Antiquity: an epoch that Total War should explore

[Cyrus the Great]

Hi all,

I love Total War games, but I think it is unfair that Antiquity is so little used. The historic period is composed about 5.000 years: 3.000BC, and 2.000AD.
They are six total war games (Shogun, Medieval, Rome, Medieval II, Empire and Napoleon), and, from those six games, only one sets in this 3.000 years period called Antiquity!
It is such a pity, because Antiquity is a rich, very rich period concerning warfare; There were not only the Romans who knew how to do war:

-before them, there were Greeks, whith their hoplits, their phalanxes, their siege equipments, and the Macedonians, with their extraordinairy sarissae phalanxes, with their powerful cavalry, their innovative formations....

-There were Persians, who reigned on an Empire that was bigger than the Roman Empire, bigger, than the Napoléonian empire, whose armies were the greatest of all history until Napoléon.

-There were Egyptians, whose deadly armies possessed strong chariots, archers, powerful infantry....

-There was the Mesopotamian culture: the Assyrians, particularely, with their deadly chariots, their inventive siege machines, their solid infantry and phalanxes, their various archers, slingers, skirmichers, made them become one the most powerful army, until the invention of guns and powder.

-There were nations such as Hittites, early Indians, Babylonians, were experts in warfare, and more powerful than many of the medieval armies.

I think it is really pity and unfair that this rich, inventive period is not more used by Total War.
Just imagine a "Medic Wars Total War", or even an "Antiquity Total War": there would be epic, gigantic and great battles and various strategies, more than in any other game.


PS: I'm sorry if I did any spelling or grammatical mistakes: I'm not English.

[Xerrop]

Well I hope that we will get an ancient game after Shogun2 finally.

And Rome2 would be boring we already had one. A Persia:TW (or however you will call that) would be a new, unique and interesting era. The biggest and most impressive empire of the pre-roman era in its full glory. And we could have have the various Greek City States like Corinth, Thebes, Athens or Sparta during there heydays as well. Not to mention the various Egyptian-Persian wars during the 4th century BC or Macedon´s rise under King Philipp.

Or a game set in Late Antiquity. Justinians reconquest of the West, the Roman-Sassanid Wars, Franks and Ostrogoths as well as Jutes, Angles and Saxons invading Britain would be an interesting scenario. Combining elements of both, Antiquity and Middle Ages, instead of creating only a Rome2 or Medieval3.

[Praefectus praetorio]

Good idea indeed, though antiquity starts at around 800 BC and end ~500 AD. Most of the civilizations you are describing are from Bronze age period. And I don't know if bronze age armies could beat medieval ones...

I would like to see Rome2 with same time span as RTW. With updated graphics, naval battles, new features I don't see it boring at all. Persia: Total War or Bronze age: Total War would be interesting too.

[Siegfriedfr]

Problem is war got more sophisticated as time progress, and you would get a dumbed down Rome with limited units choice if you go that far back.

There is only so much you can do with historical sword fighting rts, unless they change focus and grab a fantasy IP.

[Cyrus the Great]

A Persia:TW (or however you will call that) would be a new, unique and interesting era. The biggest and most impressive empire of the pre-roman era in its full glory. And we could have have the various Greek City States like Corinth, Thebes, Athens or Sparta during there heydays as well. Not to mention the various Egyptian-Persian wars during the 4th century BC or Macedon´s rise under King Philipp.

I would very much like a Persia Total War, who would start at the reign of Curys II, and would finish at Alexander's one
The mod Rise of Persia is very interesting, so is the expansion "Alexander": those historical periods would have desearved to be set in a Total War game, not only in an expansion or in a mod.

good idea indeed, though antiquity starts at around 800 BC and end ~500 AD

Antiquity starts at -3000 and ends at 475 AD

And I don't know if bronze age armies could beat medieval ones...

If think the gigantic persian army of Xerxes, the 50.000 man of Alexander, the Assyrian warriors or even some Egyptian armies would have been able to beat any medieval army, except maybe the Muslims who fought for Saladin.

Bronze age: Total War would be interesting too.

Oh, yes, I would love a Bronze Age total war to! But I think they will just be a Rome II; thought, that Rome II can be very good aswell.

Problem is war got more sophisticated as time progress, and you would get a dumbed down Rome with limited units choice if you go that far back.

Armies of Antiquity were more sofisticated and powerful than many medieval armies.
The Antiquity is a very interesting period for warfare: warriors, armies, weapons were very powerful, the tactics, the siege weapons are very inventive, and the battles are the biggest and greatest (Gaugamela: 250.000 Persians vs 50.000 Macedonians) until the time of Napoleon; it is not because it is an ancient time that the armies aren't more deadly than in medieval times

[Siegfriedfr]

Armies of Antiquity were more sofisticated and powerful than many medieval armies.
The Antiquity is a very interesting period for warfare: warriors, armies, weapons were very powerful, the tactics, the siege weapons are very inventive, and the battles are the biggest and greatest (Gaugamela: 250.000 Persians vs 50.000 Macedonians) until the time of Napoleon; it is not because it is an ancient time that the armies aren't more deadly than in medieval times

By "ancient" I assumed we were talking mesopotamia and old Egypt. Gauguamela could be rendered using TW engine and units

[Praefectus praetorio]

Antiquity starts at -3000 and ends at 475 AD

Well at least in my language (don't know if its same for English) "antiquity" often refers to "classical antiquity" wich is period between ~800 BC - ~500 AD. As far as I know ~3000 BC - ~500 AD is called "Ancient history" in English. But I'm not English neither...

If think the gigantic persian army of Xerxes, the 50.000 man of Alexander, the Assyrian warriors or even some Egyptian armies would have been able to beat any medieval army, except maybe the Muslims who fought for Saladin.

Well Xerxes and Alexander maybe but you were describing early civilizations wich were using bronze and iron weapons. I don't know if they could beat some fanatic crusader knights in steel armour and weapons. Even Saladin's Muslims were often in trouble against them. Or late 1300/1400 AD professional armies with powerfull weapons, longbows, crossbows, steel plates and some using even gunpowder.

I think these "whose gonna win army x of period a or army y from period b?" discussions are pointless anyway. We are never going to know for sure and the army equipment, size or organization is not always everything.

So let's just stop this off topic now lol.

[Cyrus the Great]

Even armies of Mesopotamia and Egypt were very powerful.
Especially the Assyrians: they had deadly chariots, powerful archers, skirmichers, slingers, spearmen, fast cavalry and missile cavalry....
They also invented many siege weapons.
The Assyrian army was certainly more powerful, and more efficient than a basic medieval army.

[Cyrus the Great]

Well at least in my language (don't know if its same for English) "antiquity" often refers to "classical antiquity" wich is period between ~800 BC - ~500 AD. As far as I know ~3000 BC - ~500 AD is called "Ancient history" in English. But I'm not English neither...

I thought antiquity and ancient history were the same
I mean by "antiquity" the period who starts with the invention of the cuneiform (3000 BC), and finished with the destruction of the occidental roman empire (476 AD).
I prefer the period before the roman hegemony, until 300 BC.

Well Xerxes and Alexander maybe but you were describing early civilizations wich were using bronze and iron weapons. I don't know if they could beat some fanatic crusader knights in steel armour and weapons. Even Saladin's Muslims were often in trouble against them. Or late 1300/1400 AD professional armies with powerfull weapons, longbows, crossbows, steel plates and some using even gunpowder.

Yes, christian templars were very powerful too.
But I think a basic medieval army would habe been more feeble than a basic ancient army.
The Dark Ages (the period after the barbarian invasions of Rome), has been a period of decline for the western nations of Europe, on many aspects of their civilisations, including warfare.

I think these "whose gonna win army x of period a or army y from period b?" discussions are pointless anyway. We are never going to know for sure and the army equipment, size or organization is not always everything.

Yes, we shouldn't think about wich army is more powerful, but wich army is more interestring to command. That's why I like ancient amries: many units (assyrian and scythian chariots, indian elephants, greek hoplite, persian immortal....) many tactics (the phalanx, the wedge formation, all the siege warfare tactics) were fascinating, and they get lost in the Middle Ages.