What does everyone have against Rome?

[blank]

Actually, I support the imperials in star wars.

The rebels have such a ridiculously and impractically fluffy view of the universe. The imperialists are realists. The rebels on the other hand don't seem to appreciate that only the power is power, and no matter how much honor you have and how noble your goals, the universe doesn't give a damn.

It always annoys me so much in books and films when the good guys win from what is to any intelligent person a clearly untenable position, with a logistical nightmare, and yet they resoundingly and overwhelmingly crush the bad guts, with minimum casualties, except for one or two carefully chosen characters, who you know are as good as dead five minutes into the film/50pages into the book. God, why can't the bad guys win for once? At least it would provided a bit of variation.

Imperials have cool walkers and stormtroopers, rebels are... rebel scum
I usually tend to side with the "evil" side because in most cases the "good" guys are too naive, spineless and/or gay *cough*Luke Skywalker*cough*

[Emperor Burakuku]

I always wanted to be a jedy but it seems I am unable and I always turn sith. And it's women's fault!

[Maksimus]

Many things were lost with the fall of the Roman empire, concrete is probably one of the less important of them.

I agree realy, especially if you are talking for the Western Europe and The Western Roman Empire... Eastern'r Romans never lost that knowledge. Even today it is belived that after the finall fall of Constantinopolis (in 1453) ..

Renaissance in the catholic world begun manly in the Mediterranean Cities.. Cities that have represented the route of the books distributions from ancient times (found in Constantinopolis) that Turks gave or sold out to Italian city-states after 1453... It is realy one historic fact..

Even Columbos went west after inspiration he gained by reading an ancient script originatet from Ravena in 6 century .. In time while Eastern Roman's reclaimed Italy (that script came from a greek monarch)

but this is no time or place for such discussion ..

Can anyone help me how to add a link and a picture that would be like avatar and stand down after all my posts? I would like to add the link to the EB -ALex thread and some nice picture... I don't know how!?

[Pharnakes]

First make the picture, then host it to image shack or the like, then edit the link for hotlink into your sig. (done in the usser cp).

[Maksimus]

Oh... thanks alot.. but how do I refer people to use the picture as a link?

[NeoSpartan]

I always wanted to be a jedy but it seems I am unable and I always turn sith. And it's women's fault!

u ain't the only one

[Pharnakes]

Oh... thanks alot.. but how do I refer people to use the picture as a link?

Do you mean make the pic in the sig into a link that takes you to the mod page?

If thats what you mean, sorry but I dunno.

[Thaatu]

If i'm not mistaken it was them who actually replaced V partially and added the U to the alphabet.

I know none 'bout none and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[Emperor Burakuku]

If i'm not mistaken it was them who actually replaced V partially and added the U to the alphabet.

As far as I know this happened in Claudiu's time, third emperor if I remember correctly. No, fourth... Yes I think so. Octavian, Tiberius (also my name), Caligula... Claudius... Hmm I think I am right. And yes, he added U to the alphabet. What about it?

P.S To NeoSpartan: women are evil dude.

[tapanojum]

People constantly diss the Romans but wait a minute....when you guys first bought this game BEFORE even knowing about EB....what was the title...ummm ugh..

Rome: Total War?

Yeah thats it...and I believe the Romans were the default faction to play.

Hmmm....interesting!

[mrtwisties]

To be fair, Tapanojum, anyone who had access to the internet and a passing interest in the game would probably have known that there were a number of other playable factions - they could well have bought the game with a fierce hatred of Rome already brimming in their hearts.

Me, I've been hankering to play as the Romans again since the days of playing Centurion(TM) as a wee lad. "Submit now, or be destroyed". I can still remember the drums sounding as the battle began...

[Lgk]

"What does everyone have against Rome?"

Nobody likes cheaters, i guess.

[Thaatu]

To be fair, history has very few honest players.

[Emperor Burakuku]

OK... Repeating myself but if I need to, I need to. Like I said before, I am tired of people saying: Romans were cheaters, Greeks were gay, Persians loosers, etc, etc, etc. Some of them are our ancestors and some ppl get offended by this attitude. Not all Romans were bad, it's nothing wrong with homosexuality, Persians were a great empire and they proved it by rebirth, etc. What is wrong with the human race? Can't we just get along. And I don't think it's about english.

[pseudocaesar]

...

[Jaywalker-Jack]

I think for a lot of people its because of their experiences playing vanilla. In that you had THREE Roman factions, as if one wasnt already tough enough, and every single campaign you played you would always have to fight them sooner or later. Many is the time I went to all sorts of lengths just to kill those three factions and give Italy to someone else, so it wouldnt be ROMANS ROMANS ROMANS plastered all over the map down the line.

[hellenes]

Freedom from the Macedonian yoke. Albeit they traded one master for another, but apparently the Rome was preferable to them as they asked for their assistance. More importantly, the ceaseless warfare finally came to an end.

Not to mention the benifets of Roman culture and technology, much of which was simply taken from the Greeks and improved upon by the Romans.

But I'm not going to get involved in another "pro-Rome vs anti-Rome" debate. Getting a little tired of them tbh.

Makedones were Hellenic people...so did the Hellenes liked the persians when they finansed the Peloponnesean war? For "Freedom from the Athenian yoke"?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Imperials have cool walkers and stormtroopers, rebels are... rebel scum
I usually tend to side with the "evil" side because in most cases the "good" guys are too naive, spineless and/or gay *cough*Luke Skywalker*cough*

Yes, the rebels in SW are definitely in need of an internal revolt to overthrow the joke of a leader and leadership they have, since they're risking the safety of all who support the rebel cause. I still support their faction more than the tin-cans that the other faction is

[Moosemanmoo]

Like many others have said, I dislike Rome because my favourite factions i.e. Iberians, Macedonians, Carthaginians etc were defeated and ruled over by Rome.

+Nobody really supports the favourites, everyone loves an underdog

++They're really fun to massacre with big germanic axes

[Kikosemmek]

My answer is biased: Rome sucks because Carthage is the sh*t.

[Boyar Son]

My answer is biased: Rome sucks because Carthage is the sh*t.

Then why'd they lose?

[Palasta]

Like many others have said, I dislike Rome because my favourite factions i.e. Iberians, Macedonians, Carthaginians etc were defeated and ruled over by Rome.

+Nobody really supports the favourites, everyone loves an underdog

++They're really fun to massacre with big germanic axes

Macedons and Carthaginians underdogs? One conquered other nations, defeated one of the greatest empires in the ancient world and created one itself, basically the same as the romans did... and the other one also was a powerfull nation with lots of capabilities.

Then why'd they lose?

Not enough troops?

[Boyar Son]

Not enough troops?

Tell that to hannibal

Then I guess they're not the "sh*t"

[CaesarAugustus]

They're just "sh*t".

[Lgk]

To be fair, history has very few honest players.

Yeah, but Romans were ones who constantly trumpeted their own "honesty" out loud, which makes it twice as bad. As for example, standard roman procedure in many bad situations was to sign unfavorable peace (thus saving the troops), regroup, and then discard that peace, blaming anything on some single person... That happened in Caudine Forks, in Numantia, in Numidia, to name a few - and no doubt in many other smaller episodes. And constant backstabbing of their own allies? And the whole 3rd Punic war prologue... utterly disgusting.

Not to say that the whole roman concept of "just war" is absolutely laughable.

...so did the Hellenes liked the persians when they finansed the Peloponnesean war? For "Freedom from the Athenian yoke"?

In fact, "Athenian yoke" wasn't a joke. ;)
Just read Thucydides and Xenophontis.

[Tiberius Nero]

Yeah, but Romans were ones who constantly trumpeted their own "honesty" out loud, which makes it twice as bad.

Who didn't and who wouldn't?

[Kikosemmek]

Then why'd they lose?

They lost because political complications within their senate denied Hannibal access to Carthage's full military potential. Hannibal received no reinforcements from Carthage by way of sea while he rampaged throughout the Roman peninsula. He was also denied the thousand-strong Sacred Band cavalry, which were well within their power to tip the tide of Zama. One of the main factors, if not _the_ main factor in Hannibal's loss to Scipio was the service of Numidia's cavalry to Rome. Had Hannibal received seige equipment or additional men during his time in Roman heartlands, he'd have probably ended the empire then and there.

Luckily for Rome, Carthage had a working senate with actual differing factions at that point.

Also, Carthage being "the sh*t" has nothing to do with them winning or losing wars. I like their mythology and child sacrifice. I hate children. Every time an kid annoys me I think to myself about tossing him into a chasm. I then smile and quietly walk away. They probably sacrificed retarded, handicapped, mishapen, disorderly kids. You know, kids the Spartans would throw away.

[Lgk]

Who didn't and who wouldn't?

A lot of other people of the same era. IMO.

Then why'd they lose?

Because they were short of just one another Hannibal. ;) They only needed to send the second guy either into Iberia or Sicilia to fix things there (hell, they could even just leave him in Africa, judging by Hannibal's own efficient post-war rule of Carthage) - and that would be enough.

[Fionnlagh]

I'd probably say the reason I'm not fond of the Roman empire is that they destroyed and enslaved so many different Cultures. That is just something that really bothers me, screwing with other peoples beliefs and Culture really annoys me for some reason; maybe its the fact that Celtic Culture has been kicked in the nuts so many times and that Celtic Culture is apparently the wrong way to live.

Those "inferior" cultures were then replaced with Roman laws, language and Religion.
Then again this is my biased opinion because of what they did to the Gauls, Britons and all Celtic peoples.
I think the world would be better if Brennus had just killed off the Romans after he sacked Rome in 390 B.C.

But pay me no mind:P

[CirdanDharix]

They lost because political complications within their senate denied Hannibal access to Carthage's full military potential. Hannibal received no reinforcements from Carthage by way of sea while he rampaged throughout the Roman peninsula. He was also denied the thousand-strong Sacred Band cavalry, which were well within their power to tip the tide of Zama. One of the main factors, if not _the_ main factor in Hannibal's loss to Scipio was the service of Numidia's cavalry to Rome. Had Hannibal received seige equipment or additional men during his time in Roman heartlands, he'd have probably ended the empire then and there.

That's a massive oversimplification. The Barcid faction held a majority of votes in the Senate at least until Scipio landed in Africa; they did send Hannibal reinforcements by sea--not on the scale he needed or wanted, but that was due to factors neither Hannibal nor the Senate could control, chiefly due to Hasdrubal Barca being defeated on the Ebro a few months only after Cannae, so that the second shipment of reinforcements which had been scheduled for the summer of 215 BCE was sent to Spain instead. Despite their Spanish setbacks, they also shipped large expeditionary forces to both Sicily and Sardinia. The Carthagianian war effort in the years following Cannae was incredible, if we follow Serge Lancel's analysis then it was more intensive that at any time before in the city's (known) history, not even when Agathokles threatened her very walls.

Also, claiming Hannibal would have ended Rome there and then is misjudging his intentions. He meant to reverse the situation created by the First Punic War, and (as he declared to Italic prisoners) restore his city's dignitas and imperium--her prestige and her power. Carthage was not the expansionistic, imperialistic power Rome was; even the most aggressive of the Barcids and their supporters simply wanted Carthage to hold the first place among the states of the Mediterranean. Hannibal didn't set out with the intention of conquering Rome, but of humbling her and removing her as a threat to Carthage. His political project appears to have been the creation of an Italic federation in Southern Italy, as a check to Roman power and expansion; Capua was probably meant to be the chief city of this confederation, or at least Hannibal accepted that this would have to be the case when he was there. Ultimately, Hannibal desired to safeguard Carthaginian interests by treaty, a policy Carthage had successfully followed for almost three centuries when Roman perjury had first imperiled this system. Hannibal may have regreted not attempting to force destiny after Cannae, when he led a raid to the foot of Rome's walls in 211BCE; but by then it was to late.

You also appear to underestimate the difficulties of naval operations for the Carthies during the Second Punic War. The Romans had far more ships, especially the era's line-of-battle ships--quinqueremes/pentereis. They had massive numerical superiority whenever their fleets sailed against Carthaginian fleets, despite keeping a powerful squadron in the Adriatic at all times. Yet, and this is a powerful testimony to the skill of their sailors and admirals, the Carthaginians managed several times to raid the Roman coast, attack undefended convoys of supplies sailing to Spain, and even land troops behind enemy lines. They could do this and escape back to friendly waters, because their ships were more skillfully constructed, their rowers better trained, and their captains better navigators. But when they faced the Roman fleets in battle, their lack of numbers told against them; the Carthaginian squadron in Spain was destroyed at the mouth of the Ebro, where it faced hopeless odds. Also, I'd like to add that, even if it is eclipsed in history books by his ignominious defeat on land and early death, Mago Barca's sailing from Ibiza to Liguria, in a straight line and in record time, was an amazing feat of navigation.

Luckily for Rome, Carthage had a working senate with actual differing factions at that point.

Indeed. Carthage was more politically fragmented than Rome at this point; despite having a majority of the Senate, and a preponderance in the popular assembly, the Barcids faced greater opposition than the Roman warmongers. Perhaps if they had been able to better prepare the war beforehand, instead of having Carthage mobilise fully two years after Rome, then they would have been able to win despite the odds.

Also, Carthage being "the sh*t" has nothing to do with them winning or losing wars. I like their mythology and child sacrifice. I hate children. Every time an kid annoys me I think to myself about tossing him into a chasm. I then smile and quietly walk away. They probably sacrificed retarded, handicapped, mishapen, disorderly kids. You know, kids the Spartans would throw away.

Well, there are some scholars who deny that the Carthaginians actually sacrificed live kids, and instead view the tophet and the skeletons of burned infants as evidence of some kind of ritual to allow babies who were stillborn or who died very young (perhaps before they were named) to have an afterlife. The main proponent of this school of thought among archaelogists was Sabatino Moscati. The most convincing argument against child sacrifice is the extreme rarity of infants in the Carthaginian necropolis, although studies of nearby cities from the Roman period indicate very high infantile mortality and a high proportion of still births (or of cases where both the mother and the child die during labour); this infantile mortality cannot plausibly have been much lower in Punic Carthage.

Nevertheless, I don't buy all of Moscati's argumentation. Some of the skeletons found in the tophet of Carthage were as old as four, and in some later-era vases we find the skeletons of more than one child--sometimes as many as three, although in those cases two of them are always twins. Some scholars (e.g. S. Lancel, 1992) have concluded from this that, in cases where the god was "robbed" of a promised sacrifice by a still birth, a live child was sacrificed instead. Moreover, the finding of vases which contain the remains of infant animals, rather than humans, point to a sacrifice by substitution (molkomor rather than molk). That said, it is still likely that the majority of the infants found in the tophet were dead of natural causes or were very likely to die of natural causes (in which case, as you've pointed out, the Spartans or even the Romans themselves would have culled them anyway).

Another consideration: the Carthaginians seem to have sacrificed infants, when the need was great. But, based on the skeletons' positions, these infants were dead when their bodies were burned. In similarly exceptional circumstances, the Romans sometimes buried adults alive.