Roman History Question

[Spike88]

I've been playing a lot of Rome Total War lately. My current campaign has me as the Julii's eradicating the Gauls. My main army is compromised of my faction leader, Flavius Julius, who has not lost a single battle so far. After his last battle I noticed that his name changed to Flavius Victor, I searched the internet to see if there was a reason for this and could not find a reason. Did his name change because he has never lost a battle or something else? And did this really happen in the Roman times?

This is a RTW thing, Vanilla RTW is extremely unhistorical, I wouldn't take much from it. RTW is known for giving names to generals like candy, It isn't hard to get a "Flavius the Great" if you try.

I recommend getting Europa Barbarorum.

I doubt victor was actually used, if you won a few great battles you'd probably sent home to Rome with your Legion and given a Triumph.

[Raptor1]

I doubt "Victor" would have been given (I don't know too much Latin, but I also doubt that is syntactically correct in either case), but the Romans did give victory titles to generals that did especially well. Probably the best example is that of Scipio Africanus, which got the Africanus after he crushed Hannibal in the Battle of Zama.

But these were mostly (all) referring to names of places, and such "Victor" is almost certainly unhistorical.

[rubenandthejets]

TW Rome Vanilla made me really angry with it's hsitorical "inaacuracies" i.e. it was a JOKE. New Kingdom Egytians fighting post Marius legionaires? Phalanx Germans? BAH!

The real clincher for me was a "slave revolt" in an overtaxed city that featured "oliphaunts" as in super oversized elephants.

Oh that's GREAT! What's next? F#CKING ZOMBIE DRAGONS??? Maybe they can ride around in the anacronistic chariots and fire ray runs too!

However, once I looked around for some mods, this game has become the single most frequently and most absorbing game that I play. Personally, being a big fan of the Hellenistic / Diadochi period I'm an Extended Greek Modified user.

And the moral to all this?

MODDERS ROCK !!!

[Stealth Hunter]

Don't forget the infamous flaming pigs.

[rubenandthejets]

The flaming pigs were REAL!

The Romans tried a buch of crazy stuff when Pyrrhus handed them their butts using elephants in 275 BCE (Livy tends to talk the Romans up a lot-they wouldn't have totally overhauled their millitary if they won as easily as he writes), including flaming pigs, wagons with swinging hooks and scythes and elephant sized caltrops.

Finally, after a little experience, light troops (velites, auxillia) sticking spears into an elephants' neather regions was found to be the best way to take them out.

[Stealhead]

Yep the flamming pigs where real though they where used only very rarely. The hope was that they would scare the **** out of the elephants. in reality i bet they scared the **** out of what ever was in the direction that they happened to run in.The title thing I agree not true.I think that has been a part of the TW series the interesting names. I havent played in a while but i dont think they do it so much in Empire.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by rubenandthejets

Pyrrhus handed them their butts using elephants in 275 BCE

What happened to "One more such victory would utterly undo us"?

[Task Force]

yea, ive had some intresting names in ETW also... lol I once i had a rake named Adolf hulter i think it was.

[rubenandthejets]

It's a good example of how Livy tended to write an epic, stiring narrative, not letting historical facts get in the way of a good story.

Pyrrhus was the original "Pyrrhic" victor-he won, but at such cost as to make his victories seem like defeats, according to Livy. Let's look at the reliabilty of Livy.

Livy's track record with events verifiable using other means (eg archaelogical evidence) shows he's much more of a Herodotus than a Thucydides. The ash layer shows Rome was definitely sacked and razed, with radiometric dating putting it around the same time as Livy's heroic defence and saving of the city unscathed. I don't have a copy lying around or I'd dig out a few more for you...sorry.

On the other hand, the Romans were happy to copy many of Pyrrhus' methods, including the practice of enclosing the camp in earthworks and planning its layout like a city.
Plutarch quotes Hannibal who rated Pyrrhus one of the top three generals of all time.
Lastly, the Romans completely reformed their army (the Camillian reforms) in 275 BCE. Why? If it aint broke, don't fix it?

So, according to Livy, the Romans are defeated, but inflict heavy losses making it impossible for Pyrrhus to comtinue campaigning in Italy. When interpreted taking Livy's motives into account and using other sources to check the facts, Pyrrhus probably smashed at least two Roman armies. He was a little contemptuous of Rome and thinking they weren't much of a threat to the Hellenistic war machine headed off to fight for the Greek cause in Sicily.

That's my interpretation, anyway.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by rubenandthejets

It's a good example of how Livy tended to write an epic, stiring narrative, not letting historical facts get in the way of a good story.

Pyrrhus was the original "Pyrrhic" victor-he won, but at such cost as to make his victories seem like defeats, according to Livy. Let's look at the reliabilty of Livy.

Livy's track record with events verifiable using other means (eg archaelogical evidence) shows he's much more of a Herodotus than a Thucydides. The ash layer shows Rome was definitely sacked and razed, with radiometric dating putting it around the same time as Livy's heroic defence and saving of the city unscathed. I don't have a copy lying around or I'd dig out a few more for you...sorry.

On the other hand, the Romans were happy to copy many of Pyrrhus' methods, including the practice of enclosing the camp in earthworks and planning its layout like a city.
Plutarch quotes Hannibal who rated Pyrrhus one of the top three generals of all time.
Lastly, the Romans completely reformed their army (the Camillian reforms) in 275 BCE. Why? If it aint broke, don't fix it?

So, according to Livy, the Romans are defeated, but inflict heavy losses making it impossible for Pyrrhus to comtinue campaigning in Italy. When interpreted taking Livy's motives into account and using other sources to check the facts, Pyrrhus probably smashed at least two Roman armies. He was a little contemptuous of Rome and thinking they weren't much of a threat to the Hellenistic war machine headed off to fight for the Greek cause in Sicily.

That's my interpretation, anyway.

It's not just Livy, Plutarch and Dionysius (IIRC) also say that Pyrrhus' victories were...err...Pyrrhic. Also, if he crushed the Romans so thoroughly as you say, why would he go back home to get killed by a woman throwing a tile out of the window?

Ugh, RTW. I've been playing a long campaign for awhile with the Germans, I have the Extended Realism mod. Mission is to destroy the Gauls but the Macedonians are targeting me as well. Might have to accept defeat.