Histography and Total War Attila

[Darios]

One thing that I find interesting/annoying in Total War Attila is that history is depicted as Germanic tribes gathering together and quickly overwhelming the Roman Empire. It is almost as if the developers took a look at this map with its crazy number of invasions and insinuated that Rome quickly fell due to a sudden and overwhelming invasion of Germans.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One thing the map here shows is that these invasions occurred slowly over the period of a century and there would be times where the Roman Empire would stabilize and function no worse than it would have during the 3rd century. A Roman living during the 420s may have had a very optimistic outlook regarding the future of the empire and whenever the Romans managed to gather their forces they were more than capable of putting a hurting on the invaders. The reason is that as long as the Romans had control of Africa then they continued to enjoy huge tax revenues from grain, and it allowed the state to function rather normally. The loss of Carthage in 439 was a huge blow to the Empire. However, even then Italy was still capable of feeding itself though that is when its declining ability to put an army on the field became noticeable

ATW gives me the impression that the developers took 19th century German histography that portrayed the Germanic tribes as the glorious conquerors of the Roman Empire and turned it into a game. While the Germans did play a huge role in the collapse of the WRE, it is really strange that from Spain in the West to the Don in the East, nearly all of the mercenaries available for hire are Germanic troops and the game completely ignores the role the Celts and Sarmatians played as well. The Saxons were originally invited to Britannia due to Celtic raids from Ireland and Scotland. The Alans invaded the Roman Empire as an entity that remained independent until the Romans defeated them in Spain during the 420s yet CA decided to simply portray them as another Germanic faction.

I understand that ATW is a game and I am really enjoying myself except for some balancing/AI issues, but I hope that the developers will ultimately find a way to help the game stay closer to history. The game needs a bit more cultural diversity, the Romans need more a fighting chance, and the Germanic tribes shouldn't all be buddies whose only goal is the destruction of the WRE.

[Lugotorix]

I just wish there was more barbarian representation in the rebel Roman factions that rebel and seize areas, an Odoacer, or Stilicho, or Theoderic. And vice versa, some Goths should have latinized names (Which is the case to some extent) etc. Those that preserved the Roman way, but were barbarian in origin. So it would seem as more of a power-struggle between the two different cultures, which is why they're fondly remembered today despite their usurpation of WRE rule. I agree, the WRE should have more staying power, in The Inheritance of Rome, Chris Wickham points out that the fall of Rome was by no means certain, during Honorius' rule.

[veverčák]

For the love of the Heavens! Such is nature of any game!

In Europa Universalis IV (EU IV. for short) the whole power balance in Europe lies within borders of France (also known as:le Blob, BBB - Big Blue Blob, Final Boss, Blue Plague, "God hate you Joe" and many more). Under normal circumstances the BBB kick out English crown from continent within first 10 years (Grand Campaign starts in 1444) and then continue its Drang nach Osten by seizing Lois XIV. borders 200 years earlier. Then continue in Italy, Germany, Flanders, Netherlands, up to some point, where I, as the almighty entity called player, step in and try to reverse the BBB back to its more natural borders. Or BBB is disintegrate into small kingdoms by Alliance of Light - Poland - Lithuanian Commonwealth, Burgundy, Castile/Spain and Austria and Ille de France is last holding of french kings. it really depends on build and focus of last DLC.

Oh, and next time, when someone try to convince you that Hapsburg or Jagelonid dynasties found their empires by using strategic marriages he is lying! The Personal Unions were heavily abused by the monarchs and therefore nerf to oblivion! Only war is capable of bringing you new subjects!

Seriously, nobody is claiming that WRE and ERE fall in before 400 or that power balance in western Europe was that bad, neither CA, Paradox, Sega.....anybody. The main goal is to present player an interesting game based upon time frame of beginning of the Dark Ages or Age of Rise of the Europe. That is all.

[RGA]

One thing that I find interesting/annoying in Total War Attila is that history is depicted as Germanic tribes gathering together and quickly overwhelming the Roman Empire. It is almost as if the developers took a look at this map with its crazy number of invasions and insinuated that Rome quickly fell due to a sudden and overwhelming invasion of Germans.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One thing the map here shows is that these invasions occurred slowly over the period of a century and there would be times where the Roman Empire would stabilize and function no worse than it would have during the 3rd century. A Roman living during the 420s may have had a very optimistic outlook regarding the future of the empire and whenever the Romans managed to gather their forces they were more than capable of putting a hurting on the invaders. The reason is that as long as the Romans had control of Africa then they continued to enjoy huge tax revenues from grain, and it allowed the state to function rather normally. The loss of Carthage in 439 was a huge blow to the Empire. However, even then Italy was still capable of feeding itself though that is when its declining ability to put an army on the field became noticeable

ATW gives me the impression that the developers took 19th century German histography that portrayed the Germanic tribes as the glorious conquerors of the Roman Empire and turned it into a game. While the Germans did play a huge role in the collapse of the WRE, it is really strange that from Spain in the West to the Don in the East, nearly all of the mercenaries available for hire are Germanic troops and the game completely ignores the role the Celts and Sarmatians played as well. The Saxons were originally invited to Britannia due to Celtic raids from Ireland and Scotland. The Alans invaded the Roman Empire as an entity that remained independent until the Romans defeated them in Spain during the 420s yet CA decided to simply portray them as another Germanic faction.

I understand that ATW is a game and I am really enjoying myself except for some balancing/AI issues, but I hope that the developers will ultimately find a way to help the game stay closer to history. The game needs a bit more cultural diversity, the Romans need more a fighting chance, and the Germanic tribes shouldn't all be buddies whose only goal is the destruction of the WRE.

If anything, troop movement in Total war games is always way too easy compared to real life. There is no campaign season, everyone is professional soldier operating all year long. Logistics is vastly simplified, you can march hundred of kilometers with only mininal casualties (which is replenished in a few turns). There are only a few settlement which could be by-passed easily. You have have to leave troops behind for garissoning or protection of supply line.

In real life, things were much much more difficult. Currently I read about the Ottoman empire and its campaign against the Habsburgs. Even with a centralized, sophisticated system of mobilization and logistics, the Turks, starting from Constantinople and with its forward operating base in Belgrade, could never march anywhere further west than Vienna before having to retreat. I imagine the same situation in the age of migration: the vast size of the Roman empire was its best protection. Barbarian hordes could rampage through the whole length of the empire, but they could not consolidate on their gain and the empire, though badly maimed, continued to survive for a long time.

[Aeratus]

If anything, troop movement in Total war games is always way too easy compared to real life. There is no campaign season, everyone is professional soldier operating all year long. Logistics is vastly simplified, you can march hundred of kilometers with only mininal casualties (which is replenished in a few turns). There are only a few settlement which could be by-passed easily. You have have to leave troops behind for garissoning or protection of supply line.

In real life, things were much much more difficult. Currently I read about the Ottoman empire and its campaign against the Habsburgs. Even with a centralized, sophisticated system of mobilization and logistics, the Turks, starting from Constantinople and with its forward operating base in Belgrade, could never march anywhere further west than Vienna before having to retreat. I imagine the same situation in the age of migration: the vast size of the Roman empire was its best protection. Barbarian hordes could rampage through the whole length of the empire, but they could not consolidate on their gain and the empire, though badly maimed, continued to survive for a long time.

Actually, the barbarians during this period had a large advantage over the Ottomans in terms of logistics. As you suggested, the Ottomans went to war as an army, with the aim to conquer. On the other hand, the barbarians went to war as a nation, with the aim of finding a new homeland. The difference is that the barbarians' support infrastructure for their combatants is constantly moving with the combatants, whereas with sendentary armies (such as the Ottomans), the support structure of the armies is artificially created for purpose of war, and the support structure is not entirely with the moving army but depends on the supply lines from back home. Moreover, as you suggested, the barbarians moved along and did not need garrisons because they did not have intention of holding territory.

So if the game were to be more realistic, horde factions should have easy troop movement, but the upkeep of sedentary armies (including settled barbarian armies) should be drastically increased the farther from a home province, and should suffer attrition is supply lines are cut off.

nearly all of the mercenaries available for hire are Germanic troops and the game completely ignores the role the Celts and Sarmatians played as well.

In terms of in-game units, the Sarmatians are represented. Celts are not, and their troops are just generic Germanic troops. It is believed that the state of the Celts in the game is because CA will release a Celtic culture pack later on to improve capitalize on this part of history.

[Darios]

In terms of in-game units, the Sarmatians are represented. Celts are not, and their troops are just generic Germanic troops. It is believed that the state of the Celts in the game is because CA will release a Celtic culture pack later on to improve capitalize on this part of history.

Not exactly. The game's only playable Sarmatian faction, the Alans, have a core roster of Germanic troops with a couple of copy/paste Hun units that are styled as "Sarmatian." I don't know what's worse - the Celts being initially unplayable but with the hope of having their roster fleshed out with DLC one day, or looking at CA's completed Alanic roster and realizing that is how CA felt was the right way to portray them.

[Mortarion]

The huge Germanic roster is annoying, play the Norse, you get Germanic units. Play the Saxons, you get Germanic units... hmm fine, but Goths, Germanic units. Celts, Germanic units. Slavs, Germanic units. Alans, god damn Germanic unit. I was almost expecting to meet Armenia or something with Germanic units.....

[Rinan]

And then there are renowned historians like Walter Goffart telling us we ought to throw away the "big arrow map" altogether (or keep it for antiquarian purposes only). That map does a large unjustice to both barbarians and Romans, and indeed makes it appear as if a sudden barbarian onslaught destroyed the Empire.

In reality it must've been much more complex, taking a lot of time. The barbarians intermarried with each other and with Romans, and imperial and barbarian armies started to look more and more alike. The Western Empire fell for a number of reasons (with invasion being just one) and got replaced by succesor-kingdoms who were arguably almost as Roman as the Romans themselves. King Theoderic of Italy, for example, was likened to the "Augustus of the West" and the Vandals in Africa drew on good Roman precedent when they started their religious persecutions. (The Vandals were arian Christians persecuting catholic Romans - but the Romans were doing the same to heretics like Donatists a century before)

Also, barbarians were not hell-bent to destroy the Empire, but wanted to be part of it. Alaric's sack of Rome in 410 for example, occured only after multiple failures at diplomacy with the stubborn imperial court. He wanted to be an imperial general - the Visigoths ended up forming their own kingdom because of the sheer incompetence of emperor Honorius.

But I suppose that CA's "clash of civilisations" makes for a more dramatic gaming experience! [emoji14]

[Darios]

And then there are renowned historians like Walter Goffart telling us we ought to throw away the "big arrow map" altogether (or keep it for antiquarian purposes only). That map does a large unjustice to both barbarians and Romans, and indeed makes it appear as if a sudden barbarian onslaught destroyed the Empire.

In reality it must've been much more complex, taking a lot of time. The barbarians intermarried with each other and with Romans, and imperial and barbarian armies started to look more and more alike. The Western Empire fell for a number of reasons (with invasion being just one) and got replaced by succesor-kingdoms who were arguably almost as Roman as the Romans themselves. King Theoderic of Italy, for example, was likened to the "Augustus of the West" and the Vandals in Africa drew on good Roman precedent when they started their religious persecutions. (The Vandals were arian Christians persecuting catholic Romans - but the Romans were doing the same to heretics like Donatists a century before)

Also, barbarians were not hell-bent to destroy the Empire, but wanted to be part of it. Alaric's sack of Rome in 410 for example, occured only after multiple failures at diplomacy with the stubborn imperial court. He wanted to be an imperial general - the Visigoths ended up forming their own kingdom because of the sheer incompetence of emperor Honorius.

But I suppose that CA's "clash of civilisations" makes for a more dramatic gaming experience! [emoji14]

I agree with pretty much everything here. The Ostrogoths ran an almost completely Roman state though Theoderic would have never suggested that he was Augustus of the West because that would have brought down the wrath of Constantinople upon the Ostrogothic kingdom and he desired to maintain good relations with the Eastern Roman Empire. The Vandal kingdom was slightly Roman but was little more than a petty state that was quickly crushed by the legions of Belisarios at Ad Decium. Gaul and Spain had become so devastated and neglected that by the time the Visigoths and Franks settled there there was little Roman culture left and the new kingdoms that formed there were more mergings of barbarian (Germanic/Alanic) and Ibero/Gallic - Roman culture. A 9th century Frankish knight would been a noble of largely Germanic ancestry (with perhaps hints of Gallo-Roman origin), fighting for his lord in a Germanic fashion, running an estate in the Roman tradition, fighting in style that echoed Alanic/Tafali heavy lancers, and speaking a Latin dialect that was well on the way to becoming French.

I really dislike the big arrow map because it fails to tell the story that the barbarian tribes wanted to become a part of the Empire, not charge in and destroy it. I hope that the developers will take note of these things when it comes to balancing the game's diplomatic and public order situation for the WRE.

[geala]

But it is rather difficult or impossible to simulate such real life processes in a game named "Total War", were battles and graphics play an important part and need resources.

There are also some scholars, like Peter Heather, who give the "barbarian" invasions a big part in the fall of the western part of the Roman empire. I'm not a fan of this "a steadfast empire, in 400 AD as strong as in the 1st c. AD, fell to a multitude of enemies"-theory. A Roman in 420 AD with a positive feeling would have been one with little insight into the economical and political and perhaps ideological problems of the empire. He would have ignored the fact that many many people living in the empire had no reason, intention or incentive to like the empire and want it to remain. Or to take a single aspect, the tax politics of the empire f.e. was chaotic before the loss of Africa, the moneymaker province. That the empire did so few to get back Africa for me also is a sign that there was something more wrong than Heather admits.

Anyway, for a game like TW in my opinion CA has done a good job to catch the mood of the time. There is no excuse however for the generic Germanic roster everywhere and the ashaming failure to resemble some other cultures in the game at release.

[Candy_Licker]

But it is rather difficult or impossible to simulate such real life processes in a game named "Total War", were battles and graphics play an important part and need resources.

Exactly. It's pretty impossible and unrealistic to expect from a video game to depict these complex affairs accurately. The rest are balancing issues and dlc whoring, not 19th century German nationalism agenda.

[Darios]

The rest are balancing issues and dlc whoring, not 19th century German nationalism agenda.

Both are, in my opinion, true. ATW has tons of balancing (why can't the WRE pit two Germanic factions against one another? why can't the WRE build alliances with any of their neighbors?) issues that need to be sorted out. The lack of Celts, Slavs, Sarmatians, Arabs, etc is definitely DLC whoring but it is impossible to deny that our modern historical discourse on the Fall of Rome is somewhat influenced by 19th century German nationalism. The historical Germanic migrations were glorified and served as justification for political movements that took two world wars to crush. Only recently are historians beginning to look more at the big picture as to why the Western Roman Empire fell.

Example: On the map that I posted in the OP, why aren't the Alans shown? How many history books mention their kingdom that existed in Iberia between AD 406-429? Why are the Alans in Rome 2 presented as Germans with a few extra cavalry units?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[geala]

Your picture of the modern historical discourse is flawed as is seemingly your understanding of 19th c. German nationalism. I don't want to discuss this further because there seem to be some prejudices floating around. But are you really charging CA for being influenced by such a 19th c. German nationalism?

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

For the love of the Heavens! Such is nature of any game!

In Europa Universalis IV (EU IV. for short) the whole power balance in Europe lies within borders of France (also known as:le Blob, BBB - Big Blue Blob, Final Boss, Blue Plague, "God hate you Joe" and many more). Under normal circumstances the BBB kick out English crown from continent within first 10 years (Grand Campaign starts in 1444) and then continue its Drang nach Osten by seizing Lois XIV. borders 200 years earlier. Then continue in Italy, Germany, Flanders, Netherlands, up to some point, where I, as the almighty entity called player, step in and try to reverse the BBB back to its more natural borders. Or BBB is disintegrate into small kingdoms by Alliance of Light - Poland - Lithuanian Commonwealth, Burgundy, Castile/Spain and Austria and Ille de France is last holding of french kings. it really depends on build and focus of last DLC.

Oh, and next time, when someone try to convince you that Hapsburg or Jagelonid dynasties found their empires by using strategic marriages he is lying! The Personal Unions were heavily abused by the monarchs and therefore nerf to oblivion! Only war is capable of bringing you new subjects!

Seriously, nobody is claiming that WRE and ERE fall in before 400 or that power balance in western Europe was that bad, neither CA, Paradox, Sega.....anybody. The main goal is to present player an interesting game based upon time frame of beginning of the Dark Ages or Age of Rise of the Europe. That is all.

Sorry but this statement can't be ignored, for he is right!

It is a game, each person playing it will experience it differently.
Games call only mimic the real world.....

[Rinan]

I agree with pretty much everything here. The Ostrogoths ran an almost completely Roman state though Theoderic would have never suggested that he was Augustus of the West because that would have brought down the wrath of Constantinople upon the Ostrogothic kingdom and he desired to maintain good relations with the Eastern Roman Empire. The Vandal kingdom was slightly Roman but was little more than a petty state that was quickly crushed by the legions of Belisarios at Ad Decium. Gaul and Spain had become so devastated and neglected that by the time the Visigoths and Franks settled there there was little Roman culture left and the new kingdoms that formed there were more mergings of barbarian [...] culture

Theoderic would never have suggested an imperial status for himself, no no no! But his most loyal subjects, on the other hand... Consider this inscription found at the Via Appia, for example, talking about king Theoderic: "Our lord, the very glorious and celebrator of triumphs, always Augustus, for the good of the state, guardian of liberty, propagator of the Roman people, subjugator of peoples” -- Someone very enthousiastic about Theoderic's reign (or someone trying to suck it up to him, perhaps?) must've put this up. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, X, 6850). Even Procopius, the 'Byzantine' historian, likens Theoderic's rule to that of an emperor (Bello Gothico, 1.1).

Also, I think you overstate the case for Gaul and Spain. There was always a division between the Mediterranean heart, and the inland periphery. Northern Gaul for example, was never really Romanised, with the exception of a few cities and military camps. In the Netherlands for example - with the exception of a few small cities (Noviomagus, Forum Hadriani) the local inhabitants seem to have kept living their traditional lives for centuries, living in traditional wooden housing, etc. -Only around the 3rd century does this change, only to be cut short by the chaos of this period. Afterwards, the whole zone was more like a military buffer zone - To the extend that the military emperors who spent most of their time on the front must've appeared almost as different to the Mediterranean cities as a barbarian host would. By contrast, southern Gaul was thoroughly Romanised. Gallo-Roman men like Apollonius Apollinaris (5th century) and Gregory of Tours (6th century) were very much (late) Roman men doing their Roman things, living in Roman towns. (My literature on this is vast lol, but I can give you some references if you'd like)

There are also some scholars, like Peter Heather, who give the "barbarian" invasions a big part in the fall of the western part of the Roman empire. I'm not a fan of this "a steadfast empire, in 400 AD as strong as in the 1st c. AD, fell to a multitude of enemies"-theory. A Roman in 420 AD with a positive feeling would have been one with little insight into the economical and political and perhaps ideological problems of the empire.

Still, I believe the empire around 400 was far stronger than most people seem to think - And most problems it suffered from were already there in the first century (like people who didn't want to be part of it all anyway) Things just went progressively worse down from there in the next few centuries. But let's not forget that the empire fell in 1453 -- Not 473.

[geala]

...
Still, I think the empire around 400 was far stronger than most people seem to thing - And most problems it suffered from were already there in the first century (like people who didn't want to be part of it all anyway) Things just went progressively worse down from there in the next few centuries. But let's not forget that the empire fell in 1453 -- Not 473.

Hehe, you are right, but I was speaking of the western part. Surely the western part of the empire was still relatively strong materially until the loss of Africa. I think a lot more of the relevant people in the 1st c. AD wanted the empire. I'm thinking f.a. of the urban population and before all the ruling persons of the urban population. And for me the empire fell in 1204 AD. The later parts of the empire recovered to a certain extent, but never really. In 1453 AD the empire was just one city, under the suzerainty of the Ottomans afaik for quite a long time.

[Rinan]

I suppose that for a lot of people it started to make more and more sense to act locally rather than rely on a distant imperial court who didn't care much about you, I agree. Which is why we see Romans standing up against central rule (Constantine III in Gaul, count Gildas in Africa). Still, there were always the idealists like Apollonius, who was foaming mad when his region, Auvergne, was handed over by the emperor in Ravenna to the Visigoths in a treaty.

Sorry but this statement can't be ignored, for he is right!

It is a game, each person playing it will experience it differently.
Games call only mimic the real world.....

Mimic, sure... But some games do it better than others. For example, I'd say Crusader Kings II does a better job at portraying the medieval word than Medieval II Total War does. For some, historical realism matters more than to others. Luckily we have mods for those weird nutters!

[veverčák]

Mimic, sure... But some games do it better than others. For example, I'd say Crusader Kings II does a better job at portraying the medieval word than Medieval II Total War does. For some, historical realism matters more than to others. Luckily we have mods for those weird nutters!

Yes, Crusader Kings and other Paradox have better campaign mechanics, but TW series never were about campaign. The main focus of the series was always put on real-time battle experience. It is kind of comparing ARMA and Call of Duty. Both games are military shooters, but that is all. Focus of those two lies in total different areas.

[Huberto]

Yes, Crusader Kings and other Paradox have better campaign mechanics, but TW series never were about campaign. The main focus of the series was always put on real-time battle experience. It is kind of comparing ARMA and Call of Duty. Both games are military shooters, but that is all. Focus of those two lies in total different areas.

Untrue. Paradox games like CK II are sophisticated state and dynasty building games, while its military campaigns are unrealistic and fairly simplistic. TW's military campaigns are more realistic and detailed, as are its real time battles (compared to CK II/EU IV etc.)

[Rinan]

Untrue. Paradox games like CK II are sophisticated state and dynasty building games, while its military campaigns are unrealistic and fairly simplistic. TW's military campaigns are more realistic and detailed, as are its real time battles (compared to CK II/EU IV etc.)

Gee, I stopped playing the Byzantines in Crusader Kings II because I just got tired of dealing with that same half-arsed campaigning-system every time again and again I guess Total War and Paradox combined would really be a dream, even without the real time battles...

That said, I think it just shows how everyone has a different view on what Total War is, and what it should be, which is why modding is such a great thing. Anyone who doesnt believe that more historical realism is possible in Total War has obviously never played mods like the excellent Europa Barbarorum.