I'd support Ceasars Legion except [Insert answer here]

[Crni Vuk]

No of course not but they can give you an insight in to the mindset of the American even if from the angle of a typical Soldier to say that.

As how I see it with the Legion it reminds me to the Nazis and their situation in Russia. You know when they got in to Stalingrad or other larger towns of the former Soviet Union many young people would burn the books of their communistic party and some see the Germans as liberators from Stalin while German leaders of that area opened the churches again for the people which have been sometimes used by the Soviet military for their horses. Yet no one would seriously get the idea calling the Nazi ideology good or their leadership human.

Now the Legion are not Nazis. But they have a certain ideology. And those is shown in the game as rather "dark". Dangerous for the people in Vegas at least. What ever if the NCR is a better option or not is a point to debate. But the game at least makes a very good job of showing the NCR from many different lights while the tone you get from the Legion is pretty much always the same. I miss here the diversity which you have with the NCR. Because you have with them the farmers, the soldiers, usual citizens and scientists even. And that makes the NCR in my eyes a very plausible faction while the Legion seems to me just like a "lulz-faction".

I wish they would have explored more the "religion" of the Legion for example. With Shamans maybe (do they not worship the God of War mars or something ?), showing Legion citizens and families. Even some army which has only the "military" and "warefare" as focus will require some economy particularly when they are in areas which they conquered and far away from their main homeland. Just to go with the Romans it was not rare that they had complete towns around their barracks for their family and many of the people which moved in to some area to do their duty would stay for decades. Many of the big German towns have their roots still in the Roman colonization. But ... i am just saying. We all pretty much agree that the Legion got not enough love by Obsidian.

I'd imagine that the women on the front lines are treated a lot worse than women treated back in Legion territory. In the Roman empire women weren't really full citizens, but they were held in high regard and could own property and get divorces and the like.

Still for females the Roman empire was a pretty shitty place to be compared to the Gauls for example which allowed females even access to very high positions or the Druids which gave females a high place in their religion and some matriarchal societies.

 

[Courier]

Still for females the Roman empire was a pretty shitty place to be compared to the Gauls for example which allowed females even access to very high positions or the Druids which gave females a high place in their religion and some matriarchal societies.

Rome was still miles ahead of most places at the time when it came to women's rights, although I guess that doesn't really apply to the wasteland in which it's a step backwards. All I'm saying here is that most women probably get treated better back East than the ones we see in-game. At least things like what happened to Raul's sister don't happen anymore.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Still for females the Roman empire was a pretty shitty place to be compared to the Gauls for example which allowed females even access to very high positions or the Druids which gave females a high place in their religion and some matriarchal societies.

Rome was still miles ahead of most places at the time when it came to women's rights, although I guess that doesn't really apply to the wasteland in which it's a step backwards. All I'm saying here is that most women probably get treated better back East than the ones we see in-game. At least things like what happened to Raul's sister don't happen anymore.

In which way ? And compared to what ? Rich females sure had some power. But those are a minority.

The usual roman female had not much to say and what they could do and own was very limited. To quote one example :

Ancient Roman Women: A Look at Their Lives
Any historical investigation into the lives of ancient women involves individual interpretation and much speculation. One can read the ancient sources concerned with women and their place in society, but to a large degree, they are all secondary sources that were written by men about women. No ancient journals or personal diaries written by Roman women were uncovered, so it is not known what their hopes and dreams were, or if they had any.

That should tell someone enough about the rights and position of the typical female in the Roman society. I mean they have not been worse then the Greeks for example but still.

 

[Horus9k]

Thank God we have Boudicca's journal to juxtapose just how rotten those women hating Romans were. Oh, that's right, we have no contemporary Celtic female writers, either. Sure we have Sappho (who isn't contemporary anyways), but she is the exception, not the rule.

Just because we do not have any female literature does not mean that it doesn't exist. Do you honestly expect us to believe that Hypatia of Alexandria didn't scrawl anything down? Please.

Roman women were better off. For various reasons.

 

[Crni Vuk]

which reasons ?

Comparing apples with oranges maybe ?

That some tribal and primitive tribe believing in human sacrifice for example is worse then the Roman empire is clear.

But that many of the "well known" historic recordings are written by males not females is a given fact. Or who do you think most people know Cicero ? Or his wife ?

When it comes to Roman history one of the most used sources ... is Rome itself. And here lies one of the main problems when learning/studying about them. They have been taken to long for granted. Much of it comes from the medieval age and the European industrialism where in both times the Roman empire has been rather glorified (- example the general view of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in German history during the Wilhelmine era as the uprising of the German population even though that was a completely wrong picture). I am not saying there are NO sources regarding females in the Roman culture. I am just saying there are no MAJOR sources like when reading about Caesars reports about the Gauls or Tacitus writings about the German tribes and even today Caesars reports is one of the main subject when learning latin in school - as well because he is rather easy to read. Even though those Roman sources are very biased toward the Roman view which is no surprise but sadly they are more or less the only sources we have today because the Romans have not been reluctant to destroy the cultures they conquered to romanize them - not to mention it was not usual for the Germans to write as much about their own culture down like the Romans did. Though much of the things we find today about the Gauls for example shows that they treated their females much more equally then the Romans did. So much where they had even sometimes openly and known huge political power which was unthinkable in the Roman society. Not the kind of liberal stance we can compare to today of course. But in direct comparison to the Romans and their society. For the Gauls it was also usual to help the poor/sick/handicapped/old people in the Roman society those have been often enough lepers.

woman hating Romans

I am not saying the Romans "hated" woman. You don't have to hate something to see it as citizen of lower value. The Europeans didn't hated black people either for seeing them as "sub-humans". But It does not require "hate" in their opinion to see their view as somewhat skewed.

The Roman empire was a clear patriarchy with much more values regarding males then females. What ever if that was true for the flow of the society as whole (because females sure did played an important role and had some influence on their "males") is a different question. But when it comes to the actual direct decisions in the society. Females had a rather small direct influence.

 

[Horus9k]

which reasons ?

Every conceivable one.

Comparing apples with oranges maybe ?

Yes, comparing any other state to the SPQR is like comparing a basket of apples to a truckload of oranges.

That some tribal and primitive tribe believing in human sacrifice for example is worse then the Roman empire is clear.

Yes, and no amount of Meadean or Boasian nonsense will change that.

But that many of the "well known" historic recordings are written by males not females is a given fact. Or who do you think most people know Cicero ? Or his wife ?

That says more about the male dominated early Christian church (post Constantine) than it does about Roman writing. Hypatia's existence refutes that nonsense.

When it comes to Roman history...For the Gauls it was also usual to help the poor/sick/handicapped/old people in the Roman society those have been often enough lepers.

So fucking what? Romans enjoyed a higher standard of living, improved hygiene, solid governance, and a decent set of rights (is it little wonder that Rome was born solely by Romans and died as a hodge podge of races?). That's because the living was easy, as the Caribbeans say.

So you tell me why a Gaul girl had a better life than a Roman female, not some ill-conceived notion of the difficulty of studying the classics.

I am not saying the Romans "hated" woman. You don't have to hate something to see it as citizen of lower value. The Europeans didn't hated black people either for seeing them as "sub-humans". But It does not require "hate" to believe their view is skewed.

I was being facetious. Learn the nuances of my language before trying to debate me in it.

 

[Ilosar]

Now the Legion are not Nazis. But they have a certain ideology. And those is shown in the game as rather "dark". Dangerous for the people in Vegas at least. What ever if the NCR is a better option or not is a point to debate. But the game at least makes a very good job of showing the NCR from many different lights while the tone you get from the Legion is pretty much always the same. I miss here the diversity which you have with the NCR. Because you have with them the farmers, the soldiers, usual citizens and scientists even. And that makes the NCR in my eyes a very plausible faction while the Legion seems to me just like a "lulz-faction".

This, a thousand times this. You meet lots of people belonging to the NCR and they have very different occupations, or even in the same occupation have various mindsets (see the Misfits vs 1rst Recon, Moore and Oliver vs Crocker and Hsu). Not all of them are saints, but they have an history and feel like people you can sympathize with. Even those who are kinda bitchy like Moore, who has good reasons for thinking like she does.

Whereas almost every single Legion NPC feels like he spawned into existence being a fanatical warrior, and nothing beyond that in terms of personality. Aurelius brags about the people he killed while wearing that silly hat. Dead Sea sends you to kill an entire military camp by your lonesome because why the hell not. The legionnaires you meet insult you and treat you with disgust until you gut people in an arena. The guy with a dog only seems to care about how many throats it can rip. Between their sociopathic soldiers, creepy as fuck chief of intelligence, savage second in command, and pseudo-intellectual, hypocritical asshole of a leader, I have a very hard time finding an ounce of sympathy for the Legion. There's no nice, level-headed leaders like Hsu, no true no-nonsense badasses like Boone (OK Lanius kinda fits this one, if you follow the kinder of the two very opposed interpretations seemingly even the devs have going for him), no friendly bunches like First Recon, just a hive mind of semi-psychos who came into being with football gear and a very flawed grasp of both Latin and the Roman Empire. So yes, it makes them one-dimensional and ''lulzy'', very difficult to take seriously, and, for me, impossible to side with outside of a playthrough where my character is himself a needlessly violent person.

Oh, and I don't think debates about whenever the Romans or civilization X were more sexist really belong here, to be honest.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Just because we do not have any female literature does not mean that it doesn't exist. Do you honestly expect us to believe that Hypatia of Alexandria didn't scrawl anything down? Please..

The question I have if there is some source/literature by a Roman female citizen of the same value/scope like by Tatsitus, Cicero or Caesar etc.

That there are characters like Boudica I know. But what is her history/story telling about the role of the female in the Roman society though ? It has in my eyes more a value regarding Roman imperialism and the general stance of the Roman empire regarding its allies.

- Also I never want to claim that there are NO female recordings what so ever at least from the nations/culturs around the Roman empire what I want to say is that one will have a very hard time to find historical notes by a roman female. Anyway but there can not be any doubt that the Roman society/empire was a clear male dominated patriarchate and just as how the British empire would try to make the positive parts of their colionalism to be more prominent any patriachate would be trying to show its own society from the best light. Hence why always ANY written source should never be taken simply for granted. Regardless who wrote it. But that just by the way.

That says more about the male dominated early Christian church (post Constantine) than it does about Roman writing. Hypatia's existence refutes that nonsense.

Hypatia (b. ca. AD 350–370, d. March 415) (play /haɪˈpeɪʃə/ hy-pay-shə; Greek: Ὑπατία Hypatía) was a Greek scholar from Alexandria, Egypt, who is considered the first notable woman mathematician; she also taught philosophy and astronomy

So fucking what? Romans enjoyed a higher standard of living, improved hygiene, solid governance, and a decent set of rights (is it little wonder than Rome was born solely by Romans and died as a hodge podge of races?). That's because the living was easy, as the Caribbeans say.

Something of which they many times only adopted after they conquered a certain culture. Like the teachings and philosophy of the Greek. The Gauls had a working infrastructure with streets for example before the Romans which they adopted eventually from them. I also have read somewhere once (but I don't know if that is true) that they as well adopted the coinage by the Gauls - seems a bit unlikely though. What many historians believe though is that the Romans actually had not many inventions on their own but simply assimilated other cultures. There have been other cultures around that time which had either the same technological level or even exceeding them in certain areas - completely unrelated to the Roman empire and they had pretty much no conection to them but it is just as example. Little do we know today about Mesoamerica cultures or certain Cultures in the region around the Indus. But recent archaeological studies show that they had a vast knowledge for their time. The Romans on the other hand have very little which is really their own. Which is not meant as finger-pointing now. The Roman culture for it self managed to survive for a very long time that for sure.

I was being facetious. Learn the nuances of my language before trying to debate me in it.

I am trying. I will do my best.

 

[Horus9k]

The question I have if there is some source/literature by a Roman female citizen of the same value/scope like by Tatsitus, Cicero or Caesar etc.

No, we have no literature from a Roman female. Anything that was written by them was probably a) second or third rate and b) destroyed or burned by the Christian church. What can we expect when the papacy is dominated by hundreds of repressed homosexuals?

That there are characters like Boudica I know. But what is her history/story telling about the role of the female in the Roman society though ? It has in my eyes more a value regarding Roman imperialism and the general stance of the Roman empire regarding its allies.

It tells us very little, as in this discussion we are comparing Roman women with non-Roman women. You quoted a source and emphasized that Roman women have never left any primary sources in literature, as if that somehow proves that they lacked the rights, or education of some Gaullic tribeswoman. I brought up Boudicca as one example to show you how wrong you are, considering we're comparing them (as per your original argument).

- Also I never want to claim that there are NO female recordings what so ever at least from the nations/culturs around the Roman empire what I want to say is that one will have a very hard time to find historical notes by a roman female. Anyway but there can not be any doubt that the Roman society/empire was a clear male dominated patriarchate and just as how the British empire would try to make the positive parts of their colionalism to be more prominent any patriachate would be trying to show its own society from the best light. Hence why always ANY written source should never be taken simply for granted. Regardless who wrote it. But that just by the way.

Well you have Sappho, whose lovely poetry penetrates my heart even today. But she is not contemporary with the Roman Empire, and neither is she the rule nor proves that non-Roman women were better off, like you're trying to argue.

Something of which they many times only adopted after they conquered a certain culture. Like the teachings and philosophy of the Greek. The Gauls had a working infrastructure with streets for example before the Romans which they adopted eventually from them. I also have read somewhere once (but I don't know if that is true) that they as well adopted the coinage by the Gauls - seems a bit unlikely though. What many historians believe though is that the Romans actually had not many inventions on their own but simply assimilated other cultures. There have been other cultures around that time which had either the same technological level or even exceeding them in certain areas - completely unrelated to the Roman empire and they had pretty much no conection to them but it is just as example. Little do we know today about Mesoamerica cultures or certain Cultures in the region around the Indus. But recent archaeological studies show that they had a vast knowledge for their time. The Romans on the other hand have very little which is really their own. Which is not meant as finger-pointing now. The Roman culture for it self managed to survive for a very long time that for sure.

Indeed, the SPQR was still leagues ahead of any society in everything I mentioned compared to her contemporary peers, and even some time after the Western Empire dissolved starting in AD 406.

The Roman culture did not survive for very long, but their system of governance lasted over 2200 years.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It tells us very little, as in this discussion we are comparing Roman women with non-Roman women. You quoted a source and emphasized that Roman women have never left any primary sources in literature, as if that somehow proves that they lacked the rights, or education of some Gaullic tribeswoman. I brought up Boudicca as one example to show you how wrong you are, considering we're comparing them (as per your original argument). .

Which I never denied. I never said there are no sources outside of Rome. Though by the way. Is she Gaul ?

The fact that a prominent person like Boudica or that some excavations eventually hint that the Gauls had females being openly part of politics even so far that they had much to say in military matters while this is rather absent from the Roman society should tell us something.

Well you have Sappho, whose lovely poetry penetrates my heart even today. But she is not contemporary with the Roman Empire, and neither is she the rule nor proves that non-Roman women were better off, like you're trying to argue.

Strange. When ever I look for the people you give as example they are greek.

No, we have no literature from a Roman female. Anything that was written by them was probably a) second or third rate and b) destroyed or burned by the Christian church. What can we expect when the papacy is dominated by hundreds of repressed homosexuals?

are you facetious again ?

 

[Horus9k]

Irene Sarantapechaina, Empress of the Eastern Roman Empire, (AD 752-803) what could nominally be called the remaining SPQR. She reigned without issue the same seat that Augustus held 670 years earlier. I guess a female sitting upon the most powerful throne on the planet indicates the 'Roman' woman's inferiority to barbarians somehow?

 

[CazadorVault RED Engineer]

...because they're the greater of the evils, w/ anarchy Vegas and Mr. House competing for second place. I want to help restore a bit of the Old World Government and civilization, as such, I side w/ NCR. I'd rather side w/ an NCR'ish government or a Brotherhood Texas Bunker from Fallout Tactics, but there are no Texas locations in this game. XP

 

[WelcomeToNewReno]

but there are no Texas locations in this game.

"Fallout: New Dallas" doesn't sound as cool.

 

[CazadorVault RED Engineer]

but there are no Texas locations in this game.

"Fallout: New Dallas" doesn't sound as cool.

Alas, it does not, but El Paso would be a interesting location for a game tho. Their hot sauce is yummy too. XP

 

[Horus9k]

Fallout: Lonestar (State)

 

[Courier]

Wasn't FO: POS set in Texas?

 

[Sabirah]

Wasn't FO: POS set in Texas?

Yes but it wasn't cannon so Texas is still open

 

[Horus9k]

canon 1 (ˈkænən)

— n
1. Christianity a Church decree enacted to regulate morals or religious practices
2. ( often plural ) a general rule or standard, as of judgment, morals, etc
3. ( often plural ) a principle or accepted criterion applied in a branch of learning or art
4. RC Church the complete list of the canonized saints
5. RC Church the prayer in the Mass in which the Host is consecrated
6. a list of writings, esp sacred writings, officially recognized as genuine
7. round See also catch a piece of music in which an extended melody in one part is imitated successively in one or more other parts
8. a list of the works of an author that are accepted as authentic
9. (formerly) a size of printer's type equal to 48 point

[Old English, from Latin, from Greek kanōn rule, rod for measuring, standard; related to kanna reed, cane 1 ]

Get it right, or else:

 

[Wintermind]

Fuck canon, we should only talk about cannons.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Irene Sarantapechaina, Empress of the Eastern Roman Empire, (AD 752-803) what could nominally be called the remaining SPQR. She reigned without issue the same seat that Augustus held 670 years earlier. I guess a female sitting upon the most powerful throne on the planet indicates the 'Roman' woman's inferiority to barbarians somehow?

Irene Sarantapechaina (Greek: Ειρήνη Σαρανταπήχαινα), known as Irene of Athens or Irene the Athenian (Greek: Ειρήνη η Αθηναία) (c. 752 – August 9, 803) was a Byzantine empress regnant from 797 to 802, having previously been empress consort from 775 to 780, and empress mother and regent from 780 to 797. It is often claimed she called herself "basileus" (βασιλεύς), 'emperor'. In fact, she normally referred to herself as "basilissa" (βασίλισσα), 'empress', although there are three instances of the title "basileus" being used by her.

riiiiight.

anyway this might be more helpfull

List of Roman and Byzantine Empresses

Though when talking about Roman females there is

Lucretia

Claudia Quinta

Cornelia Africana - of which is even said she assumed a military role.

Though Lucretia is a mythical figure and Claudia Quinta and Cornelia rather exceptions then rules. Quinta was also more known for her extravagance and historical recordings about Cornelia are very difficult to reconstruct. The Roman empire at its climax was a male dominated and oriented society. And I mainly compared them to the Gaul society. No one can with 100% certainty say how things have been really. But excavations and hints indicate that the Gauls have been much more liberal regarding women and equality - not to mention the celtic historiy of which might have been a matriarchy at some point before the christianization.