It could have happened. You don't know.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2295059707_2d6136b3c1_o.jpg, http://rtw.heavengames.com/albums/album32/RS_Mirmillo.jpg http://www.g-unleashed.com/files/34_egypt_cavalry_chariots_screen.jpg. Doesn't matter to me though, because the game is just incredibly fun. And there's Europa Barbarorum for historically accurate stuff when I'm in the mood for that.
Tell me about it, and they're just as dangerous when you're commanding them. My Seleucid king fell in battle when his own chariots suddenly ran amok, turned around and slaughtered him and his bodyguard.

I might reinstall it again and try this mod, thanks Leo

You're welcome.

I didn't get the one with the chariots.

That's the style of the armies of Pharaonic Egypt. Egypt in the time period that R:TW is set in was ruled by the Macedonian Ptolemies, descendants of Ptolemaios (one of the generals of Alexander the Great) and his army. The Ptolemaic armies fought in Macedonian fashion, combining sarissa-armed phalangites and heavy shock cavalry. Most of their soldiers were Greeks and Macedonians, though they recruit from the local population in the later years of their kingdom. But those Egyptians were still armed like Macedonians, and used the same tactics. Nothing like how the Ptolemies are portrayed in R:TW, the entire faction is more ridiculous than the portrayal of the Greek hoplites and armies of gladiators combined.

And they still look awesome.

Well I think they were trying to give us an old-time, "traditional" Egyptian army what with light infantry and plenty of chariots instead of a run-off-the-mill Greek one with some added mercenaries. This adds more variation and I suppose I prefer it.
EDIT: Yeah I found the gladiators funny too.

Yeah I guess so. If they'd have gone for historically accurate, practically all the eastern Mediterranean factions would have pretty much the same armies. I'm just glad that mods offer me the opportunity to have both options.

Oh noes! I'll neavh give up mah cataphractz!
Quick question, do you play the Barbarian Invasion expansion?

Haven't played it in years, but I've played campaigns with the Franks and Goths. Probably tried some other factions as well, but I can't recall. The last few years I've mostly just played overhaul mods for Rome and Medieval 2, I played the vanilla games to death.

The only campaign I have ever reached the victory conditions with, were the Saxons on Barbarian Invasion. They weren't even a great faction interms of unti variety or interesting mechanics, I just completed the campaign for some reason.

The nomadic peoples are interesting to play, though most barbarians have very little unit variety.

Has anyone of you tried the Sassanids?

If you don't have played them yet then you'll love Clibinarii, Clibinarii Immortals since both of them can use arrows and I always placed 1-3 Clibinarii on the fork just south of Antioch, because it is an excellent defensive position and the enemy will have huge casualties if they haven't get that hill in the first attempt with a correct strategy. Why I'm saying the correct strategy you'll see for self when you play East Roman Empire or Sassanids.

I wouldn't say that and everyone of them have special units like Chosen Archers, Chosen Axemen, Lombard Archers, Night Raiders, Lombard Berserkers, Levy Spearmen (not the same as the Franks), Burgundian Lancers, Barbarian Noble Cavalry (Alemanni, Burgundii, Lombardii) and the Franks has these http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Franks_(BI_Faction)#Unique_Units plus the Saxons has these http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Saxons_(BI_Faction)#Units. http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Celts_(BI_Faction) will fight with old fashioned units, but they're effective since they have chariots and berserkers in their arsenal they can recruit.

Both Celts and Alemmani can't from a horde and are the only barbarians who must defend their last settlement with all they got, because if it's lost the game is over.

The only correct strategy against an army like that is to run away.

I don't like playing eastern factions myself though, in any TW game. Except the nomadic factions, those are great.

That's similar to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBwcMk3I-E&feature=related (listen to what the advisor says).

Why not? I'm just curious why haven't you played them yet.

That's good advice, he should have listened!

I'm just not that interested in the eastern cultures. I find the Mediterranean world, the northern European peoples and the Asian steppe nomads much more interesting. Since when choosing a faction I value immersion over gameplay, that's a pretty big factor in deciding for me.

Yeah he should a least what I should do.

Then I suggest to try to play the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Roxolani_(BI_Faction), because they're exactly the same as the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Sarmatians_(BI_Faction) since both of them have the same winning condition and units. However there is a big difference between them and that's the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Roxolani_(BI_Faction) don't form a horde right away early in game in the contrast of what the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Sarmatians_(BI_Faction) often do since they're attacked by the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Huns_(BI_Faction) and driven from their home region to become a horde. The http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Roxolani_(BI_Faction) can from a horde later in the game when the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Sassanids_(BI_Faction) attack them, so the best strategy is to captured http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Sarmatians_(BI_Faction) starting region as soon they have been driven off by the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Huns_(BI_Faction), because that way the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Roxolani_(BI_Faction) will have better odds against the http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Sassanids_(BI_Faction).

That, reminds me...why does the world have such a negative view of Attila?

History is a fickle thing. Its pretty hard to find un-biased history books

Well I get that Roman historians who were very biased were out to make a bad name for him, but I am baffled why modern historians who know better still wholeheartedly support these misconceptions. He's been dead for hundreds of years for goodness' sake! I doubt he's anybody's political enemy.

Fixed it! I think for all that modern historians say they are impartial to historical events I can't help but think that they will always be biased towards their perspective of the world. I.e a western historian maybe praising the 'civilized' side of the romans over the darker side. Whereas maybe someone from Russia or suchlike maybe taking a different view on history. We can't help but be shaped and influenced by our social surrondings and culture. I find it frustrating to read on history when so many people that write about it seem to project far far to much about x person and x event. They were not there 5,000 years ago so they can't make personal assumptions based on little more than their own feelings and maybe someone elses recorings from that time period. The only real way to see history as it truly is must be to make a time machine!

I want a time machine

Severals things I suppose. The Huns spread horror and death whenever they strike and wiped out/pressed them into their ranks a couple of tribes too. In other words they change the history of the world for good.

Does someone know when the price of Fall of the Samurai is going to drop (or when they make the three bonus clans purchasable?)