Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
To OP: No, there is not. Once your enemy has been utterly beaten, they surrender. Once they surrender, your warriors celebrate that it's time to go home and be with their families. They're not going to keep fighting for their leader's greed.
If you want those territories, you'll have to take what you did occupy and wait until the next time you can justify a war against them to get the rest, just like the Romans in Germania and the Mongols in Literally Everywhere.
To Lotan: It's not stupid when you realize that this is how it works and has always worked in real life.
The reason people would leave vassals alive in history isn't because there was some magical force stopping them from committing genocide. Genocide's actually quite easy once you're in someone's walls, and the moral backlash was irrelevant because creating justification in times of information ignorance was as simple as saying "God told our glorious nation to do it" a whole bunch. The reason why they stopped at killing their officials and turning the civilians into slaves is because it's an efficient usage of resources. It got those civilizations more benefits, that's all. Civilians don't care about where they live or who was in charge as long as they're alive and their immediate needs are taken care of. If they keys who had power are dead, you can work them forever. Problem is not every civilization did this. Some simply didn't care. They'd just wipe everyone out and use propaganda to turn those they killed into justifiable villains full of heretics. The biggest reason religion flourished was because it was the counter to "war support". A hyped-up army that's been told you're a Satan worshipper doesn't care if you've surrendered, especially if the details of that surrender were intentionally kept hidden.
Also, the reason the Mongols didn't finish people off had nothing to do with what you claimed. They saw people as a constant source of revenue. They could have easily killed off everyone, they didn't because it made them more money not to. It had nothing to do with war support or consolidating land.
Don't argue "historical accuracy" when you're going to conveniently forget those that contradicted it.
They literally never did this. There wasn't a single culture that was utterly exterminated by either the Vikings or a Bronze Age people. Cultures were subsumed, sure, but that was due to conquest, not extermination. And the vikings never really even did that. They just settled very assertively.
As for the Mongol thing, they did in fact halt their expansion efforts willingly several times. I'm not even talking about whether they killed everyone (which could not have been done "easily", but that's another discussion). I'm talking about the fact that their efforts too place over the span of some 200 years, and there were several period within that span where they stopped expanding for 5-20 years at a time.
There's a very, very good reason for that.
Stopping expansion for small periods means nothing. Most of the time when they 'stopped' in any way, it's because they were fighting on multiple fronts and had to finish off one side before they could conquer another. That was all. You're cherrypicking and trying to claim it represents the whole. And even if it did somehow represent the whole, it's no more than "they took a break every so often, so ha, that means you /have/ to stop! That means you're never allowed to just kill off your enemy's final capital", which is a weak premise at best. If all someone has left is their capital and all their resources were spent on the previous battles, you take the capital. There was nothing that compelled any conquering civ to stop. Waiting for surrender is just an easier means of getting inside the capital and taking what you want after, killing their leader and placing a puppet, or whatever. There's just less arrows being fired. It doesn't mean they couldn't fire those arrows.
You're trying to claim that history never supported genocide simply because some cultures stopped. It's fallacious. Just go look up a wiki article of all genocides in history or something, because I'm not gonna bother going through and arguing the intricacies of it. There's literally hundreds of cultures that were completely exterminated, thousands if you include the ones that were simply too difficult to find concrete historical records on after everything they had was razed or destroyed.
No, this is not bs, this is just an approach this game chooses, as much "historically accurate" as weltweit Blitzkrieg of Civilization series.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/485/genocide-in-the-ancient-world/
https://ourworldindata.org/genocides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
This is a GAME. We should be allowed to play as we feel/want.
Genocide and the complete and utter eradication of a civilization are not the same thing. A civilization consists of more than just a specific race of people. If you were to go into ancient Greece to do you a genocide, who would you eliminate? The Spartans? The Athenians? The Thebans? What happens when you start reaching to the edges of Greece? Are the Illyrians Greek or Anatolian? Do the Cretans count as Greek?
The discussion being had here isn't about genocide, but rather the eradication of a civilization down to the last man. And not just any civilization, but one of the great and sprawling civilizations of history. Such a thing is nigh impossible. Even as much as people like to say "lol colonialism" in response to such things, even Native American civilizations are still hanging on.
Sigh, facepalm, other typed reactions, no. They stopped because they had accomplished what they set out to accomplish, and their warriors needed time to lick their wounds and... you know, propagate. I know, I know. It's hard to imagine. We like to look back at the Mongols as war machines. But believe it or not, Mongols were human beings, and human beings can only take the rigors of war for so long before enough is enough.
"Stopping expansion for small periods means nothing." No, it literally means everything to the topic at hand. Annexing what you've occupied and calling off the war for a couple dozen turns is exactly that. Even if your plodding expansion eventually encompasses the whole world, your people need to rest.
Even the Hundred Years' War didn't literally last for 100 years straight. There were long stretches of peace in there. One of them happened after the bloody king of France himself was held captive in England, and yet England didn't just say "Oh, guess you're our captive now, so we'll just take everything you own please and thank you."