Army traditions: What about army relgion? (Not a complaint)

[OCTAVIUS VATCO 22]

I have not yet bought the game but I am indeed to planning to, I am still at the point of finishing my research paper as a graduating Philosophy student and so time enough for RIITW to take good shape.

But there is something I'm wondering about. I have noticed through following the threads about armies having characters and a player now has a choice in immersion with the army tradition feature. However, I have yet heard about "religious traditions" for the armies which a certain historical fact especially with the imperial roman legions e.g. The Cult of Mithras which was very popular with the milites and the like. I think it is a missing important and fun feature wouldn't you think?

[RedGuard]

sadly religion serves no purpose in this game other than buildings that provide magical bonuses to your cities. Wouldn't most armies be dedicated to Mars, the roman horse god (forgot name) and or neptune if needed? I thought the romans just kinda praid to whoever they thought would give them victory (in that case Nike). Oh and yeah the cult of mithras like you said was very big later on but it only really got going at the end of the games timeframe

[lollaaja]

Religion was not an important part of the Roman Empire during this period. As Europeans, they were still untainted by semitic intolerance in the form of christinsanity. They were cool with all kinds of beliefs, as long as those didn't horrendously offend some of the Roman basic civilizational building blocks.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Religion was not an important part of the Roman Empire during this period. As Europeans, they were still untainted by semitic intolerance in the form of christinsanity. They were cool with all kinds of beliefs, as long as those didn't horrendously offend some of the Roman basic civilizational building blocks.

Lol so wrong, for starters the Romans of this time period persecuted the Celtic and Carthagian religions. The truth is that there is nothing more intolerant than a pagan douchebag.

[lollaaja]

Lol so wrong, for starters the Romans of this time period persecuted the Celtic and Carthagian religions. The truth is that there is nothing more intolerant than a pagan douchebag.

Carthaginians practiced semitic child-sacrifice. The Celtic religion was "persecuted" only in the way that their (religious) leadership class, the druids, were disempowered.

[Teodosio]

Lol so wrong, for starters the Romans of this time period persecuted the Celtic and Carthagian religions. The truth is that there is nothing more intolerant than a pagan douchebag.

These were political actions. A polytheist doesn't give a **** about other people religions. Religious violence appeared in the roman world when Christianity spreaded.

But we are going heavily off-topic

[absinthia]

These were political actions. A polytheist doesn't give a **** about other people religions. Religious violence appeared in the roman world when Christianity spreaded.

seems true enough. the first religious violence were not done by the Christians though, but against them.

christians in the Roman armies would have had a difficult time or most likely not being accepted if publicly christian. this due to the cult of the Emperor, which would conflict with the one God belief.

as for repression of the Celts, the Druids would have posed a troublesome political wing and been persecuted. but the Celt gods and their followers most likely not.
one example is Aquae Sullis, modern city of Bath, devoted to Minerva Sullis.

however, one might wonder what political intrigue that could have sprung out of the various cults. important people going to the same temples and taking part in the same seremonies, forming political bonds and commeradery.
religions and their various cults could have been an interesting aspect if there had been any depth to characters and intra-cultural relations.

But we are going heavily off-topic

perhaps this thread rather belong in the Historical Discussion forum.

[Humble Warrior]

Religion was not an important part of the Roman Empire during this period. As Europeans, they were still untainted by semitic intolerance in the form of christinsanity. They were cool with all kinds of beliefs, as long as those didn't horrendously offend some of the Roman basic civilizational building blocks.

Didn`t take long for the Christian hatred to pop its head up.

[RedGuard]

Celts and Carthaginians being persecuted in their religions was more along the lines of the Romans trying to completely erase their culture from having existed than any Greco-roman religion wanting to persecute them. Celts and Carthage were just the arch enemies of ancient Rome and it becoming an empire was the worst thing that could have happened for them from a hsistorian's perspective of trying to uncover knowledge about them. We know jack about Baal worship other than the roman anti-punic slant of saying in his temples the practiced child sacrifice which is unkown wheter or not to be true

[Spear Dog]

Celts and Carthaginians being persecuted in their religions was more along the lines of the Romans trying to completely erase their culture from having existed than any Greco-roman religion wanting to persecute them. Celts and Carthage were just the arch enemies of ancient Rome and it becoming an empire was the worst thing that could have happened for them from a hsistorian's perspective of trying to uncover knowledge about them. We know jack about Baal worship other than the roman anti-punic slant of saying in his temples the practiced child sacrifice which is unkown wheter or not to be true

Archaeology at the site of Carthage has uncovered a large number of infant burials well outside of the statistical norm and iirc indications of infanticide that strongly suggest infant sacrifice.

[RedGuard]

Archaeology at the site of Carthage has uncovered a large number of infant burials well outside of the statistical norm and iirc indications of infanticide that strongly suggest infant sacrifice.

not to be a stickler but can you point me to a legitimate source? because i have one that says otherwise and ive heard that they have pretty much been shot down:

http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/20...acrifice-site/

[Spear Dog]

not to be a stickler but can you point me to a legitimate source? because i have one that says otherwise and ive heard that they have pretty much been shot down:

http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/20...acrifice-site/

thanks for that link, information there certainly post-dates the archaeology report I was remembering which was circa this article by Roy Decker (I don't think I was recalling him in particular but rather the information he was working off - I just cite this article as an example).

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr..._carthrel3.htm

I must say however, I think your article leaves the question open rather than shot down. We're getting pretty off topic here as this doesn't relate to the Romans at all. I am somewhat compulsive and could not resist pointing out earlier, that there is archaeology thought to support reports of infant sacrifice.

[RedGuard]

thanks for that link, information there certainly post-dates the archaeology report I was remembering which was circa this article by Roy Decker (I don't think I was recalling him in particular but rather the information he was working off - I just cite this article as an example). http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr..._carthrel3.htm I must say however, I think your article leaves the question open rather than shot down. We're getting pretty off topic here as this doesn't relate to the Romans at all. I am somewhat compulsive and could not resist pointing out earlier, that there is archaeology thought to support reports of infant sacrifice.

Right, in my first post i said it was unknown to be true and it still is but the article i posted suggests that it might have been simply a prenatal death buruial ground, that the romans discovered and used it to feul thier propaganda machine(They needed a cassus belli to destroy them after they had paid all thier reperatations back and were still a prospering city state after 2 punic war). Of course no archeology is ever fully set in stone and it could still be open to interpretation. Just thought i would point out the other theory on it than stating for a fact that the Carthaginians sacrificed children.

but yes this is off topic and end of this discussion (unless you want to open a new thread in the VV)

[Argon Viper]

Roman bigotry was probably best shown in the Rome HBO series when you had the town crier guy announcing a visit by Herod of Judea by admonishing people to "keep mockery of the Jews and their one god to a polite minimum!" In other words, relatively minimal by today's standards.

[OCTAVIUS VATCO 22]

The talk about bigotry is quite entertaining, however, wouldn't religion be a pretty feature with the army?

[ExtremeBoyheat]

Pff, romans, carthaginians, german pagans. None can stand to the Zoroastrian Eternal Flame.

[Vaðarholmr]

Stay on topic people.

[BigHairyMelon]

Religion can be a touchy subject for some people if it isn't portrayed 'correctly'. We've seen some of the hate on these forums from little issues like height difference and from the 300 picture CA released. I can't imagine the hate implemented religion would bring. I think CA made the right decision to not include religion at all in the game despite it being an important factor of the time.

[Kenios]

Let's say armies do have religious traditions. How would that differ from the army traditions we already have? At the very least, CA has some justification in how they came up with army traditions and they had given specific examples such as the legions who followed Caesar in conquering Gaul. Yet, what basis is there for religious traditions of the time period? I always find it hypocritical how people always insist CA must stick to historical stuff, then turn around and say the game should come up with all kinds of fancy fantasies.

[OCTAVIUS VATCO 22]

Let's say armies do have religious traditions. How would that differ from the army traditions we already have? At the very least, CA has some justification in how they came up with army traditions and they had given specific examples such as the legions who followed Caesar in conquering Gaul. Yet, what basis is there for religious traditions of the time period? I always find it hypocritical how people always insist CA must stick to historical stuff, then turn around and say the game should come up with all kinds of fancy fantasies.

What hypocritical? Army religious traditions are historical. You saw to the suggested feature to literally. At the beginning of the game, there was not still these traditions, but it can be gradually gained through research the same as how the game gives to the player the post-marian army.