Roma Surrectum 2.0: Cimbri Faction Preview

**Caligula Caesar** · February 24, 2009, 11:54 AM

I never thought the Romans were particularly civilised... can you imagine sending prisoners of war into an arena to watch them fight each other and animals and ultimately die... and that for their own pleasure. And most modern authors (and even most barbarian unit descriptions on various mods) accuse barbarians of living only for glory in battle, or something to the same effect. If the Romans thought that, they were hypocrites. For instance, let's look at the Cimbrian War: It was started because Carbo wanted the glory of a victory against the Cimbri, whilst the Cimbri had agreed to go elsewhere. That was one of the main weaknesses of the early republican Roman armies: It was in the Roman commander's interest for a battle to happen. That impatience was exploited by many of Rome's early enemies. If the Cimbri can be considered early (100 BC isn't that early).

I have a question regarding history: I read in the RTR:FOE Keltoi preview (and in other sources) that the Boii lived in Cisalpine Gaul. However, they somehow ended up in Switzerland. I don't doubt that fact. However, what I want to know is whether this a different tribe, or did they travel through the alps like Hannibal (who had some problems getting through)?

**Brusilov** · February 24, 2009, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Caligula Caesar

I never thought the Romans were particularly civilised... can you imagine sending prisoners of war into an arena to watch them fight each other and animals and ultimately die... and that for their own pleasure.

The problem is that you are judging them from a different time with different values.

I am sure that there are even more recent events that are very hard to understand. How men 'went over the top' in WWI.

Even in the modern world different cultures have different values. If you travel the world you will find a great deal of diversity. Just remember that you values can be widely different to other peoples.

**Mulattothrasher** · February 24, 2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Caligula Caesar

I never thought the Romans were particularly civilised... can you imagine sending prisoners of war into an arena to watch them fight each other and animals and ultimately die... and that for their own pleasure. And most modern authors (and even most barbarian unit descriptions on various mods) accuse barbarians of living only for glory in battle, or something to the same effect. If the Romans thought that, they were hypocrites. For instance, let's look at the Cimbrian War: It was started because Carbo wanted the glory of a victory against the Cimbri, whilst the Cimbri had agreed to go elsewhere. That was one of the main weaknesses of the early republican Roman armies: It was in the Roman commander's interest for a battle to happen. That impatience was exploited by many of Rome's early enemies. If the Cimbri can be considered early (100 BC isn't that early).

I have a question regarding history: I read in the RTR:FOE Keltoi preview (and in other sources) that the Boii lived in Cisalpine Gaul. However, they somehow ended up in Switzerland. I don't doubt that fact. However, what I want to know is whether this a different tribe, or did they travel through the alps like Hannibal (who had some problems getting through)?

The Boii originally were from Gaul. The Cubi-Bituriges tribe were masters of old Gaul and sent the Boii and other tribes into the Bavaria and Bohemia regions to settle. They also migrated to Northern Italy. The ones in the Alps could have been the ones who returned to the Bohemian homeland after the Romans took over northern Italy. Here they would have joined their other brothers still in the region. When the Helvetii tribe was leading the migration to the Santones region on the Atlantic coast (that Caesar decided to interrupt), the Boii that FOE mentions could have been that bunch that tagged along with the Helvetti, the ones in the Bavarian/Bohemian regions that are also right around the Alpine area.

Also, a connection here is there were already Boii south of the Santones region around Aquitania, so their was undoubtedly some knowledge that others of the Boii tribe would have been nearby.

Hope this helps

**Caligula Caesar** · February 24, 2009, 12:49 PM

I can think of even more recent things. But I don't really want to start a debate about that.

"Just remember that you values can be widely different to other peoples."

I know that. It appears the Romans didn't, though. What I think, however, is sure; the Romans could build (and conquer) great cities, but in fact they were quite cruel to any other people, especially barbarians.

**Mulattothrasher** · February 24, 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Caligula Caesar

I know that. It appears the Romans didn't, though. What I think, however, is sure; the Romans could build (and conquer) great cities, but in fact they were quite cruel to any other people, especially barbarians.

I did a comparison of Caesar compared to modern day tyrants and the amount of people they killed. As it turns out, Caesar's 'glorious' war against the Celts and Germans, killed more people and enslaved more people than that of modern day wars. Caesar beat out Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin, (or at lest 2 of the 3 iirc) in the body count.

Anything good that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc... might have done are overshadowed by their rampant killings, enslavement, genocides, etc... so I personally view Caesar right up there with them.

**ChrisJoker** · February 24, 2009, 10:39 PM

Dont backseat Moderate, it isnt your job. Thanks, Pseudocaesar.

**Mulattothrasher** · February 25, 2009, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisJoker

please dont double post

What?

**ChrisJoker** · February 25, 2009, 05:39 PM

Same as above. Pseudocaesar.

**cherryfunk** · February 25, 2009, 05:33 AM

What I think, however, is sure; the Romans could build (and conquer) great cities, but in fact they were quite cruel to any other people, especially barbarians.

Name a culture back then that wasn't cruel to foreign peoples. You think the Gauls were all busy baking cakes and throwing parties for their neighbors?

Caesar beat out Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin, (or at lest 2 of the 3 iirc) in the body count.

I find that difficult to believe. Stalin's figure stands at 30 million or more. Hitler at 20 million plus.

**Caligula Caesar** · February 25, 2009, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by cherryfunk

Name a culture back then that wasn't cruel to foreign peoples. You think the Gauls were all busy baking cakes and throwing parties for their neighbors?

That's the problem... there isn't really a country that was never bad to its neighbors when they were at war or "disenchanted" with each other. Maybe the Antarctic

Its just that the Romans often did things on a much larger scale than other nations because of the opposition they were able to defeat. Just look at what they did to Carthage (and Gaul, and nearly everywhere else they conquered). Although, when the Spanish conquered the Americas, they killed huge amounts of people (though a large amount of the deaths apparently came from European epidemics). Us Brits weren't much better when we had our turn at colonisation.

Originally Posted by cherryfunk

I find that difficult to believe. Stalin's figure stands at 30 million or more. Hitler at 20 million plus.

Apparently Mao (of China) caused the most deaths, many of which not even during a war! I also find it hard to believe Caesar killed more than Hitler and Stalin, but it certainly was a lot considering that the population was lower back then. Perhaps if you work it out in the percentage of population?

I think Hannibal must have been almost as bad as Caesar (though the Romans did give him a good reason). He probably killed many in the Carthaginian conquest of Iberia, though we can only count after Hamilcar died. Then he killed 80000 at Cannae along (apparently), so I would say probably about 200000 in Italy if you count his own army. Then there was Zama, and after he was exiled, Asia Minor and Seleuceia. And you can could count most of the population of Carthage, since had he managed to completely defeat Rome, Carthage wouldn't have fallen then. And if he had conquered Rome, the Romans would never have risen to create such monumental bloodshed in Gaul, ect.

But I suppose that doesn't count, and we don't know if Carthage wouldn't have been just as bad or worse.

**Fox Sterlingworth** · February 25, 2009, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Caligula Caesar

Apparently Mao (of China) caused the most deaths, many of which not even during a war! I also find it hard to believe Caesar killed more than Hitler and Stalin, but it certainly was a lot considering that the population was lower back then. Perhaps if you work it out in the percentage of population?

This seems to me to be the only possible explanation... I don't think the population of the Roman Empire at its height was even close to 30 million.

**cherryfunk** · February 25, 2009, 08:47 AM

Its just that the Romans often did things on a much larger scale than other nations because of the opposition they were able to defeat. Just look at what they did to Carthage (and Gaul, and nearly everywhere else they conquered).

This is true. So basically you're not saying they were worse than everyone else at the time, just that they were better at it

Its just that the Romans often did things on a much larger scale than other nations because of the opposition they were able to defeat. Just look at what they did to Carthage (and Gaul, and nearly everywhere else they conquered).

Carthage, I'll admit they went a bit nuts there, but let's be honest, Hannibal scared the bejesus out of them and the 3rd Punic War was really a reaction to Cannae more than anything else.

About Gaul, let's look at what they did there -- they incorporated Gaul into their form of government, granted Gauls citizenship and membership in the Senate, developed the Gallic infrastructure and economy to the point where Gaul became the envy of Western Europe -- and that's a bad thing?

If Rome was really so horrible to its subject peoples as some suggest, why did Britain and Gaul fight so hard to remain part of the Empire?

Although, when the Spanish conquered the Americas, they killed huge amounts of people (though a large amount of the deaths apparently came from European epidemics). Us Brits weren't much better when we had our turn at colonisation.

Not to get into a big discussion on this, but the way the Spanish and British managed their colonies differed remarkably. The Spanish enslaved entire populations, the British eliminated slavery from most of the planet. I know it's fashionable for Brits today to hate their own culture, but a sense of historical perspective can be a valuable thing.

**Caligula Caesar** · February 25, 2009, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by cherryfunk

About Gaul, let's look at what they did there -- they incorporated Gaul into their form of government, granted Gauls citizenship and membership in the Senate, developed the Gallic infrastructure and economy to the point where Gaul became the envy of Western Europe -- and that's a bad thing?

Well, that was only after they had killed what was probably over a million Gauls and enslaved another million (if Caesar can be believed). The Gauls didn't want Roman overlords. Of course, what happened after the Gauls had been suppressed was good for them, though IIRC the Gauls only got citizenship about ninety years later.

Originally Posted by cherryfunk

If Rome was really so horrible to its subject peoples as some suggest, why did Britain and Gaul fight so hard to remain part of the Empire?

They had fought at least as hard to stay out of it! Remember, that was 300-600 years after the Roman conquest. I doubt they could remember much about what had been before. Especially since a) Roman authors were unescapably biased, b) the druids had long since been outlawed, and c) the Romans were probably telling the children when they went to school how bad the Gauls had been. Generally, young people do believe what they hear (no offence meant; I have personal experience of that, though there are exceptions, and it usually wears off at about 14-15).

Originally Posted by cherryfunk

Not to get into a big discussion on this, but the way the Spanish and British managed their colonies differed remarkably. The Spanish enslaved entire populations, the British eliminated slavery from most of the planet. I know it's fashionable for Brits today to hate their own culture, but a sense of historical perspective can be a valuable thing.

Not that it has done the African countries much good. I don't know for certain, but I think they may have been better off before than they are now.

And besides, slave trade was abolished by the British in 1807, which was about 200 years after England's first colonies.

BTW, its most fashionable today for a Brit to hate his country's football coach

**Brusilov** · February 25, 2009, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Caligula Caesar

And besides, slave trade was abolished by the British in 1807, which was about 200 years after England's first colonies.

BTW, its most fashionable today for a Brit to hate his country's football coach

I think it's been commented on numerous times that various cities in England did very nicely out of the slave trade - I think Bristol and Liverpool are usually mentioned.

At least eventually people decided that the slave trade wasn't very civilized.

Anyway, we continue to go off topic.

**Caligula Caesar** · February 25, 2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Brusilov

I think it's been commented on numerous times that various cities in England did very nicely out of the slave trade - I think Bristol and Liverpool are usually mentioned.

I was unawares of that. Sorry, ancient history is more my interest.

Originally Posted by Brusilov

Anyway, we continue to go off topic.

True, very much so.

**cherryfunk** · February 25, 2009, 12:24 PM

So to bring it back on topic --

Q: How many Cimbri Wolf Warriors does it take to flay a Centurion?

A: Five -- one to flay him and four to complain about imperialist Roman hegemony!

**Mulattothrasher** · February 25, 2009, 04:36 PM

Just to clarify, my figures were based on a percentage of people in a country/race...not raw numbers.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**rory o'kane** · April 22, 2009, 08:09 AM

I will point out that there's significant evidence that legions were cohort based from the 2nd Punic War onwards - which is what we'll be representing in RS 2.0...