tk421

Wasn't Cleopatra a little bigger than that as depicted in the coinage of the time?

I've been eager to play RTW in the Imperial Era, from say the 2nd century AD. Would this mod be a better fit than the un-modded RTW?

You are thinking of Claudius no doubt. He added Britain to the Roman Empire in a campaign of conquest. For me Julius Caesar is by far the best Roman general. He may have made some political mistakes but wow did he ever change the Roman Empire, and win some important battles.

The example of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus is probably the best example of this model. The two worked very much for the good of the Empire and demonstrated that one man rule can work without making the administration of the Empire too difficult for one man to handle.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask but does the Vatican have any major Roman artifacts apart from the catacombs?

Caligula was just too young to become Emperor. How many emperors before 217AD becoming Emperor at a young age were actually good Emperors? Most of the good ones were well into or past their prime by the time they rose to the top job in Rome so they often had requisite experience and qualifications to do well in their new role. The fact that Caligula was insane made it such that he probably would have died a violent death before long anyway.

When Nero fell this was the first time that there was no clear succession policy for the position of Emperor. Yes Galba did not have the full support of the legions, but from what I read he also faced competitors almost right away as happened in 193AD when Pertinax died. Galba fought and failed to secure his new position. This continued until Vespasian won control of the Empire. The year 68AD was the year of the four emperors (Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius) and the year 193AD is often referred to as the year of the five emperors (Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Septimius Severus and his two rivals Niger and Albinus). Nerva fared better, he was appointed by the Senate and supported by at least Trajan so this worked fine. By adopting Trajan as his successor Nerva stablized the Roman political climate and even though his rule lasted only a short time he is referred to as the first of the five good emperors in Roman history. My sources? Too many to mention but to summarize if you start with wikipedia the info is largely genuine and if you substantiate it with other printed sources than it makes for a simplified and brief history of the Roman Empire.

I read that Caligula was fine before he got sick, then he was insane. A question if I may, was he a blond as depicted in I, Claudius?

I read that Caligula was fine before he got sick, then he was insane. A question if I may, was he a blond?

I would say that Augustus was by far one of the best Roman Emperors, and not because he was the first. He did very well against overwhelming odds to consolidate his control of the Roman world and worked tirelessly to make the Empire work. Everything I read about him points to very strong leadership and even leadership by example as he lived quite a frugal lifestyle despite his vast wealth. He outwitted strong opponents like Marc Antony and ended the civil wars that had plagued the Empire for so long. When faced with setbacks like Varus's defeat in Germany in 9AD Augustus took the right steps to ensure a stable northern policy that would last centuries. As for his succession, from what I understand he made several attempts to establish a clear policy. The problem was these 'suitors' to the highest office died during Augustus's 44 year rule. People like Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, and Postumus all died or were banished so it was very difficult for him to select a better candidate than Tiberius. Being careful not to invoke the popular literature, I would say that he did a very good job, much better than Marcus Aurelius did with his succession. Tiberius was very qualified for the position and well groomed for it, so much so that by 13AD he shared full powers with Augustus. I would certainly say that Augustus was a very good Roman Emperor.

If I recall correctly Marcus Aurelius had wanted to continue the wars in the north and subdue the Germanic tribes north of the Rhine-Danube frontier. When he died in 180 his son Commodus reversed Marcus Aurelius's northern policy and made peace with the barbarians. This peace lasted quite some time but as some historians have pointed out, may have been bad for the Empire in the long term. Marcus Aurelius may not have been a great military leader but his policies were just and he is recorded in History for being a very strong leader and great Emperor. The Empire could have done much worse in this period as the challenges he faced were tremendous but Marcus Aurelius prevailed against overwhelming odds. With what had gone on during his 19 year reign I would suggest that the Empire could have even began a decline if it were not for Marcus Aurelius's leadership. This is my point of view and not intended to cause a stir, if so I apologize.

Quo Vadis is old but well worth the watch. The guy playing Nero is perfect. I recommend Ben-Hur, Gladiator, The Fall of the Roman Empire (more historically accurate than Gladiator), Rome, I Claudius. Can't remember any others. I have yet to see Julius Caesar with Patrick Stewart.

I know only limited latin but I am interested in learning the language sometime. What texts are typically or most often used to teach latin?

Those are awesome pics of Antony!

My favorite scene is in season 2 'A Neccessary Fiction' when Octavian just obliterates Marc Antony in front of all the big characters on the show. He completely gets his revenge without lifting a finger and forces Antony to leave Rome, and not return by series' end.

What I always found odd was how Octavian could go from a 14ish year old to a 25ish year old in just a couple of episodes.

I've watched it a couple of times now. It is fun to watch. Octavian gains the upper hand in the show. That appealed to me very early on when watching the show. The first episode that I watched for more than 5 minutes was episode 2 from season 2 where Marc Antony beats up Octavian. Octavian did well considering Antony's strength.

It looks like a role-playing game. I wonder if it lets you become a freedman?

I think such a game could be done. The formation factor would certainly need to be addressed as it isn't much of a Roman army FPS if you can't play the part accurately. What about automating the battle up to the point where your commander orders the troops to melee? Then you can hack away at NPCs all you want until the melee is finished.

Sounds interesting. I will try it.

Wow that is a very good point about army size. I never thought about casualties that way. May I ask if this is the case for the non-modded RTW and BI?

It is best to avoid exhausting your troops. Some factions work better with certain types of units. Use units that work, infantry cohorts for the Romans, cavalry for the Huns, etc. The Romans can use cavalry but I find the Huns are better at using cavalry. The Romans however make for very strong infantry so if you use them in good numbers then you should be able to defeat enemies on the battle map without too much fuss.

I would welcome a Rome film. The only question is, what would characters like Titus Pullo do in the film? Would such a film depict the battle of the Teutoberg Forest? If so they'd have to recast Augustus as Simon Woods would be too old.

I found this interesting yet brief comparison of actors who have played Augustus on TV. I thought it was interesting so here is the link, http://cominganarchy.com/2007/01/31/augustus-on-tv/ Who do you think made a better Augustus? Max Pirkis or Brian Blessed?

Greetings from tk421! I am very happy to join this forum community. My interests include Roman History, mainly the Imperial period but also of the late republican period. I enjoy reading about Roman political and military history. May I ask what forum ranks are available on the site? Have a good day!