Dominus Rex

The release date question. I am not a member of the mod team, but have been eagerly awaiting it's release. The answer is It'll be done when it's done.

One should also consider, though, that 1 casualty may be a combination of both the pilum and gladius. Because the pilum renders the shield useless, that person may get killed by a gladius, where if they still had their sheild they might have survived. I guess that in this case the gladius does the actual kill, but the pilum is instrumental in it.

I am currently in my 2nd semester 2nd year of Latin, and I am not very good at it, but I shall join and I hope to learn more.

Remember, Paullus didn't want to fight that day, (atleast according to Livy) it was Varro. Paullus just came along for the ride to offer whatever advice he could, since Varro was following his biggest (avoiding battle). It should also be noted that Paullus lost his life that day, while Varro ran away like a scared little monkey.

I'm not sure, but is it possible that they were 3 brothers, but perhaps not triplets (i.e. different ages)? I'm sure it would be common to have 3 brothers, all of fighting age, from both cities.

Well, what was the population of both city-states at the time. I personally have no idea. But I am sure that if they were atleast large enough, then it is probable that triplets could happen.

I'd have to say my top three are- Scipio Africanus Gaius Marius Caesar All for obvious reasons.

Titus, if you are annoyed with the 3 roman family faction thing, as I was, then you should download the Rome Total Realism mod. You can get it here. It makes the game so much more historical, and therefore more fun.

I have to say that what Hannibal did at Cannae was tactically brilliant. He took a numerically inferior force and surrounded a larger force. It's true that Varrus made a big mistake, but if you look at it from his view, you can understand. Normally, if your army is twice as big as your opponents, normally you can just steamroll over the center. It was Hannibal's genius that set the trap. As for Hannibals strategy, well, not following up the victory with a march on Rome I believe was his worst mistake and because of it, he lost the war. A note on Varrus's collegue Pallus, well, Pallus didn't want to fight at Cannae. He adheared much more to Fabian stratagies, but as it was Varrus's day to command, he didn't have a choice. I apoligize for my bad spelling.

Also, how would they keep a grass crown together? After a while, when the crown dries out, it seems like it would fall apart.

This looks like a good mod, and I think I will try it out after finishing my Gaul campaign in RTR. Perhaps it will be very fun. So, it is more accurate than RTR, or just more in some aspects (like barbarian civs)?

I really don't understand much about the standards, except that they add a morale bonus of some kind to nearby units.

That was an amazing video. As far as I can tell, very accurate, and very cool. The triumphant music was for Hannibal and the Carthaginians, not for the outmanueverd and soon to be slaughtered Romans. I thought the one scene where there was the last Roman soldier fighting before he got cut down and very (for lack of a better word) sentimental scene. If it was just a video of a big battle, I would not have been very impressed, but as a rather historical recreation of Cannae, I thought it was very good.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Before Marius and his reforms, soldiers came from the land owning class and had their own equipment (usually given to them by their parents at 16). After their term, they could go back to their farms, and it didn't cost the State very much. Then, when Marius started recruiting his soldiers from the head count, the poor nobodies who lived in the slums of Rome, armies needed weapons from the State. The new soldiers were so poor they couldn't afford anything, and Rome certainly wasn't going to let ill-equiped soldiers into the field. This provided a large burden on the State and it's treasury. Rome had lots of money, so this wasn't such a huge problem. The real problem came forth when it was time for the soldiers to retire. The old type had farms and land, but the newer soldiers had nothing. Once trained in fighting, it became impossible to put them back in the slums. (That would have been just a really bad idea) So, the generals made promises to their men of land and pensions. The generals was the key there. The senate made no promises to the soldiers, and so they felt no obligation to provide them with what others had promised. Often, the generals then had to pay out their own pocket, which naturally makes the men much more loyal to them. And that is why generals could march on the State and such (once again assuming that their were competant enough) if they wished to.

Very true, But the loyalty these legions had for there commanders and for each other was absolute. To my mind its because they had ONLY been commanded (and paid) by the same Dux. I know im not citing any sources but this is a hypothetical situation. suppose a good deal of the centuries in Caesar's army HAD served with Pompey and Liked him. I am no expert, but I would think that getting his legions to attack other Roman legions. Men they had previously fought with. Officers they had previously served under. Wouldnt the US verses THEM political factor have been reduced? Personally, I think it would have MUCH harder to cross the Rubicon under those circumstances. yes Caesar would have been popular but would he have been popular enough? Would he have had the fanatic loyalty that made Pharsalus a success and brought Octavian to center stage? Would this have forced Caesar to play ball with the senate? I think so, but I dont know. Again I know I am not an expert and this is entirely hypothetical. But am I making any sense? am I making any valid points? More importantly, what are the holes in this theory? The roman army was not a single institution. There was no roman army in that sense. They had a number of legions - seperate armies if you will. Each commander had his quota of men under his charge and he was responsible for their conduct and performance. The legions were motivated by the leadership skills of their officers but also because victories meant the men could carry away booty. Succesful completion of their 25 years would mean honourable retirement plus their pension and even a plot of land. The men had every reason to follow their commander into battle. However, the commanders had no reason to be loyal to Rome other than it was hand in hand with their personal ambition. Well, commanders always had the reason to be loyal to Rome because if they weren't, the Senate could always send out another commamander and army against them. On strong and exceptional leaders could really hope to turn against Rome. A mediocre general would never get away with "crossing the Rubicon."

Yes, battles were much larger. On "normal" setting, there are 40 men in a standard infantry unit. Say you have 20 units. That makes 800. Suppose you double that for Large setting 1600. I have never played on huge setting, but it probably makes 2400. That may seem like a lot of men, but lets take a real battle. At Alesia, Caeser had about 60,000 men, I believe. The besieged army I think had 80,000, and the relief army and 250,000-300,000. That make the game figures seem tiny. It is the speed of our computers that prevent truly realistic battles. Also, in RTR, it is highly recommended that you do NOT charge disiplined infantry head on with cavalry. They will get bogged down, and once that happens, they fight like regular soldiers, just on horses. Because there a usually less of them than infantry, they get routed pretty quickly. I find a great tactic is to hold the enemy with your own infantry and bring your cavalry to their back. A charge their will route most units.

Plautus said, "Ah, yes, mere infantry- poor beggars" Clearly he looked down upon the infantry, as it was much more prestigious to be an equite. One thing he doesn't say is that infantry win the battles, not rich noblemen atop horses.

Well put. If it were too easy, then a triumph would mean nothing.

I am currently taking latin, and there is no way I'm educated enough to actually hold a discussion in it.

As to the picture, it seems that really the only way to attack him would be to use a shield and deflect the gladius off two the side, while bringing a heavy weapon down on his head.

Perhaps Carthaganian power would have spread to Asia minor or into Eygpt had Hannibal won.

Yes, I find this to be a great site for increasing my Roman knowledge (which unfortunatly isn't that much)

Poor Hannibal. He could have made Cannae decisive by marching on Rome, but instead he made the blunder and didn't. Thirteen or however many years later, when he left Italy, he must have been really sad. Victory was so close, but he hadn't taken it. I almost pity him. But then I don't. On a side note, the war might also have been won by Hannibal had Carthage sent reinforcements after Cannae. They were to elated by victory and acted much to slowly.

As to Roman adaptability, I remember reading (Livy books XXI-XXX on the 2nd punic war) that while the Romans were laying siege to Capua (after Capua went to Hannibal), the Campanian cavalry was far superior to the romans. Then, the Romans adapted and every cavalry man took a partner infantry guy with a spear. After much training, the infantry were able to dismount quickly. Then, when the two opposing cavalry forces met, just before impact the spearmen would dismount and the Campanian cavalry would crash into waiting spearpoints. Thus the romans were able to combing cavalry and infantry.

I have played the demo, and it seems totally unhistorical. I also don't like the strategy part much (some many other games are better at that), but going into hero mode and fighting as a person I find suprisingly fun. Running around as Cleopatra cutting down legionaries like flies with a big curved sword thingy, and shooting them with a bow, which oddly enough kills them even when my arrow hits their sheild.