Hey /tg/
I got thinking and I want to have a cool empire in my setting. The thing is, I want the setting to be late iron age, pre-imperial Rome, around 100-50 BCE if we're talking about Earth-tech levels.
I wanted to have an empire that combined both the graeco-roman world, and ancient China.
How would you do that?
What characteristics would you give such empire?
>>47755675
>Read some books about them
>Glean details you think are interesting
>Insert those details into your setting
>Cry when your players ignore them and just wander around killing and looting like they always do
>>47755763
I feel bad for you, anon. My players love the autistic level of details I have in my world.
Okay two didn't care but then they realized that as Forever GM I have created my own DnD supplement world and they needed to learn it or be forever out of the loop.
>>47755763
Oh, I've read a lot about the ancient world, mainly Europe. Not so much about China though.
I'd certainly add gladiatoral games and slavery to a mainly-China empire, but I feel it would be out of place without other stuff.
And yes, players will probably ignore those facts, but I like them anyway. I mean, whenever the setting is something even resembling fantasy they just picture a fully medieval setting. It's like 'historical' movies about stuff pre-1500, they think everything that has swords on it is the same.
>>47755828
>whenever the setting is something even resembling fantasy they just picture a fully medieval setting.
That stings anon.
It won't look out of place if you don't describe it as such. Just grab bits and pieces and mash em up. China is huge and has a long history, only roped together into a single nation in hindsight.
Perhaps gladiators are exclusively deserters, and dying in the arena is considered just punishment.
>>47755675
>late iron age
Does this actually mean anything? As far as I can tell, there's no broad agreement on an end date for the Iron Age, as there is no material age to supplant it.
>>47755763
play murderhobo games, get murderhobo players.
If combat is all that's rewarded, combat is all you get.
>>47755828
>I mean, whenever the setting is something even resembling fantasy they just picture a fully medieval setting.
I don't completely disagree with you, though people general have some vague concept of what the Roman Empire was like (less castles, mounted knights and feudalism, and more legionaires fighting in formation for the glory of Rome and togas and gladiators) and if you give things a Roman enough flavor, that might be the thing they latch onto.
>>47755675
How about the Indus River Valley/Egypt/Crete/Mesopotamia bronze age super-culture as inspiration?
Look up the Indo-Greek kingdoms.
>>47755675
The best way to do it is to make them a combination in how they viewed themselves in the world and find a balance between the two.
For Rome they believed that they were the light. That they were the only civilization in the world and everyone else were simply barbarians just trying to survive. So to them it was their responsibility to bring civilization to the rest of the world.
For China they viewed themselves as essentially Heavens Mandate. That the Gods themselves designated them above all others. However the main difference was that they didn't see it as their responsibility to "enlighten" others and that you were either born Chinese or you were shit out of luck.
>>47755952
x-age is old as fuck historical writing. It's not really used seriously in academic contexts any more AFAIK.
>>47757124
>x-age is old as fuck historical writing. It's not really used seriously in academic contexts any more AFAIK.
Pretty sure you're wrong there, unless there's been a very recent trend away from that (as in the last 15 years or so). Periodization is helpful and knowing the materials used for tools and weapons is valuable. Certainly there are other milestones you could use to delineate different ages--things like alphabetics, coinage, cavalry, etc.--but I'm not aware of any widespread attempt at periodization on those bases. Maybe you're thinking about the mythological "ages of man"--gold, silver, bronze, heroic and iron?
>>47757098
On top of this you need to determine at what stage your Empire is at. The way it's run and lived in will differ depending on if it's fairly young or if it's been around for a thousand years.
>>47757340
It's recent, but the argument is that the whole "Ages" thing is too Western-focused and what we really need is a universal historical designator that isn't based on technology localized to specific regions of the planet. So, instead of Iron Age it'd be a subset of the Holocene period.
>>47757694
Fuck, what? When I talk about the Finnish Iron Age, of course it's western focused.
Just like when I talk about the Chinese Iron Age it's eastern-focused. That's a fucking retarded statement.
>>47755675
Here you go anon
>>47755675
Look at the Celestial Bueracracy. The idea that the heavens were extremely ordered and that earthly kingdoms reflected this. This of course leads into the idea of the Mandate of Heaven. A pretty big change from the chaotic polytheism of greco-roman religion.
