JUDEA

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

I want the Jewish rebellion and Boudica rebellion in England and Spartacus rebellion and Vercingetorix Rebellion in Germany as a DLC. The rebellion DLC. Or just have them scripted in the game where a army shows up and needs to be put down by Rome.
And also make Leaders look unique like in Napoleon where we could see Blucher had white hair and in Medieval where the king had a crown.

I wonder will Jesus show up as a priest and offer a bonus to food as he turns water into wine and bread into fish?
Do you want to kill Jesus or let him live and embrace his faith?

[Diglytron]

Like the idea. Hope there will be more provinces in the middle east and especially arround Jerusalem. Tough, for me the most important thing is Carthago, Italy and Greece. So I enjoy the previews with the focus on that thusfar.

[total relism]

I am all for judea being in game.

[Ngazi]

This is a strategy game. You can't script the whole game. Put the units and unrest there but the scripting is really boring.

[†GABRIEL†]

I really hope will not see this "Play your cards..." and "Retainers" in any TOTAL WAR GAME from now one. I thought they were invented for Shogun TW, the game was done more in the style of Japanese culture..."Magic Wind".."Second WInd"..."Pokemon"..."Retainers". In first ROME... in Medieval TW, Empire and Napoleon TW, we did it very well without the latter mentioned. I for one do not want a game like a lottery luck, choosing certain RETAINER, I want to play a real strategy not a fantasy one.
I want for new games ROME2 to see in front of the screen an ancient atmosphere from the music and graphics to gameplay and battlefield. Ancient atmosphere not magic one

[UsulDaNeriak]

For me it's pretty simple. It will be harder than elswhere to keep unrest low in Iudaea. If you can't manage it, a script triggers, spawns jewish armies and establish a jewish rebel faction with territory and all cites go to the jews. Thats what happens in some mods of Rome 1. Perhaps the script even spawns a nice little camp in the south called Masada.

[Argon Viper]

This is the first well thought-out idea of "put Judea in the game" I've seen yet. Usually they're "I want to see Judea" with no research behind them. +rep for that.

However, I think it'd be a crime to simply stop at an emergent Judean faction. What other factions could be emergent in other parts of the world?

[PSYCHO V]

This is the first well thought-out idea of "put Judea in the game" I've seen yet. Usually they're "I want to see Judea" with no research behind them. +rep for that.

However, I think it'd be a crime to simply stop at an emergent Judean faction.

Cheers ... and I totally agree, just that Judea would be a good start (given it was both a signifcant event and previously ignored part of history). It's all about improving immersive gameplay.

I really hope will not see this "Play your cards" .. in any TOTAL WAR GAME from now one

I'm not sure what you are getting at .. as we are talking about a game.

I want for new games ROME2 to see in front of the screen an ancient atmosphere from the music and graphics to gameplay and battlefield. Ancient atmosphere not magic one

Totally agree.

I didn't go any further on it and agreed with you that it would be pretty cool and historically accurate.

ok, np

...Perhaps the script even spawns a nice little camp in the south called Masada.

If the game extends to the 1st C AD, yer why not!

It is not about history. It is about a story..

Yes yes, I know. The holocaust never happened, the US never made it to the moon and the world is really flat. The only problem here is that you'll have to convince almost every school of antiquity in the Western world.

This is a strategy game.

Yup

You can't script the whole game.

Yup

...scripting is really boring.

If you mean hard scripting in which case you as the player have no control over the game, then yes, I agree.

my2bob

[Moros]

Yes yes, I know. The holocaust never happened, the US never made it to the moon and the world is really flat. The only problem here is that you'll have to convince almost every school of antiquity in the Western world.

I referred to a peer reviewed scientific article by the hands of Oxford professor of ancient history John Ma. I'm not just making things up. Also please don't compare me, or anyone else for that matter, to people who deny the holocaust - that I find quite disturbing and offensive - just because they don't agree with you. I personally don't believe that there was such a military revolution, some sort of uprising sure, but not a full scale war as depicted in Maccabees.

And yes it is a rather new theory and isn't yet commonly accepted. Certainly there'll be one specific group of academic peers who will be going to react hard against it. But if you assess the sources, compare to other occasions and use the common models (give and grant model,...) of how hellenic powers ruled their poleis, it is the most logical outcome and solution. Dr. Ma certainly does make a better case than me though. After the presentation he gave, which I was lucky to be able to attend, he didn't get much negative feedback from his academic peers either. Considering the topic and his conclusion that says a lot.

[PSYCHO V]

I personally don't believe that there was such a military revolution ..a full scale war.

Hmmm …

I referred to a peer reviewed scientific article by the hands of Oxford professor of ancient history John Ma. I'm not just making things up..

A little disingenuous though.

Ok. a couple of things regarding Dr Ma:


Dr Ma is not a Professor, but a Lecturer (CUF) / Tutor of Ancient History at Corpus Christi College (circa 2001), having completed his DPhil in 1997.

He is not part of Oxford University's 'Hebrew and Jewish Studies' nor the 'Faculty of Oriental Studies'. The history of Judea is not his area interest nor expertise. What he is interested in is Greek history with his "main research interest in the Hellenistic period". His hypothesis (which incidently is more about catalysts and motivations than outright disproval of the Maccabean revolt / war of independence), is based on a presumption of what constitutes the normative modes operandi of the Hellenic polis of the period.

To ignore the ‘recipero schola of sententia’ of international expertise and tout Ma’s hypothesis as evidence of your beliefs (that the Maccabean revolt is “not about history. It is about a story”) speaks more of expedience than a well considered position.

If you ..use the common models of how hellenic powers ruled their poleis, it is the most logical outcome and solution...

Ah… god love the Hellenes and their benevolent model of governance.

…it is a rather new theory and isn't yet commonly accepted...

Yes it's sooo.. avant garde! Much like the European mono-material culturalists of the late 80s and early 90s, the neo-nationalists of the 30s and post-industrialist advocates of the noble savage.

Also please don't compare me, or anyone else for that matter, to people who deny the holocaust - that I find quite disturbing and offensive - just because they don't agree with you...

I was over the top. My apologies

my2bob

[Tanq]

Well, no. Not as a starting faction anyway. The jews should be portrayed in the game with more detail than the last time though - at the very least, so that whoever's the controller of their lands at the time has a more complex matter to deal with than just an unusually rebellous province with its one, specific unit. Personally, as a fan of Seleucids, I'd like them (and any other ethnicity of note) to be portrayed as an emergent, with their own ethnicity and religion. So that there was a potential Maccabean revolt to quell or alternatively, some very fierce units to train locally, should the populace be content (as in Persian times for example).

[RO Citizen]

Judea will most probably be an emergent. They talk about avoiding discrimination, but if they don't include the faction it would be a discrimination.

[RexImperator]

Though I don't agree with the position I don't see why a hellenistic expert would be unqualified to speak on the Maccabees, what with their being a significant part of Seleucid history.

[Moros]

As the sources available all fit into the category of Hellenistic sources, there were multiple insurrections in the hellenistic age that are similar and have hellenistic evidence of and show a similar approach to handling the situation, letters in the Maccabees communication between the jews and the hellenistic rulers appear to be real. We know them rather well mainly from Hellenistic inscriptions as such communications were usually displayed. These letters seem to be real and the only thing not corrupted in the texts, but usually misinterpreted as they usually weren't studied by expert hellenistic scholars. Ma who has done much research on how hellenistic powers communicated, ruled and governed poleis is hence much more qualified then scholars from the Jewish studies or middle eastern studies. Also it's not like the former field of research is seen as so scientifically correct. And I'm not talking politics here.

I was over the top. My apologies

Apologies accepted. But you should really try to refrain from such comments in the future. You're speaking to someone who's grandfather nearly died in such a camp.

Yes it's sooo.. avant garde! Much like the European mono-material culturalists of the late 80s and early 90s, the neo-nationalists of the 30s and post-industrialist advocates of the noble savage.

This has nothing to do with being exciting or risky, not about some new movement of history. It's actually revolutionary not because of a major discovery. This revolutionary because doubting the events and the Maccabees hadn't been done in a long time. Using current knowledge and increased knowledge on how Hellenistic powers communicated and dealt with the poleis in their empire, it was clear that something was wrong. As the article is rather recent it's still hard to find. When I get access, I'll forward it too you and then you can judge. But to me the evidence was rather conclusive and fitted right into all the other sources (mainly epigraphic) of the age that shed light on hellenistic communication between persons of authority or the basileus himself and local poleis.

Sure sometimes ideas come up just for the sake of contesting current knowledge, practices,... But all our current knowledge and all our current scientific theories and models were once revolutionary. Evolution for one sadly still is. So I don't see the point of your argument.

[Rumpullpus]

i like this idea alot and i think it would be interesting if only to see the city of Jerusalem during the second temple era. after seeing the model of the city from that time i can only imagine the city was quite a sight.

[PSYCHO V]

.. I don't see why a hellenistic expert would be unqualified to speak on the Maccabees, what with their being a significant part of Seleucid history.

It all depends on one’s definition of “Hellenistic expert”. Amongst us here on the forum, most certainly. Amongst international academia / leading figures in that area of research … hmmm

For the record, I’m not saying that Ma is unqualified to comment. I find much of his work quite engaging. What I am saying is that one such source is not sufficient to go making the sort of claims that Moros has. Ie the Maccabean revolt is “not about history. It is about a story”.

.. it's not like the former field of research is seen as so scientifically correct. And I'm not talking politics here..

Oh there is a large degree of embellishment (a common sub-theme throughout the Classical period), but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. After all, we haven't thrown out our understanding of other geo-specific history.

.. Ma who has done much research on how hellenistic powers communicated, ruled and governed poleis is hence much more qualified then scholars from the Jewish studies or middle eastern studies..

Modeling can be helpful as a predictor, but it has significant limitations and weaknesses as a scientific method. To claim the behaviour / actions of a certain entity, under conditions ‘A’, will by nature be the same as under conditions ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ is at best, extremely naïve. Some of humanity’s most monumental misjudgments have been made by deriving such utility from modeling.

.. It's actually revolutionary not because of a major discovery..

And I would argue it’s not revolutionary at all

.. Sure sometimes ideas come up just for the sake of contesting current knowledge, practices… But all our current knowledge and all our current scientific theories and models were once revolutionary...

Yes, all “scientific theories and models were once revolutionary” and the vast majority of those were wrong.

The fidelity of a theory must be tested for all variables, not blithely accepted as fact just because it’s regarded ‘revolutionary’, feels rights, fits a world view or is advocated by a certain individual.

....So I don't see the point of your argument.

To build a theoretical model and claim consequential conclusions as factual repudiation of established understanding is tantamount to scientific malfeasance imho. Ma hasn’t actually done this but you have with your 'fiction not fact' claim (“not about history. It is about a story”).

.... you should really try to refrain from such comments in the future..

Consider the context. I would have thought you'd be more offended by the moon landing / flat earth imputations.

my2bob

[Argon Viper]

As for the Maccabean revolt, I actually think the views of a Hellenistic scholar should carry some weight, as the primary sources we use for the story tend to be the Jewish ones since they're the ones that have fed most into modern culture (let's realize that the dominant religion today is descended from those Maccabees). While we have long known the tale of Exodus as a massive destruction of the Egyptian military, documents and historical study of the Egyptians have now shown that it was a relatively minor event for their side except for the fact that their crown prince was killed in a relatively small battle in the process. In the same way, we can't know the true history of the Maccabean revolt without studying it from all sides involved. While the Seleucids would certainly have had reason to try to minimize it in their propoganda at the time (just as the Maccabees would have had reason to trumpet it), modern historical study is pretty good at sorting through that simply by prioritizing original source documents over more distant proclamations.

Anyways, I think each region should have an emergent faction that can serve as its "rebels" when the territory revolts. Those factions shouldn't then sit still, but have their own traits that can lead them even to become dominant factions in any game. In addition to the "historical authenticity" this provides, it would just make the game much more fun and unpredictable.

[PSYCHO V]

While the Seleucids would certainly have had reason to try to minimize it in their propoganda at the time (just as the Maccabees would have had reason to trumpet it), modern historical study is pretty good at sorting through that simply by prioritizing original source documents over more distant proclamations..

Which is why academia is not supporting Ma and his modeling.

my2bob

[Radzeer]

I have done some cleaning here. Please stay on topic, which is how this could be implemented in the game.

Edit: if you want to comment on moderation, use the moderation commentary thread.

[daelin4]

In RTW the starting campaign date was 270BC. Assuming this is the same date for Rome2, Judea would be under Seleucid control (the Hasmonean dynasty started at around 140BC so says wikipedia).