|
DarkCrawler posted:They are going to make Rome II Total War? I hope not. My experience with CA games is the sequel always pales in comparison to the original game.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:They are going to make Rome II Total War? God I hope so. Fun and embarrassingly goony fact about me, Rome Total War is a large part of why I switched from Soviet history to Roman history. I had very little interest in ancient history prior to that game. NLJP posted:How likely was it that your average Dictator could have actually tried to become monarch? They wouldn't have had the support. The later civil wars were fueled by the ability of generals to march around with armies that owed them personal loyalty rather than loyalty to the state. Dictators were both granted extraordinary power but also confined, since it was a legitimate office. The popularity of the Cincinnatus story shows that the Romans were aware of the dangers (also the fact that the dictatorship stopped being used) but I suspect if a dictator had tried to take over the army would've told him to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:God I hope so. Fun and embarrassingly goony fact about me, Rome Total War is a large part of why I switched from Soviet history to Roman history. I had very little interest in ancient history prior to that game. Did you ever play the mod Europa Barbarorum? It's so sweet. I'd love to hear any comments you have about its balance between historical accuracy and gameplay. http://www.europabarbarorum.com/
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:God I hope so. Fun and embarrassingly goony fact about me, Rome Total War is a large part of why I switched from Soviet history to Roman history. I had very little interest in ancient history prior to that game. To also be super goony, Medieval Total War is basically what got me interested in the Byzantine part of Roman history. I played as them constantly, and basically for the most superficial reasons. Their map color was purple and I liked the Orthodox cross more than the Catholic one or Islamic crescent. Before then I never really read anything on Byzantium but after playing the game enough I decided to figure out what the real historical deal with this purple blob was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
The Roman's ended up fighting a lot of different weapons, cultures, armies and I assume different tactics. Did they end up changing their strategy and tactics vs different opponents or were the various barbarian armies/peoples able to be fought the same way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
For the most part the legions were effective against whatever they came up against. The tactics of the legion itself evolve but I don't recall any time when a specific opponent changed things. Heavy infantry was never able to deal effectively with horse archers, this remained a problem until gunpowder weapons. Generally speaking the training, discipline, and technology of the legion was able to defeat anything they came across. Until late antiquity almost every Roman defeat is 1) massively outnumbered 2) ambushed or 3) horse archers. When fighting Hannibal the Romans eventually went to harassment and avoidance of actual battles since Hannibal crushed them in any straight up fight, I don't think that's really what you mean though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Comstar posted:The Roman's ended up fighting a lot of different weapons, cultures, armies and I assume different tactics. Did they end up changing their strategy and tactics vs different opponents or were the various barbarian armies/peoples able to be fought the same way? A bit of both, as would be expected. The Romans were good at adapting the tactics and technologies of their opponents to their own needs. Their equipment was largely a compilation of Celtic and Iberian weaponry. Their organization was inspired by the Greek phalanxes and the mercenary armies of the Carthaginians. But like Alexander's empire before them, the Romans also took advantage of the limited avenues of communication; once they had figured out a winning combination on the battlefield, they'd happily use it over and over on new enemies with strategically obsolete armies. The largest change in their doctrines came about during the Marian reforms. This was largely a logistical improvement, but allowed the Roman empire to wield a truly professional military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms edit: I always liked making the comparison between the two most popular depictions of Roman combat: the film Gladiator and the HBO series Rome. https://vimeo.com/18187473 Gladiator is pretty good at showing off the absolute best equipment available to the Romans. They have the iconic "lorica segmentata" armor (all that awesome looking banded armor). There's the siege engines firing Greek fire, and the rows of well-drilled archers and heavy cavalry. But not all of this gear was universally available - it was expensive and many legions simply wouldn't have all the bells and whistles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uocQ8t9K9FA Rome is great at displaying the core strength of the Roman military: The well-drilled and flexible heavy infantry that could engage a wave of enemy attackers and come away with minimal casualties. They have the more traditional mail armor, and don't have a whole bunch of auxiliaries and specialist units, but that also allows their army to be a lot more responsive (Can you imagine Gladiator's massive set piece legion trying to attack a target 60 miles away? It would take Caesar's legionnaires only three days to march there) Basic concepts of communication and organization constituted major advantages - and indeed it's something that people still have trouble with (whether we're talking about a Free Syrian Army militia or a competitive FPS videogame team). Both films portray the dangers of allowing a battle to degenerate into a general melee. Whether it's Rome's Pullo leaving the formation in his bloodlust, or Gladiator's General Maximus who leads his cavalry into a deathtrap of axe infantry, it's pretty clear why the Romans preferred their methodical style of combat. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Did you ever play the mod Europa Barbarorum? It's so sweet. I'd love to hear any comments you have about its balance between historical accuracy and gameplay. Extended Greek Mod is another cool mod that ups the historical nature a bit and adds a bunch of new cities without making the game super complex. CA games are like bethesda, they produce a solid core that modders then make amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Yeah, the Romans would freely take technology and tactics that worked better than what they were doing. That's more of an influence than having to change their method of fighting to deal with any particular enemy. The legion was the first modern army, if you didn't neuter its strengths somehow (ambushing out of formation, using more mobile forces) you were screwed. Even in late antiquity, the victories of the Germans weren't really about any strengths the Germans had. The legions were weak, and so many Germans had served in them that their enemies were intimately familiar with their tactics, strengths, and weaknesses. The communication thing is important and overlooked too, for centuries the Romans were fighting new groups of people who had no idea what they were up against. Rumors of the Roman army spread widely but solid information was rare. Imagine you were in one of these tribes, all the combat you'd ever seen had been loosely organized groups of fighters, armies levied by your local king. Guys with their own equipment, good fighters but not a complex thing--you just went out and fought. Then the Romans show up. Twenty thousand guys, dressed the same, moving as a single unit, perfect discipline. An unbroken wall of identical heavily armed and armored opponents. It would've been terrifying. Which, of course, was the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Media question, is the HBO Rome series worth watching? I've only ever seen small clips like the above, and while usually quite good isn't an indication of an entire show. I need a new series to pick up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Yes. It kicks rear end and is also the most accurate (not in terms of history but in terms of depiction of Rome) Roman thing I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
For sure. And to add another addition to my little film history class, here's one of my favorite scenes from Rome portraying the Battle of Philippi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wQ_6cVXTQk It shows the scope of the major conflicts, and it's a cautionary tale of the kind of battle that would happen when Romans went up against other fighters that knew their tactics. 200,000+ legionaries fighting against each other in an evenly-matched civil war. Including the auxilia, historians estimate that half a million soldiers fought each other under the standard of Rome. They knew each other's tactics and each could counter the use of specialty units and other ranged attacks, so they were forced into a series of close-order battles. It was an absolute slaughter. But the film also portrays the importance of communication. In the dust of battle, even the generals had very little idea of what was going on. The only way of finding out was via couriers. In real life, the battle was ultimately decided because of a miscommunication that caused Cassius to believe he had lost the battle and Brutus had been killed. In reality Brutus had won a major victory over Marc Antony, and while Cassius' camp had been overrun it had cost Octavian's army twice as many casualties (18,000 soldiers) and Octavian was hiding in a swamp. At the same time, the Republican fleet had won a major victory at sea as well, cutting the Imperial legions off from supplies. But Cassius thought all was lost, and he committed suicide. Without his strategy and leadership, Brutus was forced to contend alone, and within three weeks he fell as well. And the Imperial Rome was born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Philippi Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Rome is really good and the costuming/sets is super accurate and cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Would it be fair to describe the strength of the Roman legions as that they have the killing/staying power of heavy infantry (like the phalanx formations), but the speed and flexibility of medium infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Would it be fair to describe the strength of the Roman legions as that they have the killing/staying power of heavy infantry (like the phalanx formations), but the speed and flexibility of medium infantry. I would say flexibility/adaptability especially. The real strength of the Roman legions, in my opinion, is that they were divided into smaller units which had their "NCOs" (centurions or military tribunes, basically) who could command from the front lines and adapt to situations. A great example of this is during the second Roman-Macedonian war at the battle of Cynoscephalae. Obviously the Macedonians weren't anywhere as close to the level they had been at under Alexander, but they were a pretty professional army, and the battles between legion and phalanx were mostly indecisive. At Cynoscephalae the two armies literally stumbled on to each other and then they did what two opposing armies generally do and started fighting. It looked like the Macedonians were going to win the day but a military tribune was able to rally together 20 maniples (smaller division of a legion, each was about 120 men) and exploit a weak spot in the Macedonian line, which ended up turning the battle into a rout in the Romans favor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Rome stopped using the phalanx in the 310s or so during the Samnite wars. BCE obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Didn't the triarii fight as a phalanx? Cause they were around until the Marian reforms obviously. Although I guess their phalanx would have been a shallow one at most because they were half strength maniples compared to hastati or pricipes, and if they were fighting in the first place your legion was probably in deep poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
The triarii did fight in something of a phalanx, but the smaller spears made it more flexible than the Macedonian sarissa phalanx that we're usually talking about. It was also a last ditch effort, ideally the triarii would never be engaged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
The Apostate. Tell me about him. From a cursory study he seems extremely important. I don't think there's been a mention of him yet. edit: Important may have been the wrong word, as opposed to personally interesting. Twat McTwatterson fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:The Apostate. Tell me about him. From a cursory study he seems extremely important. One of the many many Julians? He's not usually considered that important. Notable mostly because he was the last non-Christian emperor, and he tried to roll things back to the pre-Christian ways. He didn't want to kill off or persecute Christians, it was impossible by that point anyway, but he wanted to get them out of the government. It was a symptom of a common belief that Rome's troubles were the result of abandoning old Roman values. Gibbon puts forward the same basic argument in his work. The decline of civic virtue and the values that tied the state together were no doubt part of the problem Rome faced, but this really started in the 100s BCE. It didn't have much to do with Christianity. Either way, he was not able to restore paganism nor was he able to bring back the old virtues. His intention for religious freedom and tolerance didn't materialize.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I always liked making the comparison between the two most popular depictions of Roman combat: the film Gladiator and the HBO series Rome. Is the Starz series Spartacus at all accurate in it’s depiction of Roman legionaries (don’t laugh!), particularly as it’s set at an earlier time than that of the Imperial Rome we normally see on screen? And are Gladiator/HBO Rome series the best screen depictions of the Roman army, or do older films match them for accuracy? I’m thinking mainly of Kubrick’s Spartacus, where there’s a scene near the end where a legion marches up a hill, Spartacus’s army rolls burning logs down the hill at them, and they all panic trying to get out of the way. My history teacher said that it was completely inaccurate, was he right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
Hemp Knight posted:Is the Starz series Spartacus at all accurate in it’s depiction of Roman legionaries (don’t laugh!), particularly as it’s set at an earlier time than that of the Imperial Rome we normally see on screen? I thought the Spartacus Legionairres wore Lorica Segmentata and the date was set in ~100 BC? Which would be historically incorrect. e: I remember reading somewhere about a ton of historical mistakes in the series. But whatever, the show kicks rear end regardless 
Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 10:40
|
|
|
What's your opinion of Xena: Warrior Princess' depiction of Romans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:The Apostate. Tell me about him. From a cursory study he seems extremely important. Julian is an interesting figure who probably would have been a lot more important/controversial if he hadn't gotten himself killed fairly early; he certainly had the education and intelligence to have been another Marcus Aurelius. One of the intriguing things about Julian is his very unorthodox way of thinking about...pretty much everything. Constantius was trying to get him killed fighting across the Rhine when Julian was Caesar and Constantius was Augustus; he frequently reinforced Julian off-schedule, etc. to disrupt his army. Most Roman generals would have gone ahead with the typical Roman tactics despite this; Julian's tactics were very different. He tended to use small-unit raiding tactics, ambushes - pretty modern stuff actually - to turn his low numbers into an advantage instead. Unfortunately, he was outmaneuvered by the Sassanids after an ill-advised attack on their capital and killed, leading to recurring issues on the Eastern border and a province being ceded to get the new emperor Jovian out of Persia alive afterward. I'm probably in a minority here, but I see Julian as a really interesting example of a potentially transformative person in history being cut down before they've actually done much - a sort of "what if Caesar had been killed in the Gallic Wars?" situation visibly played out. He's one of my favorite emperors, and certainly my favorite of the post-Crisis emperors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 14:14
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Media question, is the HBO Rome series worth watching? I've only ever seen small clips like the above, and while usually quite good isn't an indication of an entire show. I need a new series to pick up. Also, the battle in Gladiator is like the worst. Their line disintegrates immediately, "Maximus" charges his cavalry directly into a forest and there's like zero reason to even advance the infantry in the first place since the Roman archers/artillery are pounding the poo poo out of the Germans anyway. But this is Ridley Scott, who in Robin Hood made Maximus charge down the highly defensible cliffs of Dover to attack the enemy in the sand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Why would you land an invasion force under the cliffs of Dover. (I didn't see the movie.) Between Rome and Spartacus we have been spoiled with some great Rome TV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Are there any contemporary depictions of Rome or Romans in non-Roman art?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why would you land an invasion force under the cliffs of Dover. (I didn't see the movie.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why would you land an invasion force under the cliffs of Dover. (I didn't see the movie.) Julius Caesar tried to do so on his first incursion to Britain, but the defenders were waiting for him on the surrounding hills so he headed to elsewhere. The reason being that there was a good natural harbour there, nowadays the coastline looks completely different.  If Caesar could have landed there then it would have been a great spot - his ships would have been safe from Channel storms, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
physeter posted:Also, the battle in Gladiator is like the worst. Their line disintegrates immediately, "Maximus" charges his cavalry directly into a forest and there's like zero reason to even advance the infantry in the first place since the Roman archers/artillery are pounding the poo poo out of the Germans anyway. But this is Ridley Scott, who in Robin Hood made Maximus charge down the highly defensible cliffs of Dover to attack the enemy in the sand. Yeah definitely. The actual tactics and strategies used in Gladiator should stand as an example of why the Romans didn't rush headlong into combat. But what I like about the film is that it's one of the few productions that has the money to put together a battle scene that shows off the full weight of an Imperial legion in the field. It would never happen like that, particularly not in Germania, but it's a good visual display.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
What was patronage? I get from Wikipedia that it was some quasi-legal arrangement somewhat similar to lord/vassal, with reciprocal obligations. I found the references to patrons in the Twelve Tables, so it was an old system. How did it play out though? Would a young guy with ambition go negotiate with an old, rich man to become a client, or were these family ties? How did people choose/change patrons, and how much did patrons try to attract clients to increase their power, or were they already powerful and used clients more as assistants? How did Augustus change patronage as patron of the whole empire? Did patronage die off, or was it a seed of feudalism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Tewdrig posted:What was patronage? It was the element that gave Rome its cohesion, without which a full understanding of their society is impossible. The answer to some unexplained social phenomena, like how could the Romans have so many laws and no real prisons, or how could thousands of recently freed slaves enter society every year and not break things, is usually "the patronage system". It's also very rarely mentioned in movies/tv so most "Rome buffs" don't even know it existed. To its credit, the HBO show features it a number of times (Atia's levy, Vorenus' levy, Niobe giving money to the women visiting her socially), but unless the viewer knows what it is, it will just slip past. I've been thinking of doing a write up but since it's such a central question I'll defer to Grand Fromage. physeter fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Hemp Knight posted:Is the Starz series Spartacus at all accurate in it’s depiction of Roman legionaries (don’t laugh!), particularly as it’s set at an earlier time than that of the Imperial Rome we normally see on screen? I think that the modern Starz series Spartacus is relatively accurate, all things considered. It's just that the HBO series just blows everything else out of the water and is in a whole different class. Older films like Kubrick's Spartacus and it's earlier companion Ben-Hur were quite accurate for their time. Their focus was always going to be on getting the scale right, and in that they're probably better than just about anything we have today (we'll use CGI to make things epic, but it just isn't the same as seeing tens of thousands of people running around on screen)*. But the writing was limited by the period and the historical awareness. I particularly like this clip from Ben-Hur for showcasing those attributes. And it also has one other thing that you won't find anywhere else - horse-racing. Arena races were as big of a thing as gladiator fighting (bigger, in many areas and time periods), but because modern audiences don't like horse racing it isn't common to include the sport in our films. We prefer boxing, MMA, pro-wrestling, and football - and our films reflect that (though an argument could be made that it is our animal protection laws that prevent us from making those types of films). Fortunately we have one film that focuses on the Circus Maximus rather than the Colosseum: *As a footnote: When Ben-Hur was filmed they experienced a very Roman arena-riot: quote:Seven thousand extras were hired to cheer in the stands.[10][143][154] Economic conditions in Italy were poor at the time, and as shooting for the chariot scene wound down only 1,500 extras were needed on any given day. On June 6, more than 3,000 people seeking work were turned away. The crowd rioted, throwing stones and assaulting the set's gates until police arrived and dispersed them.[155] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwi3xROzpSE Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Alright so I've been watching the first two episodes of Rome this morning, and someone with more toga etiquette please explain why Cato is the only one constantly wearing the dark purple toga. Is it a subtle reference to this from wikipedia, Cato protesting the Republic being in danger?quote:Toga pulla: Literally just "dark toga". It was worn mainly by mourners, but could also be worn in times of private danger or public anxiety. It was sometimes used as a protest of sorts—when Cicero was exiled, the Senate resolved to wear togae pullae as a demonstration against the decision.[17]
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Alright so I've been watching the first two episodes of Rome this morning, and someone with more toga etiquette please explain why Cato is the only one constantly wearing the dark purple toga. Is it a subtle reference to this from wikipedia, Cato protesting the Republic being in danger? Cato the Younger idolized his deceased ancestor, Cato the Elder. So he liked to dress like him as well, which meant wearing a very old fashioned manner of dress. It would be like the great-great-great-grandson of George Washington running for President while always wearing a tri-cornered hat and powdered wig in public. Yes, he really was that annoying. Edit: overall darker coarser cloth was worn by commoners and Cato the Elder was a notoriously cheap dick who was constantly extolling the virtues of parsimony, so he wore cheap clothes. But Mark Antony's dwarf messenger slave being dressed up the same way, and then named "Cato", made Season 1 for me. "Off with you now, Cato." physeter fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
physeter posted:Cato the Younger idolized his deceased ancestor, Cato the Elder. So he liked to dress like him as well, which meant wearing a very old fashioned manner of dress. It would be like the great-great-great-grandson of George Washington running for President while always wearing a tri-cornered hat and powdered wig in public. Yes, he really was that annoying. Well Cato the Younger was only the great-grandson of Cato the Elder, so it'd be more like dressing up as Theodore Roosevelt. But yeah Marc Antony and his little buddy was the tits. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Can someone tell me why is the Western Rome are always shown in either Red or Eastern Rome, Purple? Was there any clear reason of the colors itself? How much of our knowledge about the Roman Empire came from them in the first place? Was most of our knowledge came from the Church?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:Can someone tell me why is the Western Rome are always shown in either Red or Eastern Rome, Purple? Was there any clear reason of the colors itself? I don't know about that. In Civilization I, Rome (and England) was white.  I haven't seen red being associated with Rome myself. But Roman legions used red a lot (standards, cloaks, shields). Purple is really simple though. In antiquity to middle ages, Tyrian purple is associated with the emperor because it was extremely expensive, having to be extracted from a specific type of mollusk. You'd literally have to rule over an empire to be able to afford it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
physeter posted:like how could the Romans have so many laws and no real prisons, So, how exactly did this work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
They still prosecuted people for crimes. You could be fined, exiled, killed or enslaved if guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 21:09
|
|