AOR systems, and the historical vs the realistic

[Arjos]

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...

they still had the same concept of rulership as anyone else did.

Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...

Rome had already successfully recruited from such martial traditions in its eastern regions like Syria so I don't see how they would fail to do so in Mesopotamia or even Iran.

Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

[bobbin]

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...

My question was how were the Rhine, Danube and Eastern frontiers feasible borders for the Roman Empire despite being next to aggressive and organised states and peoples yet the Bosporos wasn't?

Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...

Which it wasn't.

Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

And Spain and North Africa had military doctrines based around skirmishing, yet legionaries were recruited there with no problem. The fact of the matter is that the only people the Romans would have had a tough time turning into legionaries were nomads, everyone else could be trained in the Roman battle styles. And melee infantry was a tradition in Mesopotamia, the Shipri Tukul unit from EB was an example of this.

[antisocialmunky]

As to point A, it depends how you define 'border.'

[Arjos]

the Bosporos wasn't?

As it was, given the steppe people didn't have siegecraft or a navy, protecting the coastal ports and cities required only a fleet and some garrisons; but had the Romani tried to expand further north, a limes system would have needed many legions, plus I don't know how effective they would have been against steppe warfare and imo such a border, coupled with all the others, would reach the point of a too big economic burden to arm so many troops...

And Spain and North Africa had military doctrines based around skirmishing, yet legionaries were recruited there with no problem.

They didn't lack shock or heavy "single" close-quarter with slashing and thrusting blades either and they were hired by or fought against the Romani for decades: the leap to become legionaries would have been quite natural...

In case of North Africa, they formed up as skirmishing bands to fend off small nomad raids...

And melee infantry was a tradition in Mesopotamia

They fought quite differently though, supporting thureophoroi and cavalry more by presence than actual fighting skills to discourage flanking...
Not to mention they were usually kept as garrisons, just like the Romani did with the Syrians...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

I'd argue that the Roman handbook regarding borders would tell you that rivers make the finest boundaries of empire. The Rhine and Danube clearly. In the east against the Parthians and Sassanids the border shifted more, but was generally based around the Euphrates region. In Africa there were no major rivers but the Atlas mountains and the Sahara were natural boundary markers. In Britain they eventually built a wall although its uses and purpose are arguable. Also as long as the capital of the empire was Rome, the Crimea was somewhat far away and as long as the native Bosporans were friendly and willing to trade their grain, there would be no reason to incorporate them into the empire unless they were in danger of being deposed by native revolt or foreign invasion.

[bobbin]

[QUOTE=Arjos;2053408492]As it was, given the steppe people didn't have siegecraft or a navy, protecting the coastal ports and cities required only a fleet and some garrisons; but had the Romani tried to expand further north, a limes system would have needed many legions, plus I don't know how effective they would have been against steppe warfare and imo such a border, coupled with all the others, would reach the point of a too big economic burden to arm so many troops...[quote]
Well it is a good thing I wasn't talking about them trying to hold onto steppe territories isn't it?

They didn't lack shock or heavy "single" close-quarter with slashing and thrusting blades either and they were hired by or fought against the Romani for decades: the leap to become legionaries would have been quite natural...

No more natural than it would have been for any other infantry tradition. If the Romans required people that fought in exactly the same to them to join their army they wouldn't have made it beyond Italy.

In case of North Africa, they formed up as skirmishing bands to fend off small nomad raids...

Your point being?

They fought quite differently though, supporting thureophoroi and cavalry more by presence than actual fighting skills to discourage flanking...
Not to mention they were usually kept as garrisons, just like the Romani did with the Syrians...

They fought as infantry in close order formations, that would have been more than enough for the Romans to work with. And as for the Syrians, well the Romans were always ones to take advantage of native skills if so a lot of the became Sagittarii, they were also found in the Legions too though.

I'd argue that the Roman handbook regarding borders would tell you that rivers make the finest boundaries of empire. The Rhine and Danube clearly. In the east against the Parthians and Sassanids the border shifted more, but was generally based around the Euphrates region. In Africa there were no major rivers but the Atlas mountains and the Sahara were natural boundary markers. In Britain they eventually built a wall although its uses and purpose are arguable. Also as long as the capital of the empire was Rome, the Crimea was somewhat far away and as long as the native Bosporans were friendly and willing to trade their grain, there would be no reason to incorporate them into the empire unless they were in danger of being deposed by native revolt or foreign invasion.

Have a look at a map, the first thing you will see is that the Crimea about as far from Rome as Britain is, it is actually closer in travel time when you consider that it could be reached by boat in a more or less direct route.

The second thing you will see is that it is joined the Steppe regions by a few thin strips of land, it is about as good a defensible border as you could hope for, especially when take into account that the potential enemies in the region had absolutely no form of navy what so ever.

Well the discussion was about whether the Romans could incorporate the Bosporan Kingdom, not whether they actually wanted to.

[Arjos]

Your point being?
take advantage of native skills

That's my point, not forcing them to fight scutum and gladius, but exploiting the local military tradition to its fullest...
So, that's why imo, answering the OP, legionaries (as in Cohors Reformata and such) shouldn't be recruitable in certain areas...

[Morte66]

With EB1 there are many reasons for things being the way they are, and in case of recruitment a major reason is that each line of recruitment code carries a cost.

That's a reasonable answer. Thank you.

Unless it is possible to generalise multiple lines of recruitment into one (and there probably is such possibility, subject to engine bugs in the way it evaluates logical operators) each new region costs 1 line of code per building per level per province.

FWIW, the way I would have recruitment work if it were practical would be to make it dependant on resources/terrain (horses etc), MICs, historical tendencies, and pseudo-buildings representing culture and way of life. Only some of the latter would be buildable, at least in a reasonable length of time.

For the romans to build Pricipes might need a mid-level MIC, low level Roman culture (which they can build), low level Roman government, Polybian reforms, and suitable geography (not desert/steppe etc). The culture requirement is low because they were good at training foreigners. The government is low because the MIC can administer what they need above that. All of that is independent of historical borders, so Caledonia or Sicilia are equally good for Principes once you've got settled in.

For the Saka to build Saka Hoplites would need a mid level MIC, mid-level Hellenic culture (which they can't build but can conquer), mid-level Saka government, and suitable geography. It requires a higher level of culture because they're relying on Greek traditions to teach the troops, and higher level government to trust the armed Greeks to work for them instead of against them. Byzantion is of course a long way from Chigu, but Pantikapaion is not unreasonable -- ISTM there's no reason the Saka had to go south, plenty of factions have gone West instead (Goths, Huns, etc).

As for our slingers, they need a pseudo-building called "culture of slinging" or whatever, which you find in the appropriate places. If you really want you can build it in 50 years (200 turns). Otherwise it's where you find it.

Of course, I have no idea whether this is feasible in the engine. Anyhow, thanks for your time and for indulging my question. I hope this is at least food for thought. :)

[Grygus]

It seems certain that the engine would not allow it, but I think the ideal solution would be for you to have the ability to build anything, anywhere, but at wildly varying costs. After all, certainly the Romans had the option of co-opting the local culture and training whatever they wanted; it was simply far more time- and cost-effective for them to work out tactics which employed, e.g., hoplites. If things were properly expensive in the hinterlands, then the player would almost certainly arrive at the same conclusion and the effects of AoR would continue virtually unchanged most of the time, but if you were wealthy and had time and REALLY wanted Legions in Scotland, you could lay out a ridiculous sum over a long period and accomplish it, in the same way that the Romans presumably could have, had it been a priority for them.

Assuming that's not even an option, I quite like the existing AoR as an alternative, since bucking that system would be a rare exception even if it were available.

Forgive me if I am merely paraphrasing something someone else has already said.

[Arjos]

Caledonia or Sicilia are equally good for Principes once you've got settled in.

That, imo, is bonkers...
Citizens voting at the assemblies, recruitable in a province...

While the other matter about the Saka, I skipped it, Hoplitai Hellenikon are already recruitable (EBI) in hellenic settled areas, even the much desired Byzantion, so what's this all about? XD

[bobbin]

That's my point, not forcing them to fight scutum and gladius, but exploiting the local military tradition to its fullest...
So, that's why imo, answering the OP, legionaries (as in Cohors Reformata and such) shouldn't be recruitable in certain areas...

Exploiting a local tradition does not preclude being able to train soldiers in the Roman system, they could do both, and did throughout history in places like Gaul and North Africa

[Arjos]

did throughout history in places like Gaul and North Africa

I understand your view, but imo, that was possible only within specific cultural environments, ie (for the roman infantry type) the western Mediterranean and north Africa...
For instance, in later years with troops coming more and more from the Danube basin, like Illyriciani and germanic people, the legionaries adopted more shieldwall like tactics and equipment...

[bobbin]

Its not a view, that is what actually happened. If history isn't enough to convince you I don't know what is.

As to the second point, one could argue that it was the Roman armies adapting to fighting the various Germanic enemies they faced, not because of where the troops came from, that caused these changes. They also greatly increased their cavalry and missile contingents during that time despite Germanic warfare being focused around infantry.

[Arjos]

Its not a view, that is what actually happened. If history isn't enough to convince you I don't know what is.

Ofc that's what happened, the point was that for example in Britain, Crimea, Armenia and Mesopotamia didn't happened: rather soldiers from other regions were deployed there, that's what I've been talking about...
Afaik even in Spain and Gaul only certain areas provided legionaries, like the southeast for the former, Narbonensis, Lugdunensis and Belgica for the latter...
In your view given any people in any place, if they were ordered to fight in a demanded manner it would have happened, I disagree on that and imo it's about the local military traditions...

one could argue that it was the Roman armies adapting

Why there wasn't any "adaptation" after Carrhae for example?
While roughly two centuries later it happened in the same area...
On one side you don't have any natives for hire and on the other you do...

They also greatly increased their cavalry and missile contingents during that time despite Germanic warfare being focused around infantry.

Nothing to do with Sauromatae and Alani for you?
Both being hired by Roma...

[bobbin]

Ofc that's what happened, the point was that for example in Britain, Crimea, Armenia and Mesopotamia didn't happened: rather soldiers from other regions were deployed there, that's what I've been talking about...
Afaik even in Spain and Gaul only certain areas provided legionaries, like the southeast for the former, Narbonensis, Lugdunensis and Belgica for the latter...

Well it didn't happen in the Crimea and Armenia because those were client states and so were not part of the Romans military administration, they undoubtedly would have furnished them with specialist troops for the Auxillia though. Mesopotamia was only ever part of the empire for a short period of time and so the necessary mechanisms were not in place. Britain on the other hand did provide legionaries to the army.

In your view given any people in any place, if they were ordered to fight in a demanded manner it would have happened, I disagree on that and imo it's about the local military traditions...

That is not my view, if there was sufficient access to manpower they could have trained them into Legionaires, that is what training is all about! They taught them how to fight in the Roman style, if that was impossible then you would have Gauls hacking away with their Gladius like it was a longsword, Numidians throwing their pila before running away when the enemy got anywhere near them and Iberians skulking around preforming hit and run attacks.

Why there wasn't any "adaptation" after Carrhae for example?
While roughly two centuries later it happened in the same area...
On one side you don't have any natives for hire and on the other you do...

But was adaptation after Carrhae, the use of missile units increased and horse archers were brought in (later being directly trained by the Romans). The eastern legionaries armour became heavier as well and scale mail became more common.

Nothing to do with Sauromatae and Alani for you?
Both being hired by Roma...

So? These tactics were being used to directly deal German armies, the Romans saw what kind of troops the Germans used and brought elements of their own that would be able exploit weaknesses in those armies to the region, that is adapting if I'm not mistaken.

[Arjos]

if that was impossible then you would have Gauls hacking away with their Gladius like it was a longsword, Numidians throwing their pila before running away when the enemy got anywhere near them and Iberians skulking around preforming hit and run attacks.

I did say it was possible only for certain cultures, like those you listed, what I'm saying is that for example in the east, locals at most could have been trained as archers or spearmen...

The eastern legionaries armour became heavier as well and scale mail became more common.

I was speaking of training and tactics rather than technology and equipment...

These tactics were being used to directly deal German armies

Afaik Quadi and Marcomanni allied with the Sauromatae during those campaigns and cooperated...

[Grygus]

Any man can be taught any fighting style; it is merely a matter of convincing him that learning the style will increase his chances of achieving whatever it is that he values (victory, glory, survival, etc.) However, it takes time and money to do this. Where Rome did not do it, why do you assume it was because it was impossible, and not simply a question of expediency?

[bobbin]

I did say it was possible only for certain cultures, like those you listed, what I'm saying is that for example in the east, locals at most could have been trained as archers or spearmen...

Why? What makes training a person who is used to fighting with a spear to use a sword and more difficult that a person who is used to fighting with javelins? And I should point out that this never stopped the Greeks, who were big fans of the spear, from being trained for the legions, neither did it prevent the urban poor of Rome who had never fought a day in their lives.

What you seem to be saying is that humans are completely incapable of learning skills that are foreign to them, which is a very bizarre idea to me.

I was speaking of training and tactics rather than technology and equipment...

Adopting new technology and equipment is the same as adopting new tactics, because these things facilitate changes to tactics, if you add a bunch of missile units to your army you don't keep fighting like you would with just swordsmen.

Afaik Quadi and Marcomanni allied with the Sauromatae during those campaigns and cooperated...

What about the tribes on the Rhine? The used archers and cavalry on those frontiers too. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Roman commanders were able to see the benefits of using archers and cavalry against a enemy who didn't use them and fought largely as unarmoured infantry.

[Arjos]

And I should point out that this never stopped the Greeks, who were big fans of the spear, from being trained for the legions

They did have xyphos, kopis and machaira, plus since the invasion of the Balkans they were already moving toward new styles...
While to keep with the examples in the east, for close quarters were much prefered shock weapons like sagaris and mace...

What you seem to be saying is that humans are completely incapable of learning skills that are foreign to them, which is a very bizarre idea to me.

No, I'm not speaking of the learning process, but of the training one: an unknown skill, without the help from someone who already mastered it, takes quite some time of "try and fail"...
While teaching whole communities, requires time and willingness from those communities, which if asked to fight, should they possess a rooted tradition would prefer to bring their arms...

Why is it so hard for you to believe that Roman commanders were able to see the benefits of using archers and cavalry against a enemy who didn't use them and fought largely as unarmoured infantry.

You are not understanding what I'm saying, I have no problem with that assumption, what I'm talking about is the use of mounted archers and armour clad cavalry (in this very case), put in use by hiring locals, at first and in the most imminent time, while later it was about those very communities, to settle and train in such fashion people...

In overall, for ancient peoples, blood and traditions could sometimes transcend reason in decisions...
In something as characteristic as warfare, unless people made the decision to do so, or they were already accustomed to similar styles, the imposition of other's ideas was, I dare say, impossible...

I have no problem with auxiliary troops from those areas, but increasing the AoR of legionaries is an hypothetical out of preference: just how one could argue they could have provincialized the area, the other side of the coin tells, they could have suffered a "Teutoburg Forest" scenario...

Tbh already in EBI that specific AoR is quite expanded, with "provinces" that lasted less than five years...

[bobbin]

They did have xyphos, kopis and machaira, plus since the invasion of the Balkans they were already moving toward new styles...
While to keep with the examples in the east, for close quarters were much prefered shock weapons like sagaris and mace...

And eastern populations commonly used the Kopis as well as the Akinakes. I should also point out that the Kopis/Makhairia was much closer in intent and use to a mace or axe than to the Gladius.

No, I'm not speaking of the learning process, but of the training one: an unknown skill, without the help from someone who already mastered it, takes quite some time of "try and fail"...
While teaching whole communities, requires time and willingness from those communities, which if asked to fight, should they possess a rooted tradition would prefer to bring their arms...

This is a professional military we are talking about here, not some militia, they fought in what ever manner suited the Romans, not themselves. If a local tradition was beneficial to the Romans they would be formed into specialist Auxilia units based around that tradition (eg Numdian Cavalry, Cretan Archers etc), if not and if they were still needed they would be trained in Roman fighting styles.

You are not understanding what I'm saying, I have no problem with that assumption, what I'm talking about is the use of mounted archers and armour clad cavalry (in this very case), put in use by hiring locals, at first and in the most imminent time, while later it was about those very communities, to settle and train in such fashion people...

While there was a need for natives to set the ball rolling, once the tradition was established in the military the Romans didn't need to access to those same natives to continue it, they could also export it to other areas as they saw fit. They may have continued to do so in a lot of circumstances because the natives were usually the best, but that does not mean it was impossible to train others.

In overall, for ancient peoples, blood and traditions could sometimes transcend reason in decisions...

Sometimes yes, but you are implying that it was all the time.

In something as characteristic as warfare, unless people made the decision to do so, or they were already accustomed to similar styles, the imposition of other's ideas was, I dare say, impossible...

My point is they didn't get to decided how they fought in the legions! It's not like on the first day of legionary training Antigonos the Makedone said "Actually nice Mr Centurion I think I'll stick to my Sarissa thank you very much, I just can't get my head around your way of doing things....so how much do we get paid again?"

[Arjos]

They may have continued to do so in a lot of circumstances because the natives were usually the best, but that does not mean it was impossible to train others.

Yes, but the focal point is that it must get started by natives...

Sometimes yes, but you are implying that it was all the time.

All battlefield deployments by origin and citizenship, all administrative and command offices by origin and citizenship...

My point is they didn't get to decided how they fought in the legions!

The argument was that for the OP is reasonable to export the legionary fashion to any other area, with similar resources and geography; I say that's not all of it...
Plus iirc, it was always about voluntaries and not conscripts, so those professionals would come with their trade...
And if they were from the poorest of the poors, again the choice would have gone for origins, making the easterner a sagittarius, postguard or rower...

And historically I don't know of legionaries from Germania, Mesopotamia, Crimea and Armenia, I can easily see them fighting as auxiliares, but again that increased AoR is a one sided hypothetical...

[bobbin]

Yes, but the focal point is that it must get started by natives...

Of course they were, but your argument was that these natives would be the only source of soldiers trained in that tradition...period, that their skills were not transferable to others from elsewhere in the empire. Which is false.

All battlefield deployments by origin and citizenship, all administrative and command offices by origin and citizenship...
What was decided by merit? Promotions in those already fixed hierarchies I guess :P

The Roman Empire was hardly a meritocracy but even then people from otherwise undesirable origins could rise up the ladder, even to the position of Emperor.

The argument was that for the OP is reasonable to export the legionary fashion to any other area, with similar resources and geography; I say that's not all of it...
Plus iirc, it was always about voluntaries and not conscripts, so those professionals would come with their trade...
And if they were from the poorest of the poors, again the choice would have gone for origins, making the easterner a sagittarius, postguard or rower...

No it wouldn't have, the available manpower would have been allocated to where the Romans needed it, if they needed people for the legions that's where those volunteers would have gone.

And historically I don't know of legionaries from Germania, Mesopotamia, Crimea and Armenia, I can easily see them fighting as auxiliares, but again that increased AoR is a one sided hypothetical...

The AoR in EB is hypothetical, they needed to draw the line somewhere so they based it on the maximum extent the empire reached.

Mesopotamia, Crimea and Armenia,

Again, they would not have come from those places as they were either not part of the empire or were only incorporated for a very short time, I just explained that only a few posts ago.

[Arjos]

that their skills were not transferable to others from elsewhere in the empire. Which is false.

I said "at first and in the most imminent time ... to settle and train in such fashion people" meaning that afterwards they would train whoever or settle and raise their own children, I know my syntax is awful, I apologize for that :P

undesirable origins could rise up the ladder, even to the position of Emperor.

But they still were from within the empire...

if they needed people for the legions that's where those volunteers would have gone.

Given how vast the manpower was, they would have made "westerners" fight in the legion and "easterners" in other fashions, which is what they did...
Such preferences were written countless times during the classical and hellenistic periods, in such "nations" as Asia and Egypt, the natives were trained in macedonian fashion due to:

- lack of greek manpower, preserving the few who settled to be part of the assemblies, unless there were enough klerouchoi.
- desire by the locals to take part in higher social circles.
- easy transition from spearmen to pikemen.

The AoR in EB is hypothetical, they needed to draw the line somewhere so they based it on the maximum extent the empire reached.
Again, they would not have come from those places as they were either not part of the empire or were only incorporated for a very short time

Hence why I said they shouldn't be able to recruit them there: "with "provinces" that lasted less than five years"...

I'm off for the weekend, happy new year everyone ^^

[Stark]

Hence why I said they shouldn't be able to recruit them there: "with "provinces" that lasted less than five years"...

Why are you so obsessed with what really happened, the point of EB is to rewrite history, not relive it. Who says no one in EB2 will ever hold Mesopotamia or Armenia for more than 5 years?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Why are you so obsessed with what really happened, the point of EB is to rewrite history, not relive it. Who says no one in EB2 will ever hold Mesopotamia or Armenia for more than 5 years?

EB, and EB2 are intended to be more historically accurate representations of this era, not just a boundary-less 'what if'. In the same way that one cannot hold (in modern times) such as Afghanistan as a recognisably 'Western' state, so the power structures in Armenia were jot, at that time, particularly amenable to a Romaised state structure. I think (from the previews) this is exactly the sort of cultural reality that the EB team are trying to recreate.

Dacia, Gaul, Spain, North Africa...all fell into line after protracted and/or near genocidal conquest. They didn't simply embrace Roman ways. There is an argument that the Germanic peoples (and their environs) offered a greater threat to Roman stability than the Romans would gain by their conquest (as shown by Arminius). The same could be said for those areas bordering the nomadic Steppe cultures. Let's not also forget that the larger the Empire became, the more internal dissensions plagued it. I'm rather hoping that these aspects of Empire building are addressed in EB2.

[Horatius]

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...



Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...



Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

Please correct me if I'm wrong but when the limes were built wasn't the importance of traffic control, police force and alerting the garrison about raids of monumental importance when the Limes got built? In importance in fact not something the rome total war engine is even capable of showing?

[Atilius]

I don't know of any settling of Roman citizens in Gaul, though, which was thoroughly Romanized. Romanization had more to do with the local elite becoming part of the Roman system.

The Roman colonization of Gaul isn't easy to recognize from the ancient literature, but it began in the late 2C BC and resumed in the 2nd half of the 1C BC. There appear to have been 15 coloniae (except for the first, probably all are coloniae militares) founded in Gaul before Augustus' death: (all dates BC)

Narbo Martius 114 and 45
Arelate 45
Lugdunum 43
Rauricorum 43
Noviodunum 43-32
Baeterrae 36-27
Arausio 33-35
Forum Julii 30

In addition, there were another six colonies (including one at Aquae Sextiae) founded on unknown dates by either Caesar or Augustus. Roman colonization in Gaul continued throughout the principate.