What is safe to destroy?

[Unintended BM]

From a roleplaying point of view. I'm being the Romans, and I just took over Kart-Hadast and the town south of it. It would probably be right from a roman perspective to destroy some of Kart-Hadast's wonders, but which ones? And other cities too. Like, I don't know if the romans would keep the Makedonian royal tombs, or the Colossus, etc.

[Ludens]

Safe? We'll, there will be no lasting consequences to destroying them, other than that you lose the bonuses associated with it. Romans were practical people, and they respected local customs, particularly religion, unless these became focal points of rebellion. I would leave burial monuments alone and only tear down others if you have particular reason for hating that faction.

[johnhughthom]

Well the Romans were pragmatic enough that keeping any wonder that gives you a bonus is well within role-playing in my view. I doubt they would have destroyed the Colossus and there was enough respect for Alexander within Roman society to envisage a respect for Makedone royal tombs even if he wasn't buried there. As for Carthage, destroying everything and enslaving the populace could work roleplay wise. Personally I see it as a waste of a great city and don't think it's too much of a stretch too argue a section of the Senate, or a charismatic general conquering it, arguing to keep it intact and winning out.

[Julianus]

Concerning how the republic and early empire Romans looked upon Alexander and his military might, I came across two interesting sources.

In his History of Rome, 9.17 - 9.19, Livy argued that if Alexander did invade Italy he would be utterly destroyed. And in the life of Pyrrhus, Plutarch recorded the Romans of that time also made the same assertion.

Those two were both armchair historians, not sure if Arrian or Polybius ever made similar predications.

[alexanderthegreater]

Concerning how the republic and early empire Romans looked upon Alexander and his military might, I came across two interesting sources.

In his History of Rome, 9.17 - 9.19, Livy argued that if Alexander did invade Italy he would be utterly destroyed. And in the life of Pyrrhus, Plutarch recorded the Romans of that time also made the same assertion.

Those two were both armchair historians, not sure if Arrian or Polybius ever made similar predications.

Just looked that up (yay for google). Livius seems to be be making a rather strong argument. Im going to make a threat about that.

On-topic, I destroy all the wonders that give me no bonusses due to my faction (such as the docks of carthage when playing rome) Anything that gives me bonusses I leave standing, because you cant rebuild it. I only destroy those wonders when playing on VH and you really need money.

[bobbin]

You should also bare in mind that any structure in a city that doesn't belong to your factions culture group (which given the romans have their own culture group AFAIK would mean any non roman structure) reduces public order.

[johnhughthom]

Concerning how the republic and early empire Romans looked upon Alexander and his military might, I came across two interesting sources.

In his History of Rome, 9.17 - 9.19, Livy argued that if Alexander did invade Italy he would be utterly destroyed. And in the life of Pyrrhus, Plutarch recorded the Romans of that time also made the same assertion.

Those two were both armchair historians, not sure if Arrian or Polybius ever made similar predications.

Now that you mention it my basis for Roman respect for Alexander was based on two likely mythical events, Scipio's conversation with Hannibal about great generals (and what it implied Roman opinion on Alexander to be) and Caesar's depression on his birthday at not achieving what Alexander had at the same age. I am sure I have read other cases of favourable opinion toward Alexander, but I can't think of any...

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Safe? We'll, there will be no lasting consequences to destroying them, other than that you lose the bonuses associated with it. Romans were practical people, and they respected local customs, particularly religion, unless these became focal points of rebellion. I would leave burial monuments alone and only tear down others if you have particular reason for hating that faction.

But the Romans did hate Carthage more than most other enemies due to Hannibal's exploits in Italy. Also they hated the Carthaginian religion, which involved human sacrifice, which Romans thought was barbaric.

Rome didn't always respect local religions. Look how they treated the Druids in Britain - wiped them out.

[Watchman]

Mainly on account of troublemaking - the Romans had a pretty Assyrian approach to that kind of thing. Not like they gave a damn otherwise, and I can't out of hand recall reading of a comparable suppression of Druids on the continent...

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that all the other Punic cities the Romans took didn't get the same "raze to ground and salt the earth" treatment Carthage got singled out for.

[Ludens]

But the Romans did hate Carthage more than most other enemies due to Hannibal's exploits in Italy. Also they hated the Carthaginian religion, which involved human sacrifice, which Romans thought was barbaric.

Rome didn't always respect local religions. Look how they treated the Druids in Britain - wiped them out.

Rome did indeed hate Carthage; but that was in history, not in the OP's campaign. If he won an easy victory over Carthage there is no reason why he should treat Carthage harsher than other cities.

I wrote that Romans left religions alone "unless these became focal points of rebellion".

For the record: the Romans were not entirely opposed to human sacrifice. They did it themselves after Cannae. And their resistance is somewhat hypocritical to modern eyes, as the Romans did celebrate human slaughter in the form gladiatorial games (which also had a religious origin).

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that all the other Punic cities the Romans took didn't get the same "raze to ground and salt the earth" treatment Carthage got singled out for.

But during the Punic Wars, the only truly Carthaginian city was Carthage itself. The other 'Carthaginian' cities were allied Numidian, Spanish, African, and Libyan cities, under Carthaginian domination. Not actually Carthaginian cities.

Just like the Romans at that time. The only truly Roman city was Rome itself. The other 'Roman' cities were allied Italian, Sicilian, Greek, Etruscan, Ligurian, Gallic and Spanish cities, under Roman domination. Not actually Roman cities.

So with that attitude in mind, it makes sense for the Romans to only destroy Carthage itself and treat the other former Carthaginian-controlled cities as being 'liberated' from Carthaginian 'tyranny' and now safe under the 'protection' of Rome.

For the record: the Romans were not entirely opposed to human sacrifice. They did it themselves after Cannae. And their resistance is somewhat hypocritical to modern eyes, as the Romans did celebrate human slaughter in the form gladiatorial games (which also had a religious origin).

But the Romans sacrificed a Gaul and a Greek after Cannae. Enemies, in other words. Not their own people. And then only in the direst of emergencies. Unlike the Carthaginians, who routinely sacrificed children of their own blood. In Roman eyes, that was a key difference.

Gladiatorial games, again, a different matter, because gladiators were just slaves, not Roman citizens. Slaves in the arena were mostly captured enemy warriors, who deserved nothing better. So that wasn't hypocritical, in Roman eyes.

[Ludens]

But the Romans sacrificed a Gaul and a Greek after Cannae. Enemies, in other words. Not their own people. And then only in the direst of emergencies. Unlike the Carthaginians, who routinely sacrificed children of their own blood. In Roman eyes, that was a key difference.

Gladiatorial games, again, a different matter, because gladiators were just slaves, not Roman citizens. Slaves in the arena were mostly captured enemy warriors, who deserved nothing better. So that wasn't hypocritical, in Roman eyes.

So what the Romans were opposed to was religious sacrifice of citizens rather than humans?

I can understand their reasoning, but that does not change the fact that they did commit human sacrifice. Unless, of course, one argues that enemies/slaves do not count as humans, which simply leads to another form of hypocrisy.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Unless, of course, one argues that enemies/slaves do not count as humans, which simply leads to another form of hypocrisy.

Slaves indeed didn't count as human - they were property, not people.

[Duguntz]

Guys, human sacrifice is fun, but that was not the topic! Hmmm, role-play reason, I destroy all marvels that can be destroyed to make sure that my recently annihilated ennemies remember who`s their new master. Everything razed to the ground ,BUT what give my troops moral and experience bonuses... And it gives nice money in my pocket for more conquest!!! Well... I'm not playing the barbaroi, so that was only one opinion on how to rolepay!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mainly on account of troublemaking - the Romans had a pretty Assyrian approach to that kind of thing. Not like they gave a damn otherwise, and I can't out of hand recall reading of a comparable suppression of Druids on the continent...

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that all the other Punic cities the Romans took didn't get the same "raze to ground and salt the earth" treatment Carthage got singled out for.

The Romans were pragmatically Polytheistic, when encountering a religion they logically assumed they were dealing with either a new God or, more likely, a local varient of one of their own deities or cults. Hence the violent reaction against Atheistic religions like Christianity.

So what the Romans were opposed to was religious sacrifice of citizens rather than humans?

I can understand their reasoning, but that does not change the fact that they did commit human sacrifice. Unless, of course, one argues that enemies/slaves do not count as humans, which simply leads to another form of hypocrisy.

It takes on a very different dimension when you consider that the Romans considered, like the Greeks, that the Polity had a sacred duty to protect it's members. This was something that they considered to be sacred to the Gods who lived within the city. The Carthaginian practice of sacrificing their own children, bastards or not, could only anger the Gods in Roman eyes.

A conviction ultimately borne out by their defeat.

[Ibrahim]

But the Romans did hate Carthage more than most other enemies due to Hannibal's exploits in Italy. Also they hated the Carthaginian religion, which involved human sacrifice, which Romans thought was barbaric.

Rome didn't always respect local religions. Look how they treated the Druids in Britain - wiped them out.

and that is from a people who buried a few slaves in the aftermath of Cannae, in order to appease the Gods. (IIRC)

now to topic: I would suggest not tearing any wonders down, as they may come in handy in the future. but one can tear down all the other non-wonder buildings

[Watchman]

Hence the violent reaction against Atheistic religions like Christianity.

I'm pretty sure you mean monotheistic.
Mind you, I'm willing to bet the pretty obvious theological clash there was also the reason the Jews occasionally got persecuted - after all their monotheistic faith pretty much by default denied the others' divinities...

[Ludens]

Guys, human sacrifice is fun, (..!)

Ah, we have a volunteer.

It takes on a very different dimension when you consider that the Romans considered, like the Greeks, that the Polity had a sacred duty to protect it's members. This was something that they considered to be sacred to the Gods who lived within the city. The Carthaginian practice of sacrificing their own children, bastards or not, could only anger the Gods in Roman eyes.

I see. It does make sense, but it still means that Romans did not object to human sacrifice, merely to citizen sacrifice. BTW, I thought there was no ironclad evidence that the Carthaginians still sacrificed live children during EB's time-frame.

I'm pretty sure you mean monotheistic.
Mind you, I'm willing to bet the pretty obvious theological clash there was also the reason the Jews occasionally got persecuted - after all their monotheistic faith pretty much by default denied the others' divinities...

IIRC monotheism was seen as atheism in EB's time-frame, since it denied the gods apart from one unknown Hebrew god.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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]

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?

[Watchman]

Yes.

[Scutarii]

What about generic things like a Germanic market if I am Roman?

Does it still count as German culturally and thus the public order issue? I am assuming that Germanic settlements have some kind of order penalty to non-Sweboz factions as that is the only way I can fathom how a town with a 512 population can be rebelling when over 3000 Romans are occupying it...