians but this is the simple historical facts
there must be a solution for this problem , in mtw you have the ability to make an emerge faction - what about this ability in moding rtw ?

[Simetrical]

We don't want to leave out Parthia, since it was so critical in the period. We're considering a clever solution that may make both Parthia and the to-be-added Graeco-Bactrian faction stay allied to the Seleucids until 250 BCE or so—see this thread (the discussion shifts from the Greek Cities to the issue at hand soon enough).

-Simetrical

[King Edward]

My Girlfriend Studys Russian, and she has may history books on them, If needed I would be more than willing to research the kingdoms, armys, and tactics of european russia during this period. (Althogh I would be starting more or less from scratch I'm willing to put the effort in.)

Feel free to PM me or just reply here. :Cheers:

[Simetrical]

Russia didn't really exist during this period—the Sarmatians were the primary occupants of the Russian steppes. If you could research the Sarmatians, that would be fantastic; next to nothing is recorded in the sources most people are going to be using (Greek and Roman texts, mainly). Modern archaeological finds will probably be critical, and that's what we have the least access to. Of course, these findings will be more difficult for me to check up, but I think it will be worth it if we can learn about Sarmatians. If you decide to help us out, just give me your findings when you get them.

-Simetrical

[The Wizard]

the mod begin in 280 bce with a parthian empire , this is nice but not correct as you probably know
the parthian kingdom emerged in c. 247 bce under its first king arsaces (a greek translation)
i know its a problem to play without the parthians but this is the simple historical facts
there must be a solution for this problem , in mtw you have the ability to make an emerge faction - what about this ability in moding rtw ?

I dispute your claim that Parthians did not exist in 280 BC. It is a simple fact of life and history that they did -- but then as the Parni, a member of the Dahae confederation, not the Parni upper class which led the Parthian empire later on. Their name of 'Parthians' they acquired when they migrated to the satrapy of Parthia, southeast of the Caspian Sea, in 247 BC.

The Parthians only gained control over Iran after the desintegration of Seleucid authority after the death of Antiochus III; his wars had impoverished the Seleucid state, plus his crushing defeat at Magnesia really cost the Seleucids in prestige, causing their satraps in Iran to break away. Two powers were to take advantage of this: the Greek Baktrians, hailing from the area of modern Samarkand and Afghanistan, and the Parni, from then on known as the Parthians, under their great leader Mithridates I, who was unusually gifted and managed to take Iran for these Skythian nomads.



~Wiz

[Simetrical]

It's generally accepted that Arsaces I was Parni, but his takeover of Parthia was in the form of a successful revolt against the Seleucids on the pattern of Graeco-Bactria rather than what would conventionally be called an invasion. Portraying the revolt of Parthia as an RTW-style invasion (where one centralized power attacks a province with a regular army) seems to me a significantly less accurate portrayal than a civil war like the vanilla Roman one. Of course, if EB decides for whatever reason to keep the original Roman faction setup, its current setup is certainly preferable to having Parthia be nonexistent, and probably preferable to the 5.4 RTR setup of the Parthian faction controlling the satrapy rather than the Seleucids as well.

My source, by the way, is Parthia.com, which itself gives sources for pretty much all its assertions.

-Simetrical

[caesar44]

I dispute your claim that Parthians did not exist in 280 BC. It is a simple fact of life and history that they did -- but then as the Parni, a member of the Dahae confederation, not the Parni upper class which led the Parthian empire later on. Their name of 'Parthians' they acquired when they migrated to the satrapy of Parthia, southeast of the Caspian Sea, in 247 BC.

The Parthians only gained control over Iran after the desintegration of Seleucid authority after the death of Antiochus III; his wars had impoverished the Seleucid state, plus his crushing defeat at Magnesia really cost the Seleucids in prestige, causing their satraps in Iran to break away. Two powers were to take advantage of this: the Greek Baktrians, hailing from the area of modern Samarkand and Afghanistan, and the Parni, from then on known as the Parthians, under their great leader Mithridates I, who was unusually gifted and managed to take Iran for these Skythian nomads.



~Wiz

read my words
i said parthian kingdom not parthian people or tribe or nation