Not-so-new rebel factions

[Veah]

I was having a look at the Total War Atilla new chapter system to share your conquest and so on... When in this campaign ( http://chronicles.totalwar.com/DacianDervish/chapter/83 ) I saw two factions called Italia and Pontus.
I don't know if they are just factions that spawn after a succesfull rebellion, or if they can also be liberated when conquered. ¿Does anyone know something about this? Intersting...

[Kraut and Tea]

I absolutly dread the emergent factions.

Be prepared for pseudo historic absurdity!

I read on the official forum that "Macedon" is an emergent faction........ wtf?!

[MathiasOfAthens]

I like the idea of emergent factions. I dont want absurb fantasy factions like a reborn carthaginian empire but Italia and Pontus make sense... pontus less so. Italia is a bad name choice but still... I like it.

It gives the games more replayability with more factions. Different outcomes, etc.

[Kraut and Tea]

I like the idea of emergent factions. I dont want absurb fantasy factions like a reborn carthaginian empire but Italia and Pontus make sense... pontus less so. Italia is a bad name choice but still... I like it.

It gives the games more replayability with more factions. Different outcomes, etc.

This might be a stupid question, but do you have historical cases of factions that emerged during that time? Or factions that tried to emerge via rebellion?

I am not trying to be cynical, I am sincere because i dont have a clue myself.

[nameless]

This might be a stupid question, but do you have historical cases of factions that emerged during that time? Or factions that tried to emerge via rebellion?

I am not trying to be cynical, I am sincere because i dont have a clue myself.

How would you? Be realistic.

We're playing a sandbox game here. 10 of us here could play the Western Roman Empire but in a completely different way in which case we could have factions that pop up here and there. Warlordism did exist where some commanders or governors tried to pop up their own little empires and if the way we're playing gives them that opportunity then why not?

You can argue that it's not historical for whatever weird reasons but at the same time if some provinces rebel and form their own factions or say the Ostrogoths liberated other provinces they have to give them some name...

I prefer factions that can act on their own and interact with other factions after they rebel, instead of generic grey rebels that just stand inside their cities and grow fat. Haven't looked at too much Atilla footage but I assume we will also have civil war factions, so we have to look out for both.

We do have Western Separatists.

I'm guessing the Separatists will come from the "Civil War" method where if we don't keep an eye on politics a breakaway will happen.

Then at the same time we have to look out for disloyal generals and possible provinces that rebel and break away on their own and that's it's OWN separate thing.

[MathiasOfAthens]

CA isnt going to spend time finding historical names for real factions man. Be realistic here.

And I think there are 3 other emergents: Britain, Gaul and Hispania.


But real emergents at this time did exist. England should have at least 20 factions by 450 AD.

[Ahiga]

We've already seen these in the video previews - they are not resurrected Pontus of old, but rather Roman breakaways who take the name of the region they are from. It's the same sense of the Romano-Britons, or the 3rd century Gallic Empire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Empire ). Nobody in their right mind would accuse someone depicting the gallic Empire as pseudo history or instantly assume this was some neo-vercingetorix faction. Well, maybe Total war center would if it meant a chance to nag about CA.

This solves the issue of what you name a roman rebel state that emerges in Macedonia or Pontus or Egypt. It doesn't mean Antigonids or Ptolemaics are back, simply that for lack of a better name (the only alternative I can think of would be dynastic, or adding "Romano-" as a suffix) the roman rebels are called after the region they are from. And the alternative would be generic rebel names, which you lot would be whining about "ablobloblo why is CA making Roman rebels in Egypt just generic Roman rebels".

So please look before you leap at CA's throat. And TW campaigns have always been about the goddamn sandbox quality, not about being railroaded onto absolutely 100% unfolding like in real life. Maybe the circumstances that led to the romano-british kingdoms never come about but instead develop in Gaul or Egypt. What then?

[Nelfe]

Italia is a new faction that can be liberated. I saw it on a preview stream when the player successfully attacks Rome with his Ostrogoths and liberate it.

[Abdülmecid I]

In BI, there were two rebel factions, the WRE rebels and the ERE rebels, basically copy paste of WRE and ERE with different colours. Your generals could switch sides and in some cases, the rebelling faction actually defeated the loyalists. I think I prefer the old system, usurpers make more sense than inexistent states with obsolete names, like Pontus or Macedon.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

In BI, there were two rebel factions, the WRE rebels and the ERE rebels, basically copy paste of WRE and ERE with different colours. Your generals could switch sides and in some cases, the rebelling faction actually defeated the loyalists. I think I prefer the old system, usurpers make more sense than inexistent states with obsolete names, like Pontus or Macedon.

the old system is still there, they are called ER_separatists of properly WR_separatist.
I have a picture of it but it will not upload o_o

the ER_separatist is blue and red just like Bactria!

I like both of them, better the Rebel Faction -.-'

[Captain W. Handberg]

To be honest, I love this. Greedy nobility and warlords biding for power in the crumbling roman empire? An untrustworthy general with ambition and a large army? Why not carve out his own glorious Empire of Macedonia, like Alexander?

[MathiasOfAthens]

I like this too.

I remember the separatist faction in ETW, when a rebel army captures your capital your faction dies and the rebels take over. I recall you are given the chance to end the game or continue as the rebels who are not the rulers.

Was a great way to start rebellions in other lands and improve diplomacy.

[Linke]

Great idea but a bit ridicolous with entirely Romanized Italy breaking of for example.
Anyways it's great with more factions for modders

[PointOfViewGun]

Odoacer established Italy as a non-Roman state in in 476. So, it would make sense to have Italia as an emergent state if you manage to conquer Rome earlier and have the intention to create a state out of it.

[Joar]

Odoacer established Italy as a non-Roman state in in 476. So, it would make sense to have Italia as an emergent state if you manage to conquer Rome earlier and have the intention to create a state out of it.

That's not entirely correct. Odoacer's realm was just as Roman as it had been under previous rulers. In fact he actually managed to somewhat turn the tide, and restore some lost territories, and stabilize the economy. He was, nominally, a subject of Constantinople ( after the death of Julius Nepos ), and never used a title resembling anything like "king of Italy". To the Romans, he was referred to as "Dominus", and his heterogenous army called him king. He always respected and ruled with the cooperation of the Italian/Roman aristocracy, and the senate. During the war against the Ostrogoths, he proclaimed his son Caesar, and had he won, who knows what could have happened - perhaps had he restored the WRE with his son as emperor? It's not out of the question since Zeno was in no position to do anything about it. And since he, Zeno, had sent Theodoric against Odoacer, the latter no longer needed to uphold any kind of facade against Constantinople.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's not entirely correct. Odoacer's realm was just as Roman as it had been under previous rulers. In fact he actually managed to somewhat turn the tide, and restore some lost territories, and stabilize the economy. He was, nominally, a subject of Constantinople ( after the death of Julius Nepos ), and never used a title resembling anything like "king of Italy". To the Romans, he was referred to as "Dominus", and his heterogenous army called him king. He always respected and ruled with the cooperation of the Italian/Roman aristocracy, and the senate. During the war against the Ostrogoths, he proclaimed his son Caesar, and had he won, who knows what could have happened - perhaps had he restored the WRE with his son as emperor? It's not out of the question since Zeno was in no position to do anything about it. And since he, Zeno, had sent Theodoric against Odoacer, the latter no longer needed to uphold any kind of facade against Constantinople.

Didn't he call himself rex Italiae at least once? In any case, he was the ruler of this realm. The new realm was not Roman dominated anymore. His whole campaign started with the promises of land made to the foederati, Germanic soldiers settling in Italian peninsula. He might have been a subject of Eastern Roman Empire and utilized the existing Roman infrastructure but it's still a new state. He was certainly clever and knew the value of utilizing that infrastructure. So, there was no total and complete destruction of the Western Roman Empire, it's still safe to say that he created a new faction out of it.

[D@gget]

I prefer factions that can act on their own and interact with other factions after they rebel, instead of generic grey rebels that just stand inside their cities and grow fat. Haven't looked at too much Atilla footage but I assume we will also have civil war factions, so we have to look out for both.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

IMO, they should have done two resurgent Roman factions: an Usurper Faction that spawns with a powerful army and with a special event under special conditions, and "Bacaudae" or simply rebel provinces, which could be divided into the Nori (In Noricum), Vindelici (In Raetia), Aremoreciani (in Britanny), and then also one just called "Bacaudae" to cover everywhere else (Like North Spain). Would have been way more historically accurate.

[Joar]

Didn't he call himself rex Italiae at least once?

No, the whole "king of Italy" and "kingdom of Italy" is a product of a much later date. Odoacer was, however, king of several tribes ( or at least the parts of those tribes who served under his command ), he was even referred to as "king of the Goths", but that did, of course, not mean that he held any sway over the Goths in Gaul/Spain, or the Goths in the east. It just meant that he was king of the group of Goths who served in the Roman army in Italy.

Odoacer did referred to himself as king, and Patricius, a Roman title. But he never proclaimed independence from the Roman empire, and he never styled himself in the same fashion as Gaiseric or Euric. He was a Roman official, a Roman subject. His whole civil administration was Roman, and he upheld and maintained Roman laws and customs. On a public inscription on the Colosseum at Rome, he calls himself "the most excellent Odoacer". His constitutional position is very hard to define, but he did, without any question, recognise the rule of both Julius Nepos and Zeno. This is a fact, because he minted coins saying so. When the war broke out and all ties was severed with Zeno, Odoacer proclaimed his son Caesar, and a man called Tufa Master of Soldiers. The coins he minted never speaks of a "rex", but are fully Roman coins with the symbols of Rome and Ravenna on them. This clearly indicates that he intended to resurrect the Western Roman empire, and never entertained the idea of doing what Gaiseric had done in North Africa, or the Visigoths in Spain and Gaul.

The new realm was not Roman dominated anymore.

Yes, it most certainly was. There was no change in policies, laws or anything of the sort. He did, however, impose hospitalias on Italian soil, but imposing a Roman system on Roman territory is hardly "unroman". Odoacer has got a rather bad reputation due to his "forced retirement" of the usurper Romulus Augustus, but one have to remember to look at the whole situation from a contemporary point of view. The reign of Romulus was unlawful, and he was never recognised outside of Italy. Odoacer was just as much a Roman ( culturally, not ethnically ) as Stilicho, Aëtius, or Ricimer, and the only real difference was that he ( Odoacer ) didn't place a puppet emperor on the throne. Instead he opted to reign as a nominal subject of the Eastern emperor. No person living at this time would ever consider Italy as an independent kingdom or anything of the sort. It was a part of the Roman empire, just as it had always been.

Many have tried to paint Odoacer as this shabby and brutal barbarian who kicked out the emperor, and became a tyrant of Italy. But that's just silly. He had, most likely, served in the Roman armies for a long time ( presumably under Ricimer ), and it is quite telling that not even the often vocal church had anything bad to say about the reign of the arian Odoacer.

Finally, let me ask you this: if Odoacer had kept Romulus as a puppet instead of retiring him, would you still call Italy a non-Roman state?

[PointOfViewGun]

No, the whole "king of Italy" and "kingdom of Italy" is a product of a much later date. Odoacer was, however, king of several tribes ( or at least the parts of those tribes who served under his command ), he was even referred to as "king of the Goths", but that did, of course, not mean that he held any sway over the Goths in Gaul/Spain, or the Goths in the east. It just meant that he was king of the group of Goths who served in the Roman army in Italy.

Odoacer did referred to himself as king, and Patricius, a Roman title. But he never proclaimed independence from the Roman empire, and he never styled himself in the same fashion as Gaiseric or Euric. He was a Roman official, a Roman subject. His whole civil administration was Roman, and he upheld and maintained Roman laws and customs. On a public inscription on the Colosseum at Rome, he calls himself "the most excellent Odoacer". His constitutional position is very hard to define, but he did, without any question, recognise the rule of both Julius Nepos and Zeno. This is a fact, because he minted coins saying so. When the war broke out and all ties was severed with Zeno, Odoacer proclaimed his son Caesar, and a man called Tufa Master of Soldiers. The coins he minted never speaks of a "rex", but are fully Roman coins with the symbols of Rome and Ravenna on them. This clearly indicates that he intended to resurrect the Western Roman empire, and never entertained the idea of doing what Gaiseric had done in North Africa, or the Visigoths in Spain and Gaul.

Yes, it most certainly was. There was no change in policies, laws or anything of the sort. He did, however, impose hospitalias on Italian soil, but imposing a Roman system on Roman territory is hardly "unroman". Odoacer has got a rather bad reputation due to his "forced retirement" of the usurper Romulus Augustus, but one have to remember to look at the whole situation from a contemporary point of view. The reign of Romulus was unlawful, and he was never recognised outside of Italy. Odoacer was just as much a Roman ( culturally, not ethnically ) as Stilicho, Aëtius, or Ricimer, and the only real difference was that he ( Odoacer ) didn't place a puppet emperor on the throne. Instead he opted to reign as a nominal subject of the Eastern emperor. No person living at this time would ever consider Italy as an independent kingdom or anything of the sort. It was a part of the Roman empire, just as it had always been.

Many have tried to paint Odoacer as this shabby and brutal barbarian who kicked out the emperor, and became a tyrant of Italy. But that's just silly. He had, most likely, served in the Roman armies for a long time ( presumably under Ricimer ), and it is quite telling that not even the often vocal church had anything bad to say about the reign of the arian Odoacer.

Finally, let me ask you this: if Odoacer had kept Romulus as a puppet instead of retiring him, would you still call Italy a non-Roman state?

Your question first. I don't know. I guess I wouldn't call it a Roman state. However, that's a very limited change. What requirements would you want for a state to be non-Roman?

He was referred to as the rex by many sources of the times, especially the Papacy, and he is said to be using the title rex more as his reign progressed. He disposed Roman emperors in the West and had his foederati settle in Italy. He didn't really recognize Zeno's rule to the fullest as he rejected Zeno's candidate, Julius Nepos, as Western Roman emperor. He mostly used Nepos as part of his politics. He might have produced coins for him but he also made coins of himself. Odoacer simply doesn't created a state on destruction of an other state. He was smart and wanted to use the facilities that a Roman state provided. It doesn't really make the state Roman anymore, however. It's like calling Turkey and Ottoman state.