Somnium Apostatae Iuliani Discussion

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

will arabs have straight swords, wrap around clothes (sort of like the hajij), and helmets?:hmmm:
will medina be correctly renamed Yathrib?
will I play as the arabs when this comes out?

besides the last question (a yes), stay tned for the release of imperium julianorum 3

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Will that be soon, because I have already started a campaign as Julian in 355 on v2, which I downloaded 2 days ago...

[belisarius12]

will the ere be playable sorry for my engliich by the way i am from belgium

[misplacedgeneral]

They are playable in the 355AD campaign, as the Imperium Constanini (The faction under the responsibility of the Emperor Constantius II. In 361AD, this faction no longer exists for Julian has asserted his authority over the whole empire.

I heard IJ3 is near to coming, is this true?

Doing an Armenian campaign right now.

[seriousbusiness]

How many people are working on this?

I think historically this is working out well, but development seems pretty slow.

I too have a soft spot for Julian. He was somewhat the embodiment of the old heroic 'philosopher king' attitudes and tried to prevent or slow the slide into feudalism and serfdom (initiated by Diocletian). I used to hold him in much lower regard, but now I really feel for his perspective. The interesting argument is how the medieval period truly started and whether that was and inevitable consequence of Rome's collapse (it certainly appears to be).

I don't like it quite as much as the other submods, but I feel it has even more potential.

[julianus heraclius]

[quote=seriousbusiness;3761864]

How many people are working on this?

Well, basically me, with a little help from my friends

I think historically this is working out well, but development seems pretty slow.

It's slow becasue I have been reskinning 4-5 factions and that is slow going, but the mod is nearly reeady.

I too have a soft spot for Julian. He was somewhat the embodiment of the old heroic 'philosopher king' attitudes and tried to prevent or slow the slide into feudalism and serfdom (initiated by Diocletian). I used to hold him in much lower regard, but now I really feel for his perspective. The interesting argument is how the medieval period truly started and whether that was and inevitable consequence of Rome's collapse (it certainly appears to be).

I don't like it quite as much as the other submods, but I feel it has even more potential.

That's OK, it's all about choice really. Anyway, I too love this period and have always wanted to have a mod that has a combined Roman Empire. After this is finished it's on to Restitvtor Orbis, another period that I truely love.

Cheers

[Valentinian Victor]

We must not forget that Julian's disasterous campaign against the Sasanid Persians set the scene for the Goth's victory in 378AD. Jovian was forced to cede territory over to the Sasanids and Valens was killed at Adrianopolis before he could mount his own invasion to take this territory back. Whilst I would agree Julian showed a fair amount of tactical skill in Gaul, this was all totally wiped away with his stupidity during his Sasanid campaign.

[julianus heraclius]

We must not forget that Julian's disasterous campaign against the Sasanid Persians set the scene for the Goth's victory in 378AD. Jovian was forced to cede territory over to the Sasanids and Valens was killed at Adrianopolis before he could mount his own invasion to take this territory back. Whilst I would agree Julian showed a fair amount of tactical skill in Gaul, this was all totally wiped away with his stupidity during his Sasanid campaign.

I'm sorry, I can't agree on this. How can Julian's failed Persian Expedition cause the Goths victory nearly 20 years later.

The Goths victory at Adrianople was because of issues that related at that time, namely the very poor handling of Gothic immigration across the Danube into Thrace, which included to profitering by some Roman officials, then the underestimation by Valens of the Goths strength and wanting glory for himself rather than waiting for reinforcements from Gratian.

I don't see the connection between all of this and Julian.

[legio_XX]

agreed im alittle cunfused plus I sure that the amry at adrianople could have defeated the goths they where a strong well trianed army that and they just got back form a eastren campaign it was all the as you said JH.

ps JH do you think that the army could have beat them? i do looking at what Ammianus Marcellinus said.

thank the god for Ammianus Marcellinus I love his wrightings!!!!

[Valentinian Victor]

I'm sorry, I can't agree on this. How can Julian's failed Persian Expedition cause the Goths victory nearly 20 years later.

The Goths victory at Adrianople was because of issues that related at that time, namely the very poor handling of Gothic immigration across the Danube into Thrace, which included to profitering by some Roman officials, then the underestimation by Valens of the Goths strength and wanting glory for himself rather than waiting for reinforcements from Gratian.

I don't see the connection between all of this and Julian.

There have been several critical reviews of Julians career and the impact his abortive invasion of Sasanid Persia had on the events following it. Valens had unsuccessfully attempted to tackle the Goths in a campaign lasting several years. He decided to turn his attention to what he believed would be a much more successful venture, attacking the Sasanids again. He could use the excuse of recapturing the territory ceded to the Sasanids by Jovian for this action. This was a direct result of Julians actions. And had Valens not been already about to invade Sasanid Persia when the crisis on the Danube broke out in 376AD, he may well have focused his entire attention on the Goths, making them nothing more than a footnote in history.
So, taking the longer term, more strategic view into account, Julian was in part to blame for Adrianopolis.
I have made a study of the Battle of Adrianopolis and the events leading upto it for over 20 years now, I would have thought that the years from 365AD to 388AD would have made a very interesting campaign setting for Rome Total War.

P.S. I'd like a link to your mod please?
P.P.S. How many of you realised that the Late Romans had constantly hired Goths as mercenaries and auxilliaries since 337AD and that Julian had Gothic troops with him on his Sasanid Persian adventure?

[julianus heraclius]

There have been several critical reviews of Julians career and the impact his abortive invasion of Sasanid Persia had on the events following it. Valens had unsuccessfully attempted to tackle the Goths in a campaign lasting several years. He decided to turn his attention to what he believed would be a much more successful venture, attacking the Sasanids again. He could use the excuse of recapturing the territory ceded to the Sasanids by Jovian for this action. This was a direct result of Julians actions. And had Valens not been already about to invade Sasanid Persia when the crisis on the Danube broke out in 376AD, he may well have focused his entire attention on the Goths, making them nothing more than a footnote in history.
So, taking the longer term, more strategic view into account, Julian was in part to blame for Adrianopolis.
I have made a study of the Battle of Adrianopolis and the events leading upto it for over 20 years now, I would have thought that the years from 365AD to 388AD would have made a very interesting campaign setting for Rome Total War.

P.S. I'd like a link to your mod please?
P.P.S. How many of you realised that the Late Romans had constantly hired Goths as mercenaries and auxilliaries since 337AD and that Julian had Gothic troops with him on his Sasanid Persian adventure?

You make some good points here, but remember that the roman emperors had dreamed of emulating Alexander since the days of Crassus. Julian was no exception, but it could be said that he was following on from Constantius II in regard to the Sassanids. There is no doubt that these expeditions were for glory and not necessarily for "defence" of the provinces, but again there is nearly twenty years between these events and many things happened between them.

I'm not defending Julian's decision for invading Persia, but his actions alone were not responsible for Adrianople, but it is good to discuss the issues.

For a link to the mod look at the download page for V2.01a. I am currently finalising the next version V3.0 which I am more than happy to send it to you. It is still in the BETA stage so not ready for public release.

I am considering including a campaign that starts in 364AD after Julian's death that includes Valentinian, Valens and the usurper Procopius (a relative of Julians).

Thanks for the ongoing discussion.

Cheers

[trent]

well most of us have a good clue that the goths fought alot in the roman armys trust me most of the feild and defence armys where mostly forigen troops not romans.

um I would think that if valens would have waited for just a small time then his ally in the west would have been there but he wanted glory so at that point in my oppinon he is a idiot sorry that may be to harsh but he could have waited.

[Valentinian Victor]

well most of us have a good clue that the goths fought alot in the roman armys trust me most of the feild and defence armys where mostly forigen troops not romans.

um I would think that if valens would have waited for just a small time then his ally in the west would have been there but he wanted glory so at that point in my oppinon he is a idiot sorry that may be to harsh but he could have waited.

There are a number of passages in Ammianus, Libanius, Jordanes etc about the Late Romans having 'Skythian' troops, now identified as Goths. The claim by Jordanes that the Romans had access to 40,000 Gothic auxilliaries must be viewed with more than a little suspicion. There is some evidence that the Goths were recruited in multiples of between 3000-4000 when they were not recruited directly into auxilia units. Julian probably inherited the Gothic troops he had on his Sasanid Persian campaign from Constantius II who had approached the Goths to provide assistance.

There were a number of possible reasons why Valens did not wait for the bulk of Gratian's army to arrive at Adrianopolis. Sebastian was wary of the Western Empire for reasons best read in Ammianus and other ancient authors works. This may have led him to counsel Valens assaulting the Goths before Gratian's arrival, against the advice of the two Western Generals, Richomere and Victor. Valens also had unsuccessfully campaigned against the Goths and this would give him a much needed victory he could call his own. Valens had also assembled a very large army, which may itself have contained Gothic troops as he had been actively recruiting from the Goths for his aborted Sasanid Persian campaign. He was therefore quite confident of a victory, especially since initial reports from his scouts indicated that the Goths moving near Adrianopolis was no more than 10,000 men strong. Also, Sebastians recent victory against a large Gothic raiding force would also have bolstered Valens armies moral. It is very difficult to judge the size of the army at Adrianopolis as Ammianus rather frustratingly does not give precise figures, but my own research would suggest the army was at least 30,000 men strong. From a large body of modern research into the Late Roman Army it would appear reasonable to state that the Romans at that time did not prefer to fight an open battle unless the odds were heavily in their favour.
Peter Connelly has recently written a superb article about Adrianopolis that rather worringly mirrors much of what is going to be in my proposed book! (I may have to contact Peter and run my manuscript past him just in case I get accused of plagarism!!!)

[Valentinian Victor]

You make some good points here, but remember that the roman emperors had dreamed of emulating Alexander since the days of Crassus. Julian was no exception, but it could be said that he was following on from Constantius II in regard to the Sassanids. There is no doubt that these expeditions were for glory and not necessarily for "defence" of the provinces, but again there is nearly twenty years between these events and many things happened between them.

I'm not defending Julian's decision for invading Persia, but his actions alone were not responsible for Adrianople, but it is good to discuss the issues.

For a link to the mod look at the download page for V2.01a. I am currently finalising the next version V3.0 which I am more than happy to send it to you. It is still in the BETA stage so not ready for public release.

I am considering including a campaign that starts in 364AD after Julian's death that includes Valentinian, Valens and the usurper Procopius (a relative of Julians).

Thanks for the ongoing discussion.

Cheers

I'd be very interested in V3 if thats at all possible.
I'd also be interested in the post 364AD campaign as well.

[Emperor Domitianus]

I have always though that Julianus was the real last Roman Emperor being able to reunite the Roman might. The V3 will be for sure a success as it has been the V2.
Sorry if I haven't been able to help you as I hoped to. I am so busy with studies...
Btw if you mind to appoint for a testing I would be glad. This period I am so fund on playing RTW mods so much!!!
The 364 campaign would be interesting too. I suppose there will be again WRE and ERE.
Trying to reunite the Empire again after Julianus would be fun for sure!!!
Thx for your efforts you are putting in this.

[Valentinian Victor]

I have always though that Julianus was the real last Roman Emperor being able to reunite the Roman might. The V3 will be for sure a success as it has been the V2.
Sorry if I haven't been able to help you as I hoped to. I am so busy with studies...
Btw if you mind to appoint for a testing I would be glad. This period I am so fund on playing RTW mods so much!!!
The 364 campaign would be interesting too. I suppose there will be again WRE and ERE.
Trying to reunite the Empire again after Julianus would be fun for sure!!!
Thx for your efforts you are putting in this.

Its a pity Valentinian I died when he did as its almost certain that the Gothic troubles from 376AD would have been handled much differently. This would then have led to the Roman Empire having at its disposal many thousands of willing Gothic troops, which in turn may well have led to a successful invasion of Sasanid Persia, which in turn would have seen a Roman Empire unlike any Empire seen before or since.

[Latro]

I am currently finalising the next version V3.0

Yay !!

Brilliant news.

[Emperor Domitianus]

Its a pity Valentinian I died when he did as its almost certain that the Gothic troubles from 376AD would have been handled much differently. This would then have led to the Roman Empire having at its disposal many thousands of willing Gothic troops, which in turn may well have led to a successful invasion of Sasanid Persia, which in turn would have seen a Roman Empire unlike any Empire seen before or since.

True. A real pity. Probably history would have been different and Rome would have lasted even more instead of that useless byzantine kingdom.

[julianus heraclius]

Its a pity Valentinian I died when he did as its almost certain that the Gothic troubles from 376AD would have been handled much differently. This would then have led to the Roman Empire having at its disposal many thousands of willing Gothic troops, which in turn may well have led to a successful invasion of Sasanid Persia, which in turn would have seen a Roman Empire unlike any Empire seen before or since.

Ah, history is littered with "what ifs". I dream of things like this which is what makes our mods so interesting and exciting as we get the chance to rewrite history, which can be fun.

But yes, there do seem to be pivitol moments in history which changes the direction of things, much like moments in a football game that turn the game around completely, but determining the exact moment is the key.

[legio_XX]

True. A real pity. Probably history would have been different and Rome would have lasted even more instead of that useless byzantine kingdom.

my good sir! we do not call them the byzantines, they where still the romans through and through (and would have no clue as to why they are being called that)and had a very strong millitary and rather fallowable polictics, the fact that they fell is the only thing realy calling them weak.
the legions evovled and so did the Romans.

sorry had to be said