View Full Version : recruitment sistem ...
I ask this because the roman sistem was based on recruitement rather than payment; what I mean is that the soldiers were paid, but the Senate did it and in the form of wages, not the general (even if he could order raising the wages or paying the men all at once, in order to raise their morale). As a general, you should receive an authorisation to raise troops from a certain region, and also receive money and equipment ... The region should have a max. troop number offer depending on loyalty, and all that ... You should also be able to raise soldiers and promise them payment through conquest (especially when you decide to rebel).
I think that the barbarians, who were organised in tribes and gentilic structures, also would not ask payment ... they were raising their swords at their chiefs warcry (mainly) ...
So, the sistem should be seriously reorganised ...
you spell system like that not sistem http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ok to your post well i thought the general paid for the army i might be wrong. also im not shore about max recruitment in places as there will be a limit which i wouldnt want. and im not sure about them sucking money out of you when they go on march only one payment i belive is the one to buy them.
DthB4Dishonor
03-20-2003, 21:33
To the best of my knowledge most armies were private until Rome became an Empire and cease becoming a republic. There were many private armies owned and paid for by wealthy Romans. They owed there loyalty to there general who feed and clothed them and employed them. This is why for so long in Roman history Legions were forbiden to enter Rome and Armies close to Rome were seen as a threat by its owner (General) as him trying to usurp power or sway the Senate under threat of his army marching into Rome.
I think the current MTW army system is fine. The cost can be the initial training and equipment cost. After that the annual cost can account for the armies maintenance i.e. pay.
RTKPaul
Baron von Beer
03-20-2003, 22:06
Come now Stormer... I know you were not correcting to be rude, but I am willing to bet pr Fire's grasp of English is much better than your's of Romanian... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hakonarson
03-21-2003, 02:59
Most armies were in fact "public" during the republic (as opposed to private where they owed more allegiance to their general than Rome).
It was really the civil wars of the 1st C BC taht saw the rise of "private" armies - what else could you expect when every faction had its own senate - Rome itself becamse fairly irrelevant
Quote[/b] (Baron von Beer @ Mar. 20 2003,18:06)]Come now Stormer... I know you were not correcting to be rude, but I am willing to bet pr Fire's grasp of English is much better than your's of Romanian... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
dont count on it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif well if we are short of troops we can always call the Americans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I'm sorry for misspelling (sp? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ) and I'm truly sorry for not mastering this art: speaking the english language ... probably this infatuation comes along with the brains, no offence Stormer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif ...
And I do count on it, mainly because I see that you write "dont" instead of "don't", "i'm not shore" instead of "i'm not sure", "wouldnt" instead of "wouldn't", "belive" instead of "believe" etc. ...
And I see Hakonarson is agreeing with me ... probably because he bothers more with reading history, rather than learning it from TV and movies like "The Gladiator" ...
Sorry, I guess I'm a bit nervous http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hakonarson
03-26-2003, 02:37
Nervous? Oh yeah - Romania is in the same hemisphere as Iraq and hte USA (ducks for cover!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quite frankly ppl who complain about spelling are generally small minded morons themselves - but at least Stormer managed a smilie, so he's forgiven http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
My previous comment about recruitment was about Rome - other states differed. Carthage, for example was essentially "publically funded" private armies in teh 2nd Punic war - ie Carthage sent a general money (or he got ot from local "friendly" states) and he then used it to raise an army.
so the army owed more to the General than the state.
But the Roman system was pretty much adopted from the Greek one - where every able bodied man 16-60 was supposed to serve and supply his own equipment.
there were variations - In the Hellenistic Greek successor states in Asia (ie Turky, Syria) & Egypt there were systems of military colonists - these ppl were given land and expected to serve, again with their own equipment - the general popualtion was not.
Romania is an orthodox state and its security is under no danger ... I was nervous because the man's words were, to say the least, filled with arogance ... read his second post ...
As for the problem: I was refering specifically to Rome, as I mentioned the Senate, no? As for the tribes I made other sugestions ...
In fact, Hakonarson, only the men between 16-47 served in the "regular" army, the rest (between 47-60) were only called to arms when they had to defend the city ...
The greeks polis recruited men only from among the citizens or allied tribes (Athens), of course the "perieci" and other cathegories were not included ...
Plus, my sugestion about max. troop number that could be recruited from a region stays like that: you should be able to raise more units from a region in one year, depending on the money and equipment and, of course, peoples support ... of course, the number should be limited depending on how populated that region was (e.g. if you have a castle you can't raise more than 1 unit, a keep - 2 units, and so on) ... In this way one with a huge treasury but having 3-4 provinces could easily match an empire badly managed but consisting from a huge teritory ...
Hmmm, I thought that soldiers were paid with property rather than actual money? Like for so many years/monthes of service they received so many acres/whatever of land.
From a gameplay standpoint though, money really makes the most sense or right now I'm too lazy to think of any other way.
If they do it accuractely, you're going to see a very wide variety of payment and soldiers.
From Carthages (nearly) all mercenary army, the pre and post Marius Romans, and the different successor kingdoms.
Personally though, I'd be happy if they just kept a division between mercs and regulars. Anything like property and such should just be converted to talents (or what ever currency is used) to keep things simple.
Hakonarson
03-27-2003, 04:33
In some cases soldiers were given land in return for service - much liek feudal grants - they were expected to provide tehmselves and/or a set number of soldiers and equipment from the revenues of that land.
Most soldiers were paid - Greek Hoplites had 2 pay rates - one for rations, the other for pay. The ration payment could never be too late - as soldiers actually used it to buy their food on campaign - but the salary payment could often be very late indeed, and there are numerous cases of soldiers mutinying because of late paymkent - the Carthaginian Mercenary "Endless" war of 240-ish BC is one such case.
roman soldiers were not paid IIRC, at least not regularly at het start of this period, but were supplied rations.
They were certainly paid by the 2nd Punic War though, because the punishment of the troops who survived Cannae involved stoppage of their pay.
the land was given to them when they finished their service in the military and became coloni ...
well you need to pay thier weapons and armour, so youll have to pay
Hakonarson
03-28-2003, 04:46
Until about 100BC Roman soldiers provided their own arms and armour in normal circumstances IIRC - although there were somtimes issues when supplies were low - eg 2 legions were equipped with captured Gallic arms after Cannae.
Similarly Seleucid colonists were expected to provide their own equipment.
Roman coloni were not all time served soldiers - indeed there was no such thing as a time served soldier until the Legoins because fully professional about 100 BC.
Instead coloni were simply volunteers or chosen by lot, or occasionally veterans of several years (but not "time served" in the sense that they'd done a 20 yr contract of service), and since all Roman citizens were liable for military service such coloni were full of ex-soldiers
By the time of Augustus the provision of a grant of land upon completion of 20 yrs service in hte legions was established, but that's right at the end of this period.
after Cannae the foreign equipment was provided not only because of not being enough, but because the carthagian army used swords that could slash with both sides (I'm sure it exists a better expresion for that, but I can't remember it), so, between this and the battle of Zamma all swords were changed for the hispanic ones, which were lighter also ...
Hakonarson
03-30-2003, 07:36
Double edged is the term you're looking for.
The capture of Nova Carthago (New Carthage) by Scipio (208??) was the main change in this - he (Scipio) successfully persuaded the Spanish armourers there to continue and make their arms for Rome - and it was from there that hte Gladius Hispanicus was sourced.
The Romans already knew of the quality of Spanish weapons before Canmae - they had ben in Spain for a few decades.
Thx, yes, that's the term ...
Anyway, I said that they choosed it then for regular use, i didn't say that they didn't knew about it ...
Morten viking
03-31-2003, 15:51
I think the mercenary system should be changed from the MTW style. As far as I know, Roman mercenarys would be recruited as whole units with their personal weapons and fightning style, especially in later periods. There should therefore not be necessary to pay any cost for them except pay. This would make lower quality units more attractive and could provide room for a more varied strategy. Few expensive Roman legions or cheap German mercs?
The sources of mercenarys could be inns or directly from provinces like the special units in MTW. In this case the availablity could be related to the level of development of the province. If you romanize Britain too much you lose the supply of war chariots, because the Britons give up their old ways. This would add a new dimension to the strategic part of the game. Is more income from trade worth the loss of crack units like German cavalry?
MV
Hakonarson
04-01-2003, 05:22
Mercenaries were definitely available only in tehir native fighting styles in this era, and yes as they got "civilised" the natives were "replaced" with the units of het civilising natino.
So for example Greek Hopliet mercenaries from Southern Italy and sicily would not be available afte a period of roman conquest.
Some areas never really were mercenaries tho - for example teh Oscans - Italian hill tribes including the Samnites - possibly because in the era when they were numerous the neighbouring societies weren't rich enough to hire them.
However when Hannibal raised Italian troops he got the local Italian types rather than "Carthaginian" types - eg Hoplites and cavalry from Campania (well he would've if he'd raiseed any significant numbers), javelinmen from the Hill Tribes, etc.
Some areas gave "generic" mercenaries - eg the Carthaginian "Libyan" spearmen seem to be a type that only the Carthaginians ever used - essentially hoplites but with shorter spears. This seems to be the pattern for carthaginian citizen infantry, so it's possible they were raised simply as bodies and then equipped by the Carthaginians in the desired style - the "native" libyan troop type was a light infantry javelin thrower.
Legions were sometimes (even Marius did it) "hired" by governors or generals, so they were mercenaries ... in the same time they were the roman regular army ...
Herodotus
04-01-2003, 12:59
Serving in the armed forces was not compulsory for the bulk of Roman history. The Romans did not get money for wars from their main tax 'pot'. Every citizen paid a seperate war tax based on his standing in society. This is why we know rich Romans as 'Equestrians' (because they had to be able to afford to equip and maintain a man and horse)even though they were very unlikely to serve in the cavalry themselves. However we all know Roman history spans along time, and the system i describe above is based on the earlier system you guys have described (compulsory service, supplying your own arms etc.)
Indeed, if you read the thread, then you'll see that we've mentioned that ...
Catiline
04-01-2003, 18:34
THe equestrians didn't pay for someone to serve in their place. military services was part of the duties of a citizen under the republic, at least for htose of a certain wealth. When called to muster the only way you were exempt was if you'd alreday served your full compliment of campaigns, 16 for the infantry, 10 for the cavalry. Military service and the voting franchise were heavily linked in ancient mediterranean socities, it's a question of stakeholding.
The recruitement system will be very hard to implement in the game if reality counts ... The systems are very different, between 300 BC - 1 AD were changed several times ...
lonewolf371
04-21-2003, 00:53
Many of the Roman legions were recruited by governors, which is most likely the position we will hold as faction leaders. For instance, to stop the migration of the Helvetii Caesar I believe raised two conscripted legions in an amazingly short period of time from Cisalpine Gaul, which he later used to stop their migration at a battle. Basically the recruitment job for recruitment for legions and such was divided between provincial governors and the Senate. This is largely due to the fact that each provincial governor was responsible for the peace and protection of his province and the Senate all of Rome. Furthermore, during most of the period of the game we're playing legions were extremely similar to the citizen armies of Greece, where a large force would be quickly called into service and disbanded when the fighting was done. This system I believe was not changed until extremely late Republican Rome, when legions became formalized and stationed at "forts". The legion operated from its "fort" and built roads and more fortifications for the province in which their "fort" was based.
Yes, is the castrum system the one you are talking about. The legion had it's own teritory in the province, something like the templars and the teutons had. The auxiliaries depended on them (except the alae, who depended on the governor).
Anyway, only the roman citizens could become legionares, the others were organized in auxiliar cohorts or numerus.
lonewolf371
05-01-2003, 02:46
They were recruited and trained as needed, any military general should know not to follow military protocal everytime, there is always a time when you need to adjust.
Hakonarson
05-01-2003, 03:39
The 2 legions Caesar raised in a hurry are noted as being different from teh 4 "veteran" legions he used as his main line of battle against the Helvetii.
they were also raised in Italy - "Hither Gaul" - he had forced marched back there to raise them and also to pick up another 3 legions that were wintering there. This area had been effectively Roman since the Punic Wars, and cannot really be regarded as anything other than Roman.
The relevant text is at
The Gallic Wars (http://www.romansonline.com/sources/dbg/Indx1.asp?M=IDOC), specifically the section titled "March of the Helvetii: Caesar marches north.
and Preparing for battle (http://www.romansonline.com/sources/dbg/Bk01_24.asp)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.