A problem...

[Emperor Tom]

Ya so I beat the Grand Campaign only to find at the end no way to get to the new world. Man what a drag...

[Rodrico Stak]

The new world only becomes available when the event "The world is round" triggers. Then you have to build the highest level port and the highest level ships to get there.

[Emperor Tom]

How many turns until that happens? And is their a mod to get their easier?

[Rodrico Stak]

How many turns until that happens? And is their a mod to get their easier?

1. I think it usually happens around 1400 (the year, not turns - that's 160 turns, I think).
2. I don't know, but probably.

[Emperor Tom]

Well thats dumb, my campaign ended in 1326.

[The Sundance Kid]

Quite a few mods make it possible to sail to the Americas at the very start of the campaign with low-level ships, its not advised, however, as your early-era troops will get slaughtered by the natives. If you do get a mod, make sure you wait until, say, if you're Spain or Portugal, you have Sword and Buckler Men, Tercio Pikemen and Gunners before attempting to colonise. Otherwise, those Aztecs are tougher than they originally look.

Well thats dumb, my campaign ended in 1326.

Yes, but by 1326 no-one had suspected the world was a sphere, so it makes perfect sense that the Americas had not been discovered. Anyway, you can choose to keep playing, can't you? According to English history, the medieval period ends in 1485 with the death of Richard III and the New World was discovered in the 1500s, proving that this game doesn't even require it to be a possibility.

[Emperor Tom]

Yes but...isn't this game all about changing history? BTW so even with my skirmisher cavalry my moorish armies would still get crushed?

[Rodrico Stak]

Yes but...isn't this game all about changing history? BTW so even with my skirmisher cavalry my moorish armies would still get crushed?

The Aztecs start with very large armies, and their soldiers are quite powerful. Try a custom battle against them, and your question will be answered.

[Emperor Tom]

Well than, yes. Atleast I think. Sure they'll charge me and my guys will run while throwing their sprears. Desert Cavalry is quite useful. And it only gets better with Jenetes. But playing as the Natives is soooo hard. But what would I be expecting when I get their. Like Eagle warriors are crazy tough. Do they have them off the bat? What units do they "mass produce"?

[The Sundance Kid]

If we both started evolving technologically at the same rate from about 1000AD onwards, the Aztecs would probably have had laser guns by the time we got there.

Problem was, whereas in Europe and Asia there were tin and copper deposits close by to each other and therefore bronze was created quickly, in the Americas (or so I've heard) there were both minerals but far away from each other, so the new alloys weren't created as no one ever thought to, with the ores being located completley different. Makes you think.

[Emperor Tom]

I'm sorry dude, the Aztecs are mediocre. If it was them vs Rome, they'd be in cages within a decade. And thats giving them credit.

[The Sundance Kid]

Well they were fighting the Spaniards, over a millennia later, and the Noche Triste says otherwise.

[Rodrico Stak]

Well they were fighting the Spaniards, over a millennia later, and the Noche Triste says otherwise.

Not to mention that thousands of them were eliminated by disease the Spaniards brought with them - that's the main reason (or so I've always been told) that a mere 500 Conquistadores could conquer the immensely powerful Aztec Empire.

[Sokar Rostau]

Not to mention that thousands of them were eliminated by disease the Spaniards brought with them - that's the main reason (or so I've always been told) that a mere 500 Conquistadores could conquer the immensely powerful Aztec Empire.

It wasn't just 500 Spaniards that defeated the Aztecs. It was 500 Spaniards (actually somewhat more as Cortes recieved reinforcements at least once) and their tens of thousands of Tlascalan, and other, allies emboldened to rebel against their masters (the Tlascalans were already at least nominally independent from Aztec rule, but the others weren't). The final siege of Tenochtitlan was supposedly the equal of the siege of Jerusalem as the biggest mass slaughter in history prior to the First World War with an estimated million Aztec deaths in the assaults on the causeways and the resultant fires in the city, at least that's what the view was once, I'm pretty sure numbers have been revised downwards now.

Disease certainly played its part in decimating the population but this was more a medium-long term and not a short term effect. In other words, the full effect of things like smallpox didn't hit the native populations until after the fall of Tenochtitlan; the more Spanish carriers brought diseases to the New World the more damage it caused until reports started coming in of whole villages of dead people in newly explored areas. Ultimately disease killed much, much more of the populations than the Spanish could ever have dreamed of. Where they had to fight with all they had to defeat the Aztecs other areas had no need for much in the way of pacification as the majority of the populations had already succumbed to disease. Disease certainly played a major role in conquering the Americas, but it's effect was minimal in defeating the Aztecs.

It is also not straightforward to say Rome would have conquered the Aztecs. They most certainly would have, but they would have defeated most medieval and Renaissance armies in Europe as well. The Aztecs didn't destroy their neighbours for the simple reason that they didn't want to. The Mesoamerican way of war was completely different to the European. Europeans claimed battlefield victory when the majority of their opponents were dead while the Aztecs sought to capture their enemies for later sacrifice which is another important reason they didn't defeat the Spanish. Had they been out to kill all the Spanish instead of capturing them for sacrifice Cortes wuld not have been able to defeat them and it would have taken a much bigger army to do the deed.

[Emperor Tom]

A well disiplined, well armed/armoured legion would more than crush the Aztecs. Leave it to the combinations of Gauis Julius Caesar, Pompeii Magnus, Mark Antony, and Agustus Caesar to lead them and then we're talkning total defeat for those Aztecs.

[The Sundance Kid]

We've just explained that it was mainly disease that wiped the Aztecs out, so the Romans would bring exactly the same diseases with them! If no 'biological' warfare was used, the sheer might of the Aztec hordes would crush a Roman landing party -- and remember, the Romans didn't have gunpowder to scare them either.

I'd have loved to see the Aztecs invade the Old World, but hey, it was never gonna happen.

[Emperor Tom]

Look, forget the disease, without it Rome would still win! Thats a damn fact. Cavalry, Scorpians, Catapults, the Testudo. Rome would own completely. Rome beat great odds in her lifetime. And they were smarter in tactics and government. While your little Aztecs sat around pushing each other in volacanos my Romans were dominating the Medditeranian. The Aztecs didn't even have cavalry, the couldn't even DESTROY their neighbors. Because they were weak! Put both full forces on a battlefield and Rome would win. Heck witht their superiour...everything they'd win!!!

[Lost Crusader]

Look, forget the disease, without it Rome would still win!

Would they?
The Aztec population was estimated to be around 20 million. If only every 10th men could carry a weapon, that would make around 2 million warriors, at least.
How many legions did the romans have? I'm no expert on Roman history, but I'd say no more than 50 at their peak. That would make around 300,000 men.

But if they would pull all those legions from the borders, the barbarians would have been all over Rome the very same day.

And how would they get to America? Even if they knew which way to go, I doubt they would get past the Azores in their triremes, quinquiremes or whatever...

[Problem Sleuth]

The Aztecs didn't even have cavalry

Yeah. Because there were NO HORSES. The last horses in both North and South America before the Spaniards brought a few with them happened... Tens, hundreds fo thousands of years ago? It's kinda hard to have cavalry when you have -nothing to ride-. Nothing big enough to be used as a battle mount, anyway. I'm sure you could hold on to a jaguar for a few seconds before it tired out... Or you got ripped to shreds.

And how would they get to America? Even if they knew which way to go, I doubt they would get past the Azores in they triremes, quinquiremes or whatever...

Not to mention starvation from lack of supplies. The only reason why the Conquistadores lasted as long as they did was because of luck. Namely the Aztecs thought they were a god coming to them for some reason or another. They found out about the Conquistadores on the exact day, if I'm not mistaken. Could be the year. Probably year, but I digress.

the couldn't even DESTROY their neighbors. Because they were weak! Put both full forces on a battlefield and Rome would win. Heck witht their superiour...everything they'd win!!!

They repeatedly annihilated their nieghbors. They were an empire within South America; sure, they couldn't wipe out -all- their enemies, but I never recall reading a book about how Rome conquered Europe and Asia (which are basically one landmass).

your little Aztecs sat around pushing each other in volacanos my Romans were dominating the Medditeranian.

Actually, they were busy dominating South America.

A well disiplined, well armed/armoured legion would more than crush the Aztecs. Leave it to the combinations of Gauis Julius Caesar, Pompeii Magnus, Mark Antony, and Agustus Caesar to lead them and then we're talkning total defeat for those Aztecs.

But you're not GOING to have all four, because they originated in different eras of Roman history. I bet America could take over the world with Patton, George Washington, and a few other greats, too.

Cavalry, Scorpians, Catapults, the Testudo. Rome would own completely.

Scorpions and Catapults are hardly enough to win a battle, the Testudo sucked unless you're facing arrow barrages, and Roman cavalry wasn't "the ****". It was just plain "****", making a small portion of it's overall forces.

They most certainly would have, but they would have defeated most medieval and Renaissance armies in Europe as well.

Rome was big; to say that it would beat an army of something a tenth of it's size if not less... Well, uh, yeah. Now take all of Europe's armies combined, throw in a few from North Africa and the Middle East, and -then- we'll have balance. I'm pretty sure they'd take nasty losses pre-gunpowder.

Let's see what a longbow does to them, or, perhaps, some crossbows? Would they like to see some Medieval cavalry walking all over them like Cataphracts from hell? Also... I'm kinda doubting a gladius is going to puncture plate, regardless of the discipline of the soldiers. Given they outnumber the enemy, but they're going to take nasty losses.

And god forbid someone brings in gunpowder, because then you're looking at a helluva rout.

[Domnul Ceaşcă]

Let's see what a longbow does to them, or, perhaps, some crossbows? Would they like to see some Medieval cavalry walking all over them like Cataphracts from hell? Also... I'm kinda doubting a gladius is going to puncture plate, regardless of the discipline of the soldiers. Given they outnumber the enemy, but they're going to take nasty losses.

Wait!...comparing armies from 35BC-476AD to armies from 1080-1490 is just, absurd. It doesn`t take to much imagination to think that, if the roman empire survived, they would have been the first ones to employ plate armored knights, gunpowder units and that sort of things, actually, if the roman empire had survived, i think today there would`ve been a roman colony on the moon.

but I never recall reading a book about how Rome conquered Europe and Asia

I also haven`t read a book about how the Aztecs conquered North America and South America.