TBH, it would be refreshing. Julius wasn't an emperor, and they can't just have Augustus every civ game. Combine this image with the leaked bust of Trajan on the leader list and it's almost guaranteed to be Trajan of Rome. The similarities with known artwork of Trajan are staggering.
I really don't understand on what grounds Julius Caesar could be discounted from being one of the greatest rulers of Rome, even if his rule was brief. He may not have been the official emperor of Rome, but he nevertheless laid the foundation of the Roman Empire. But I agree with you, someone other than Caesar or Augustus would be nice for a change.
The Senate gave Trajan the title Optimus, which is The Best. That kinda indicates how they felt about him. Also, whenever they confirmed a new emperor, they hailed each one "May he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan." Clearly he was held in good esteem. And if the Romans approved of him, why should we not?
The Senate gave Trajan the title Optimus, which is The Best. That kinda indicates how they felt about him. Also, whenever they confirmed a new emperor, they hailed each one "May he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan." Clearly he was held in good esteem. And if the Roman's approved of him, why should we not?
According to Wikipedia, historians throughout history have held him in high regard. I had to Wiki him because my history interest tends to skip over antiquity from the Ancient Near East to Medieval Europe, but it seems like he was a pretty significant ruler who renovated Rome, expanded and enriched the Empire in both Europe and Asia, and ushered in an era of peace. Sounds pretty worthy to me. Don't know much about his personality from scanning Wikipedia, but he's certainly not lacking accomplishments.
I'm not arguing for Julius Caesar, because I don't want him in again, but to argue against him on the grounds that he "wasn't an emperor" doesn't make sense. Nobody was emperor in Caesar's time, or ever had been. No such position had ever existed, because ever since the kings were overthrown, Rome had been a republic. For centuries the "leader" of Rome was either of a pair of consuls, not emperors. And "dictator", a title Caesar was honored with lifetime possession of, was a real, constitutionally valid office that made the holder the de jure and de facto ruler of Rome--usually temporarily, to deal with a crisis situation. It was Caesar's nephew Octavian who became the first actual emperor as Augustus, and even then he'd have denied being any kind of monarch because Roman sentiments were still strongly anti-monarchist in those days. Augustus preferred to maintain the fiction that Rome was still a republic and he was just a prominent citizen. Later emperors didn't bother with that, but the people eventually adapted and got used to living in a monarchy.
If we insist that only true emperors can rule the Roman civ, then that leaves out a lot of important people who were legitimately powerful leaders of the Roman state. Cincinnatus, Scipio Africanus, Pompey the Great, Cicero, Sulla, and Julius Caesar were all consuls, and some of them dictators, without any of them having ever been "emperor". You can argue against any one of them on any grounds you like, but I think insisting on only allowing emperors to be eligible is short-sighted.
To put it another way, Japan has never been led in-game by anyone who was emperor, but who would try to argue against Tokugawa or Hojo on those grounds? They weren't emperors, but they did rule the country, and they were historically significant. The same can be said for many figures in the first two-thirds or so of Roman history, when there were no emperors.
I was strictly focusing on Imperial Rome. Julius and Augustus seemed to be the only two Roman leaders Civ games have focused on. I was responding to the implication that Roman influence faltered after the Julio-Claudian dynasty. In truth there were many good emperors after Nero.
As the leaders are presented in a cartoonic style, Claudius would also have made for a good leader of Rome :
"His knees were weak and gave way under him and his head shook. He stammered and his speech was confused. He slobbered and his nose ran when he was excited."
Poor fellow, still ridiculed, even after 2000 years
But actually he was not a bad emperor. Not bad at al. He brought domestic politics in calmer waters after the first preatorian coup and murder of the emperor Caligula. And he added older client states and new provinces to the empire.
Trajan is a good non-Caesar choice. Diocletian would be great. I'd rank him the 2nd best Roman emperor after Augustus. I would like to have a republican era leader. Their terms were so short though. Maybe Cincinnatus, Camillus or Gaius Marius?
Wow, good on them for picking someone other than Julius or Augustus Caesar. I'm really liking their leader choices so far. Good mix of tradition/leaders we haven't seen in a while (Cleo, Qin and Victoria), along with newer and more interesting choices like T.R., Hojo, and now Trajan.
Marcus Aurelius would have been cool, but perhaps his philosophical outlook doesn't quite match the popular imagination of Rome, so we may never see him in a Civ game, alas.
Marcus Aurelius would have been cool, but perhaps his philosophical outlook doesn't quite match the popular imagination of Rome, so we may never see him in a Civ game, alas.
The Senate conferred upon him the epithet "Restitutor Orbis" or "Restorer of the World" which I find to be a fantastic title much in the same vein as Trajan.
Septimius Severus, Diocletian, or Valentinian as there rule often involved steeping the many periods of decline of the Western Roman Empire.
The Senate conferred upon him the epithet "Restitutor Orbis" or "Restorer of the World" which I find to be a fantastic title much in the same vein as Trajan.
Septimius Severus, Diocletian, or Valentinian as there rule often involved steeping the many periods of decline of the Western Roman Empire.
The was a title bestowed upon Emperor Aurelian- a soldier-emperor of the 3rd century, not Marcus Aurelius.
Aurelian would lso be a great choice, but as a 3rd leader option. I still really want a leader from the the republic as the first leader dolled out in an x-pack or DLC.
The was a title bestowed upon Emperor Aurelian- a soldier-emperor of the 3rd century, not Marcus Aurelius.
Aurelian would lso be a great choice, but as a 3rd leader option. I still really want a leader from the the republic as the first leader dolled out in an x-pack or DLC.
It might have seemed like I was trying to bite your head off, but I really wasn't- its just that both those figures, Aurelian, and Marcus Aurelius are interesting characters in history in their own distinct rights. And if I can serve to highlight the existence of both, then so much the better.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
