What would you do...To a treatorous ally...

[Diocletianus]

I just want your comments, ideas suggestions : both in game and in reallity.

[Diocletianus]

I personnally would cut his hands, feet, tongue and eyes and would let him wander alone in the nature

[Diocle]

You mean the AI which breaks its alliance with you? Kill them all! But this is the Rule in TW games, we must ever distrust ally AI, it is only waiting for attack you.
In reallity, the situation is more complex, depends if the traitor is a person or a nation.

[Diocletianus]

Yup but I was really annoyed by Valens , who attacked me as Valentinian I. I hoped the alliance would last longer but I guess now there is no choice....

[Diocle]

Why don't you try 'Forced Alliance Script'?
If I remember it should be in the options, but I must confess I'm playing The Last Kingdom for MIITW and I could be wrong!

[Diocletianus]

There is no forced alliance script but a forced diplomacy yes

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

I'd make him responsible for getting Europe out of the financial crisis in which she has sunk. That would teach the bastard!

[Knonfoda]

Traitors are the worst kind of scum and must be sought out and destroyed, much like lies must. In practice however, it's all about points of view.

Someone is always a traitor to someone. Wasn't Julian technically a traitor? And Julius Caesar? In what circumstances is treason acceptable, are there degrees of treason, or is all treason the same?

[Diocle]

Traitors are the worst kind of scum and must be sought out and destroyed, much like lies must. In practice however, it's all about points of view.

Someone is always a traitor to someone. Wasn't Julian technically a traitor? And Julius Caesar? In what circumstances is treason acceptable, are there degrees of treason, or is all treason the same?

NO! NO! NO! please Knonfoda, friend! Caesar was not a traitor! He was betrayed! But this is the politic! No Julian was not a traitor, he was a great and good man, we must mantain firm some values, if not all become grey, and we cannot distinguish our way in this world!
But remember guys as said N.Machiavelli Politic Morality and Individual Morality of the citizen are different, must be different!

Pseudo Romanus great idea!!!! (as always!) really a cruel punishment!

For Diocletianus, you obviously are right! The script is 'Forced Diplomacy', sorry! but I see that you found it, and this is the important thing!

[Knonfoda]

NO! NO! NO! please Knonfoda, friend! Caesar was not a traitor! He was betrayed! But this is the politic! No Julian was not a traitor, he was a great and good man, we must mantain firm some values, if not all become grey, and we cannot distinguish our way in this world!
But remember guys as said N.Machiavelli Politic Morality and Individual Morality of the citizen are different, must be different!

Pseudo Romanus great idea!!!! (as always!) really a cruel punishment!

For Diocletianus, you obviously are right! The script is 'Forced Diplomacy', sorry! but I see that you found it, and this is the important thing!

Diocle my friend, I was merely trying to point out the difficulty in the judgement of treason. I picked certain individuals of which I know the majority here (including myself) are fond of. Personally, I hold both in very high esteem, but a republican would see Julius Caesar as plebeian traitor to the republic, just as it could be construed that Julian was a traitor to Constantius II.

Both rebelled against the systems they allegedly served, even if the system they themselves installed could be considered better. It's all about points of view.

To give another example, what about Arminius, or Herman the German as he is also known, for leading his people against the Romans (after betraying them) by ambushing and destroying 3 entire legions in the battle (more like massacre) of the Teutoburger Wald. Wasn't he a traitor to Rome? Or was he a traitor to his people for initially siding with the Romans?

What about the 20th July Plot to kill Hitler in 1944? Weren't they traitors too? Yet, we would consider their action to be a good one, would we not?

So you see, traitors will always be judged by different criteria depending on whom/what they were betraying, and what their alternative was. History may make the judgement in the end, but even history cannot bridge the divide that exists - and will always exist - between the opinions of people who support either one side or the other.

At the end of the day, and going back to your post Diocles, it seems to me traitors will either be seen as good or bad depending on the prevailing set of morals of the society and the individuals passing the judgement.

[TheDarkKnight]

I don't play this particular mod but in the ones I do play, I unleash absolute hell on the traitors.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I would send then on holiday by mistake . . . After putting them in the back of the van . . .

[Diocle]

I would send then on holiday by mistake . . . After putting them in the back of the van . . .

What a cruel punishment SBH! you are diabolical! Simple and diabolical punishment!
Now the problem is decide the winner between you and Pseudo Romanus!


For Knonfoda, the politic morality is diverse from the morality of the citizens, as said Machiavelli, but I think we need to keep some stronghold in our analisys, the risk is the relativization of everithing and the final impossibility to judge about anything. (sorry as I said my English is worse when the complexity of the arguments grows). We have to find a point of syntesis to build our judgements and make our choices.

[Diocletianus]

Winners are thoses who writes history and decide wich one is a traitor to the rigthfull autority.

[Chelchal]

Yup but I was really annoyed by Valens , who attacked me as Valentinian I. I hoped the alliance would last longer but I guess now there is no choice....

I know, right? You'd think you're own brother would cut you some slack, especially considering you raised him to the throne, against the advice of the military.

[Diocle]

But they win because they are right! Exemple: WWII Anglo-Americans won because the Democratic model of state/society is better and stronger than dictatorships.
URRS? We sow how ended the story. Caesar won because his political idea of extending the borders and the social access of the Roman State to the Gauls and the new conquered peoples was better than the close and obtuse mentality of the gerontocracy of the Senatorial aristocracy, who pretended to control all the new provinces and all the political charges of the state. And Julian? He lose because he was not a true politician, he was incapable to see the compromises which politic require, but in the long terms his idea of religious freedom won!

Diocletianus I confess: I never used forced diplomacy, I'm quite happy when Valens attack me!
In the Valentinian Campaign, I am morally incapable to attack other Romans, but I want their lands and I'm afraid thinking that the AI can lose a lot of good Roman lands to the Persians, so with some amount of hypocrisy I look forward to the moment in which AI/Valens will attack me! Now I can start the ineluctable process of unification of the Empire and expansion of the borders!
In this case an hypocrite potential traitor 'in pectore' is happy when he find a honest traitor!

[Merula]

But they win because they are right! Exemple: WWII Anglo-Americans won because the Democratic model of state/society is better and stronger than dictatorships.
URRS? We sow how ended the story. Caesar won because his political idea of extending the borders and the social access of the Roman State to the Gauls and the new conquered peoples was better than the close and obtuse mentality of the gerontocracy of the Senatorial aristocracy, who pretended to control all the new provinces and all the political charges of the state. And Julian? He lose because he was not a true politician, he was incapable to see the compromises which politic require, but in the long terms his idea of religious freedom won!

That, my friend, is a fairly big generalization
The Allies won in WW2 because the Germans were fighting on not one, two, but THREE fronts! (Africa, Russia, Europe) They simply did not have the manpower or production capability to match that of the US, who has the resources of almost an entire continent behind it! This is also generalizing, but to say that the Germans lost because they were not democratic is, well, just plain silly no offence.

Caesar won because he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. If he had been born say 20 years previous, he would never have crossed the Rubicon.

And, well, Julian lost because he died in Persia

Hope you did not take offence to that, but just letting you know

[Diocle]

That, my friend, is a fairly big generalization
The Allies won in WW2 because the Germans were fighting on not one, two, but THREE fronts! (Africa, Russia, Europe) They simply did not have the manpower or production capability to match that of the US, who has the resources of almost an entire continent behind it! This is also generalizing, but to say that the Germans lost because they were not democratic is, well, just plain silly no offence.

Caesar won because he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. If he had been born say 20 years previous, he would never have crossed the Rubicon.

And, well, Julian lost because he died in Persia

Hope you did not take offence to that, but just letting you know

No offence, friend! I'm Italian, but I'm not easily offended, expecially when someone advance good arguments like you!

-Only few things: Germans in 1941 controlled France, Belgium, Holland, Finland, Poland , Czechoslovakia, Bulgary, Norway, Sweden, Danmark, Hungary, Greece, Jugoslavia, Rumania, Italy allied, so North Africa Libia and French North Africa, in practice apart from England and Spain, all Europe was under German control, for me they could have the resources to fight with the Americans who should deal with Japan in the Pacific.
My parents who lived in those years, said that in 1940/41 the German could win the war, and this was a common opinion in many european countries. Now we see all easy for the allies but we must remember that USA was not jet the super-power of today, The German economy before the war was the first in the world, it is too easy look at the things from the post war point of wiew. The German lost the war because their model of state was weaker compared to the democratic model, they had great corruption in the state machine , the racial fanaticism divided the population, the dictatorial Reich autority was hated in every single country they conquered, the selection of the ruling classes was not competitive but was based on the National Socialist Party, the Nazi model was a losing model of state, and as always in history the stronger and better model won!

Little exemple of typical statalist bureaucratic Nazi corruption: 1944/45 occupied Italy, in my town Genoa, the Nazi undermined the port facilities and the most important industries and steel fabrics. the archibishop offered in the name of the most important industrial groups a lot of money to the higher officers, and they accepted and did not destroy anything, but Hitler had ordered the opposite! They did the same in every single Italian city, the Nazi High Officers were thinking more to their own bank accounts than Hitler silly words! They were corrupt, because the Nazi state model was based on the Party/State bureaucratic model! This model is weak! and they were losers! In fact they lost the war!

-If not Caesar, someone else, but the point remain, the repubblican senatorial class was incapable to offer a future to the Roman State.

-Julian lost, not only because he died in Persia but because he was not a true politician, the Persian Campaign was wrong and ill-conceived, so we could say more realisticaly that he died because he was losing the Persian Campaign! But his political ideas were good like today every democratic citizen can see.

In the end, like in the natural selection, for me, in the human history, wins who is better, and he is not better, because he won! Remember, who is better, who has a better model of state and a more working society, wins! And this is right! Is it another world possible? Yes, but if you want a better world you must be better than the actual world powers, if not you must only think about your errors and weakness.

[Chelchal]

I think the biggest weakness of the Senatorial class who opposed Caesar was that they could not escape thinking in terms of the Polis when they were already governing a state that stretched over three continents. I suppose in a way they viewed the Roman conquests as gargantuan suburbs of the Eternal City that were barely within the periphery of their public consciousness.

As for these vexed question of WW2...the Germans were tactically very sound and innovative. Strategically, their thinking was very poor, and here Diocle is right to criticize their totalitarian regime, since when the Nazi God King goes mad, who can sway him? The Soviet God King, after some initial disaster, was at least open to criticisms. The dashing panzers were a select fantasy. The Wehrmacht mostly marched on foot, as armies had for millennia before it, and it had far more horses than motor transport. The German logistics were abysmal. Their surface fleet was depleted after the invasion of Scandinavia so they were never able to securely supply Afrika Korps. Their war efforts were astonishingly chaotic, as Diocle points out, and composed of competing agencies and jealous bureaucrats. Full scale industrial production of arms was not achieved until the summer of 1944 when the war was as good as lost. And of course, while German commanders begged for trains to transport troops and supplies, the trains were getting diverted to ensure that certain human cargo went to places like Auschwitz and Treblinka instead.

There are British regiments older than the United States and the Americans do not have a martial tradition in the sense that Prussia did. But the Americans have never relied on ruthless discipline or brilliant generals to win battles. They have understood one thing, very, very well, and that is logistics. It's called the five B's: Bullets, Beans, Batteries, Band Aids, and Bad Guys. Consider the five B's properly, and you'll prevail in most any tactical encounter.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Band Aids? Crikey, WWII was won with popular music concerts raising money for the war effort?!?!?