Faction leaders as governors when playing the Romans.

[Dayve]

Would it not be possible to make Roman faction leaders who are also long-term governors of a city after the year 1BC have huge possibilities of developing extremely bad traits such as outstanding greed, anger and insanity? I say this because when Rome shifted from divided power to emperors, most of the emperors (with the exception of about 5) were corrupt in the extremes, greedy, uncaring of their people and in many cases, totally insane...

I think if Roman faction leaders who are governing cities for many years after like 1BC started recieving extremely bad traits would represent this quite well...

[Avicenna]

After you start each turn with a large treasury (over 10-15 K) and leave them in cities, they already develop bad traits.

[Dayve]

Sure, all governors get greedy and develope some bad traits... But Roman emperors tended to be more than greedy... They tended to be greedy, murderous, unpopular and downright insane... I just don't think this is done much justice currently... If we leave a Roman faction leader in charge of a city with a large empire and an even larger treasury... There should be a 50/50 chance that he becomes a murderous insane twit who everybody in the empire wants dead...

Obviously we should have some good ones too, as there were good ones like Augustus and Trajan and... Were there anymore good emperors other than those two?

[CountArach]

Obviously we should have some good ones too, as there were good ones like Augustus and Trajan and... Were there anymore good emperors other than those two?

Well... yes... but no one remembers them...

Considering that the really corrupt/bad emperors all occured after the end of the game, it is probably unnecessary. Also this is an alternate history, so then you just have to Roleplay your faction leaders to get that sort of thing.

[eadingas]

Sigh... there we go again... the roman emperors weren't half as bad as it is remembered, and most of them were actually pretty decent. If all Emperors were insane, how do you think the Empire would have prospered and expanded for centuries?

Read a history book instead of "I, Claudius" for a change...

[MSB]

Obviously we should have some good ones too, as there were good ones like Augustus and Trajan and... Were there anymore good emperors other than those two?

Yes there were. Bring on the good emperors:
Octavian (Augustus)
Tiberius
Claudius
Vespasian
Titus
Nerva*
Trajan*
Hadrian*
Antonius Pius*
Marcus Aurelius*
(St.) Constantine the Great

*=These emperors ruled in the the age of the Five Good Emperors

There are probably many more that could have been good if the Pretorian Guard had let them live.

[Pelopidas]

Damn !
Never forget WHO wrote history: the winner !

Except some very special cases, we have no certitude at all about the " madness " of the " bad emperors ".

For example, remember that Nero, who was described like a psychotic melalomaniac absolutly insane by a long tradition, is actually on a " redemption pass " for the historians, now that we can work with new toys.

[Dayve]

Sigh... there we go again... the roman emperors weren't half as bad as it is remembered, and most of them were actually pretty decent. If all Emperors were insane, how do you think the Empire would have prospered and expanded for centuries?

Read a history book instead of "I, Claudius" for a change...

It prospered and expanded for centuries simply because of two things... It's huge size compared to anyone that challenged it, and the fact that most crap emperors were bumped off pretty quickly.

So we know of what, 9 good ones? What was the overall total number of Roman emperors anyway?

[eadingas]

No, we know of 5-6 bad ones, and some accidental ones that ruled for a year or something. All the other ones were your average despot rulers. Some good, some bad, but no real insane nutcases except the first few that are talked about a lot, and mostly because of bad propaganda that surrounded them.

[Krusader]

Septimus Severus
Diocletian (although this guy has a bad rep due to Christian prosecution)

[eadingas]

Julian, my favourite emperor, I'd gladly be his subject even now. Heliogabalus got bad rap by christian writers, but was actually quite decent. Entire Severan dynasty wasn't really that bad. Aurelian. And the list goes on. Pretty much any emperor who ruled more than 5 years after Vespasian was just your average leader of a military, expansionist nation.

How many good Persian kings can you name? How many decent Syracusan tyrants were there? How many really good presidents of US or prime ministers of UK do you know?

[Dayve]

Well, finding US history (presidential wise) about as boring as playing the Scythians in vanilla TW with their huge selection of 3 units... I can't name any good US presidents... Not even the guy who helped topple Hitler, since he only did it when America was directly attacked...

But the best British prime minister was Margaret Thatcher, obviously... She closed down all our mines and farms and ruined the economy!

(Just kidding, she sucked as much as Bush does).

[eadingas]

Well there you have it. If your side wrote history, Maggie would get to be written as worst PM in British history, an insane despot, while in actuality most economists and politologists would agree she did wonders for Britain.

Just shows how much you should trust anecdotal evidence over actual research.

[Ludens]

Well, finding US history (presidential wise) about as boring as playing the Scythians in vanilla TW with their huge selection of 3 units... I can't name any good US presidents... Not even the guy who helped topple Hitler, since he only did it when America was directly attacked...

Actually, he was already sending aid in the form of the Cash-and-Carry and Lend-Lease programs long before Hitler declared war on America. It was the Senate and Congress that were unwilling to get involved in another war with Europe. President Roosevelt was a staunch opponent of the Nazi's, and was able to steer his country into the Allied camp despite the opposition of his parlaiment.

[Dayve]

Well there you have it. If your side wrote history, Maggie would get to be written as worst PM in British history, an insane despot, while in actuality most economists and politologists would agree she did wonders for Britain.

Just shows how much you should trust anecdotal evidence over actual research.

Most economists and poliplobobobobloblobists are rich and therefore conservative... They would agree that she did wonders.


-Didn't know that Ludens.

Now i know a good US president! Woo! What was his name again?

[BozosLiveHere]

Most economists and poliplobobobobloblobists are rich and therefore conservative... They would agree that she did wonders.

There must be someone out there earning all my god-granted economist fortune then.... I mean, I am in the free-markets/'Maggie's policies had a point' camp, I deserve to be a bourgeoise sycophant! Years of socialist stereotyping told me so!

[eadingas]

Sometimes I think I should just end all net discussions with this:

Stop arguing with me. I'm smarter and I know better.

:P

[Ludens]

-Didn't know that Ludens.

Now i know a good US president! Woo! What was his name again?

Franklin Delano "FDR" Roosevelt. He was the one in the wheelchair (in many pictures he is shown standing, but in truth he could not stand without support during his last years). F.D. Roosevelt should not be confused with Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (the one whose face now adorns mount Rushmore with that of three other presidents), who was president shortly before the first world war. IIRC Theodore was Franklin's uncle.

Incidentally, I wouldn't judge the American presidents so harsly without first having studied them a little. I actually think that, despite the cynism inherent to politics, there has been a suprising number of good, idealistic presidents. Besides the usual crop of megalomaniacs and incompetents, off course.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

You can only think of about 5-10 good emperors. However, how many bad (not authoritative) emperors can you think of? 5-10ish? That means that in over four hundred years of roman emperors, most were average, not bad. Though many were slightly off, lead plumbing will do that...



P.S. FDR wasn't that great, he was arguably a bad president.

[Dayve]

So how many Roman emperors were there... Nobody has told me yet.

[Trithemius]

So how many Roman emperors were there... Nobody has told me yet.

Look it up. Wikipedia, for all its flaws, has heaps of lists of things, including Roman emperors.

[Ludens]

P.S. FDR wasn't that great, he was arguably a bad president.

I am not an expert on American presidents either, but wasn't FDR the only Western leader that managed to pull his country out of the economic depression? Sure, he made many bad decisions, but what politician doesn't? I think he did a lot of good both for his country and for the entire world.

[MSB]

So how many Roman emperors were there... Nobody has told me yet.

About 90. Can't be bothered to count the lot.

[Dayve]

90? That's a hell of a lot... So in the 500 years Rome had emperors... 90 of them? Dude... There should have been like 5 emperors every 100 years... How can there have been so many?

[-Praetor-]

Anarchy periods... such as the one after Comodus

[MSB]

90? That's a hell of a lot... So in the 500 years Rome had emperors... 90 of them? Dude... There should have been like 5 emperors every 100 years... How can there have been so many?

Blame the Pretorian Guard. Eventually they turned very, let's say, murderous and disloyal often killing the emperor they should have been guarding and taking over power themselves.