Pointless playing Romani?

[fenix3279]

For a while, I always thought it was pointless playing as anyone but the Romani since they are one of the few factions that were actually able to reach their victory conditions in real life. Playing (and winning) with other factions seems almost ahistorical. For example, what if you play as one of the celtic factions? I, personally, prefer playing as a "barbarian" faction but does anyone really think that there is even the slightest chance that Gaul could have utterly defeated Rome in an all-out war? Maybe if they spent less time fighting themselves and were united under one banner then they might have put up a better fight but total victory is wishful thinking. Sometimes it's hard to get into a faction when they didn't fare so well in real life. Anyone else agree?

[Aemilius Paulus]

For a while, I always thought it was pointless playing as anyone but the Romani since they are one of the few factions that were actually able to reach their victory conditions in real life. Playing (and winning) with other factions seems almost ahistorical. For example, what if you play as one of the celtic factions? I, personally, prefer playing as a "barbarian" faction but does anyone really think that there is even the slightest chance that Gaul could have utterly defeated Rome in an all-out war? Maybe if they spent less time fighting themselves and were united under one banner then they might have put up a better fight but total victory is wishful thinking. Sometimes it's hard to get into a faction when they didn't fare so well in real life. Anyone else agree?

Yeah, I do, being a hard-core Romani fan. Well Gaul did actually defeat Rome for some time (before Camillus returned) under some chief whose name could have been Brennus (although it is disputed) after the disastrous battle of Allia. Nevertheless, by 272, none of the Celtic, Germanic or Iberian tribes could have ever defeated Rome. Civil strife ran so deep in the barbarian blood that even such men as Arminius, Vercingetorix or Dumnorix could not unite them for any meaningful amount of time. As soon as the immediate danger passed, as in the case of Arminius, the barbarian tribes degenerated back to their tribal warfare.

[fenix3279]

My feelings exactly. The Celts were lucky when they sacked Rome the first time. IIRC, the Roman army still consisted of mostly hoplites during that time. Afterwards, the Roman military had been reformed into maniples specifically designed to counter the Celts way of fighting thus ending any chance of victory in their war against Rome. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right winning with certain factions. The only factions I can see actually conquering most of the world in real life would be either the Romani or any of the successor kingdoms. Maybe even Carthage at it's height of power but they were never really interested in expansion anyway.

[Celtic_Punk]

what about parthia? rome never destroyed parthia... id say they reached the VC's

[||Lz3||]

Yeh... I feel the same... that's why I've only played that kind of factions...

Rome, Arche Seleukeia, Makedonia and Pahlava.

[Celtic_Punk]

I like changing the lines of history. there is one faction though ive thought was a little pointless playing... Saba. they seem so remote and boring. I know very little about them though

[fenix3279]

True, Parthia was never really defeated in war but look at it from a larger scale. Let's say Rome and Parthia became mortal enemies and neither side would rest until the other had been completely destroyed. Who do you think would come out on top in that war? Horse archers are tricky but they can be countered assuming one's treasury is up to the task and Rome was quite wealthy. The war would be a long one but my money's on Rome.

[Celtic_Punk]

I do not know what enemies Parthia had to deal with. but I assume they didn't have the shit Rome had to deal with in the Northern forests. My money's on the East. but thats only cause Rome never conquered all of europe. Had they all of Germania, Britain and Gaul under their belt it would be a different story.

[Conqueror]

Civil strife ran so deep in the barbarian blood

It's nothing to do with blood, it's about society and politics. Rome itself would come to suffer a great deal from brutal civil wars, political fragmentation and weakening of centralized government.

Had they all of Germania, Britain and Gaul under their belt it would be a different story.

I don't see how that would really change much of anything, at least not to the advantage of Rome. They would still need massive resources invested to keep such frontier pacified. With great distance and lack of communications the local gorvernors would find it all too easy to ignore Rome and set themselves up as petty kings. In return Rome wouldn't get much, especially from Germania where agriculture was very limited due to lack of necessary technology.

Anyway, logistical difficulties alone would make it extremely unlikely that either empire could refuse to "rest until the other had been completely destroyed". In such hypothetical situation they'd more likely exhaust themselves as in the last Romano-Persian war which set the table for the Islamic expansion out of Arabia...

[GodEmperorLeto]

My Romani challenge:

VH/H (battles in VH are impossible, M sometimes too easy). Conquer historical Roman Empire by 100 BC. VERY tough to get. Also, ROLEPLAY your way through it, don't just declare massive wars and spam monster troops. Finally, succeed in all the conquests that failed or were abandoned. By AD 14, take and keep:

Aethiopia (f--k you Candice!)
Saba
Mesopotamia
Dacia
Upper and Lower Germany (up to the Elbe)
Hibernia
Caledonia
Marcomannia (the one Marcus Aurelius fought over but Commodus never annexed for some reason)
The modern-day Crimea

Not just raids--ADD THESE TO THE EMPIRE. Permanently. By AD 14

That will keep you occupied (at least, the time limit should). Also, vassalize (and keep alive in game) Sweboz, Hayasdan, Parthia, and, for fun, the Seleucids (if you can prevent Parthia from conquering them totally, awesome). Destroy Casse, Lusotann, Carthage, Ptolemies, Aedui, Arverni, Pontus, KH, Macedon, Epiros. Once, however, they're all gone, yeah, the game becomes ultra-easy and you can just spawn enormous armies that just overwhelm all in their path. But what the heck, Roma victa.

[Tollheit]

Let's say Rome and Parthia became mortal enemies and neither side would rest until the other had been completely destroyed. Who do you think would come out on top in that war?

Not Rome, and not Parthia. They would have both been destroyed by other enemies, who'd have seized the opportunity.

[Celtic_Punk]

is it not Roma Victor?
anyway, in reply to Conqueror- In this highly hypothetical situation I meant that if Rome had conquered Germania they would not have had such a problem holding the borders. thus allowing them to focus on eastward expansion. obviously this never would have happened because the peoples to the north whom they so despised were more than a match for them. the only reason Gaul fell was because of in-fighting. which was the cause of the fall of the Selucids. and many other civilizations. (see Hittites, sumerians, aztecs, ect.)

[Aemilius Paulus]

is it not Roma Victor?

Hmmm, I thought it was Roma Victrix. Roma Victa means "Rome, conquered", which is exactly what you don't want to say, right? Roma Victor isn't correct because the city of Rome was feminine - hence Roma, not Rome. Roma Invicta means "Rome, the unconquerable" while Roam Victrix means "Rome victorious".

About what Conqueror said. "civil strife running deep in the blood" was a figure of speech. I don't actually believe that barbarians had racial/ethnic genetic predisposition towards tribal warfare.

[Conqueror]

Aemilius Paulus: Thank you for the clarification. It can be hard to tell on an internet forum whether someone is meaning things in a literal sense or not.

[fenix3279]

Historical discussions like this always put a smile on my face.

Was Rome really as powerful as one might be led to believe or did they just get lucky sometimes? For example, they (usually) only fought in wars that they were sure to win and even then, they chose their enemies carefully. Some of the nations Rome conquered had already at war with others for some time, so their resources and manpower might've already been scarce to begin with (like Makedonia). Others were suffering from political instability and civil war that threatened to tear the country apart and Rome siezed the opportunity (like Gaul). Rome's power was never really tested after the Punic Wars against Carthage-- A war Rome barely won.

[Lysimachos]

Rome's power was never really tested after the Punic Wars against Carthage-- A war Rome barely won.

I think it is a sign of power not having to use it. Who can claim to have achieved what rome did without being really tested?
And the barely won war against carthage might be because it was the western-mediterranean superpower until then.

[fenix3279]

I think it is a sign of power not having to use it. Who can claim to have achieved what rome did without being really tested?

True

[Tollheit]

Rome's power was never really tested after the Punic Wars against Carthage

terror cimbricus?

[fenix3279]

Are you speaking of Teutoberg Forest?

[Tollheit]

No, I'm not. I'm speaking of the Cimbri, a people from what is now Denmark. Those hobos defeated the Romani many times, and sometimes quite decisively, during their cruise through Europe 113-105 BC. When they decided to head for Italy, Rome was in panic. According to Livy, the Romani lost 80,000 soldiers at the subsequent battle of Arausio, auxilia not included.
The Romani were so desperate that they decided to toss their constitution overboard as they made Gaius Marius consul for 5 consecutive years.

[machinor]

No, Tollheit refers to the Germanic Cimbri and Teutones (spelling?) who migrated into Italy and obliberated several Roman armies. They were on the march to Rome when they suddenly turned elsewhere. One of the two tribes migrated into Gaul, I think (not sure about that, though). The other one got beaten and annihilated by Marius.
The Romans considered that the greatest threat to Rome itself they had faced since Hannibal. Especially since the only thing, that saved Rome was the sudden change of mind of the Germanic tribes.

EDIT: A little bit too slow...

[fenix3279]

No, Tollheit refers to the Germanic Cimbri and Teutones (spelling?) who migrated into Italy and obliberated several Roman armies. They were on the march to Rome when they suddenly turned elsewhere. One of the two tribes migrated into Gaul, I think (not sure about that, though). The other one got beaten and annihilated by Marius.
The Romans considered that the greatest threat to Rome itself they had faced since Hannibal. Especially since the only thing, that saved Rome was the sudden change of mind of the Germanic tribes.

EDIT: A little bit too slow...

Thanks for enlightening me. I have heard the expression Terror Cimbricus before and knew it had something to do with the Cimbri and Teutons but of course, I was unsure of it's significance. I incorrectly thought it was related to the Teutoberg Forest incident.

[Cbvani]

Rome's power was never really tested after the Punic Wars against Carthage-- A war Rome barely won.

Not entirely true. Rome's power was tested in the most brutal way imaginable - against herself.
The Roman Civil wars (I'm including the final major Italian rebellion before universal Roman rights were granted to all of Italy here) really tested the ability of the whole infrastructure to survive. I doubt Rome would have lasted had they not had a Pax Augusta once Augustus came into power. Oh, and the sacking of Egypt helped.