Questions and Clarification

While I appreciate ultimately Richard will decide on application of the rules, this forum is normally a really good source of information and interpretation. As we get to grips with the rules, especially for someone like me whose knowledge of this period is minimal I thought a thread would be good to discuss the rules etc;

to kick off

GLORY - On page 4 the rules suggest that the Glory score will be influenced by actions etc, very much like honour in LGDR. On page 31 under spending for glory, a Glory point will be awarded to one Roman and one non-Roman position per month. Do you read this latter point as in addition to the chance to influence your Glory score by action ? So a "Bonus" glory point once per turn rather than the only glory point available each turn for all player to fight over

On a historical note - were auxiliary cohorts formed into (named) Legions as roman cohorts were ?

On the glory point, open to interpretation. I am tilting to bonus round, as in best overall gets a +1.

On auxiliary cohorts, not historically formed into Legions. They all tended to be named though!

My knowledge of the Roman Army at this time is poor, but I am sure the auxiliaries were organised in units of roughly 500 men (with larger formations of 1,000 coming just after Nero?) but they weren't organised into larger bodies anywhere near Legion-sized.

I get a bit confused on the way they were named, I think the general rule was the unit's name reflected its supposed ethnic origin (so Gauls, Dacians, etc) with sometimes the name of their first commander added in.

Still working on understanding the "Glory" rules...

Have only read rule book once

am I right in thinking that if anything has to be build then the troops need to do it?

Men of age = Recruits available ?

J Flower - that's how I am reading it. Men of age replaces recruits but now you manage them by assigning to three keys areas (I have a fourth : gold mines but I suspect this will not be the case for everyone).

Increasing "recruits" comes through successful population management and increases.

J Flower wrote:Have only read rule book once

am I right in thinking that if anything has to be build then the troops need to do it?

Men of age = Recruits available ?

In the wet and wild woods of Germany probably only the Legions know how build.

The rest of us have to deal with the builders guild or use the cheaper option of slaves.

As rule of thumb in Rome:

- No troops allowed in Rome apart from the Guard and I do not see them signing up for hard labour.

- Use Slaves and get charged with stealing work from the Roman Plebs and the **** will never vote for you again.  Plus the Tribune's will veto all of your legislation as a matter of proncipal.

- Builders guild = Fathers of the Fathers of the Mafia

Is it any wonder that year's after the Great Fire most of Rome is still a building site with major jobs delayed or still stuck in planning.

Way I was reading it, if it's military then it needs troops (but not sailors?) to build it (inc bridges); no cash required

If it's "civilian" then it can be troops (which can include sailors) or it can be those "in business" or slaves (but not those farming?), cash is also required

Roads-can't decide, needs "people" but not clear if its the legions or others

count-de-monet wrote:J Flower - that's how I am reading it.  Men of age replaces recruits but now you manage them by assigning to three keys areas (I have a fourth : gold mines but I suspect this will not be the case for everyone).

Increasing "recruits" comes through successful population management and increases.

While men of age = recruits...........players need to look at the very large perentage of men needed to be employed in farming or Starvation happens.

agree with Stuart B - by population management I meant basically everyone is a farmer or you could be in trouble

I wonder if getting rid of Nero needs to be done by a player action, or will the historical narrative run true?

J Flower wrote:I wonder if getting rid of Nero needs to be done by a player action, or will the historical narrative run true?

Our Man in Rome died by 'assisted suicide' in June 68.

We start in January 65. I am not a gambling man, but I would not give odds on our beloved Emperor seeing out the next 3.5 years.

That said, will he survive until factions are ready to move?

"Assisted Suicide "

Does that mean someone else held the knife & he ran onto it ?

Or because he wasn't much of a Boy Scout he had someone else tie the knot in his noose?

Could it possibly be that after a long hard rant at the Senate he was sedated on doctors orders & sadly the colour blind Doctor used the Red Bottle instead of the Green?

J Flower wrote:"Assisted Suicide "

Does that mean someone else held the knife & he ran onto it ?

Or because he wasn't much of a Boy Scout he had someone else tie the knot in his noose?

Could it possibly be that after a long hard rant at the Senate he was sedated on doctors orders & sadly the colour blind Doctor used the Red Bottle instead of the Green?

Think it was a sword and in theory he ran onto it, but I do not see how running onto a blade is any easier than stabbing yourself in such incidances so I suspect the sword holder might have played a bit more active part than just holding it firmly.

Nero's reputation suffers at the hands of Christains who were made the scapegoats for the great fire and senatorial historians but interestingly he did remain Emperor for a long time. With a Government which seems to have run fairly smoothly and even been popular in places like Greece & Gaul. Basically anywhere a long way from the upper levels of Roman Society and the anarchy of Julio-Claudian family life and lacking large populations of Jews seem to be muddling along ok and not planning revolution.

Even compared to other members of his family Nero is not that bad. He is not a total monster like Caligula who people took one look at and rapidly decided he had to go! His love of the arts may seem a bit unmanly and a bit of a humiliation to the elderly and middle age men in the senate but they put up with Claudious and probably the same at home (even Titus considered himself a bit of a Poet). While in terms of body count including Senators he is not even in the same league as men like Sulla, Ceasar, Octavian and Tiberius. Plus there is the key question of if Nero goes who or what replaces him?

I suspect that in 65 AD the vast majority of Senators and the Army are still loyal and just viewed the death of Nero's half brother, mother and old tutor as typical Julio-Claudian home life/internal politics were you played and won the greatest prizes or you died! Thus the death of Britannicus ten years before was sad but understandable even expected.

Think were Nero lost his support was when he was seen to start lashing out in an not very rational manner. Murdering your best General for saving the situation in the East and becoming a bit too popular is not a great way to secure your support in the Army and with Generals who would probably like to become a hero and enjoy their triumph without getting killed.

The question is are the player run factions going to try and keep the Emperor sane and the Empire running smoothly for as long as possible? Or are they going to wind up his paranoia (healthy survival trait in an Emperor but does need to be controlled) and push him and the Empire over the edge?

From a roll play position I think players should in give themselves a notional "loyalty" rating and decide on what will push their character over the edge. Some former lovers of the Emperor's mother may already be over the edge, for others it could be an historic event in the game, or for others it could be as simple as you fought off hordes of Germans in the rain to get back to the Rhine then displayed huge military skill to bridge the Rhine against opposition all the while fighting off further attacks on your rear.........and to get back to demands from Rome that you crush the rebels in Gaul, send detachments of your best troops to the East and get the Germans to pay taxs, oh and news that someone has pinched your flagship and burnt the Rhine fleet.

His name is XXXXXX General of Rome and THEY PUSHED HIM TOO FAR!

Isn't part of the problem with Nero's death (and lets be honest, life) is you got to wonder at how much bias is in the surviving records? Most of the surviving histories of his life are written quite some time after his death and you do get the feeling it was all a bit of a dry-run for the histories of Richard III. I'm not saying Nero was a nice guy but you do get the feeling that there are serious attempts to make him as bad as possible (and maybe so help legitimise Vespasian once through the fun of AD69?). I think the most common story goes is he fears he is about to be dragged before the Senate and executed on the spot, decides to end his life, bottles it and asks one of his remaining companions to set an example and commit suicide first (to show him how it's done) and it's only when a party of horseman arrives to arrest him that Nero finally decides to do it but even then he made a servant do the deed (there might even be a version where Nero tries to commit suicide but keeps messing it up, which is why the servant has to do it?).

Mind you, I think my favourite legend/myth around Nero is about his supposed conversion to Judaism which then leaves to a Jewish grandson/great-grandson? who gets involved in a revolt against Roman rule.

With respect to the body counts of Senators, at least Ceasar killed them in battle and forgave, to his detriment, those who stood silently by.  Sulla on the other hand just used proscriptions to kill his senators (and others) and steal their wealth.

Nazareth* wrote:With respect to the body counts of Senators, at least Ceasar killed them in battle and forgave, to his detriment, those who stood silently by.  Sulla on the other hand just used proscriptions to kill his senators (and others) and steal their wealth.

I am pleased to see that at least one player in Rome is burning remains so devoted to the memory of the Julii-Clandian family that they are ready to dive in with comments about Ceasar famed "Clementia" the moment they think a comment which basically said Nero is not so bad could be taken as a bit of a negative on his relative (at least by adoption).

Too be fair to Sulla he was a properly elected consul and in Asia fighting a war against people who had slaughtered over 100,000 Italians when his Marius and Cinna take over Rome with very violent riots and prosciptions against supporters of Sulla which left 100 senators and equites and around 10,000 other people dead. So when he returned some pay back was probably to be expected, but he did pardon a lot of people not least one Julius Ceasar. Before he resigned the dictatorship, restored and enlarged the Senate and passed away in his bed.

Think what this affair and the later assassination of Ceasar shows up is just how small and interelated the ruling class of the later Republic was. Ceasar was related to Marius and sometimes posed as his political hair, but he was also a relation of Sulla wife and married his Granddaughter. Then formed the first Triumvirate with Pompey and Cassius two of Sulla top supporters who had both lost fathers and nearly their own lives in the prosciptions against backers of Sulla. As for highly principled Marcus Junius Brutus who may have struck the final blow to kill Ceasar as a danger to the Republic, his mother was the lover of Ceasar and his father was killed by Pompey.

Have been doing a bit of research reading( with pictures)

Found an interesting bit about a Roman Admiral who threw the sacrificial chickens overboard because they gave bad omens . His fleet sank in a storm, so maybe he should have listened to the priests.

So going to make sure the Classis Germaica stay away from the water & chickens .

J Flower wrote:Have been doing a bit of research reading( with pictures)

Found an interesting bit about a Roman Admiral who threw the sacrificial chickens overboard because they gave bad omens . His fleet sank in a storm, so maybe he should have listened to the priests.

So going to make sure the Classis Germaica stay away from the water & chickens .

And if you think a few sea sick sacred chickens being off their food is a bad omen.

It is my characters belief that some unknown individuals (unknown but probably painted blue and with spiked hair) have just stolen a priceless gift from the War God Mars to his most faithful followers and ruined his holy image badly enough so they can sale it as a cheap copy.

So if your characters name has Allii in it and you do not restore the silver spear and shield of the War God along with his Helmet of Gold and make gererous offerings to his temple..............anything which goes wrong for Roman Arms in the future........its all your fault!

Taking a lead from G7 and asking the birds about ship design I have used the Naval pages as bedding for the sacred chickens and asked a top Haruspex (Diviner) to have a look at them:

Have to report that after looking at the Corvus, Harpago, Artillery Dolphin are various other cunning Roman ways to make their ships better fighters but top heavy I have to report that the sacred chickens are right off their food and are looking rather sea sick.

Indeed the Haruspex has translated a message from B A Bacchus ........a black cock known for his fine wattle and love of shinny metal and lnked to the Rhine Legions from Avian into Latin.

Very approx the message from this messenger chicken of the gods tanslates as......... " You, aint getting me on no boat......fool"

Just had a thought about the Legions, Historical there were a limited number, however can someone please clarify if a player wanted to create a brand spanking new Legion from scratch, I would imagine they would have to get Imperial / Senate approval ?

J Flower wrote:Just had a thought about the Legions, Historical there were a limited number, however can someone please clarify if a player wanted to create a brand spanking new Legion from scratch, I would imagine they would have to get Imperial / Senate approval ?

In theory the only people with Authority to levy a Legion are the two Roman Consuls. Which in this period is Nero and A.N.Other crony of Nero who he wants to honour and give all the work he can not be bothered with.......like the Religious stuff. In consideration of the number of bad things happening you really have to wonder if anyone at all is making sure the Gods and sacred Chickens are being looked after by anyone! Also the Legions are surposed to be Citizens only.

Plenty of times in the past when new Legions were raised by non Consuls using either Pro-consul authority or the authority of a large pile of cash and a lot of armed men and not filling their ranks with proper Roman Citizens. But most were in either a) Civil Wars b) Times of major crisis such as when x2 Legions were formed from freed Slaves post Cannae or c) By Generals on a long Campaign outside of Italy.

Most famous of these Legions was the V Alaudae "The Larks" raised by Caesar in Transalpine Gaul and Nero himself was not exactly following the rules when he drafted in men from the Navy to form the I & II Adiatrix. We know from the Legal cases (concerning higher Legion discharge payments v Naval ones) that these included native Egyptain sailors.

But as a rule of thumb its probably safe to say that the only person who can give authority to raise a new Legion is Nero. Guess in a disaster you could raise a new Legion and try to explain it afterwards......which could be interesting!

What I would say is that Legions faced with a tough job could be made larger than the standard size. Also to reinforce a particular area's Legions from other provinces (area's) could be ordered to provide a detachment. Following which the Legion would recruit back up to its normal size and the detachment might also recruit.

The provision of such detachments (vexillations) may explain why the same Legion can seem to be in several places at the same time. And in the case of the IX Legion who it seemed to even got wiped out in different places!

A question for the proper historians like Jason.

I was wondering about how much pressure the great fire in Rome would have put on Nero, the Senate and the Imperial Government and in particular the cost to rebuild the 65% of the city reported as being destroyed ?

Very roughly I worked out 50,000 workers @ at 1 denarii a day for two years (in real time three years due to all the festivals etc) = 36,500,000 denarii for the labour (slaves would be cheaper but even they are going to need min 0.5 denarii in food but skilled workers would cost more....some a lot more).

But how much for tools, raw materials and in particular to expensive transport costs? Would it be reasonable to go x1 labour if cutting corners re-using recovered fire damaged bricks/timbers and generally doing a bodge job of thrown up tower blocks just to provide some shelter for the mob and allow landlords (most players & their senatorial support) to start earning a rental income again. Total 73m denarii (so roughly 1m denarii restores 1% of Rome to traditional slum standard).

Or spend x2 labour costs to build using decent materials and following fire regulation, limit height of buildings to stop them turning into fire traps etc = Total 109,500,000 denarii

This would be for the basic rebuild of the capital's domestic and commercial property in brick and concrete. Think most of the Grand Public buildings which had fire breaks and teams of Slaves to put out the fires seem to have survived better and may need no more than a damn good clean to get the smoke damage out. But some were lost or damaged including the Circuis and these public buildings used a lot of marble and top quality very expensive craftsmen. If anyone has paid for a marble worktop for a kitchen recently they may like to consider the cost of shipping enough from Greece or Northern Italy to cover a whole temple etc.....then sit for a while to get over the shock!

Basically, to avoid a rather high chance of being beaten to death by the Roman Mob it would seem that Nero and the Roman Elite need to spend at least 100M Denarii ASAP on rebuilding their city. Or do people thinks this is way out?

As luck would have it we have a large Army doing not a lot and loads of outstanding generals..........Should be a walk in the woods for them to round up 110,000 German, Celtic, Dacian slaves....sold @ 900 Denarii each (or used as building labour....but then you have to feed both them and the Roman Plebs) that 99,000,000m Denarii plus some Dacian Gold mines = Rome restored and we can all sleep safe in our beds!

Only concern is will a glut of Slaves crash the market price? How much is going to vanish in "commission"..... If that happens it could be plan b) Annoy the Jews so they revolt thenwe can loot the Temple and flog a load of Jews (historic solution of Titus to the problem) or plan c) Ctesiphon-Saleucia and the gold hordes of the Parthian Empire.

Basically young Nero is getting all wound up about nothing! If my maths is anywhere near correct all he need to do is honour the traditional Gods of Rome and follow sound Roman and family tradition in such tight financial spots .......loot, plunder, flog the captives.

Generals of Rome ......we and a large large building bill salute you!

It's an interesting idea Stuart.  Should say I'm not really that strong on the Roman Empire esp at this time; I suspect Kerensky will have better insights than me.

From what I can recall, Nero tried to pay for the rebuild costs by demanding tribute and taxation from across the Empire and devaluing the currency.  A military campaign could if successful have bought in the money needed in the way you suggest.  I wonder though if Nero didn't feel the risk was worth it?  Or perhaps he did but he was deposed what just under four years later and never had a chance to do so?

I am tempted to think he might not have wanted to take the risk. His time as emperor wasn't really one of military success.  I realise that might sound a strange statement but the Boudiccan revolt wasn't exactly a great military success-yes it was put down in the end but at great loss and cost and some reports suggest Nero even considered abandoning Britain at one stage in the revolt (did he think even the mighty Roman legions couldn't save the situation?).  The Parthian War had just ended and that was with a draw. On that track record, might Nero not hesitate to undertake a military campaign (or series of them) to get the money?  And when you also think in 66 AD the Jewish war started, and started badly for Rome, maybe Nero really didn't have that much faith in his generals?

I also wonder if he might have been a bit reluctant to let army generals have success in case they got ideas?  in the game we're a couple of months from Piso's plot being found out, I always get the feeling that from now on he is always looking over his shoulder, suspicious of anyone and everyone (or maybe even more so than before), just waiting for someone to try something.  Might he not want to give a general a chance to win a brilliant military campaign and have that glory go to their head?

I wonder if Poppaea's death delayed his plans.  Regardless of whether you go with the story that he killed her, or that it was a natural death, Nero does seem to have gone into mourning for her, perhaps distracting him and delaying his actions.

As to being under pressure, you'd think he would be but it's odd, the records seem to suggest when he was disposed the mob in Rome wasn't exactly overjoyed and might even have grieved for him.  Of course, records are limited and all seem extremely bias (whether pro or anti-Nero) but his popularity with the masses in Rome (and I think in the eastern parts of the empire) makes me think he might not yet have felt pressure there.

Finally, I wonder if he truly felt the quickest and simplest way to get the money was  via taxation?  It would take time to mobilise the legions for such a campaign, and it would have taken a bit of time to work out the total cost of the building works.  I know Nero came up with the rebuilding plans surprisingly quickly (and that's been used to support the idea that he was somehow behind the fire) but it would have been early 65 AD at least before they would have worked out the cost?  He's then distracted by Piso's plot, his wife's death...then a few months later the Jewish War starts...does he spend time and money getting the legions elsewhere to start attacking everyone (with a time delay before any profits from the campaigns start to reach the Treasury)...or up the taxes, with immediate-ish effect?  This does make me wonder about the first army revolts in 68 AD, which I think are supposed to be in reaction to Nero's tax policies...it's idle musing but maybe the army revolted because they wanted to follow Stuart's path...and Nero preferred to tax...

I think enough evidence (mostly in totally biased sources) exist for players to go with almost any version of Nero and their own Characters that they want. But for myself:

I am happy to accept that Nero wanted to be a good Emperor, happy to accept that in many parts of the Empire he was popular......wild sorts who throw money around like water often are. His problems tended to be with more senior figures who had to either find the cash or deal with the results of Nero's actions, think Rock group management of the greatest Prima-Donna in the World times x100.

But no way can I accept that this spectacular character as a frugal and risk adverse Emperor happy to re-build the Capital by cutting back on other costs and increased taxes!

As far as I can work out Nero was never willing to cut spending and his natural inclination would be to go with the biggest and most expensive plan and add extra......first part of his plan to rebuild Rome was the "Golden House" repuduted to be the largest and most expensive Palace ever built by a Roman Emperor. The Colosseum is basically built on the site of a private lake in the Golden Houses grounds.

Also putting up taxes and cutting back on the military budget is not really risk free. Just trying to impose standard Roman taxes played a major roll in starting the Boudiccan revolt and as I see it efforts to increase taxes (mostly spent locally) and get the extra sent to Rome is going to have three possible outcomes for players in the game and probably for their historic counter parts as well:

1) They are going to be up to their eye balls in revolting tribesmen.........the way Richard players the game = Order to collect increase taxes.....some idiot tax collector decides to give some Tribal Queen a good flogging and rape her daughters to show tax default even by Widows is not a option. Or even worse his mate in Judea decides Temples have to pay as well. And this is before dodgy non Roman Characters probably blue with spiky heir or wearing silk PJ's start to pour oil on the flames.

2) Some Local leaders, mostly in Gaul and the East, with fancy Latin Names and Toga's are going to decide that they are not willing to grind the fellow Tribesmen (and risk their head hanging in a sacred Groove) and are going to throw off the Toga and get their war Chariot out of the garage. A risk which is going to increase if Rome seems weak or if they are getting mid night visits from Druidic agents sent from across the border.

Citizens of Rome ask yourself why is a nice civilized tribesman from near Aqua Sulis spending so much time in the wilds of the far north if not getting in touch with his inner Druid/Pict.

3) Some others, mostly from Iberia, are going to pay up and moan like hell about Latin Rights. Spit in the face of Iberian hopes and dreams and its a political risk.......say yes and who else are you going to upset?

On the basis that putting up taxes is bloody dangerous what are the other options:

- Cut costs.......but that could make you very unpopular with the Emperor, Army etc........plus look what happened when the idea was mooted that the x4 very expensive Legions be pulled out of Britannia to save costs which were no where near matched by local revenue.......The money lenders and bankers called in all their loans in the Province all all hell started. Confirming that loss of face and seeming weak can be down right expensive.

- Military action, Nero may not have been the type of Emperor who commanded in person but the Roman Army was still a expansive force under Nero. Who ordered a full scale invasion's of Armenia and what ia now Wales. Indeed one of the reasons that the Boudiccan revolt caused so much damage was that the Governor and two Legions were off in the West butchering Druids when the revolt started.

For players who are really into roll play the other thing to keep in mind is that in many cases they are playing mates of the Emperor who are not risk adverse Senators who would want to cut costs and increase taxes on themselves for the greater good. Otha for instance is one of Nero's oldest mates who shared teenage deborchery and girls with him, while the commander in Germany is a old chariot racing buddy of both Caligulia and Nero.

Basically a lot of players may like to ask themselves........have they got all responsible and safe in their late middle age.........or are they still members of the Roman fast set? Who want to rebuild their Villa in Rome with a full set of hot and cold maids. And advise (use influence) accordingly.

PS We all know that for Roman Players polically this is going to be a "Russian Naval" game........what ever policy you come up with is going to cause problems & doing nothing with 65% of the Capital in ruins is not an option. My character has just chucked a million denarri into the rebuild but thinking about it gets feeling he has just spat into the wind.

Fair enough Stuart, like I say this period of Roman history isn't one I have anything like an expert knowledge though I would say being frugal and cutting back on expenditure in one area to throw cash at vanity projects wasn't exactly unknown then...or today

I must be honest, I tend to view most historical scholarly works the Romans wrote themselves not as some sort of impartial record but more looking to a political agenda. In this game, I am playing a Caledonian character who we only have one mention of in one record, giving a speech that feels more intended for a Roman audience than a native one...I would even go as far as saying I didn't really exist and am the invention of a Roman writer with an agenda...

...and on that note of existential doubt...