Rome or Macedon || Which one would You command?

[JankoMega]

I've been following the development since the very first day, and have been planning out my conquests for over a year now. (no 'no life' jokes)
My first plan was, as you can tell by the signature below this post, to rebuild the great Alexander's empire and further expand it to the west. Though, after seeing the recent videos that show Rome as a very powerful faction, I started thinking about going in the path Augustus, and becoming the 'Pater Patriae' of Rome. (feel like a geek now, sort of) So, what I need from you is to give me your personal advises.
Which one of these two would you choose and why?
What are the pros and cons of both Macedon and Rome?
You gotta understand that the entire gameplay I'll be having in the next year or so depends on this thread, so let's not get too emotional here.
A big sorry for making a, pretty much, useless thread; I needed some suggestions from you guys.
Cheers and a big thank You in advance!

[GussieFinkNottle]

Play as Rome
They will have worked the hardest on Rome, after all it is the eponymous faction. It will have democracy and politics features that Macedon won't, making for a more dynamic and interesting playthrough, and since it lasted longer it will likely be able to develop more
Its armies are the most versatile and its ability to adapt and defeat so many challenges is unrivalled
Furthermore its public buildings and works, including entertainment and hygiene, are the best, and will provide helpful buffs.

While Rome starts off a relatively unknown quality to its neighbours, Macedon is hated by the Greeks, jealously coveted by the other successor states and already in an arms race with Epirus, while having a very limited army of near-immobile spearmen and heavy cavalry. Besides, the Macedonian phalanx looks a bit crap in screenshots of Rome 2:
(click to enlarge)

Seriously go for Rome

[JankoMega]

Play as Rome

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They will have worked the hardest on Rome, after all it is the eponymous faction. It will have democracy and politics features that Macedon won't, making for a more dynamic and interesting playthrough, and since it lasted longer it will likely be able to develop more
Its armies are the most versatile and its ability to adapt and defeat so many challenges is unrivalled
Furthermore its public buildings and works, including entertainment and hygiene, are the best, and will provide helpful buffs.

While Rome starts off a relatively unknown quality to its neighbours, Macedon is hated by the Greeks, jealously coveted by the other successor states and already in an arms race with Epirus, while having a very limited army of near-immobile spearmen and heavy cavalry. Besides, the Macedonian phalanx looks a bit crap in screenshots of Rome 2:
(click to enlarge)

Seriously go for Rome

By far, this has really changed my mind. A huge thanks!
On the other hand, I gotta disagree with some of the statements you got there. In one of the CA's interviews, James Russel pointed out that they're were not working the most on Rome, though on all factions out there, almost equally. Macedon definitely had it's unmatched glory during Alexander and Philip, and that's exactly what allures me to play with them. Rome on other hand, has it's very disciplined (and later) professional army. Personally, I think they only fought because of the order that was given to them. Alexander's army though, fought because of freedom of Greece, and not because of wealth and land like Rome did. ​Thanks again!
Now let's see some other suggestions, shall we?

[GussieFinkNottle]

By far, this has really changed my mind. A huge thanks!
On the other hand, I gotta disagree with some of the statements you got there. In one of the CA's interviews, James Russel pointed out that they're were not working the most on Rome, though on all factions out there, almost equally. Macedon definitely had it's unmatched glory during Alexander and Philip, and that's exactly what allures me to play with them. Rome on other hand, has it's very disciplined (and later) professional army. Personally, I think they only fought because of the order that was given to them. Alexander's army though, fought because of freedom of Greece, and not because of wealth and land like Rome did. ​Thanks again!
Now let's see some other suggestions, shall we?

They have to say they are working on everyone equally, however Rome is the most iconic and looks to have the most thorough roster, additionally there is the most source material on Rome. The features of politics were clearly designed for Rome, and added for Carthage because it was convenient (i.e. would they really have gone into that much depth with politics had it just been Carthage). The legion system is also modelled around Rome since most factions didn't have standing armies. I think it's fair to say Rome received the most tlc when designing them

I myself have to disagree with some of your statements (though in the vein of historical debate, please take no offence), particularly about your ascribing certain motives to troops.
Roman troops were volunteers, professionals who fought for pay and did their job well. They fought because it was their job, and sometimes because they were loyal to their general (i.e. legions that rebelled in civil wars) and it was not their place to decide who Rome attacked. Macedonian troops did not fight out of especially noble motives, but like all soldiers simply fought for pay in their army under their king. They would have fought well against Persians because Greeks hated them so much thanks to all the invasions. When self-interest asserted itself i.e. when they felt they would lose if they pressed any further into India after the Battle of the Hydaspes they did refuse to fight any more

It will have helped that Alexander always led them to victory of course, but the enemies he steamrolled no longer existed at this time, it would be very hard to repeat his feats

[Durnaug]

Play as Rome
They will have worked the hardest on Rome, after all it is the eponymous faction. It will have democracy and politics features that Macedon won't, making for a more dynamic and interesting playthrough, and since it lasted longer it will likely be able to develop more
Its armies are the most versatile and its ability to adapt and defeat so many challenges is unrivalled
Furthermore its public buildings and works, including entertainment and hygiene, are the best, and will provide helpful buffs.

While Rome starts off a relatively unknown quality to its neighbours, Macedon is hated by the Greeks, jealously coveted by the other successor states and already in an arms race with Epirus, while having a very limited army of near-immobile spearmen and heavy cavalry. Besides, the Macedonian phalanx looks a bit crap in screenshots of Rome 2:
(click to enlarge)

Seriously go for Rome

Good answer. Rome first and then diversify.

[Doe3000]

Good answer. Rome first and then diversify.

I agree. I'm going to play as Rome first, and possibly Macedon (or Iceni) second. It makes the most sense considering that Rome is the centre of the game. After all this is Rome II not Macedon II. With that in mind I think Carthage will be the second most interesting Faction to play after Rome, because of its expanded Political/Family scenario - something that makes the faction unique compared to the other Barbarian/ Eastern/ Greek factions.

[Jimakos1966]

MACEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON

[dom385]

Do what I do when ever a new total war comes out, have a custom battle with all the factions you're trying to decide between and see which ones units look the coolest or are the most fun to play with. That's how I decide anyway.

[Ariamanesh]

Do what I do when ever a new total war comes out, have a custom battle with all the factions you're trying to decide between and see which ones units look the coolest or are the most fun to play with. That's how I decide anyway.

Bravo!!!Thats what i am talking about!!!!

[DarthShizNit]

I would say Macedon, but I demand to see tha phalanx in action before I touch a Greek faction on the campaign map.

[Raikou]

Honestly I'll be playing as Rome in the comfort of my home and Macedon will be my first Campaign while on the road. Both great Factions but If I had to choose 1 or the other I'd say Rome without a doubt

[SamueleD]

I would chose Rome, simply because I identify more with them than with Macedon (and also because they look way cooler imo), and because I get the possibility of playing as a Republic, however primitive (and keeping it that way).

[Pteradon]

definitely Rome.

[Julio-Claudian]

Roma Roma Roma.
But i will definitely play a Macedon Campaign, I think that'll be my third one (first two being Rome).

[jtfjtfjtf]

Macedon

[Sir Robin]

Rome, mostly because I am not a fan of the phalanx. Though Rome also has a much better starting position.

[Dan113112]

Macedon. By the way, this should be a poll.

[Hetman Khmelnytsky]

It's all about Macedon, the Sarissas, the Hetairoi, and the Hypaspistai

[DogSoldierSPQR]

It's all about Rome!
Best all-round infantry. Very effective Javelins. Well-armoured. Good family system and that awesome privilege of being able to play as them anyway is good enough for me.

Where's Vercingetorix? I wanna beat that dude silly with the Roman standard!

[Durendalv2]

It's all about Rome!
Best all-round infantry.

That's the best reason right there. To the everlasting glory of the infantry!