RTW's Strongest Roman Units

[Stormer]

sorry if iv fogot anything..

[Hakonarson]

Nope - as far as Romans go that's probably about it - although you might've divied up the Legions into Hastati, Princepes and Triarii....but a mere quibble on my part http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Has to be the Praetorians. When raised in 31BC they were the best of the veteran legionaries from both Augustus's army and his defeated opponents (Mark Anthony etc) who were hardened veterans of campaign and battle.

[Stormer]

Quote[/b] ]Nope - as far as Romans go that's probably about it - although you might've divied up the Legions into Hastati, Princepes and Triarii....but a mere quibble on my part

yes but it would of been the Hastati of corse cause they were the best so, quite pointless putting them in..

[Basileus]

i´ll go with praetorians aswell..

[Heraclius]

I said Praetorians as well.

[Stormer]

bit of a 1 sided vote.

[Longshanks]

I'd say the Praetorian Guard followed by legionaries. The others like auxiliary and cavalry would need to be expanded in my opinion. The Romans used many different types of auxiliary units, and different types of cavalry.(usually auxiliary units as well) For example there would be Syrian archers, Gallic cavalry, Germanic cavalry, Balearic slingers ect. All should be inferior to the Praetorian Guard and the legionaries though. Rome won with its infantry, which was the best of the day. In fact the Roman infantry should be the best units in game, not just the best for the Roman faction.

[Stormer]

i agree longshawks maybe Hoplites should be better, but i belive elephants will be most powerfull http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

Quote[/b] (Stormer @ May 04 2003,10:18)]yes but it would of been the Hastati of corse cause they were the best so, quite pointless putting them in..

Wheren't the Triarii the best legion soldiers? they where the oldest (not to old) and most experienct.

but my vote goes to the Preatorians

[Stormer]

trarii then i always get mixed up.

[Leet Eriksson]

balearic slingers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Nowake]

I don't very well understand ... the praetorians were, indeed, the best at the moment of their creation as a unit, but ... after that they transformed themselves in a political corps, something like the SS brigades (and those weren't elite ) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The THING was that they were the only ones who were permitted to station in Rome (well, it was the german guard also, but it was disbanded after the first emperors).

[Stormer]

yea PR fire but on the game they will be on the battlefeld.

[Heraclius]

I think I figured out why on the .com site it says that the Praetorian Guard was founded by Scipio Africanus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif In real life i believe Hakonarson said they were founded in 31 BC but that would not allow them to played for long in the timespan of RTW. However if the devs willfully "overlook" history and claim that the Praetorians were founded by Scipio Africanus we would be able to play with them from the Second Punic War and onwards. Just a hunch, however. I may be wrong.

[Hakonarson]

Scipio did have a paraetorian cohorte and apparently gave them special pay and conditions, but it was only a single cohorte, many other Roman generals had praetorian units, and the historian who says Scipios were given special treatment is relatively unknown.

As someone else said - "praetorium" merely means headquaters, and the praetorian units were initialy just tne HQ guard.

[Stormer]

are praetorian guard same as praetorian cohourt

[Nowake]

Yes, it is the same thing ...


Then again, Hakonarson, the praetorian guard as an imperial guard couldn't be in the game earlier, as there were no emperors, no?


But Scipio created the first classic praetorian corps, and they acted as bodyguards (along with the lictors).


The later praetorian guard (as in imperial times) was transformed in some kind of police force for Rome, and their numbers were multiplied.

[Sjakihata]

Preatorians

How can five vote legionaries above a "special force".

It is like, the US marines being better than the SAS or S.E.A.L... Ow, well some might think the Marines are better, they say so on CNN

[Stormer]

well amybe their looking at it from the perpective of 6000 Roman legionaaires V's 600 praetorian guard.

Then they got a good point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Stormer @ May 04 2003,13:46)]i agree longshawks maybe Hoplites should be better, but i belive elephants will be most powerfull http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
No way are Hoplites better But that discussion belongs in the Legionary vs. Hoplite thread. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Forgot about the elephants. They should definately have the strongest attack in game, but should be prone to panic, especially if hit on the flanks.


Quote[/b] ]Originally posted by Sjakihata Akechi
It is like, the US marines being better than the SAS or S.E.A.L... Ow, well some might think the Marines are better, they say so on CNN

They are better than SAS or SEALs at some things. Like storming beachheads, capturing fortified enemy positions, fighting the enemy in pitched battles ect...conventional military objectives. SAS/SEALs would be better at special operations missions like hostage rescue, sabotage, ect. Its not a fair comparison really, since both are designed to do different things. One is a conventional force, one is special operations. It's like saying which is better...Assassins/spies or Knights Templar in MTW?

[Nowake]

It's like saying that the SS infantry divisions were better than the pionieer corps (better comparison, as the praetorians were more political oriented ) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[DthB4Dishonor]

Actually I think they are wrong about Praetorians being around since 321BC. They were not around till after teh republic died and teh empire emerged. This is post Julius Caesaer. Also like someone said earlier yeah they were special body guards. Its not like comparing Navy Seals or SAS to marines its more like comparing the secret service to Navy Seals.

Prateorians I believe only had to serve about half of the mandated military time in order to retire with pension. Also Prateorian guards were largely selected from the Germanic tribes because they were believed to be less susceptible to bribery and the politics which plagued and eventually crippled Rome. It was also expected that they would usually return to there native country after serving there emperor so there would be less need for them to make political choices in order to insure there future. Also being Germanic Praetorians were naturally stronger individuals than Romans and Italians were. This is openly accepted fact of ancient times. Germanic tribes had larger and naturally stronger men.

I voted for Legionary as a whole because of there team work. Like it was once said about spartan warriors 1 on 1 they were good but nothing overly special however as a group they where worth many times there number. As individual fighters gladiators and praetorians would probably win but as a fighting unit I would say Legionares are the best hands down.

[Hakonarson]

Dth you've got it almost completely wrong

German body guards were common in hte 1st century AD but htey were not praetorians - Praetorians were recruited solely from Roman Citizens, and initialy the WERE legionaries

The Imperial Guard was raised by Augustus in 31BC - not 321 But Praetorian cohortes were known for at least 200 years before then - they were the headquarters guard for many generals - just not organised as a seperate "arm"

[Leet Eriksson]

The preatorians in the game could be the bodyguard unit for the king or the princes,i might be wrong though.

[DthB4Dishonor]

I never said they were created in 321 BC. Read my post I said someone else was wrong in saying that they were around so early. I also placed them at time of Agustus but was and am not sure of exact date.

Also You are right about them being Roman Citizens however this was only until Septimus Severus around 195 AD. He then opened it to all Roman Legions also by this time a large portion of the Roman army was composed of people from conquered lands i.e. gaul. Praetorians were an Imperial Guard of 9 cohorts with only 3 being stationed in Rome at any 1 time. They also became very corrupt and even plotted and helped assasinate several Emperors i.e. they killed Caligula and placed Claudius on the throne.

They were disbanded as Imperial guards by Constatine who saw them more as a threat than a guard force. He replaced them with a Royal Guard but Praetorian Prefect still held alot of political power and was more of a goverment office than a military one.

[Hakonarson]

Sorry - my misreading.

So we agree that their excesses come well after the time frame of RTW then, so in game they're going to be very good.

Although personally I'd rather see their bonuses as being solely morale and/or valour ratherthan any base combat values.

[AvramL]

Certainly the later (and maybe even the early to some extent) Praetorian guard was oriented toward guard duty and ceremonial functions. They would not have been the equal of veteran legions in battle.

[Nowake]

we kind of agreed on this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[AvramL]

Sorry, I tend to skim through long threads.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I say Roman legionnaires, because they actually built the Empire, instead of just guarding its corrupt rulers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Stormer]

try look at it as a group of 60 roman legions V's 60 praetorian guard..


Quote[/b] ]I say Roman legionnaires, because they actually built the Empire, instead of just guarding its corrupt rulers

because roman legionaaires built the empire doesnt mean there be the strongest unit this is going off topic i think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[Nowake]

well, we were still talking about legionares, so ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif It's a good OT http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

roman legionaries don't have to be the most powerfull units.
They are the most enployable units, thet are suitable for about everyjob. skirimishing, man2man, formation fighting, anti cavalarie?

[Hakonarson]

They weren't skirmishers, but they were capable of fighting in rough going which is a task that is/was usually tasked to skirmishers. They also weren't that hot vs cavalry since having lots of long spears seems to have been the best option for that.

But they weer very flexible for sure.

[CBR]

Well I have read one theory about the hastati. That they worked more like skirmishers..very loose ordered heavy skirmishers...something like that. It sounded nice. But Im an ignorant.. doenst take much to convince me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

CBR

[Hakonarson]

The Hastati were the first legionaries to be equipped with Pila - some time in the 300's. Apparently their role was to break up the enemy phalanx with a volley or 2, and some people think they then retired to leave the "real" fighting to the Princepes and Triarii.

So in that respect they may well be thought to have been a type of skirmisher, but for me it doesn't really wash that they would have retired after only throwing a couple of weapons. there was already the light infantry "leves" armed with javelins and spears who were unarguably skirmishers not meant for hand-to-hand, so why have more of the same?

Eventually the pila/sword combo was seen to be good enough for "real" troops too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[CBR]

Well I dont think they would retire. More like something in between ordinary troops and velites? We see a bit like that for hoplites too. The youngest with less armour being capable of running after enemy peltast?

With velites you could only count on them use their javelins and that was it. Hastati could fight too. Just some crazy thoughts..

CBR

[Hakonarson]

Maybe - they certainly had a side arm (sword) and large shield (scuta), so weren't particularly "light" in the first place.

The Roman army organisation prior to this has been recorded by Livy.

IIRC it had 5 classes of infantry organised in centuries.

The first class were equipped as Hoplites (helmet, cuirass, greaves, hoplon, sword) and provided 82 centuries.

The 2nd class lost the hoplite body armour and used a Scuta instead of a hoplon, and provided 20 centuries.

There were also 20 centuries each of the 3rd and 4th classes. IIRC the 3rd class was as the 2nd but lacked helmet, while the 4th class had only spears and javelins and the 5th was equipped solely with slings and provided 32 centuries.

There were also 18 centuries of cavalry "equites" who also provided the officers.

It has been postulated that the 1st class became the princepes and Triarii (the best becoming the Princepes, the remainder the Triarii), the Hastati were the old 2nd class, and 3rd, 4th and 5th classes provided the leves (light skirmishers), and the mysterious roarii and accensi of which we know little but who were the least reliable soldiers and formed behind the Triarii.

Each maniple of Hastati had a detachment of 20 leves attached.

The whole legion at this stage consisted of 15 maniples of Hastati (@60 men each for 900 men) with 300 attached leves, 15 maniples each of princepes, Triarii, Roarii and Acenssi for a total of 4800 infantry (plus some cavalry). Of this almsot half were 2nd quality troops - the leves accensi and roarii.

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Triari.

[shingenmitch2]

Hak is correct

Triarii

[Hakonarson]

Hey I never said Triarii http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I wouldn't either - Triarii were the older veterans - those NOT GOOD ENOUGH to be in the Princepes - in the Polybian legion (levels, Hastati, Princepes, Triarii) it was most definitely the Princepes who were regarded as the best warriors - they were all older men than the hastati, and the fittest and best of them as they were the ones expected to win hte battle.

The Triarii were a last reserve in case things went wrong - at an extreme I see them as a rear guard to be sacrificed to allow the surviving good troops to get away

[Nowake]

I have to disagree ... Scipio was regarding them as elite also http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif They were the best equiped, and if it were to think about their morale, they would get the bonus. Napoleon said "victory is 3/4 morale and 1/4 tactics". Don't take it literally, but you get the point.

[Hakonarson]

If they were the best equipped solely because they were the oldest in an age when soldiers provided their own equipment - so they had had more time and hence more money. But of course equipment isn't all that important as you say

However Livy says that the Princepes were the best armoured, not the Triarii. But of course equipment isn't all that important as you say

The sources are quite clear that the Princepes were the men in the prime of life and therefoer the best fighters both physically and mentally. Triarii were those too old for the Princepes any more - veterans for sure, but not the best veterans - those were the Princepes.

When did Scipio regard the Triarii as an elite?

[ELITEofFOGOLIN]

What is Triarii ?
Have you a photo ?

[Hakonarson]

Triarii were the last line of the "polybian" Roman legion (so named because Polybius described it)

the front line weer Leves/velites - light skirmishers armed with javelins.

The 2nd line was the Hastati armed with pilum.

the 3rd line was the Principes also armed with pilum.

the Triarii were behind the Principes, and identical to themexcept they were armed with a thrusting spear instead of the pilum.

[ELITEofFOGOLIN]

Thx Hakonarson