A little tired of the "Rome = savage" trope CA keeps injecting into RTW games

[SigniferOne]

I thought the RTW 1's over-the-top cinematic of the savage general executing enemy right on the field, was the last of that, but it was not to be. The whole game turned on the axis of Rome's supposed brutality, oh and the voice-overs for the Three Families were more 'barbarian' sounding than the voice-overs for Gauls and Germans.

They sounded like they came out of some campy over-the-top theater production, but that was not to be the end of this silliness, and RTW2 is even more ahistorical about the very people it purports to be titled about.

If only CA had read actual theater on Rome, such as, I don't know, maybe Shakespeare, there would be less of this absurd characterization.

"Well, honour is the subject of my story.
I cannot tell what you and other men
Think of this life: but, for my single self,
I had as love not be as live to be
In awe of such a thing as I myself." ('Julius Aesar', 1.2.92)

"You are my true and honourable wife,
As dear to me as are the ruddy drops
That visit my sad heart." (2.1.286)

"This was the noblest Roman of them all;
All the conspirators save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He, only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, 'This was a man!'" (5.5.68)

[Stavroforos]

Aye, Shakespeare is indeed the best source on Roman history, CA should read more of it.

[ccllnply]

Aye, Shakespeare is indeed the best source on Roman history, CA should read more of it.

Burn?

[Påsan]

Burn?

All of those 20,000 posts are tiny little embers.


I agree with stav though, Shakespearian plays are no valid source for Roman conduct. And I regard a people that made it a habit of massacring and enslaving entire nations fairly brutal by any standard.

[emperor77]

Aye, Shakespeare is indeed the best source on Roman history, CA should read more of it.

It was probably meant as an example other ways of portraying Rome and romans other than the ruthless grim darkness thing that CA has going on.

[SigniferOne]

Aye, Shakespeare is indeed the best source on Roman history, CA should read more of it.

I didn't say that Shakespeare was history? Correct, nowhere. I simply wondered if CA had anything else in their bag of tricks, besides the depiction of Rome via made-up inhumanity and savagery.

Shakespeare was aware of it, why aren't they?

It was probably meant as an example other ways of portraying Rome and romans other than the ruthless grim darkness thing that CA has going on.

Exactly.

[Stavroforos]

I didn't say that Shakespeare was history? Correct, nowhere. I simply wondered if CA had anything else in their bag of tricks, besides the depiction of Rome via made-up inhumanity and savagery.

Shakespeare was aware of it, why aren't they?

Indeed, you are correct. Next time CA make a game, they should make a game instead about that empire which crucified all members of a slave revolt along a main highway, the same one which burned various cities to the ground, enslaved their populaces and then forced them to work in mines across their empire, or of that empire where political leaders executed all their enemies. Perhaps they could even make a game about that empire where something along the lines of 30 of its emperors were assassinated!

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Romans were savage murderers and serial rapists, I didn't believe it at first, then I watched "Spartacus - Blood and Sand", it opened my eyes!

[Alpha TWC]

Romans were savage murderers and serial rapists, I didn't believe it at first, then I watched "Spartacus - Blood and Sand", it opened my eyes!

an historical telefilm

if it is true that once cities and ancient civilizations were presented as too clean and all are "philosophical", now the media distort all: brothels in any corner, prostitutes, mud, bad, dirty everywhere, all rapists ...

all of this is not realistic. spartacus is not realistic, and for the opposite side the 1950's film kolossal are not realistic.

the question is really whether if this is the vision of ancient civilization ... or ours. only adapted to ancient times. a distortion of fact. A research of historical realism, or a message to give to the audience? Spartacus himself is a rather fictionalized....

The Romans were not savages, but in some circumstances adhered to the standards of brutality common in those days. Which are now often terrible, but at the time it was so, even in the most advanced civilizations.

the Romans could be brutal, but often not as other civilizations, and we must also remember that it was a civilization also made of laws, rights and civil codes that are studied even today

[redxavier]

Have you seen something the rest of us haven't? Seems premature to say anything about any particular faction at this point in time.

Edit - Further, Rome was savage. To deny the duality of their nature is delusional.

[Alpha TWC]

Have you seen something the rest of us haven't? Seems premature to say anything about any particular faction at this point in time.

Indeed, i dont' think that Rome II will be like "spartacus blood: total war" , but i'm tired of Rome= savage in film/tv nowdays.

[Sharpe]

War is hell, and romanticizing it only covers up the grim reality. The best way CA could implement the sophistication of classical culture is through the Campaign map game.

But what is the true depiction of Rome anyway? Historiography tells us that most Roman historians were nationalistic and bias.

[Lord Dakier]

Another stupid thread yay! On the battlefield honor means little, anyone will tell you that who has fought in a war.

[Dan11311]

Another stupid thread yay! On the battlefield honor means little, anyone will tell you that who has fought in a war.

Exactly. When Scipio attacked and destroyed Carthage he did do brutal things. Things that were against his nature. Afterwards he wept for the Carthaginians.

[Horatio Hornblower]

People hates Rome because it was a big empire with slavery as a legal institution...(EDIT: end of slavery talking)
Rome owned lands conquered by sword and blood, today people hates those kind of things.
Back to the 50's, Rome was a kind of fashion...a trend!
Lots of movie were set during roman era, and romans were considered heroes.

During last years of the 60's, because of hippie culture, things had change and now we are what we are.
A flock of jellyfish, peace-loving prudes!! That's why, nowadays, people hates Rome and all kind of empires and emperors...
And that's why romans are considered "savage beasts" bloodthirsty!!

[Éorl]

This thread reminds me of the discussion in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian': "What did the romans ever do for us?"...

[Horatio Hornblower]

This thread reminds me of the discussion in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian': "What did the romans ever do for us?"...

I don't know where you're from but here in Italy, they left us rich and beautiful cities, good trading ports, rights and laws, a lovely language (even if italian is far form original latin) and Roma...

When it came to the military, Rome was pretty brutal. Didn't they kill every tenth man if a legion screwed up?

Yes it's true, but it's the same custom to shoot a deserter during all modern wars...

[TheRomanRuler]

People hates Rome because it was a big empire with slavery as a legal institution...(EDIT: end of slavery talking)
Rome owned lands conquered by sword and blood, today people hates those kind of things.
Back to the 50's, Rome was a kind of fashion...a trend!
Lots of movie were set during roman era, and romans were considered heroes.

During last years of the 60's, because of hippie culture, things had change and now we are what we are.
A flock of jellyfish, peace-loving prudes!! That's why, nowadays, people hates Rome and all kind of empires and emperors...
And that's why romans are considered "savage beasts" bloodthirsty!!

In real history, Romans were most civilised (spelling?!) faction in ancient time. You could say greeks were most, but;
-If they were, why CONSTANT wars between cities?
-Democracy never worked well, but this can`t be counted as reason
-Romans had more laws, and if i remember correctly Napoleon used those laws as an example for his own laws, that are used (modified and expanded of course) novadays (spel.?)
-Romans had more civil rights

[Shigawire]

In real history, Romans were most civilised (spelling?!) faction in ancient time. You could say greeks were most, but;
-If they were, why CONSTANT wars between cities?

1)I'm curious, how you come to the conclusion of "most civilized." What are the criteria for this characterization?

2)Engineering-wise and architecturally, the Romans were if anything Greek-wannabes. They are defined by how well they emulated Greek technology. They managed to emulate Greek architecture to a certain extent. However, the most Greek of technologies, siege warfare, eluded the Romans for the longest of times. Whilst the Carthaginians had adopted most of the Greek siege warfare technology, the Romans were still stuck in their escalade siege assaults. They hadn't even started building siege towers. The first Roman use of a siege tower was in 210 BCE. That is 200-300 years after the Greeks and Carthaginians had already utilized this technology. Most Roman assaults were commited with ladders (escalade). However, very few were able to commit to the escalade as successfully as the Romans. They became experts at the brute force approach. This is probably one of the reasons why they were able to handle the Celtic "Oppida" with any success. Surely, no amount of catapults or battering rams would've been able to conquer the Murus Gallicus.

-Democracy never worked well, but this can`t be counted as reason

What democracy? Rome was an oligarchy organized in a republic.

-Romans had more laws, and if i remember correctly Napoleon used those laws as an example for his own laws, that are used (modified and expanded of course) novadays (spel.?)

It could very well be argued that the Celts were far more dedicated to Law. In fact, Law had a highly religous meaning in their culture. Whereas the Romans could disregard it whenever it suited them.
In 400 BCE, when the Romans broke the treaty with the Senones (of Brennos) by assaulting their ambassadors, the Senones were shocked. They'd never even considered the possibility of deceit with regard to ambassadors. The Roman historian Livy stated that the Roman ambassadors "broke the law of nations" (that is, broke their oath of neutrality as ambassadors).

Such laws, such as governing the security of ambassadors, were sacred to the Celts. In the resulting action, Quintus Fabius, an ambassador and a member of a powerful patrician family, killed one of the Gallic leaders (a chieftain). When the Senones realized that the sacred trust of the ambassador was broken, they withdrew from battle to discuss the issue. (This tells you something about how flabbergasted they were).

Hence, history is well known. Brennos went for the jugular, Roma, to make them pay for it. Though it's not true that they raped and pillaged the place. That's been thrown in disrepute by modern historians. They came in, demanding a certain amount of gold. And the sum of gold was really more symbolic, to make up for the transgression of Law that the Romans had made.

-Romans had more civil rights

Celts did take slaves solely for trading, but they did not have an economy based on slaves. They did not have slaves.
Whereas Roman women lived the life similar to muslim women in Hijab today, the Celtic women were liberated and well on the way toward equal footing with the men in Celtic society. Plenty of noble female burials have been found, with exquisite treasures marking the ranking of the woman.

Civili rights?
No slavery - check
Relative gender equality - check

[eskil]

1)I'm curious, how you come to the conclusion of "most civilized." What are the criteria for this characterization?

i would not say most civilised but you would agree with me that there are civilizations that are "superior".
because for example the greek and roman civilization\culture has a great deal of influence on modern society,while the gallic, chartaginian...no.

2)Engineering-wise and architecturally, the Romans were if anything Greek-wannabes. They are defined by how well they emulated Greek technology. They managed to emulate Greek architecture to a certain extent. However, the most Greek of technologies, siege warfare, eluded the Romans for the longest of times. Whilst the Carthaginians had adopted most of the Greek siege warfare technology, the Romans were still stuck in their escalade siege assaults. They hadn't even started building siege towers. The first Roman use of a siege tower was in 210 BCE. That is 200-300 years after the Greeks and Carthaginians had already utilized this technology. Most Roman assaults were commited with ladders (escalade). However, very few were able to commit to the escalade as successfully as the Romans. They became experts at the brute force approach. This is probably one of the reasons why they were able to handle the Celtic "Oppida" with any success. Surely, no amount of catapults or battering rams would've been able to conquer the Murus Gallicus.

you can' t make that comparison because roma was a relatively young state .Also after a mere 100 year rome did surpass them... remember what caesar did at alesia, i don't think Carthaginians did something similar.
Also you can't simply compare their military enginnering... look at the civil sector.
Theyr acqueducts even though not new (even the celt did build them)did rum far more far than the other.
Their sewers are still used nowdays and for something to function for two thousand year, well thats a damn good enginnering.

It could very well be argued that the Celts were far more dedicated to Law. In fact, Law had a highly religous meaning in their culture. Whereas the Romans could disregard it whenever it suited them.
In 400 BCE, when the Romans broke the treaty with the Senones (of Brennos) by assaulting their ambassadors, the Senones were shocked. They'd never even considered the possibility of deceit with regard to ambassadors. The Roman historian Livy stated that the Roman ambassadors "broke the law of nations" (that is, broke their oath of neutrality as ambassadors).

Such laws, such as governing the security of ambassadors, were sacred to the Celts. In the resulting action, Quintus Fabius, an ambassador and a member of a powerful patrician family, killed one of the Gallic leaders (a chieftain). When the Senones realized that the sacred trust of the ambassador was broken, they withdrew from battle to discuss the issue. (This tells you something about how flabbergasted they were).

Hence, history is well known. Brennos went for the jugular, Roma, to make them pay for it. Though it's not true that they raped and pillaged the place. That's been thrown in disrepute by modern historians. They came in, demanding a certain amount of gold. And the sum of gold was really more symbolic, to make up for the transgression of Law that the Romans had made.

you need to understand why in the history book we refer to the roman State and the gallic tribe.
The roman Empire was a legal body supported by its law( that i would like to remember are the bases of modern costitution)while the tribe no.
"In fact, Law had a highly religous meaning in their culture for the celts"... here lies the problem... its like you use the ten comandment of the church like law...
Its different from the roman law which tries to protect the individual