Poll: Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?

[MeinPanzer]

I don't know at all. You said that there was some LS in use during the Augustan period, so I was just surmising what we could estimate. If I gave the impression that that was a statistic, I'm sorry - I was just trying to convey the fact that even if LS was in use during that era, it was far from the norm.

As for me, I'm a die-hard Romani player. I play other factions as well (currently working on Qarthadastim and KH) and I'd like to try some of the hellenistic factions (AS looks enticing) when I have the time, but Romani are still my favorites. -M

And yet even in EBI armour types were represented for which we have even less evidence than we do for LS, as in, for instance, the lamellar armour of the Rhodian slingers. In my opinion it is totally inconsistent to argue both for the inclusion of the Augustan reforms because they were "inevitable" and for such armour types and yet not for LS.

[PraetorFigus]

From the twitter page:

Now this is all just a lot of speculating on my part but the fact that JMRC is making 3 sets of skins for one factional unit's "evolutionary stages" suggests to me that they might be using the armour upgrade feature in M2TW to represet equipment changes, it seems unlikley they would make three different versions of the same unit, which means they might do the same for the imperial cohorts, ie Marians would get an armour upgrade when the Imperial refoms happen changing them into Imperial Cohorts, no need to create a new unit.

I remember it was suggested ages ago somewhere in the forums but there was problems with armour upgrades apparantly give hardcoded stat value increases so they might have found a way around this.

That would be toatally awesome. Thanks too Medievial 2

I second the coolness of this idea, if there are reforms it should be for the availability of armor upgrade, Praetorians and aor if different from Marian Reforms.

Cheers

[Mulceber]

And yet even in EBI armour types were represented for which we have even less evidence than we do for LS, as in, for instance, the lamellar armour of the Rhodian slingers. In my opinion it is totally inconsistent to argue both for the inclusion of the Augustan reforms because they were "inevitable" and for such armour types and yet not for LS.

But you see, that's the distinction. We don't have evidence either for or against lamellar armour. Up until now, we had evidence AGAINST LS. That's why the EB team has always been dead set against it - in Vanilla, almost all the legionaries have LS from the beginning of the Marian reforms, and that ain't right. Perhaps the EB team has taken it to a bit of an extreme, saying there should be NO segmentata, especially since it seems clear that during the Augustan era there was some. On the whole though, I think for EB I, their decision to exclude LS was the right one, since it seems that even if there was some during the Augustan era, it was in the minority and it would be thus improper to put whole units in the field equipped with it. As I said before though, EB II is a different story as it's possible to have a variety of armor types in one unit.

So I guess I don't really understand what your point is. The Augustan reforms were likely inevitable, as the Romans were unwilling or unable to make the changes necessary to stabilize the Republic. Lamellar armor may well have been on Rhodian slingers, we don't know what they wore. We do know however that LS was somewhere between uncommon and nonexistent during the Augustan era and didn't become prominent until the mid-first century. They're trying to make things as accurate as possible. I see no inconsistency. -M

[geala]

I think it was sometimes rather difficult to prove that "LS" (whatever the Romans called it) was used already in the Augustan period. But now we have at least the findings in the Kalkriese-Niewedder dip which are strongly associated with the Clades Variana in 9 AD. There are at least 3 armour plates and several metal fittings from "lorica segmentata" armours, as well as several metal rings and hooks from lorica hamata. One hook has the inscription "cohors I", so the lorica hamata was not only used by the auxilia but also the legionaries. Involved were the veteran 17th, 18th and 19th legions. So we have very good evidence that "LS" was used -together with lorica hamata- prior to 9 AD. I think nobody can say anything about the percentage with which both forms of armour were used. But once again, it was the new Roman armour, the only genuine Roman armour, so if I had a special military reform from this time, "LS" cannot be rejected so easily.

[Mulceber]

True, but I think you will agree that as the new armor, it was likely in the minority, no? -M

[Megas Methuselah]

...the only genuine Roman armour-

...? What makes you imagine that?

[geala]

Ok, you can debate it. In the east lamellar armour was already used long before. But in this distinctive form it is genuine and typical for the Romans. Pectoral, mail and scale armour isn't. That's the reason why the mighty "LS" discussion started and will last forever, I presume.

[Alsatia]

Ok, you can debate it. In the east lamellar armour was already used long before. But in this distinctive form it is genuine and typical for the Romans. Pectoral, mail and scale armour isn't. That's the reason why the mighty "LS" discussion started and will last forever, I presume.

Agreed. The Lorica Segmentata is the stereotypical piece of Roman armour which, to my knowlege (correct me if i'm wrong), used toward the mid - Late Empire until Constantine's Reforms.

This debate seems to go on forever indeed.......

[paullus]

the rhodian armor, by the way, isn't lamellar. its meant to be quilting, and i don't know that its very likely our EBII rhodian slingers will have it, though that's a unit that's probably well over a year from production. (we've made enough hellenistic units that we need to work on some other factions)

[MeinPanzer]

the rhodian armor, by the way, isn't lamellar. its meant to be quilting, and i don't know that its very likely our EBII rhodian slingers will have it, though that's a unit that's probably well over a year from production. (we've made enough hellenistic units that we need to work on some other factions)

I probably should have read the description! Their armour is so grey and shiny that I always took it for iron.

But you see, that's the distinction. We don't have evidence either for or against lamellar armour. Up until now, we had evidence AGAINST LS. That's why the EB team has always been dead set against it - in Vanilla, almost all the legionaries have LS from the beginning of the Marian reforms, and that ain't right. Perhaps the EB team has taken it to a bit of an extreme, saying there should be NO segmentata, especially since it seems clear that during the Augustan era there was some. On the whole though, I think for EB I, their decision to exclude LS was the right one, since it seems that even if there was some during the Augustan era, it was in the minority and it would be thus improper to put whole units in the field equipped with it. As I said before though, EB II is a different story as it's possible to have a variety of armor types in one unit.

So I guess I don't really understand what your point is. The Augustan reforms were likely inevitable, as the Romans were unwilling or unable to make the changes necessary to stabilize the Republic. Lamellar armor may well have been on Rhodian slingers, we don't know what they wore. We do know however that LS was somewhere between uncommon and nonexistent during the Augustan era and didn't become prominent until the mid-first century. They're trying to make things as accurate as possible. I see no inconsistency. -M

My point is that there seems to be a major inconsistency in the reasoning behind including or excluding certain features in EB:

1. Augustan reforms: These would have been inevitable, and the Roman army would have been equipped and armed along these lines regardless of most historical divergence. They should be included despite the fact that they only emerged in the last few decades of the last century BC.

2. Lorica segmentata: We have some evidence for their use in Augustan times, but that evidence is limited. This type of armour most likely would have been a part of the Augustan reforms, but evidence suggests it would have been in use in limited numbers. Lorical segmentata should not be depicted in the Augustan units.

And rather than the Rhodian slingers, I will use another example.

3. Thureophoroi armour: We have some depictions of thureophoroi wearing cuirasses and no depictions of them wearing greaves. The proportion of representations of thureophoroi wearing cuirasses compared to those without any sort of body armour at all is small. Despite this, thureophoroi all wear cuirasses and greaves.

Now, leaving out number one for now, I see a glaring inconsistency between numbers two and three. In both cases we have evidence for limited use of armour, and yet in number two this evidence is omitted altogether in the reconstruction of units, while in number three it is extrapolated to all members in a unit (and this is going by the EBII preview that showed the thureophoroi renders). It seems that for whatever reason, the same standards are not being used to judge armour used among thureophoroi as among Augustan units.

In the case of number one, I see a similar inconsistency. The Romans are given historical reforms on the basis that these would have been inevitable, but this logic doesn't seem to have been extended to other factions, for which one could easily make a case of unit reforms that were likewise "inevitable" and which occurred right towards the end of the EB timeframe.

[chairman]

The issue with using thureophoroi [as an example of your argument] is that this is not just about 1 unit, it is about 3 units that represent the continuum of armor worn by hellen(ist)ic soldiers that were equiped with a thureos shield and javelins/spear. No single unit of this type would have have each soldier wearing the same amount of armor, as the wealthier would have more and the poorer less. So to reconcile the RTW engine with reality, EB has chose to represent thureos-bearing soldiers as 3 units, those with lots of high quality armor called "Thorakitai", those with almost no body armor (helmet excluded) called Euzonoi, and those in the middle with some, variable quality and quantity of armor called Thureophoroi.

The problem with portraying any unit of Roman soldiers wearing LS in the EB timeperiod, is that by the time that LS appeared at all (eg first prototype off the line for the emperor's inspection), it would have been provided by the state (not the individual) to whole units, so that having a single skin within a unit as wearing LS with the rest as not is innaccurate and does not represent the standardization of Roman forces under the Augustine reforms well.

And I do think that the EB team has been consistant. When it was realized that certain units were limited in number or too late for the era (Vascai elites, Irish hammer warriors, Ethiopian Agema, etc), they were removed, same as LS.

Chairman

[geala]

Then why have new units in the veryyy late Augustan military reform? Hehe, we are moving in circles and I will keep my mouth shut (probably ) in the future.

[/Bean\]

Agh! We need more people to vote yes. We need more people to be disappointed when the EB team say No is the final answer.

[Mulceber]

You do realize the irony of you campaigning for the elimination of the Augustan reforms when your signature features a cohors imperatoria, don't you? -M

[/Bean\]

I didn't make the banner

[Mulceber]

But you still added it to your profile.

Honestly though, I'm not sure why people are so hot to remove the Augustan reforms - the EB team has already said it has all the space it needs for the other factions' units, so it's not like getting rid of the Augustan troops would clear up space for anyone else. -M

[Rilder]

Well if they can free up a couple a few units by using the Armor upgrades to represent reforms then all the better.

[geala]

But you still added it to your profile.

Honestly though, I'm not sure why people are so hot to remove the Augustan reforms - the EB team has already said it has all the space it needs for the other factions' units, so it's not like getting rid of the Augustan troops would clear up space for anyone else. -M

And already by now I break my promise to shut up.

The whole thread, as I've seen it, runs under the condition that units of other factions had to be removed for units of the new factions. In this case I would definitely prefer to remove the late Roman units instead. If it is not necessary to maraud poor non-Roman factions than the new Augustan units shall remain forever and for my part several other new Roman units could even be added.