How did the roman empire absorb its conquests?

[Pharnakes]

A question for the eb historians, what did the romans do to absorb other contries into the empire and how is this portrayed in the game?


And yes, I asked this because I am still convinced that the recruitment system is unfair.

[Tiberius Nero]

I think it is portrayed nicely in EB. Much of what you see as the Roman empire on the map was actually client and allied states with Roman supervisors.

[Pharnakes]

Yes, but what did they actualy do? In order to win the populations loyalty ect.

As you say, I think it is portrayed very well in the game, but only for the romans.

[Watchman]

How so ?

[Pharnakes]

Because Romanii can subjugate round about half the map (more in terms of province count), other than the nomad factions nobody except for the seleucids has anything like that much subjigation avalible, and even the seleucids can only recruit elite troops in a few of their provinces, whilst the romans can recruit cohors reformata and impretoria across most of the map. I am not saying this is wrong, it is historical, but you cannot conquer an empire as anyone but the Romanii, as half of it will be type 3 and 4, no matter what you do, and moving out troops from your heart lands becomes redicously fiddly after you have conquered more than 40-50 provinces.

I just think that something needs to be done about this, just beacuse the Romanii did conquer the world, dosen't mean that Macedonia or the Qarthadastei, or anyone else couldn't have, its just that the Romanii happened to be the luck ones.


In my opinion EB in its present form portrays the world from 272bc to 240bc with perfect acuracy, and the Romanii from 272bc to 14ad. EB has always said it is about 100% historical plausibility, not 100% historical accuracy, and I'm sorry, but in my opinion at the present it just dosen't live up to this.

[russia almighty]

The Romans went under the maxim I think of the best way to gain loyalty is let them serve in our military . The hellenic powers where terrified of there native populations and the Carthaginian mercs differed from each area they came from .

[Foot]

In my opinion EB in its present form portrays the world from 272bc to 240bc with perfect acuracy, and the Romanii from 272bc to 14ad. EB has always said it is about 100% historical plausibility, not 100% historical accuracy, and I'm sorry, but in my opinion at the present it just dosen't live up to this.

We have some idea of how other factions might have run empires, and our govs attempt to represent this, but we do not want to step to far into absurd conjecture as to how they would have performed. The Roman system of subjugation and the later reforms of their military system allowed them to recruit their soldiers from all over the place with standardized training and equipment. There is no evidence that other factions used a similar system. Also remember that the Roman system is not the only way to run an empire. The Persians used the Eastern/Median style of government, run by semi-autonomous satrapies who answered to the central government in Iran.

Basically, just because the Romans did it one way it doesn't mean that everyone else has to do the same.

Foot

[Pharnakes]

Yes, I'm not saying that all actions should be able to use local recruits as factional troops, but surely after you have held an area for 50 years or so, the population would become more loyal and start to think of its self as being part of your empire, and even if you couldn't recruit local men, suerly by that time enough of your own men would have moved form your heartlands, enabaling you to recruit good factional troops?

On second thoughts though there would be no way to limit recruitment. ah, well, when eb 2 comes out... an end to all the problems in the world.

[russia almighty]

Dude look at the crap the Seleucids went through . Really it depends on the culture taking over . For Rome as long as they got there tax money they really cared less what the people did unless it became a threat . The Hellenic's on the other hand forced Hellenic culture which left the conquered populations being pissed off constantly .

Why do you think the Native Iranians liked the Parthian's or the Egyptians rebelled constantly against the Ptolemic's ? Thats why the Hellenic factions can't recruit some units everywhere , the population can't be trusted to be taught to fight like them . Thats what the limited recruitment for the hellenic's kinda represents , the general distrust of non-hellenic's .

[Watchman]

To be fair, the Achaemenids had also had a pretty solid hands-off policy and still constantly had to put down local revolts. Usually in the form of the local satrap or similar strongman getting overly ambitious. I understand the Seleucids mostly stuck to the same governing pattern (the "panhellenist" attitudes only came in towards the end AFAIK - a symptom much more than a cause) with the more or less exact same problems; the Baktrians being something of an extreme example of a wayvard satrapy.

I'm frankly pretty sure the Romans were able to hold their empire together as well as they did chiefly because they mostly stuck around the Mediterranean - the sea unites, and allows communications far quicker and more effective than could be achieved overland. And they too had to stamp out local popular uprisings and uppity strongmen quite often.

Besides, I wouldn't characterize the Cohorts as "elite" troops. They aren't. They're rank-and-file. But the fact is, the Romans did come up with a system that did make their rank-and-file by and large better than everyone else's - on the average better equipped, better disciplined, better trained and better organized. Which system, eventually, went wrong too, but that's really a developement from a date rather after the EB timeframe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rome conquered by putting the ancient equivilent of a Starbucks and a Macky D on every corner before they took over, just like America today.

The Hellenes tried to put that stuff in afterwards.

So instead of seeing the benefits of foreign rule and then coming under that rule you have the "benefits" forced on you after you get seven shades of poo kicked out of you.

There's also the practice of stationing troops away from their native lands and the fact that few governors were in place for more than five years.

Even so the system eventually broke down.

[Zaknafien]

but surely after you have held an area for 50 years or so, the population would become more loyal and start to think of its self as being part of your empire,

Heh, the Palestinians would probably disagree with you on that one ;)

[kalkwerk]

Yes, I'm not saying that all actions should be able to use local recruits as factional troops, but surely after you have held an area for 50 years or so, the population would become more loyal and start to think of its self as being part of your empire, and even if you couldn't recruit local men, suerly by that time enough of your own men would have moved form your heartlands, enabaling you to recruit good factional troops?

Dont forget that the roman empire is quite unique in this respect. How many empires have had such a unified law and recruitment system? And even by the romans it came into being over hundred of years, not 50. The only problem would be that it is too fast in this mod, but on the other hand it would be unplayable if it was slower.

This line you often find:
The roman empire - Napoleon - EU
And what was in between? Think about it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A lot was in between, Charlamegne and the British Empire, for example.

[kalkwerk]

A lot was in between, Charlamegne and the British Empire, for example.

Charlemagnes empire lasted his life and was divided between his sons. That was in a feudal europe with no common law codex nor recruitment system. The same goes for the British empire. My point is that the roman empire had some features which were rather unique in a historical view. These were developed over a long time span and really reached their peak in the late empire.

Napoleon and the EU defines themselves in the roman tradition. Charlemagne and the German emperors did it too, but the reality was another.

[Sakkura]

To be fair, the Achaemenids had also had a pretty solid hands-off policy and still constantly had to put down local revolts. Usually in the form of the local satrap or similar strongman getting overly ambitious. I understand the Seleucids mostly stuck to the same governing pattern (the "panhellenist" attitudes only came in towards the end AFAIK - a symptom much more than a cause) with the more or less exact same problems; the Baktrians being something of an extreme example of a wayvard satrapy.

The Romans actually had the same kind of problem, although perhaps not for the exact same reasons. Mostly generals that decided they wanted a lot more power. It wasn't really until the tetrarchy that they developed an effective solution to those problems.

But of course, the expansion under the republic was probably smoothed considerably by gradual increase in privileges as people behaved themselves well. I doubt anyone but the Romans had such an effective system of incentive to conquered peoples to behave.
The Romans still didnt shy away from handing out major cans of whoopass to people that didnt do what they were told. Someone like Boudicca would probably tell you of the less nice side of Roman expansionism.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

"Less nice side"? I'm sure for the subjugated peoples roman expansionism was quite totally "less nice". Or would you like to be subjugated?

For Napoleon, his empire didn't stretch as far as the Roman one. And it only lasted for roughly two decades.

For the EU, I'm already beginning to feel subjugated by their laws, norms and what-not.

[Sakkura]

"Less nice side"? I'm sure for the subjugated peoples roman expansionism was quite totally "less nice". Or would you like to be subjugated?

For Napoleon, his empire didn't stretch as far as the Roman one. And it only lasted for roughly two decades.

For the EU, I'm already beginning to feel subjugated by their laws, norms and what-not.

It was a sarcastic understatement. Boudicca's daughters were designated as split heirs along with Roma for her late husband's realm, but the Romans didn't exactly respect that. Boudicca was flogged, her daughters raped and the kingdom annexed.

It's just that, while the Romans certainly did know how to punish people, they also had positive incentives for people to cooperate, for example the chance to achieve roman citizenship.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Hey, Rome just legitimately inherited an ally's land that needed protection now that it didn't have a ruler.

[Alexander777]

I have to admit that I agree with Pharnakes on this one. As much as it is historically accurate to say that Rome was able to make this huge empire, I believe that EB is still a game of putting players in a historical context and then letting them change history. After long periods of time I think all factions should have their lvl 2 government areas expanded and be able to recruit their factional troops in larger areas. After all, who knows what would have happened if Carthage had supported Hannible more, and as a result won the Second Punic War, or if one of the Sucessor States were able to hold off the others and make a powerful kingdom. We can't say for sure, but I think all of the factions should be able to make as unified and mighty an empire as Rome can. Plus, if you say that there wouldn't be enough people of your empire's ethnicity to provide factional troops in larger areas, consider the fact that Greeks moved everywhere when Macedon conquered Persia, and Romans lived in all corners of the empire eventually. Again, I believe that the factional expansion at the beginning is fine, but it should be expanded as countries stay alive for long periods of time. Just copy Rome and increase it during reforms.

[Pharnakes]

This is more or less what I am trying to do, just with very little success so far.


And on the subject of progression, shouldn't other factions except Makedon, eventualy be able to recruit Hysetoroi Pezhetairoi? Afterall, if Makedon held off the Romanii with these new phalagnites and then fought the Seleukids, surely the Seleukids would be farely quick to abopt the new idea when exposed to them?

What I am propossing here is a Cataphract type refrom, where a faction copies technology when exposed to it. It has also struck me that factions other than rome should be able to get upgraded artillery, in history nobody ever did because the main users of artillery were part of the Roman empire by thr time of Vitruvius, but in EB it could very easily be diffrent. (And certinatly would be if the player is non roman).

[Foot]

This is more or less what I am trying to do, just with very little success so far.


And on the subject of progression, shouldn't other factions except Makedon, eventualy be able to recruit Hysetoroi Pezhetairoi? Afterall, if Makedon held off the Romanii with these new phalagnites and then fought the Seleukids, surely the Seleukids would be farely quick to abopt the new idea when exposed to them?

What I am propossing here is a Cataphract type refrom, where a faction copies technology when exposed to it. It has also struck me that factions other than rome should be able to get upgraded artillery, in history nobody ever did because the main users of artillery were part of the Roman empire by thr time of Vitruvius, but in EB it could very easily be diffrent. (And certinatly would be if the player is non roman).

You are moving into the realm of supposition and conjecture beyond what we reasonably can know. If we go along this route we face the prospect of many more options. What if the romans were beaten by hoplites, would they progress back.

We don't like making stuff up. The Seleukids did use cataphracts, but they did not use Hysetoroi (as far as I know). Obviously we are far happier about having low-level, low-tech units being avaliable in faction rosters when they never actually used them, it would be silly not to, but we don't like giving away the elites of a faction to another without historical evidence to say so.

Thats the way we roll

Foot

[Pharnakes]

I know, its just that anything finite depresses me , and as an infinte computer game of this type (or proably anytype) is impossible I'm going to go and sit in my corner and contemplate suicide.

[Alexander777]

I don't think that we should move into that realm of conjecture either. That would make too many "what ifs". However, I still think that EB should make every factions' expansion area to increase over time, to reflect the fact that over time citizens from the homeland would move into new conquests, and also the original subjugated people would consider themselves more a part of the empire.

[Foot]

I don't think that we should move into that realm of conjecture either. That would make too many "what ifs". However, I still think that EB should make every factions' expansion area to increase over time, to reflect the fact that over time citizens from the homeland would move into new conquests, and also the original subjugated people would consider themselves more a part of the empire.

Firstly the timescale is the problem. Secondly the mechanics is a problem. Thirdly the historical accuracy is a problem. Finally you are painting every faction with the same brush; KH is different from SPQR is different from Arche Seleukeia is different from Saka is different from Carthage. The Achaemenid Empire lasted for centuries yet even at its fall it was using many different peoples all using different languages. Oh certainly there was a crossover of technologies and cultures - Zoroastrianism did not come from Persis - but the Baktrian Cavalry who fought for the Achaemenids were not Persian (though no doubt there were some Persians), they were Baktrians; the Armenians who fought for the Achaemenids were Armenians even if they did dress in the Median style.

And yes subjugated people may consider more a part of the Empire, but this firstly is not a necessary consequence of extended rule and secondly does not necessitate that they would begin fighting in the style of their Imperial masters. Obviously we want to increase the number of regionals, and we will be able to do this much better in EB2 than we can at the moment.

Foot

[QwertyMIDX]

You're assuming every empire worked the Roman empire, they didn't. In fact, mostly they didn't. Most of there were a 'homeland' core with lots of clients who (when and if) provided troops of their own native style. This is true of all the near eastern empires right up through the Persians (that includes Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Medes). Its true of all large medieval kingdoms. Its true of all the Indian Empires. Its even true to some extent of the Successor kingdoms. Rome is the exception, not the rule (and it generally functioned like the rule a good percentage of the time anyway).

[Alexander777]

First, let me say that I hope that no one is taking these comments as too critical of EB. I love this mod and don't want anyone to think I don't. This particular debate is just of great interest to me. I will admit right now that I don't know the mechanics of the game really well, but Foot, if this expansion of second lvl governments and homeland units works for Rome, why not other factions? Would it be too complicated for the code?
Now on to the trickier problem of historical accuracy. It think there is still evidence of this that can be used in this game. Now, let me say that I don't think that a lot of factional elite units should be found out of their homeland provinces. It would be really weird to see KH recruiting Spartans in Egypt or something like that. However, I think that there is a case for the more midlevel units area recruitment to be expanded. Lets use Carthage for an example. In this game Phoenicians have spread out so that Phoenician units (like Liby-Phoenician Infantry and Elite African Infantry) can be found in Iberia and Sicily. Clearly enough have migrated or the local populations have become assimilated so much that EB can consider it historically accurate to put these units in these provinces. Now lets say that in the beginning of the game Carthage conquers the cities of Baikor and Messana and holds them for the rest of the game. It is definantly in the realm of probability that after a while these provinces would either be assimilated enough or enough Liby-Phoenicians would have migrated there so that Liby-Phoenician Infantry could be recruited there after a long enough period of time. As much as few nations had governments like the Romans, some of them could have been able to do similiar things.
I would also like to ask something about the Seleucids. From reading history it is clear that the Eastern part of the Empire was not very stable or assimilated. Why, then, are these provinces able to have the subjugation level resource?

[NeoSpartan]

Very informative thread thanks to everyone posting.


...on the subject of increasing subjugation.... the EB team finds new reliable historical info, it ain't gonna happen. Also, don't forget what Foot said: "KH is different from SPQR is different from Arche Seleukeia is different from Saka is different from Carthage" The way these factions ran things in thier empires are different from eachother. Thus some factions were better at it than others.

Also don't forget, EB is not about balancing out factions like in Starcraft.



besides..... its pretty cool seeing non mercenary Hopites, Hestati, Eqvites Romani, and Drapanai fighting under the Green flag of the Wild Boar!!!! All of them side by side led by a Gallic chieftan. Enforcing the Protectorate Laws of the Aedui on Epiros (eventhough Epiros has not formaly made an agreement).

[Pharnakes]

First, let me say that I hope that no one is taking these comments as too critical of EB. I love this mod and don't want anyone to think I don't. This particular debate is just of great interest to me. I will admit right now that I don't know the mechanics of the game really well, but Foot, if this expansion of second lvl governments and homeland units works for Rome, why not other factions? Would it be too complicated for the code?
Now on to the trickier problem of historical accuracy. It think there is still evidence of this that can be used in this game. Now, let me say that I don't think that a lot of factional elite units should be found out of their homeland provinces. It would be really weird to see KH recruiting Spartans in Egypt or something like that. However, I think that there is a case for the more midlevel units area recruitment to be expanded. Lets use Carthage for an example. In this game Phoenicians have spread out so that Phoenician units (like Liby-Phoenician Infantry and Elite African Infantry) can be found in Iberia and Sicily. Clearly enough have migrated or the local populations have become assimilated so much that EB can consider it historically accurate to put these units in these provinces. Now lets say that in the beginning of the game Carthage conquers the cities of Baikor and Messana and holds them for the rest of the game. It is definantly in the realm of probability that after a while these provinces would either be assimilated enough or enough Liby-Phoenicians would have migrated there so that Liby-Phoenician Infantry could be recruited there after a long enough period of time. As much as few nations had governments like the Romans, some of them could have been able to do similiar things.
I would also like to ask something about the Seleucids. From reading history it is clear that the Eastern part of the Empire was not very stable or assimilated. Why, then, are these provinces able to have the subjugation level resource?

Yes, this is pretty much exactly what I am trying to do, however, the refreshing scripts is a massive stumbling block that I have not been able to think my way over yet. It is true somesort of building could be used, but I'm not sure that the edb can actualy take another tree. Besides, if you have a building with a construction time of 250 turns, or something, you cannot build anything else durring this time, which more or less rules that out.

Due to these problems I am now thinking along the lines of a two trees of colonia, developing from what EB has already. The two trees would be a military colonia and a trading colonia, and they would be mutuialy exclusive (of course), so you would be making a considerable economic sarifice if you built the military colonia.

This is still a very new idea though.

Although on one level I do have to disagree with you: elite african swordsmen, midlevel?!

[Alexander777]

I didn't mean to say that Elite African Infantry were midlevel, I was just commenting that they are available in Lilybaeum. I enjoyed them in my Carthage campaign (until I got a CTD ). I totally agree with you Neospartan, I like seeing all sorts of units that you recruit in regional barracks flying under one flag. I just also think that that a faction should be able to recruit a lot of its midlevel faction units (from barracks lvl 3 and below) in a lot more provinces than they can in the current mod in addition to those cool regionals. Basically I think they should be able to recruit the factional units anywhere there can be a lvl 2 government.