What is safe to destroy?

[Watchman]

Claiming monopoly on divinity =/= atheism, I daresay... but no, it's not going to win you too many friends among the polytheists whose entire pantheon you just snubbed.

[Cimon]

In discussing the Catiline conspiracy, Dio states "He [Catiline] sacrificed a boy, and after administering the oath over his entrails, ate them in the company of the rest." That's obviously negative propaganda, intended to show Catiline in a monstrous light and, in my mind anyway, equate him with those baby-killing Carthaginians. (Sallust does not mention the event, as far as I know).

Even though it's almost certainly just a story, however, it's interesting that there's no mention of the boy's citizenship. If the prohibition was only against sacrificing Roman citizens, then I have to think that Dio would have specifically noted that that it was a Roman boy. This suggests that, to the Roman mind, it's ok to sacrifice humans in extreme circumstances (e.g. post-Cannae) when it's for a "good cause," but not ok to do so for a bad one (e.g. the Catiline Conspiracy).

The other possibility is that the prohibition morphed from "no Roman citizen sacrifices" to "no sacrifices" between Cannae (3rd century BC) and the time when Dio wrote (late 2nd to early 3rd century AD).

In any case, it's certainly an interesting topic and one that, to my knowledge, our understanding of Roman religion doesn't cover in enough detail for us to truly understand.

[WImPyTjeH]

Role-playing is fun, but if you destroy every building in Carthage (especially those with bonuses), you will lose all your public order bonuses, which could very well lead to rebellion in a recently conquered settlement.

If I lived in Carthage, and the Romans had just exterminated almost everyone and destroyed the entire city and its buildings, the least thing that would come to mind is a rebellion (I would probably be dead too), but that's not how the TW engine thinks, it will gladly revolt against you.

Personally I take satisfaction in conquering Carthage as the last Carthaginian city and thus annihilating the Carthaginian faction, but in my eyes it's still a great city so I generally leave the populace alone.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Role-playing is fun, but if you destroy every building in Carthage (especially those with bonuses), you will lose all your public order bonuses, which could very well lead to rebellion in a recently conquered settlement.

That's why exterminating and enslaving the population comes in so handy. If 1/10th the population is left, there ain't no people to rebel.

If I lived in Carthage, and the Romans had just exterminated almost everyone and destroyed the entire city and its buildings, the least thing that would come to mind is a rebellion (I would probably be dead too), but that's not how the TW engine thinks, it will gladly revolt against you.

I've never experienced rebellion or unrest after exterminating even huge cities. However, I do not destroy every single structure on that very first turn. I get rid of the most culturally significant structures and anything reminding people of the previous rulers, however I allow religious and civil order structures (garrisons, etc) to remain. I simply RP that my troops are the ones patrolling the streets now with some local collaborators showing my guys the ropes, etc.

I'll usually impose (as Romans) Type III Gov't on someone that needed to get crushed like Carthage proper, and eventually as time goes on continue to remove local religious and civil structures and changing the government type into Type II dependent upon citizen happiness/loyalty, troop strength in the region, and the attributes of my governor.

Personally I take satisfaction in conquering Carthage as the last Carthaginian city and thus annihilating the Carthaginian faction, but in my eyes it's still a great city so I generally leave the populace alone.

That can be a fun way to topple your foes to the south, but I find more satisfaction obliterating their crown jewel immediately and often destroying everything in the city and using cheats to drop the population to 400 (effectively "razing/salting" it, etc.) I won't even begin to rebuild the city for 100 years after I take it. Once Carthage goes, I usually still have a couple stacks of capable foes to destroy, so I let my main general go out and earn "Vanquisher of the Carthaginians" and "Imperator" for his triumph. I liken it to exterminating rats or cockroaches that flee after you bash the nest.

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

[Ludens]

Even though it's almost certainly just a story, however, it's interesting that there's no mention of the boy's citizenship. If the prohibition was only against sacrificing Roman citizens, then I have to think that Dio would have specifically noted that that it was a Roman boy. This suggests that, to the Roman mind, it's ok to sacrifice humans in extreme circumstances (e.g. post-Cannae) when it's for a "good cause," but not ok to do so for a bad one (e.g. the Catiline Conspiracy).

Interesting indeed. Another interpretation may be that humans may be sacrificed for the state, but not for individual gain (although Catiline would no doubt argue that his cause was that of the state). For the record: there was another incident in which the Romans ordered human sacrifice after a catastrophe (IIRC the battle of Arausio), but that is the last known instance of religious human sacrifice in Rome.

[Cimon]

Interesting indeed. Another interpretation may be that humans may be sacrificed for the state, but not for individual gain (although Catiline would no doubt argue that his cause was that of the state). For the record: there was another incident in which the Romans ordered human sacrifice after a catastrophe (IIRC the battle of Arausio), but that is the last known instance of religious human sacrifice in Rome.

After doing a little more looking, I found that Pliny wrote that Rome explicitly forbid human sacrifice in 97BC. Pliny wrote, "At last, in the year of the City 657, Cneius Cornelius Lentulus and P. Licinius Crassus being consuls, a decree forbidding human sacrifices was passed by the senate; from which period the celebration of these horrid rites ceased in public, and, for some time, altogether." (Pliny, 30.3).

Following on your point, Ludens, about the possible difference of sacrifice being for the state or individual gain, Tacitus attributes Germanicus's failing health to curses worked by human sacrifice. He says, "And certainly there were found hidden in the floor and in the walls disinterred remains of human bodies, incantations and spells, and the name of Germanicus inscribed on leaden tablets, half-burnt cinders smeared with blood, and other horrors by which in popular belief souls are devoted so the infernal deities." (Tacitus, Annals 2.69).

That again sounds like a story to me, rather than reality, but it again points to using human sacrifice for a "bad cause" or for "individual's gain" (and now also at a time when it's formally illegal), rather than for a "good cause" or for the "state's gain."

Sorry if I'm continuing to knock this thread off-topic. Perhaps the subject should be broken out?

[Ludens]

Sorry if I'm continuing to knock this thread off-topic. Perhaps the subject should be broken out?

I am not sure if people want to continue debating the original topic. If you do, let me know and I will split the threads.

[Unintended BM]

I think the original topic has been thouroughly discussed. I say go about your business with discussing human sacrifice or whatever.

[Skoran]

I am playing a Baktria campaign. But what can I destroy when I take a saka town.

I am not talking roleplay here, but all those nomadic building give no advantages (like happiness, health, ...) so I destroy them. Is it smart to do?

[Mulceber]

Claiming monopoly on divinity =/= atheism, I daresay... but no, it's not going to win you too many friends among the polytheists whose entire pantheon you just snubbed.

It may not equal atheism, but remember, you're looking at it from a modern viewpoint - a viewpoint which is habituated to the idea that there is only one god. To the Romans, who believed in MANY gods, and were used to regularly accepting new gods into their Pantheon, the difference between denying all the gods and denying all but one of the gods was negligible. And this isn't just Phillipus and I imposing our viewpoints onto this: it's in the history books that atheism was one of the most frequent attacks made against Christians and Jews.

As for the actual question of this post, I tend to destroy all government and MIC buildings (unless the latter can be used by my faction) when I take a town, but otherwise leave it completely intact. Of course I'll be happy if, when I continue building, my new buildings replace some of the old buildings and thus acculturate the locals, but I'm not going to destroy them myself. The exception is if the city in question is the capital of a faction which has been particularly belligerent (ie. Roma when I played Karthadastim, Kart-Hadast when I played Romani, etc), in which case I level everything I can, with the exception of particularly useful buildings (such as the docks at Kart-Hadast). -M