Wiki and Rome

**Caius** · 03-19-2007, 22:00

Wiki says Rome is a historical incacuracy game.

Well, I need help, because i just want to know what of RTW is true and false, also, I want info about rome

tnx

Caivs

**CaesarAugustus** · 03-19-2007, 22:51

Play EB, look in Wiki's Roman Empire articles, read the Decline and Fall if you want, and you will know a lot more about Rome. Basically everything in RTW is historically inaccurate, well, not everthing, but quite a bit. That is why I recommend Europa Barbarorum, as it has the most historically accurate depiction of Rome in a video game.

**Kralizec** · 03-19-2007, 23:03

'sides, EB is an excellent mod to boot.

The single biggest inaccuracy is the Egyptian faction. In RTW's period, they were occupied by Greek overlords: the Ptolemaic dynasty (Ptolemy was one of Alexander the Great's generals) wich used the Macedonian way of fighting.

There's plenty of other threads about this, the search button is your friend...

**Stig** · 03-19-2007, 23:15

Don't read Rise and Fall, it's outdated as hell ... read some modern work on Rome.

Flaming Pigs and Wardogs are accurate tho ... strangely enough

**Kralizec** · 03-19-2007, 23:24

Originally Posted by Stig

Flaming Pigs and Wardogs are accurate tho ... strangely enough

Not in the way they are depicted.

**Stig** · 03-19-2007, 23:27

Originally Posted by Fenring

Not in the way they are depicted.

Flaming pigs are ... sort of

**CaesarAugustus** · 03-19-2007, 23:36

There was no unit that was completely devoted to flaming pigs, though.... it was just used on occasion by Romans generals.

**Adrian II** · 03-20-2007, 00:02

Forget Rise and Fall, it's obsolete unless you want study early Tory ideology.

A good first roundup would be Tom Holland, Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic, (2003), a decent modern textbook is Colin Wells, The Roman Empire, 1995.

**ShadeHonestus** · 03-20-2007, 01:36

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Forget Rise and Fall, it's obsolete unless you want study early Tory ideology.

I wouldn't forget about this work totally, but read it after you have other sources under your belt.

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic, (2003).

Definitely.

Also, forget about web sources, outside of journals like those you'll find on JSTOR, until you read some literature to get a firm foundation on any subject.

**nokhor** · 03-20-2007, 03:50

i assume when people are talking about "Rise and Fall" and when they are talking about "Decline and Fall" they are both talking about Gibbon? Unless there is a "Rise and Fall" that I am unaware of. What I don't understand though is how one could say don't read it because it's outdated or his now outdated political ideology. the "Decline and Fall" is a seminal work with far reaching influence.

that's like saying don't read the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" because the guys who wrote it wore white powdered wigs and stockings and weren't too keen on women or minority rights.

while i wholeheartedly agree that the "Decline and Fall" might be inappropriate, because it's too long-winded and time consuming for our friend Caius Flaminus here, who i assume probably just wants a relatively quick answers as to how RTW is different from history; to say don't read "Decline and Fall" at all seems to me a judgement too harsh.

**ShadeHonestus** · 03-20-2007, 04:34

Yes, decline and fall, thanks for clarifying for our friend here. I always get the titles between Gibbon and Shirer backwards.

As for further suggestion, check if your local University offers a class on Ancient Warfare and check into that syllabus.

**AntiochusIII** · 03-20-2007, 04:36

I think Stig and AdrianII merely intends to point out that The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire carries outdated assertions disputed by later historical works and researches and is unfortunately weighted down by the author's own political bias and agenda. As a starting point it might give an inexperienced reader certain misconceptions about the Romans that Gibbon has been criticized of perpetuating.

Which doesn't mean it wasn't a landmark piece worth reading...with the scrutiny and background knowledge needed. Or that Caius might not already know a lot about the Romans already.

**Stig** · 03-20-2007, 12:14

Antiochus has it, the work is already proven wrong on several points, and on the points where it is proven wrong yet, it still has to be proven wrong.
Books written before 1970 are already outdated.

**Adrian II** · 03-22-2007, 16:16

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Yes, decline and fall, thanks for clarifying for our friend here. I always get the titles between Gibbon and Shirer backwards.

Well spotted. Decline and Fall it is. And of course it can and should be read, but not, for Heaven's sake, for the purpose which Brother Caius indicated in his initial post.

Brother Shades is right to warn against websites. The military history sites in particular tend to be .. myopic. There is so much more to learn and enjoy, e.g. Roman law, art and architecture, philosophy, poetry.

**Grey_Fox** · 03-23-2007, 16:13

Stig, there is a danger in only reading modern texts in that many modern authors tend to try to find 'omg wtf they are so wrong look I have new facts!!!!' to put into their books to help drive up sales, 'facts' which then turn out to be completely false.