Roman Political Parties

[CenturionSam]

Do you think the Optimates and populares should be given as a trait to show who the character supports?

[Serkelet]

Definitely. Unfortunately this very important factor of Roman History is very likely to be overlooked.

[CenturionSam]

Very Unfortunate.

[General Maximus]

Europa Universalis Rome had political parties (although in English names). It had religious, civic, military, mercantile and Populist parties which Senators could join, and their actions and stats also depended upon them.

Political parties in Rome II would be great. They are really needed for accurate portrayal of Roman Republic (or even the Empire). I had once posted a thread about the political systems in Rome and the need for political parties too.

[Slydessertfox]

I accidentally voted no, but I would like to see it. Though Rome didn't necessarily have political parties. Yes, you can loosely group people in as optimates and populates, but for the most part, the optimates didn't work together, and the populares didn't work together.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

I wouldn't get too depressed just yet, I have a suspicion that this will definitely be in the game. It TOTALLY fits with what CA have planned for the senate/family relations and traits, and if it isn't in the game, then CA would have had to invent some ahistorical modifier to replace it. I'm sure they know about optimates and populares. The only doubt I have is whether they actually call this mechanic using their latin names.

[Serkelet]

I wouldn't get too depressed just yet, I have a suspicion that this will definitely be in the game. It TOTALLY fits with what CA have planned for the senate/family relations and traits, and if it isn't in the game, then CA would have had to invent some ahistorical modifier to replace it. I'm sure they know about optimates and populares. The only doubt I have is whether they actually call this mechanic using their latin names.

Well, all what we have heard about Roman inner politics until now is about artificial families vs families conflicts and how they all struggle to seize power, reducing it to a personal power hunger, rather than the actual real political problems Rome had. It's following the Ciceronian mindset, really.

[CenturionSam]

Maybe they will call it liberals and conservatives :p

[-=PHX=-Hades]

Maybe they will call it liberals and conservatives :p

[Smartbomb]

Maybe they will call it liberals and conservatives :p

What would be the point of having 2 parties that are secretly in cooperation with one another?

[Sun Tsu]

I only know Patricians en plebs, what were the party's in ancient Rome ?

[Serkelet]

I only know Patricians en plebs, what were the party's in ancient Rome ?

The Senators, the guys that were the only ones with the right to make laws and issue orders in the Roman Republic, only constrained for some centuries (until the Empire times) by the Plebs Tribunes, were divided in two ways to think:

The major party was the Optimates, which literally means "the best of the best", as they "humbly" cathegorized themselves. They were always majority in the Senate, since they represented the self interests of the ruling class, the one that had almost all the land and possessions in Rome and... well, pretty much everywhere they stepped on with their legions. They basically were defenders of the Status Quo and their oligarchic system, enemies of any democratic movement from the people, and they proved it by systematically murdering every single man that supposed a threat to their interests, like the Gracchi brothers.

Then there was the minority, because selfless good willed people are always a minority: the Populares. Their positions ranged from very radical (like the Gracchi brothers) to moderate (like Julius Caesar), but they all had in common that they wanted to introduce democratic laws in the Roman Republic to share power with the plebs, redistributing the land that rich people took through low means from the rest of little (ex)land owners, limiting slavery to give jobs to the poor Roman citizens that barely could eat, etc. The Populares have been accused through the ages of being demagogic and populists, only wanting personal power, not really caring about the welfare of their fellow poorer citizens, but using them as tools for their selfish and self loathing purposes. Maybe it's true, but their actions can't be denied; every time they had the chance to influence in the politics of Rome, they almost always made laws that favoured the poor.

The problem is that Rome's propaganda is still very present in our modern days, since conservatist Historians take the writings of the likes of Cicero, Livy, Plutarch, etc, as absolute truths, when those were also in their time Optimates or conservatists/reactionarists, and of course would explain History from their biased point of view. But that's how it seems this game is going to be presented in the innern Roman struggles: a simplified power hunger struggle, echoing all the accusations ancient rich Romans threw over Caesar as true.

[Sun Tsu]

The Senators, the guys that were the only ones with the right to make laws and issue orders in the Roman Republic, only constrained for some centuries (until the Empire times) by the Plebs Tribunes, were divided in two ways to think:

The major party was the Optimates, which literally means "the best of the best", as they humbly cathegorized themselves. They were always majority in the Senate, since they represented the self interests of the ruling class, the one that had almost all the land and possessions in Rome and... well, pretty much everywhere they stepped on with the legions. They basically were defenders of the Status Quo, enemies of any democratic movement from the people, and they proved it by systematically murdering every single man that supposed a threat to their interests, like the Gracchi brothers.

Then there was the minority, because selfless good willed people are always a minority: the Populares. Their positions ranged from very radical (like the Gracchi brothers) to moderate (like Julius Caesar), but they all had in common that they wanted to introduce democratic laws in the Roman Republic to share power with the plebs, redistributing the land that rich people took through low means from the rest of little (ex)land owners, limiting slavery to give jobs to the poor Roman citizens that barely could eat, etc. The Populares have been accused through the ages of being demagogic and populists, only wanting personal power, not really caring about the welfare of their fellow poorer citizens, but using them as tools for their selfish and self loathing purposes. Maybe it's true, but their actions can't be denied; every time they had the chance to influence in the politics of Rome, they almost always made laws that favoured the poor.

The problem is that Rome's propaganda is still very present in our modern days, since conservatist Historians take the writings of the likes of Cicero, Livy, Plutarch, etc, as absolute truths, when those were also in their time Optimates or conservatists/reactionarists, and of course would explain History from their biased point of view. But that's how it seems this game is going to be presented in the innern Roman struggles: a simplified power hunger struggle, echoing all the accusations ancient rich Romans threw over Caesar as true.

Okay, that's more clear for me now, thanks alot !
PS: are you an historian ?

[Sixer19]

no diggity no doubt

[Spartan999]

Oh man this would be great, your actions playing as Rome in Rome 2 will affect who you please. Trying to please the Senate while trying to keep the people happy. Example: Making new reforms for the poor (land reforms for example) will get the rich Senators pissed off, while making reforms for the rich landowners will piss off the poor. Conquering lands will please both side temporally, but the distribution will have to be balanced out. Giving a lot of land to the rich will give you money bonus, while giving lot of land to the poor will give you extra happiness in your land.

[Lord Tomyris]

Would certainly add to the role-playing element of the game if you had to come down on the side of either the Senate (the Junii faction?) or the people (the Julii faction?).

[Ichon]

Not only choosing between political factions of the people vs the senate but also Romans vs non Roman tribes (Social Wars) and choosing foreign cultures to admire (Romans who 'admired' Greek ways were though of as weak and unmanly). Later many Romans who had Gaulish tutors were thought to be less Roman as well and enjoyed wine and trivial pursuits overmuch.

So if each character had perhaps 3 choices in the Republic... family, party, culture.

Claudian as family, plebian as party, Roman as culture.

Family would determine alignment in the Senate and possible split in any minor civil war. Marriage alliances could occur within a faction to strengthen families and gain more loyalty from particular regions.

Party could identify characters as favoring aristocrats or the people which if the character rises determines reactions of other characters and monetary vs other bonus (favoring the aristocrats gives money bonus while favoring the people might give higher elite ratio and +happiness in province that character resides or +loyalty to armies commanded but piss off other families/characters who favor aristocrats).

Culture would be a choice made for smaller bonus or malus. Roman culture would give happiness bonus in majority Roman culture provinces and minus happiness in non-Roman provinces which could be offset by other traits. Preferring Greek culture might make a character get on well with Greeks and thus have Romans or Germans dislike that character as Greek manners and customs are weak.

Culture could also play a role in choosing sides in any Social War type civil wars where reform to extend Roman citizenship dilutes power of the Senate and the original voting tribes.

[planetpluto]

Hm... I've always wondered what kind of penalties they're going to make for choosing one faction over the other. If, say you favoured the populares over the senatores, will the senate eventually declare you a traitor? Can you then march against Rome and make it into an empire a lot sooner than history dictated?

[Serkelet]

Hm... I've always wondered what kind of penalties they're going to make for choosing one faction over the other. If, say you favoured the populares over the senatores, will the senate eventually declare you a traitor? Can you then march against Rome and make it into an empire a lot sooner than history dictated?

Don't be confused: either Populares and Optimates were both Senatores. Althought I guess you already knew this and you just mistaked terms?

I think CA stated that what you say could be very well be the case. If you use your faction leader as general of a legion and, in Rome, your enemies grow very hostile towards you and feel strong, then probably you'll have to march on Rome.

[Trixie]

Perhaps you send your rival generals on a ship for "logistical maneuvers" and it never returns? A really bad storm they say...