HUGE Update: Rome 2 PICTURES, ARTICLES & VIDEOS - 12/6/13

[* Matolo Swazulu *]

Not sure if troll, or just retarded.

Probably both, but at least one of the two :/

[Birk]

He is just playing with ya

[PrinceofPersia]

What a super OP.
great stuff!

[Steel*Faith]

I think you are a little too much on a "modern" vision and Taliban.

I think you have no idea who and what the Taliban really is, and don't understand they're trying to follow the recorded example of their Prophet. Muhammad and his successors treated people the same as the "modern" Taliban and similar modern Islamic groups. Why? Because they are following the Hadith, and other records, which are used worshiped like scripture, to mold their lives in every aspect you can think of. Western liberals don't understand this.

For example, minority religious groups where generally allowed to maintain places of worship, and where to a varying degree integrated with society, all this very much conflicting with the Taliban's ideology of "kill everyone".

Yes, some were allowed to do so if they could afford the Jizya, if not, they were forced to convert to Islam, and if they refused they were put into slavery, and their children would be taken away and forced into servitude and trained for military service for life (ie. Mamelukes). This is another lie propagated by modern Islamists and taken hook line and sinker by liberal historians.

If you speak with natives Copts from Egypt, it is a well known amongst them that the early Khaliphate were responsible for these acts. It's even in Islamic hadith talking about how they did such things, but of course, their record is questionable, but they are making this claim. Breaking the nose off the Sphinx was an act by the Khalif to show people worshiping the idol still that it had no power, and Allah alone should be worshiped and feared; this was a story told to me even at a young age, and Muslims have much pride in this. Where did this kind of behavior derive from? Muhammad himself, when he by example, smashed all the idols kept in the Kaaba, and his successors followed on with the same kind of attitude towards other religions and people. Anyhow, this is actually their own claim, not mine.

Why could not the Assyrians, the Kushite or the Persians loot the pyramid ?

Is this speculation or do you have any evidence?

Let's stop going nowhere with this debate, because none of us are going to change our opinions, and it's off topic anyways.

[Wilder]

Yes, some were allowed to do so if they could afford the Jizya, if not, they were forced to convert to Islam, and if they refused they were put into slavery, and their children would be taken away and forced into servitude and trained for military service for life (ie. Mamelukes). This is another lie propagated by modern Islamists and taken hook line and sinker by liberal historians.

If you speak with natives Copts from Egypt, it is a well known amongst them that the early Khaliphate were responsible for these acts. It's even in Islamic hadith talking about how they did such things, but of course, their record is questionable, but they are making this claim. Breaking the nose off the Sphinx was an act by the Khalif to show people worshiping the idol still that it had no power, and Allah alone should be worshiped and feared; this was a story told to me even at a young age, and Muslims have much pride in this. Where did this kind of behavior derive from? Muhammad himself, when he by example, smashed all the idols kept in the Kaaba, and his successors followed on with the same kind of attitude towards other religions and people. Anyhow, this is actually their own claim, not mine.

hm. And the politics start in. I suppose that before I try and address this, I should acknowledge the elephant in the room: I am a "liberal", by most people's standards, but also spent time in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban, and have an amateur interest in Islamic history. Not trying to brag, or make unsubstantiated claims over the internet, just pointing out that saddling a belief with the burden of "liberalism" is not going to convince me of anything. Let us keep this evidence based shall we? Additionally, my interest here (just to be 100% explicit) is not to defend Islam, but rather history as I understand it.

As it happens, the dhimni system as you describe it is true, in that it was at times practiced this way, but it is also a vast simplification as it morphed enormously through time and space. Case in point: the Taliban. They have no dhimni system, as if you are openly non muslim, they simply kill you. This in and of itself demonstrate that any attempt to draw a clear parallel between the 7th and 8th century Caliphates and the Taliban are doomed to failure, they are just too different. What is more the dhimni system that you describe is one of its more extreme variants, the concept of using slave warriors from non-muslim peoples would have been a very alien concept to the early Caliphate. Mamluks where where not used until the 13th century, and even then where mostly Turkic.

but speaking of anachronism, and more to the issue at hand, the case of the nose of the Sphinx is quite illuminating, as the man who removed it was not from the early Caliphate, but rather the 14th century (500 years of Muslim rule later), and he was subsequently hung for vandalism!

Additionally, Coptic folk tales are not the best source of information on this sort of thing, certainly not when contrasted with records from, or closer to, the time under discussion. I know plenty of Lebanese Christians who very firmly believe that all Druze are born with tails, but, trust me, they are wrong. There is a lot of bad blood between these groups, and taking sides is bad mistake.

The point that I am trying to get to is this: Yes, there is a tradition of iconoclasts in Islam, and yes, for a time they were an invading force in Egypt, both of which make them good suspects for vandalism and looting, but the fact of the matter is that they are only one among a field of many. The Assyrians, for instance, were many, many times more brutal that the Arabs, and they invaded well before the time period in Rome 2.

Is this speculation or do you have any evidence?

Largely, yes. Who smashed what in Egypt is a matter of speculation. That is sort of the crux of the argument.

Let's stop going nowhere with this debate, because none of us are going to change our opinions, and it's off topic anyways.

If you think for a moment I am going to give you the last word you are badly mistaken. Besides, the question at hand is whether we think the Pyramids were striped of limestone and gold by the period of rome 2. I say it is plausible, but not a given.

[Praevanid]

Great compilation of information from these articles! I'm most excited to learn more about the Agents, armies, and Provinces systems. I wonder how the Champion will work both in battle and on the map.

Why does September 3rd have to be so far away??

[StealthFox]

Back on topic. Please take this discussion to another thread.

[abuahmed]

I love the campaign map and how beautiful it is but what's up with building resources screen looks different.

[Påsan]

I like the little wooden bridges that cross the Nile.

[* Matolo Swazulu *]

I wonder how armies and agents cross rivers such as the Nile? By boat? Or by crossing?... but there are no bridges :/

[Jokern]

I wonder how armies and agents cross rivers such as the Nile? By boat? Or by crossing?... but there are no bridges :/

If you look at the Nile right between right between the big Ptolemaic Army and the spy you can see two small ports with boats going back and forth. That is most likely a crossing as the great, navigable rivers will be too big to have bridges.

[-=PHX=-Hades]

I wonder how armies and agents cross rivers such as the Nile? By boat? Or by crossing?... but there are no bridges :/

There is a bridge there. Plus, remember, you don't need a fleet to transport troops over water anymore, they become a fleet when you move them over water. So they can cross anywhere.

[d4g4n]

There is a bridge there. Plus, remember, you don't need a fleet to transport troops over water anymore, they become a fleet when you move them over water. So they can cross anywhere.

They said armies will indeed change into a transport, when you move them over seas (or big rivers). However, if you see for instance the Nile picture, or pause at the Cleopatra intro showing the map, there are 'beaches' and (far more) higher ground. I think you will only be able to deploy the army at those beaches. And also, I hope so

[Sherm]

I think there are straits, like the ones usually used for Italy and Sicily or Gibraltar, if you watch near the delta you can see something that is rimembering one the typical straits of the TW series.

[Inatar]

We know that Armies will have their own Legacy System and Skill tree, do Generals get one too?

[Greve Af Göteborg]

We know that Armies will have their own Legacy System and Skill tree, do Generals get one too?

They will, just like in shogun 2.

[ashbery76]

I do not recall the Suez Canal being in this period.

[Kadoken]

I do not recall the Suez Canal being in this period.

Welp, it's there. Wha'chu gonna do about it?

[-=PHX=-Hades]

I do not recall the Suez Canal being in this period.

They've already explained why they did this. They want the eastern factions that have ports on the Indian Ocean to be able to send their fleets into the Med, so they can get in on the naval action. It's just one of those cases where fun trumps historical accuracy. I'm totally fine with it.

[Basileos Leandros I]

I love those campaign shots. Looking forward to the final version of it!

And on another note, this is from the Org, a new preview from the German Gamestar - http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/total-...0,3012769.html