VN Others Completed The Senator's Daughter [v1.3.2] [KexBoy]

[RNDM]

Ok, now, you can also read from that Wikipedia article. Illyrian revolt was rather unique situation. Soldiers who got conscripted to auxilia in that event, were not serving 25 years. Standardization of auxilary conscription, and of rest came few decades after ... they were part time serving.
Furthermore, former slaves have same treatment as free-born soldiers, so I don't see your point either way.

Reminder that Roman slavery was not hereditary so "free-born" is a descriptor both inaccurate and redundant... anyway, the point is they were enlisted into lengthy military careers quite irrespective of their wishes on the matter; not really different from the system of ghulam slave-soldiers (who in the usual version were actually manumited upon the completion of their training, though some variations remained unfree until released by their masters) all over the Middle East centuries later.

You must be registered to see the links

: "In 13 BC, Augustus decreed sixteen years as the standard term of service for legionary recruits, with a further four years as reservists (evocati). In AD 5, the standard term was increased to twenty years plus five years in the reserves."

That happened how many times in Roman history Twice? Trice?...
Unless KexBoy explicitly writes that MC served in Illyrian revolt, or under Scipio Africanus, I prefer my own interpretation.

I'm plenty willing to assume that bit in the blurb was simply pulled out of the author's ass, I'm just pointing out it doesn't have to be. The period isn't readily apparent from the description - dunno 'bout ingame.

That's pretty much common ocurrance in vernacular Englis. Not to many of people call seargents officers, even if they technically are NCO.

I'm not seeing the relevance of vernacular English as used by the painfully ignorant. Then again I may be biased as my country still runs on conscript/reservist system so just about everyone knows the basic distinction between NCOs and actual officers and other such military basics...

One of 60 centurions in legion was considered equal by officers... That really destroys my point.

Well, yes, it actually would were your argument not dead in the water for other reasons already.

Who?

Idk, literally every single one I've read who bothered making such comparisons?

I didn't say otherwise so you are beating dead horse...

That's not what that figure of speech means, and you did imply there was a meaningful difference between the prior military education of the junior and senior ranks. Which was not the case; both essentially picked it up as they went and by "cultural osmosis." Note also that the Roman military recruited VERY heavily from populations with strong warrior traditions (various Celtic and Germanic peoples, Thracians) and often living along troubled borders so recruits might well be enlisting with some practical experience in head-splitting and raiding.

 

[RNDM]

You do realise, "slaves" you mentioned served in units composed of Roman citizens. Regiments of free born citizens who were deemed unworthy to serve in legions were filled by freedmen, and slaves of Roman Citizens whom Germanic bought and emancipated... they *were not* slave soldiers. In fact, due to fact they served with Roman Citizens, they were treated equal as legionaries. Also, they were not serving 16 years either. Some did remain, but some left... those units latter had to be resupplied by peregrines.

Never said they were slave-soldiers. But as mentioned there are clear parallels with certain variations of the ghulam system (who are usually collectively termed "slave-soldiers" regardless of whether they were freedmen or still actually slaves in active service); the fundamental point is that unlike the troops recruited through the regular channels they were unfree recruits and given the involuntary nature of their enrolment can be said to have remained so until the end of their terms of service.

Dude, that's about service of legionaries.

Let's see what good old wiki article about auxilia says:

The auxilia are alas rather poorly sourced in the historical record; they certainly existed already early in Augustus's reign (partially as a continuation of the old Republican auxiliary and allied formations), but details are rather scarce. Certainly I could not find out of hand any mention of how long their enlistement periods were at the times of Augustus decreeing the ones for the citizen legions but ought to be safe to assume they were more or less the same.

Well, for some strange reason, in my tiny corner of non-English world, we also never called sergeants and junior ensigns officers, even though they were called so in Military Law... Funny, enough they also called senior officers simply "officers"... (Of course it had to be different with official talk, but I guess you got what I had to say).

*shrug*

PS NCO is short for non commissioned officer... (corporal, petty officer, sergeant, ensign and such guys...)

The emphasis is actually on commissioned due to it (in the European context) historically referring to the formal commissioning of private individuals to raise and command fighting forces of some specified size and nature, be it mercenaries or retainers or whatever, for the ruler or other polity involved. "Officer" is after all not an exclusively military position - think corporate CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) for example.

Bottom point is, no matter of their previous situations, Roman soldiers were not slaves during their service... unlike ghullam, mameluks, salaqiba, and whatever else you can find on wikipedia.

Mamelukes for example were specifically manumited upon the completion of their training and entry into active military service so, yeah. Which was also pretty common in the older ghulam system. (Ottoman Janissaries OTOH remained technically slaves throughout their careers, not that this particularly stopped them from regularly going all Praetorian on Sultans who displeased them somehow...)
Anyway, see above. "Not slave" does not automatically equal "actually free" after all, there are many grades and forms of bondage - and I'd say involuntary enrolment into a lengthy military service falls into the spectrum.

 

[RNDM]

There are exactly none...

CASE #1: purchased for and manumited into military service
CASE #2: purchased for and manumited into military service

...it's literally the same thing you know. The only real difference is that the Romans only did it in emergencies whereas for various reasons various Muslim states made it the cornerstone of their militaries (almost all of them also used diverse free troops though).

Imagine what, they existed centuries before him. Augustus started with their standardisation. But that process was continued. So, emperor Claudius (grand nephew of Augustus, and nephew of Tiberius), was one who set their service for 25 years, just as Augustus set service of legionaries at 20+5 years. Augustus just started with profesionalization of their ranks... But you know it's all on wiki allready.

You're confusing the standardization of Roman citizenship as reward of service in the 50s AD for the standardization of the term of service itself - as already mentioned I couldn't out of hand find mentions of how long auxilia served for under Augustus but there seems to be little reason to assume their terms didn't simply mirror those of contemporaneous citizen legionaries.

That's exactly why centurions were not officers. They were not commissioned to raise force. They were appointed by legate, senate, elected from legionary/auxikiary ranks... Unlike Legate, Comes, Tribunes who were commissioned.

...
...
...you do realize you just Failed Roman History Forever, right? One of Augustus's key changes to the old Republican system was specifically making the raising and maintaining of military forces a state monopoly; back in the wild old days of Late Republic basically anyone with the money for it could, and more often than not also did, raise legions almost as they pleased. Que powerful men waging civil wars with de facto private armies; the whole point of the Augustinian reforms was to put a stop to this kind of blatant threat to the centralized rule he established. Henceforth the State was the sole paymaster of the armies and appointed their officers; strict limits were placed on even the size of house guard forces the wealthy could employ as an unapologetic block to possible revolts.

Also the comes did not aquire military significance until very late into the Empire, around 5th-6th century when the adminstrative fabric of the realm was badly defrayed and by necessity authorities and responsibilities were by necessity devolved down the chain of command - forerunner of the later Medieval fragmentation into feudal fiefdoms (which the monarchies spent centuries trying to reverse).

Dude, Roman state existed 2206 years in various forms. Few times in history they, as desperate measure released some slaves, and enlisted them together with free born soldiers, and treated them in same way as free born soldiers... it's definitely different from Ottoman and Persian centuries long practice of raiding Christian villages, to enslave boys and raise them as soldiers...

Quite beside the point, which was that "unfree" recruitement DID happen. And we're discussing in far narrower timeframe than the full nominal existence of "Roman state" in the broadest definitions - the Principate (more or less), not the Republic or the Late Antiquity or the freaking Byzantium.

Mameluks were never formally manumitted.

You must be registered to see the links

. "When their training was completed, they were discharged, but remained attached to the patron who had purchased them."
...you were saying? And ofc given the Egyptian ones eventually became the rulers of the country...

That wasn't exactly involuntary enrollment. Being manumitted in exchange for military service was preferable to dying as slave.

As if they had any meaningful choice in the matter. An obvious improvement in circumstances, no doubt, but involuntary enrolment all the same.

 

[RNDM]

I'll remind you that you're the one who insisted on starting this debate in the first place so kindly get off your high horse.

 

[UncleVT]

Aaaand the nice discussion derailed.

 

[Falcon2000]

Some people come here for porn, I come here to educate myself on the matter of ancient history. Thank you Thermophob and RNDM.

Why not both?

 

[kishmish]

Why not both?

Because no porn gives a stiffer boner than Pax Romana.

 

[RNDM]

Because no porn gives a stiffer boner than Pax Romana.

Wanna touch my pilum, baby? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Funfact: in Roman military colloquial the sword scabbard was called vagina due to some fairly obvious associations...

 

[Deleted member 573385]

Huh, neat to see people talking about history here, I was kind of expecting that. I have nothing to contribute because my knowledge of Roman history comes mostly from the Total War games, meaning that whatever roman faction I was in control of went on to dominate the world, because I'm a fucking boss. xD

Also... am I doing something wrong, or is there like no content for this? Screenshots seem to suggest there's a bit of naughty stuff in, but I just downloaded it, and got a prompt to become a patreon to see more after a while. Is this supposed to be just the public version?

 

[klang]

VOLO′NES is synonymous with Voluntarii (from volo), and might hence be applied to all those who volunteered to serve in the Roman armies without there being any obligation to do so. But it was applied more especially to slaves, when in times of need they offered or were allowed to fight in the Roman armies. Thus when during the second Punic war after the battle of Cannae there was not a sufficient number of freedmen to complete the army, about 8000 young and able-bodied slaves offered to serve. Their proposal was accepted; they received armour at the public expense, and as they distinguished themselves they were honoured with the franchise (Liv.

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

;

You must be registered to see the links

; Festus, s.v. Volones). In after times the name volones was retained whenever slaves chose or were allowed to take up arms in defence of their masters, which they were the more willing to do, as they were generally rewarded with the franchise (Liv. XXIV.

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

, &c.,

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

;

You must be registered to see the links

).

 

[lazt96]

Help help...! even the missing file not in download game folder/rar.

 

[Pif paf]

This message from Kexboy that the rest is for Patreons only, that's the real end or just end of free version?

 

[sharing]

win7 32bits said this ...

Can this be fixed?

 

[UncleVT]

Added v0.4.0 to OP.

 

[Bamzor]

Wanna touch my pilum, baby? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Funfact: in Roman military colloquial the sword scabbard was called vagina due to some fairly obvious associations...

In Danish a sheath is still called "en skede", which means a vagina.

 

[Lucasla]

so, how's the development going? i downloaded the first version and i do like the setting, but was very buggy. how about now?

 

[czertik]

"ex-centurion, and now a free man" Centurions aren't slaves, Gladiators are slaves. And "Vitus"? Looks like the latin word "Victus" which means "Defeated". Bad omen, the knowledge about Rome of the dev doesn't look like too good.

Myby he was original slave, and joined army to become free man and archived rank centurion due to his skills ? And im sure dev can change his name to more winning one

And if you want to help him with history lessons - feel free to do it .

 

[czertik]

Biggus Dickus and his wife Incontinentia Buttocks
I watch this movie twice a year. Easter holidays and x-mas holidays.

What romans eved did for us ?

 

[RNDM]

Myby he was original slave, and joined army to become free man

Slaves didn't normally much get to choose as previously discussed, you know.

 

[Aiwass]

"ex-centurion, and now a free man" Centurions aren't slaves, Gladiators are slaves. And "Vitus"? Looks like the latin word "Victus" which means "Defeated". Bad omen, the knowledge about Rome of the dev doesn't look like too good.

Vitus from "Vita".