TonyGee

Caesar 1, the PC game has been released as abandonware. Its a City building game based on Rome where you have to rise through the ranks while keeping the emperor happy. Do it well and you never know you may be the next emperor. Anyhow its a good game and can now be Downloaded Legally from various site's, one of the better ones being Abandonia. Here be the link http://www.abandonia.com/games/738/Caesar.htm Have fun gaming.

The Fictional Unit Is the Oliphant i believe, its from the Lord of the rings movie's, you know those Huge Eliphants they attack with in the 3rd movie? its them anyhow. I think you can only get them via a cheat tho. And Rome Total War is a great game but it isnt nearly Accurate. Have you tried building a True Roman Legion and Fighting with it? its a Lumbering pile of doggie doo. Also some other units like some Chariots and Hopolites/Spearmen work in no way like they should. There are others but its not worth the posting time . this isn't a bad thing tho, remember this is a game and if it was too accurate it wouldnt be half as much fun as it is. Great game, Buy it!

I would adress the Senate and give them 1001 Reasons to give me loads of money.... ( serious answer to be inserted here at a later date )

Have to Agree about the Band Of Brothers, it was quite an exceptional story that for me never had that hollywood Tilt due to it being made for TV. Some of the Battle scenes were exceptional as was the way it allowed you to get attached to a Character through 4-5 eppisodes only to see them killed while manning a hole in Bastogne. Also the Interviews with the men involved in the 101st realy drove home what these men went through to free Europe and save Millions in the process. if you havent seen it do so asap and be gratefull.

It Wasnt for the lack of trying that Rome Struggled to defeat hannibal, He was a great General and military Tactician. Rome needed to stack the deck as it were to beat him. As For taking a long time to defeat some Peoples, well there can be many reasons. Firstly Some terain was easier for the Roman Legions to work in Heavy Forests or Mountains were not best suited to the Legion or its fighting style. Also you cant defeat a people unless they want to be beaten, Sure you can Destroy its armies and burn its towns/Cities but to Defeat them they have to stop Fighting back. I suppose National/Racial Identity comes into it too. And sometimes i suppose the wrong person was the man in charge, while the Roman Army was a great Fighting machine it needed a good Comander to realise its full potential, And sometimes a good Comander was nowhere to be seen.

I dont think The Roman Empire could be reformed in any shape or form, Lets not forget a lot of what made Rome what it was, brutality, slavery, corruption on a huge scale. Rome was built on its military prowess where they were the ultimate threat to any who stepped out of line, with all the modern rules of engagement that would be almost impossible to do. As for the EU i think that its more in line with ancient greece only with the City states becoming Nation states or at least thats how it seems to me.

well im pretty happy In England as things stand, but if i had the chance to live anywhere in the world i would choose Canada. For one i know the form of government is somewhat similar to what we have in England, with it being something of a welfare state. Plus English is one of its main Languages so i wouldnt have many problems getting by in that way. And i like the great outdoors, and if there is one thing canada has a lot of its space. Ya I reckon Canada would be a nice place to live.

I picked Military, while most of Romes History interests me it is the Military aspect that got me hooked on the Empire and its people. The Only Subject i have no real interest in is the Religious aspect's.

I have read that Rome Defeated The Macedonians quite easily through a combination of both Superior Cavalry ( that ones hard to believe ) and more favourable battle grounds. The phalanx was next to useless unless used on flat open ground, or thats what ive always thought.

Bah its nice to be able to do something constructive for the site, Beyond saying stupid things on the forum that is. And i like reviewing games, it gives me an excuse to Play them all day much to the annoyance of my fiancee. and i enjoyed revisiting that old classic

An army dosent need Siege engines to take a city tho, hanibal spent enough time in italy and could have laid siege to the City of rome, its easy enough to surround a city and starve it out. And if a relief force was to appear, well Hannibal had already proven his lack of fear as far as the roman military was concerned. Hannibal was always going to be defeated by someone in the end, once he neglected to take rome it was just a matter of time. ( Disclaimer: TonyGee would like To state that he has no idea what he is on about, but if his rantings stimulate discussion he is happy. also note tonygee is a history Geeeeenius and cant be wrong. Ever! :Disclaimer ends)

ive just started Reading Livius, Titus. A History of Rome and have to say it is an exceptional read ( i take it most users here have already read it ) but im wondering at just how much of the 1st book we can take as fact. Was early Rome Realy as war like as the book states? or was that just part of life for all peoples in that age?. Im only up to section 1.40 so i have a long way to go before i am finished with it, still i thought it was a good read and something maybe worth discussing. A link to the online text will follow, if you guys dont want me linking to somewhere else please just say so and i will stop. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/p...ic/Liv1His.html

lets just hope woodrow treat this site with care, i can see it now... Luxurious 4 bedroom house with ensuite bathroom and Race track.

China Would win through Sheer weight of numbers. they could afford to lose 1 Million men in the war without too much economic hardship wheras a war on that scale would Cripple rome.

Religion wasnt made by gods but my men. Thats says it all.

Well ok I know Marius's Reforms did a lot for the Roman Army and its Overall Quality but what i dont think it brought about was a major change in the Armys workings. The Army Became more mobile because of the Soldiers Profesionalism not because the Roman Army Group ( ie the Different units that make the legion ) was Flexible or Designed to be flexible. A roman Legion after the reforms of marius would still have struggled to cope with a force the likes of Which Carthage and Hannibal brought against them. Rome had a tendancy to struggle against any foe Who didnt Just paint their Faces blue and Run at their wall of spears like headless chickens. ive always seen the Roman legion as something as a Grinder, they would walk into the enemy as a wall and just grind their less well armoured enemies into the ground. No real Tactical victory just a my breastplate is harder then you're Chesthair kinda thing. Hey im clasping at straws here!

well i could argue against all those points but i wont seeing as you are right and i would be wrong

The Punic armies rome Faced werent weak or unintellectual, but they also fared well against rome and its legions when commanded by a good general. and while the Celts of Britain/Gaul/Germany werent stupid in most senses ( they did have a good society build and trade was a part of their daily lives ) in battle their tactics played right into the hands of rome.. a major Infantry charge. I think most of Ceasar's problems with the celts came from Skirmishes outside of the main battles where the celts could attack small sections of the main army as they travelled. And i do agree that the Roman Armys main Contribution was its Engineering capabilities. but its fighting abilities were the foundation for such things in the long run.

ok. I can review quite a few games from 1990 to now, provide screenshots and info on makers/publishers. But is there any kind of Rule of thumb as to what to and what not to review? Also would you like the reviews done in any perticular style? or should i just try to get a good mix in there ie: should the game be reviewed as a game or should it be reviewed for its Accurecy to the subject? Or do you not care either way

I always believed it was the Roman Empire that defeated Hannibal as opposed to the roman military, and yes there is a big difference there. The Roman Military and especialy its commanders could not cope with someone as adept at battlefield tacitcs as hannibal. Maybe bloodying their swords against the quite unimpressive Celts for too many years had given the roman military too much of a one sided View of how to fight battles. Hannibal was a better Battle Tactician than anyone rome had at that time. Hannibals only real mistake was not taking Rome, which was a terrible mistake and a stupid one in retrospect. I dont Think Scipio Deserves to be put in the same class as Ceasar tho. Ceasar was a true general who cammanded his Army, in most other cases for me the Roman Army Commanded the Generals.

Will you accpet help in reviewing items? im quite up to date with the Computer game side of things especialy where Rome is concerned and could Write some Reviews of these for you. only if you wanted these things reviewing and i would be willing to Do so from a historical context, ie concentrate the historical accurecy of the game and its workings and less on the Fun, or i could try to fit it into the review allongside the general games review build. Obvioulsy it would be spelll checked as im a little bit useless at Spelling and Grammer.. but hey nobodys perfect!

Was the Roman Military all it was cracked up to be? For me it seems they relied heavily on the Soldiers profesionalism and the Enemies lack of intelect more than any great Tactical Know how. The legion was a great military force yet it lacked in so many ways. It was for me cumbersome making it almost impossible to menouver beyond the initial plan of attack, It was also Slow to the point of making it one of the least Mobile forces ever to grace a battlefield. It also appears to me that they never learned this lesson, Hannibal Tought them what an organised mobile Force could do to a legion many times during the punic wars, the persians also gave them a good whiping on occasion. Just why did the romans never seem to grasp the Reality of the use of a good cavalry and light Skirmish troops? I do Understand that the roman Miltary machine was exceptionaly successful but i think i would put that down in the main part to the lack of a Quality enemy in its early years and later down to the Fact that no one could compete with Roman Manpower and finance in the later Conquests. Now i could well be waaaay off the mark in these observations and i will happily accept someone putting me right on these points. But please Dont be too hard on me, im a nice person deep down.

Hello all, Im a 24 year old man from northern england who has always had a great interest in the Roman Empire, mainly the military aspects of it. Im not a history major nor did i get any education beyond High school level so im probably not as well versed in roman history as most people here. Still i hope to learn from the people here and maybe help discussions allong and help others out allong the way. Right then, i will see you in there.