A Sneak Peek Preview of RESTITVTOR ORBIS

[Emperor Caesar]

Must I explain this once more I said that I was not going to arm every legionary with LS just as vast majority of them and yes it would be veyr expensive so that would be another probelm with trying to top irregularities in the army.

And Julianus I am planning to create an AAR about my campaign with this mod, sinc ehtis mod is my favorite.

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Is there any chance I could get an avatar of Gallienus from this mod that I can use for my profile here in the forum? If so that'd be sick!

[Joar]

I'll see what I can do.

[Emperor Caesar]

Once more for the third time I would like to say I would not arm every single legioanry with LS armor. Forget the decimation idea. And all I would do is keep the legionarys busy. I would certainly launch a campaign of reconquest for Dacia, hoping that along with the gold their that there would still be some gold and silver for mining. Myabe a try at conquering Persia or most of it would be in the forseeable future. I would build a btter central command system where the generalswould be more like Napoleon's marshals and they would rarely be given independant commands. All the generals would answer to the emperor who would doll out orders. Only the most loyal and expierenced generals would ever by givent heir own commands. Of course this means that given an independant command they may not perform well anyhow sicne they never had commanded by themselves. That would not be a major matter though because I would alwasy lead all miltary operations. I would simply make it so Genrals could nto go out win battles and win loyalty of troops. The emperor would do that. I understand that if the emperor was weak and not military-oriented then that would be a problem. It would be very expensive indeed and I understand this. I would not arm the entire amry with with Ls and I would not arm the entire thing simaltaeneously. Hope I didn't forget anything.

[chaplain118]

I was arguing based on the assumption that you didn't arm all your legions with LS armor, just your interior troops, hence the 28 augustan legion reference (he also had equal number of auxilia legions to complement his actual Roman troops, so the total number of standing legions was more along the lines of 56 or so).

You say you want to continuously launch campaigns to keep your troops busy. How would you conduct the operations effectively? If you're launching campaigns EVERYWHERE, from the Rhine to the Danube, to the Caspian, and to the Arabian desert, how can you effectively direct all the campaigns? What's in store for your troops? Why should they march and fight? The gold and silver deposits in Dacia are rich, yes, but the loss of manpower in attempting to secure it would be astronomical. The rich mineral reserves meant that a greater number of the populace could be armed, while your own source of iron and tin would come from Britain and Spain, limiting your ability to bring up as many troops as you can.

Conquering Persia: I think the Romans have tried to do this since their contact with the Parthians in the days of the Republic. It's not just a matter of troop quality, commander abilities, etc. It's simply a matter of fighting the Persians on their own land, being the invaders and incurring the anger of the local population to actively resist you. With your lines stretched incredibly thin by your long line of invasion, how would you adequately support your troops?

Then, there's the issue of money. This entire venture sounds horribly expensive, and if you invade the Sassanid Empire, you'd better be ready to deal with peacekeeping, counter-attacks, etc. If you simply went in to sack the Sassanids, you'd still be faced with retaliatory measures that you MUST deal with. Trajan's conquest that expanded the Empire to its furthest extent brought in tremendous amount of riches (including the Dacian mines), but how well did that end up? The stretched lines from conquest could not be fortified, the legions could not be adequately maintained, and in just a few years, the empire shrank back. And this is Trajan, one of the most able emperors commanding the legions at the height of their power.

Your way of dealing with your generals will not result in loyalty or effectiveness. Roman history has proven that the loyal generals aren't always the most effective ones, and vice versa. As far as the regional commanders responding only on the Emperor's commands, you'd end up with a situation similar to how the Gallic Empire and the Palmyran Empire came about. The commanders were ostensibly only meant to answer to the emperor, but in Gaul, the Franks managed to push through, forcing the regional commanders to respond purely as a reactionary measure. The response grew to a protracted campaign that inadvertently won the loyalty of the troops, which suddenly gave these military commanders a legitimate claim to the purple: the legions. Meanwhile, your less able generals were losing battles but they're loyal as hell to you. The border becomes more and more porous and soon you're forced to bring in your able commanders who are gaining more and more influence over the legions. When the legitimacy of power is based entirely in the army, army commanders will become war lord politicians who are not afraid of using their military power against you.

You say you want to run the campaigns yourself. I say you'll die by the first campaign. And what about the possibilities of multiple campaigns? Aurelian reunited the empire only because of the internal problems the Gallic Empire had, which bought him precious time to deal with the Palmyran empire before turning his attention back west.

The problems presented in the 3rd Century came about from the deep-rooted issue that emperors must hold on to all the troops loyalty if he wanted to live, an idea that went back as far as Tiberius, the SECOND emperor of Rome. The problems were not strictly military but involving political issues as well. Throw in that plague which wiped out a great percentage of the empire in the middle of the 3rd century, and you're forced to deal with the issue of administering a huge empire with very little manpower.

[Emperor Caesar]

I understand what you are saying. Now if some barbarians broke through, guess who would go stop them: the emperor. Oh and thnak you for saying I will die on the first camapign, basically calling me stupid. The emperors always ran the camapigns. Trajan did it did he not. He didn't die in batt;e or anything else. I would not run multiple campaigns as that would be a foolish idea and i would not launch campaigns right after I finished one. This is also assuming I am speaking of an emperor who knows how to run the empire well. He would be a great commander so the troops would be fiercely loyal to him not the generals. I don't know if you fully understnd how I would handle my generals. Read evrything you cna find out about Napoleon and his marshals and how his army was ran. I understand evrything you are telling me. I knwo my Roman history, it's my favorite part of history adn the 3rd century crisis is my fav period in Roman history. ANd I did not onyl say loyal: I also said expierneced generals.ANd Yes I knwo about the plagues that hit the empire in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I knwo that a Persain conquest would be tough but it could be done. TRajan could have done it had he been younger but he was old and died so that was that. I would take steps to be ready for heavy Persian resistance. You make me think that you think I don't know anything about military or politics or about Roman history. But I do know. Let's not make this an arguement please. Let's keep it at friendly discussuion level okay. I would not go into anything without not knowing what I was goign to do, what I was going to do, and how I was going to do it. I would consider all factors. I did not say I would for sure invade Persia just that it was a possibilty. There are other ways to keep the troops busy you know haha.

[chaplain118]

I understand what you are saying. Now if some barbarians broke through, guess who would go stop them: the emperor. Oh and thnak you for saying I will die on the first camapign, basically calling me stupid.

Don't put words in my mouth. The issue isn't if some barbarians broke through, it's the fact that the borders were porous enough as is, and the continued interactions at the borders between Roman influenced regions and non-Roman territories further blurred the frontlines.

The emperors always ran the camapigns. Trajan did it did he not. He didn't die in batt;e or anything else.

Yes, sure, emperors always ran campaigns, but not every emperor was amazing at this affair. In fact, the great majorities of failed campaigns were run by emperors. Even if you had been a career soldier, running an actual campaign in real life, with real soldiers, facing real logistical problems like supplying your forces is a nightmare to deal with. You'll notice that when Augustus conducted his campaigns during his reign, he almost always turned it over to a more competent general. The same is true with a great number of the emperors, which is why towards this era in time, being an emperor didn't mean you were a great general, it meant you were somehow able to secure the temporary loyalty of the troops and/or Praetorians.

I would not run multiple campaigns as that would be a foolish idea and i would not launch campaigns right after I finished one.

Let's use your own example. What if you're campaigning in the Danube when you have news that barbarians have crossed the Rhine? Which legions do you leave behind to continue campaigning while you go deal with the new problem? Whom will you place in charge while you're en route (at both ends no less)? How do you conduct a campaign that you haven't prepared for? You can't say that all campaigns are planned, some are purely reactionary. Within this time period, the threat of barbarian invasion grows stronger and stronger, and the Empire is literally besieged on all fronts, no matter how small the threat may appear at first.

This is also assuming I am speaking of an emperor who knows how to run the empire well. He would be a great commander so the troops would be fiercely loyal to him not the generals.

Troops will always be more loyal to those closer to them. This is why Augustus increased centurion pay to such a high level. He knew that if he could secure the loyalties of his centurions--the real men directing the troops, then he would secure the loyalty of his soldiers. Being a great commander is certainly appreciated, but that's not enough. Hell, let's use an example from this time period: Aurelian. He reunited the empire, defeated some of the best generals at the time. He was, by all means, a great commander, yet he was murdered by the Praetorians. If you rise up high enough, you will start to attract attention to yourself, and sooner or later, some other guy will come over and stick a sword in your gut because you're treading too close to his toes.

I don't know if you fully understnd how I would handle my generals. Read evrything you cna find out about Napoleon and his marshals and how his army was ran.

I recall that Napoleon's marshals pretty much went into a free-for-all mode as soon as Napoleon himself was gone--much like the Diadochi after Alexander's death. You must be a political genius to keep such kinds of powerful men at bay. You must understand how to play them off each other so that in the long run, they gain more by being obedient to you than by being obedient to their own wants and needs. This is a skill that very few people have.

ANd I did not onyl say loyal: I also said expierneced generals.

With the rampant paranoia during the 3rd century, when emperors came and went because of Praetorian suspicion? Good luck finding someone with both qualities. Experience was a threat to other men of power, loyalty to the wrong man can get you killed.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

And how would you conquer Persia exactly?

[Emperor Caesar]

Well I would have to think about that. We aren't actually in Roman times so you know. I don't think I want to take the time to plan otu an enitre cmapign on how to conquer Persia. I have school and what not to do. Maybe the way I will conquer Persia will be detailed in the novel I am writing.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

So you haven't come up with an idea.

It is extremely hard to conquer such a foe - one that knows you in and out, and operates in its own territory. Same with them attacking you, though.

[Emperor Caesar]

To go back to a much earlier subject speaking about the reuse of LS armor. Hey don't angry at me. I like my game to be hisotircally accuarte but why not have a little fun with it. I like LS armor so why not make it the main used armor again. It is my favorite armor as some may already know. Switch it up a little.

[Julianus Flavius]

Not to take away from the debate, but I assume the Legionnary with the yellow shield, LS and sword in the signatures section will be a unit ingame?

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Not to take away from the debate, but I assume the Legionnary with the yellow shield, LS and sword in the signatures section will be a unit ingame?

If you're talking about the guy on my sig then I kind of doubt it. Looks more like a legionary from the 1st or 2nd century to be honest. Though my knowledge of Roman history is amateur at best compared to all the other fanatics on here...

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

It's a Zubkov illustration entitled '2nd Dacian War' - the milites is wielding a gladius sheathed on the right side which places him earlier than this mod alas! The full pic also shows an officer and a dead aquilifer. His illustrations are very good, I think.

[Joar]

It's a Zubkov illustration entitled '2nd Dacian War' - the milites is wielding a gladius sheathed on the right side which places him earlier than this mod alas! The full pic also shows an officer and a dead aquilifer. His illustrations are very good, I think.

Yes, that's the one.

[Emperor Caesar]

That would have been cool but the legionaries in the 3rd century are really awesome as well and I think evryone knows whihc one is my favorite.

[Diocle]

Joar domine, it would be possible to have, in the final version, an image of the four Tetrarchs like that sculpted in the base of the S.Marco cathedral in Venice, with the 4 emperors togheter in a pose representing the symbolic unity of the empire?

[Joar]

Joar domine, it would be possible to have, in the final version, an image of the four Tetrarchs like that sculpted in the basament of the S.Marco cathedral in Venice, with the 4 emperors togheter in a pose representing the symbolic unity of the empire?

How do you mean?

[First Citizen Gallienus]

I'm not following him either. Maybe he means on the faction emblems for the Romans once Diocletian takes power...? That may be kind of hard to factor in, though I myself am not a modder.

[Diocle]

How do you mean?

I'll tray to explain what I requested:

Mod: Restitutor Urbis

Campaign: Tetrarchy

Event: Reform (In which Diocletianus founded the Tetrarcy)

Image on the screen of the Reform: Image of the 4 Tetrarchs similar to the sculptur in the base of the church of S.Marco in Venice.

If you cannot understand my request, is obviously not for your responsibility, but is my english which is very very very very bad
but at this point I'll give up, at the end it wasn't a request of great importance!



For AirAssault: No I do not belive putting the SMarco sculpture on the Roman faction Emblemata would be a good Idea!!