Rome Total War Julii

Comments - 18 in totalPage: 1,2
  1. Rome Total War Julii Campaign Guide
  2. Rome Total War Economy Guide
  3. Rome Total War Julii Opening Moves
  4. Rome Total War Julii Temples

They were the Julii who were the main house would take care of the barbaric country of the Gauls, The Brutii who would take care of the intelligent Macedon and the Greek Cities, And the Scipii who would take care of the desert people of Numida and Carthage.The Julii had 4 genarals, The faction leader,Flavius juilius and his 3 sons,Vibius. Rome Total War 2020 (Battlefield) Julii's troops are ranking No.1Rome: Total War is a strategy video game developed by The Creative Assembly and originally published by Activision; its publishing rights have since passed to Sega. The game was released for Microsoft Windows in 2004.This is one of my favourite strategy games that I have played. Many time I uninstall and re-install this game. Brittannia, the Julii Romans, Spain, and Germania. The Britons and the Romans bother me the most. I'd think I would have to spam warbands in order to deal with the Britons' chariots, yes. But that leaves me weak against any infantry they bring. Moreover, warbands won't do the trick against Rome because their strength lies in their infantry.

Only show golden comments
almightyjimbobJun 4, 2010, 11:11 am
please excuse spelling gives me jittery hands lol. I recommend reading Warfare in the Ancient world by Brian Todd Carey, and a book which I think is called 'Warfare in the classical world', with hoplite's face on the front. Alas, I have lost the second one, so can't be more specific :(
almightyjimbobJun 4, 2010, 11:08 am
just wanna throw in my penny's worth.....
The Phalanx, in order to be successful, really had to be use as part of a combined arms force. By itself, it could pulverise most things in front of it, but was (obviously, and as has been said before) vulnerable to the flanks and rear. A group of phalanxes acquired considerable greater flexibility, as the could adopt a number of formations such as wedges, refused flanks, boxes etc, and when the phalangites were well drilled, such as under alexander, the formation of the phalanx itself (the Syntagma) was flexible. This said, it required cavalry to be truly effective - the point of the phalanx wa to act as an 'anvil2 for the cavalry's 'hammer', which is ALWAYS how Alexander used them (in fact, he used pretty much the same tactic in every battle......screen the left with lights, central phalanx, heavy charge on the right). Once you get into the successor states, cavalry declined in importance, and they tended to rely on phalanxes by themselves, pluse elephants, massively reducing the capabilities of the army, as the phalanx, while formidable, needs support.
The roman maniple, however, was superlatively flexible and versatile, and could comfortable operate against mostly any enemy it came across virtually unsupported, giving it a monstrously wide range of capabilities. If this weren't enough, the roman weapons fit was perfect for cracking open the phalanx. The pilae would be used to disrupt the front of the phalanx, thus allowing the legionary to get in close with his gladius, protected by his tower shield. Thereafter, the phalangite was at a sever disadvantage, since, while skilled with his Sarissa, he was much less capable, and less well armoureed, to come close up with his Xiphos. As such, while a formed phalanx presented a formidable obstacle for anyone, once broken open by the pilae, they were virtually dead men. Had cavalry been invvoled, things would have turned out differently, as that would have enable the greeks, macedonians and successor states to counter the legion by using the phalanx for its original purpose, rather than the primary striking arm of the army.
As an aside, the hellenic way of waging war also put them at a disadvantage against the romans - if a small skirmish was experienced, then burial ceremonies often took place a s a sort of 'pep talk', with the bodies open to see. However, when Pyrrhus did this at Cynoscephelae, the phalangites, used to neat puncture wounds from the Xyston and Sarissa, were horrified by the brutal hacking apart of the bodies by the gladius, both in combat, and when the legionaries performed their usual drill of stabbing the corpses of the enemy as they passed over them, makings sure they were dead. As such, the phalanxes went into the battle rather unhappy......
THEREFORE.........Combined arms phalanx system superior to Maniple Legion, Maniple legion massively superior to phalanx. Caesar vs that would be interesting........
so, penny worth added, I think :D
ciaofrancoDec 16, 2009, 08:08 pm
For more information about the Phalanx versus infantry debate I would recommend that you read The Art of War by Machiavelli it discusses in great depth and detail benefits of Pike Men (phalanx) and Shield bearers (cohorts) and argues the point that the most effective armies are composed of a combination of the two as GRUPI has suggested.
tau434Nov 7, 2009, 06:57 am
One of the things that puzzles me every time on these unit guides is the person complaining how bad and useless the Greek generals are and how you should never play them. I have a different theory on this.
The truth: Unless it's a one on one battle, it doesn't matter how good or bad your general is statistics wise. It's how you use him that matters. If you're having a one on one fight with the opposing general, then something is wrong with your strategy. Your general should NEVER fight another general head on and alone, no matter how good he is. For example, while the Macedonian General is quite bad, if you combine him with Macedonian Cavalry, you produce an effective fighting force that is both highly motivated and deadly. However, you may argue that the Greeks have a low statistics general, but no heavy cavalry. For this, you should give your General a unit of Greek cavalry, but only use him to chase down routers and flank the enemy. While most generals are meant to be heavy cavalry, one must learn that each faction's fighting style is different. Back to the Greek example, the player must rely on their hopilites, not their cavarly, to carry the day
On the other hand, the Roman General is one of the best in the game, but even he should have some Legionary or Praetorian cavalry surrounding him.
This is especially true in the campaign mode, as you tend to get a lot of generals units.
In conclusion, I would caution against avoiding a faction because it's general has bad attack or defense. In the end, it's an even match, provided that you use him correctly.
Again, that's just my personal theory.
katraanMay 22, 2009, 06:13 pm
Fleur de Lis, perhaps to you (maybe the game influenced you), the phalanx formation was stronger than the maniple formation (checkerboard formation), but history has said something different. The checkerboard formation was clearly superior. The legionaries found that they COULD get through the wall of spears made by the phalanx, even if it was a frontal attack. However, they had to fight in a loose formation, moving in small cell groups in order to infiltrate and to kill the phalanx spearmen. The phalanx spearmen were only armed with a small dagger and shield (some probably didn't even carry the shield; the spears weighed a lot). No, the phalanx formation was still vulnerable from ranged attacks, contrary to what you might think. In reality, the phalanx spearmen were concentrating on pushing forward, and couldn't always raise their shields to block the arrows.
Another reason why the maniple formation was superior was its flexibility. It took a long time (at least four hours) in order for a group of phalanx spearmen to form up. Once the order was given for the spearmen to attack, it couldn't be taken back (contrary to the game). They could only go forward. The legionaries on the other hand, had an easier time giving out orders and could change tactics readily due to their flexible formation. The phalanx formation also suffered from uneven ground (not shown in game), which could break up (not easily, though the Romans did learn to exploit the weakness should the event present itself) the formation.
Phalanx formation:
Pros: Power
Cons: Vulnerable to flanking maneuvers
Vulnerable against armies knowing to set their troops in loose formation
Vulnerable to uneven ground
Vulnerable to ranged attacks
Took a longer time to set up (than the checkerboard formation)
Could only go forward
Checkerboard formation (or Roman Legion):
Pros: Flexibility
Cons: Depends on the skill of the commander
GRUPI: I would suggest you get your facts right.
The Romans ABANDONED the 'maniple formation' at the Battle of Cannae, making each of their maniples deeper and closer, giving the great majority of the legionaries no room to fight. They WERE a numerically superior force AT the Battle of Cannae. They outnumbered Hannibal's forces 2:1, but Hannibal tricked Varro into falling prey into his seemingly convex formation (making it look easy to penetrate) and turning it into a concave formation once he got the Romans where he wanted them to be (nearly surrounding the Roman forces). Then his returning cavalry, after routing the Roman cavalry (who were lead a distance away on purpose away from the Roman infantry), would come back and mend the opening of the 'U, (shape of the concave formation surrounding the Roman forces)' allowing Hannibal to completely surround the Romans.
Do your research. I hope this has helped.
Fleur de LisFeb 16, 2009, 07:41 pm
Phalanx vs. Maniple Formations
I believe that both formations are as good as each other.
Using manipular tactics is in many ways a good idea (especially seen as the Romans are the main faction in the game). Maniples are strong, hardy formations but it should be known that THEY ONLY SUCCEED BECAUSE OF THE ROMANS' ELITE TRAINING. If these tactics were used by barbarians for example they would fail, as barbarians are hard to control and have a tendency to charge and break lines. Maniples are all-round strong, against most infantry types they are very powerful and due to their large shields and Testudo formation they are practically invulnerable to ranged attacks. However, like the vast majority of infantry are vulnerable to cavalry. Your best bet is to get them to hold fast and hopefully strength in numbers will hold back the cavalry, at least until your other units can intervene.
Phalanx Hoplites/Pikemen are excellent infantry. Their shields can defend them against ranged attacks and against infantry they kick ass (contrary to popular belief), due to the length of their spears, which mean there is no way a frontal infantry attack can even get near to the soldiers. This means YES, THEY DO BEAT MANIPLES IN CLOSE COMBAT. And of course they completely destroy cavalry unless they are flanked. It is best to keep them in long lines with cavalry round the back and sides to keep off flanking attacks. So long as you have a variety of other units phalanxes are safe. Also phalanxes are perfect in street situations, for there is pretty much no way of outflanking them.
Against maniple legionaries yes, phalanxes win, but only if there is a frontal attack between only phalanxes and maniples. REMEMBER, legionaries are very tough and versatile, so in a battle situation with other units on both sides I sould say, both types of infantry are just as good. It's true Rome used strength in numbers, but the true reason they finished the reign of Hoplites was because they had superior tactics, equipment, and training, and after all the days of Greece were over. Alexander was dead, the last vestiges of his empire swept away with rebellion and political unrest. Rome was new, enterprising and powerful, and it was a combination of these factors, NOT LEGIONARIES, that helped Rome to destroy Greece.
hotshark4Feb 3, 2009, 07:34 pm
hi guys carn't find how to play or can you not play
airborne292Dec 22, 2008, 07:33 pm
Good history, Hadrada!!
I have to note the best infantry in this game is not Urban Cohorts, it's an army of Spartan Hoplites, Cretean Archers, and Greek Cavalry. Even Roman troops can't break the Spartan lines, even with a cavalry charge to boot. However, I found that if flanked, the Spartan line bravely dissolves (never routs) and it's over. But isn't that true of Urban Cohorts?
HardradaNov 25, 2008, 03:03 am
GRUPI's ignorance is downright shocking. You really ought to do a little research before you spread misinformation about history.
The Roman Republic DID NOT abandon manipular warfare in favor of the phalanx formation. The exact opposite happened. Manipular formations ARE NOT inflexible when compared with a phalanx; in fact, the opposite is true.
The pinnacle of phalanx warfare came during the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), when the Macedonian pikemen destroyed the Persian empire and dominated Anatolia and central Asia.
This INFLEXIBLE phalanx formation soon fell out of favor because it required a wide-open, clear battlefield and was vulnerable to ambush and flanking attacks in other terrain.
The Roman maniple (maniple = latin for 'handful') allowed for much more complex maneuver on the battlefield because men didn't have to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with pikes locked in order to attack. The early Romans fought in phalanx from about 800 BC to 300 BC, but conflicts with the Samnites on the uneven terrain of central Italy during the 3rd century BC caused them to abandon the inflexibility of the phalanx in favor of manipular war.
This notion that a phalanx is more flexible than a manipular formation is beyond ridiculous; ask Philip V of Macedon, whose hoplites fought in phalanx at the Battle of Cynoscephelae (197 BC) and were UTTERLY DESTROYED by the superior Roman manipular army. The phalanx was abandoned in the Western world after its shortcomings were exposed at Cynoscephelae, and hoplite warfare was tossed into the dustbin of history.
Moral of the story; when posting about history on an internet forum, MAKE SURE YOU ACTUALLY KNOW THE FACTS before misleading people.
jesse.mccoll.00Aug 1, 2008, 09:30 am
how do you train military
PhoenixwiMay 11, 2008, 04:25 pm
GRUPI, for your information the Romans kept their manipular tactices right up to the reforms of Dioclotian. They were so good, they even implemented them at century level (Cycle the firstrow back for a rest every 10 mins, and they'd get 40 mins rest if there were 4 lines). The changes in equipment just made it less distingushed (There were legionaries called triarii, hastati etc, but that was a measure of how long they'd been there, they all had the same equipment) but the units still cycled.
In game this tactic is very useful. I try to replace the hastati with principes, and have two rows of princepes instead, so I fight, then charge my second row of princepes in and bring the first row back. I usually win then by flanking or whatever, but I can keep cycling for ever while the enemy tire out.
BTW, In 80 legionaries beat 120 phalanx pikemen, just put your guys in loose formation, and the phalanx will be PWNED TO DEATH. You clearly are a noob, and get your facts right, the romans never had any phlanx like formations
stormerJan 4, 2008, 10:49 am
cataphracts for me they're the best
what requirements are needed to get a roman general
Page: 1,2

Add a comment
Mail has been fixed; you should now be able to confirm your e-mail address, watch pages, and the like.
Please report any issues on Discord.
Rome: Total War

Developer: The Creative Assembly
Publisher: Activision
Platform: Windows
Released in JP: 2004
Released in US: September 22, 2004
Released in EU: October 1, 2004

This game has unused playable characters.
This game has unused graphics.
This game has unused text.
This game has hidden bonus content.

This game has a prerelease article

Rome Total War Julii Campaign Guide

This page is rather stubbly and could use some expansion.
Are you a bad enough dude to rescue this article?
To do:
Unsurprisingly, this game has unused units. I am posting a link here that should show how to access the unused units.

Take control of a Roman faction in the times of the Roman Republic and expand Rome's borders.

  • 2Unused Images
  • 5Factions
    • 5.1Campaign Descriptions
  • 6Unused Units


Unused Event Pictures
Seems that CA is lazy enough to implement these.

Unused Images

There are several images that go unused in this game. Their file format is in DDS or TGA format.

Loading Screens

Loading Screen OneLoading Screen Two

Here are pictures of a loading screen that is never seen in-game. The background displays the map made in mosaic, something unique to these screens. The developers seem to have been playing around with the size of the title as it is bigger in the left picture than the right picture. The title in the left picture also has a TM next to it which is lacking in the right picture. The loading bar present here is much larger than what is seen in game.

The information in the center of the right picture is interesting. In the final game, the faction's title is absent and only the faction icon is present in the center. While the House of Julii's faction icon is displayed in gold without a background, while the final uses button designs. This same icon can be seen on one of the soldiers in early leader images section below. Another thing to point out is the date of 502 (presumably BC). It seems to imply that the campaign game was to be started much earlier, predating both the imperial and Sons of Mars campaigns. The imperial campaign ranges from 270 BC to 14 AD, while the Sons of Mars campaign/tutorial ranges from 329 to 290 BC. The difficulty setting text is also absent in the final version.

Faction symbols

Rome Total War Economy Guide

To do:
There appear to be models associated with these as well in datamodels.
  • Armenia

  • Armenia ('low')

  • Britons

  • House of Brutii

  • Carthage

  • Dacia

  • Egypt

  • Gaul

  • Germania

  • 'Greek Cities'

  • House of Julii

  • Macedon

  • Numidia

  • Parthia

  • Kingdom of Pontus

  • House of Scipii

  • Scythia

  • Seleucid Empire

  • S.P.Q.R.

  • Slaves/Rebels

  • Spain

  • 'Thrace'

In datamodelstextures is an entire set of faction icons using model renders instead of buttons. The House of Julii icon also features in one of the loading screens above. The Greek and Thracian symbols appear to have been erroneously attributed to each other; Thrace normally feature a snake on their banner and the Greek Cities use lightning. Armenia has two renders, with the side-on view labeled as 'low'. They both don't have transparent backgrounds either.

Test Images


This dummy texture is found twice: in *Rome Total WarDatamodels_landscapetextures and *Rome Total WarDatasettlement_plansunderlaystextures. Judging from the first location, it appears that it was used as a test texture for landscapes. The second file location has the texture associated with settlements in some way. This file has a creation date of 3/7/2002.


This image can be found in *Rome Total WarDatamenu. It seems that the developers were screwing around with three colors. The title could mean RedGreenBlue but only blue is found in this picture. This file has a creation date of 5/21/2002.

Rome Total War Julii

Early Leader Images

File NameIC_leader_julii.tgaleader_julii.tgaleader_pic_julii.tgaleader_pic_brutii.tgaleader_pic_scipii.tga
Creation Date11/1/20026/28/20027/17/20027/17/20027/17/2002

These images are very unique. At a first glance, they simply depict Roman infantry. Their file names say that these were supposed to be the leaders of the Julii, Brutii, and Scipii. It isn’t known whether these were leaders of the factions themselves. However, these pictures share similar names of used pictures of faction leaders at the beginning of a campaign game. Regardless of what these images were supposed to be used for, their styling is unique for Roman infantry. Judging that the shape of their shields resembles the shields of hastati, principes, and triarii, these images should have been seen from the beginning of a campaign game. The design of their shields is also unique as there are no Roman units in the final game that carry shields with these unique designs. In fact, some of the shields show what appear to be early versions of their faction icon on their shield.

Early Campaign map

This one's rather interesting. Located under Dataworldmapsbasemap.FE.tga, dated Thursday, September 2, 2004, 10:05:48 PM is a normally unused smaller world map.The image is used for the starting territories map, when a normally unplayable faction is modded in and selected.

Early Layout

Early Battering Ram

There's an Early Battering Ram during the game's intro. It's unknown why the devs decided to change the Battering Ram.


Hidden Dev Tool

Adding enable_editor to the games' shortcut target, it's possible to access the battle editor which is used to create historical battles. When entering the battle editor, players can select places, as maps, and pretty much mess around. The Creative Assembly doesn't support the Battle Editor: 'The Battle Editor is intended for advanced users and is not supported. It is possible to create battles that do not work properly, or edit Historical Battles so that they cannot be won. Please refer to your documentation. Please do not contact Activision Customer Support for assistance with these tools.'


Campaign Descriptions

Macedonia and Pontus have campaign descriptions despite not being unlockable for the campaign, although they are rather trivially modded back in. The formatting has been altered for presentation here as the plaintext for both is one long string. Paragraphs in the plaintext are denoted with nn.


Kingdom of Pontus

Cut Faction

Several icons and flag graphics exist for a cut faction: the Illyrians. Unfortunately, none of them are unique, borrowing from either Thrace or (more frequently) Greece.Not much is known about this Mysterious Faction. It's possibly cut early in development due to a 20 Playable Factions Limit. The Illyrians have been relegated to a rebel faction in the final game.

Unused Units

Iberian Spearmen

Normally, Spain can't be played unless with the use of mods like Darthmod or with file edits. Here, the Spanish unit list is unfinished; it's missing Iberian Spearmen. In order to access this unit, do the following:

1) Unpack the games files in to get the descr_model, export_descr_unit, and the export_descr_unit_enums.

2) Add these to dsecr_model:

iberian_medium_infantry ; combat spearskeleton fs_spearman, fs_swordsmanindiv_range 40texture spain, data/models_unit/textures/unit_carthage_medium_infantry_spain.tgamodel_flexi data/models_unit/unit_carthage_medium_infantry_high.cas, 15model_flexi data/models_unit/unit_carthage_medium_infantry_med.cas, 30model_flexi data/models_unit/unit_carthage_medium_infantry_low.cas, 40model_flexi data/models_unit/unit_carthage_medium_infantry_lowest.cas, maxmodel_sprite 60.0, data/sprites/carthaginian_medium_infantry_sprite.sprmodel_tri 400, 0.5f, 0.5f, 0.5f

3) Add this to export_descr_unit:

type category infantry

class spearmen

voice_type Medium_1

soldier iberian_medium_infantry, 40, 0, 1

officer carthaginian_standard

mount_effect horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4

attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap

formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, squarestat_health 1, 0

stat_pri 5, 5, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,0.73stat_pri_attr no

stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1stat_sec_attr no

stat_pri_armour 7, 4, 5, metal

stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh

stat_heat 2

stat_ground 2, 1, 0, -1stat_mental 6, normal, untrained

stat_charge_dist 30

stat_fire_delay 0

stat_food 60, 300

stat_cost 1, 400, 170, 40, 60, 400

ownership spain

Rome Total War Julii Opening Moves

4) Add this to export_descr_unit_enums:




5) Copy the libyan spearmen unit, and then change it in export_descr_unit_enums type what ever you want in there and make sure it is in curly brackets,

Rome Total War Julii Temples

Retrieved from ''

Comments are closed.