View Full Version : History: Historians Post your work here
Imperiumiv on Judea
This is unedited.
I'll be adding an analysis of the hasmonean military in the near future. This is posted from a mobile device since I am stranded at the hospital. This will be modelled based on previous research threads and will be based primarily on several books in my library, as well as the primary source, Josephus.
On a brief note, the Hasmonean army, very early on, had Cavalry, and even the Macedonian Phalanx. I will provide evidence for this based on inference, chronology, and circumstantial evidence found in the 1st and 2nd books of Maccabees, and Josephus.
The Army 170s-120
First let's discuss the use of Phalangites in the Hasmonean army. Until recently, I would have never put the words "Jewish Phalanx" together.
I must first point out that the Jews living in the Levant at the time did not revolt because of internal politics between Hellenized Jews, and traditional ones. This is a modern theory, and it does make sense, considering that the Seleucids had previously been magnanimous toward the Jews. It is also true that I Maccabees is incorrect in stating that Hellenism was being imposed upon "All of the Land". It wasn't. But it was being imposed in the Levant, since it was a piece of real estate Antiochus IV was bound and determined to hold on to. being "Hellenized" is true, but it was tied to loyalty to the Seleucid monarchy. We must remember that the Jews had been influenced by Hellenism for well over a century prior to the revolt. Jewish philosophy post-Alexander shows the influence of Greek thought, and that the Jews were some how opposed to the majority of Hellenistic culture is not true. That Jews were exclusivist, and opposed to intermingle with others, is only true in a very limited sense. Greeks and Romans had their own purification rituals and laws. So for Greeks to somehow view Jews as legalistic, or stringent in their laws and customs, is unlikely. In fact, universalism is much more important in Greek thought than Jewish. with a few, rare exceptions, the laws of the Torah exclusively to the Jews. The laws of the Torah were only once imposed upon another people, The Idumaeans. This may in fact be due to the Hasmonean priesthood's misinterpretation of Universalism, which significantly influenced Jewish thought post-Alexander, and not simply for the sole reason of assimilating the Idumaeans, though it was probably the primary purpose. So now we know that the "Hellenism" in Judaea, was quite prevalent, and it was only the the banishment of Jewish Law from the Jews themselves, and the possible imposition of Greek religion, that stirred the revolt. It is not a far cry to assume that the Jews in Judaea were exposed to Hellenistic weaponry and tactics in the century and a half between the Maccabee revolt and Alexander's conquest.
Now on the the "Jewish" Phalanx. I assume you guys are familiar with the argument in favor of a Macedonian Phalanx used by Judah's successors, but let's recap anyway. I'll summerize Bar-Kochva's argument.
Jonathan fought a battle near "Azotos" in which the I Maccabees describes it as lasting from morning to night, with two lines of infantry. That Thorakitai could withstand a Macedonian Phalanx that long is unlikely. So we the Jewish heavy infantry must have been armed in a similar (I would argue VERY similar) to the Seleucid line. Eleazar had fought at Beth Zacariah, in which Josphus claims that the Jewish infantry fought with an elephant "before the phalanx of both sides met". Of course, phalanx usually just means a line of infantry, but it never referred to light infantry. So we can conclude that the Jewish infantry was armed in a manner that could match phalagites, and elephants. Is there really any formation c. 160 other than the Phalangial Phalanx that can evenly match the Phalanx on relatively flat ground? Not really. The battle of Magnesia vs the Roman legions, succeeded only when the Seleucid cavalry was either driven off or outflanked. Even when Macedon was conquered by Rome, it was described by a Roman commander (X) as the most terrifying infantry formation he had ever seen. During the battle of Azotos, Jonathan was surprised by Seleucid horse archers, in which he told his main line of infantry, (Macedonian Phalanx, or something extremely similar), to stay put. This is not behavior for light infantry and if they did not have shield, and more importantly, armor, they would have been decimated. So we must conclude that they were either Phalangites, or so similar to phalangites as to function in the same manner, or very well trained Legionaries. But that they were "legionaries" has about a zero % chance of being true, so we are left with the former.
Now for cavalry. I must first start with a solid assumption in ancient warfare. That is that virtually all societies used cavalry, including those who did not place much importance on them. Greek Hippeis, were wealthy nobles who fought on horseback, the nature of hoplite warfare ends up being a contest of attrition, (and wills), without a "hammer" component. If the majority of Greek City state warfare was a matter of attrition, the male populace would have been adversely effected and would have left it's mark upon history, due to high casualties. Excluding high casualties, the battles would be very inconclusive, and the Peloponnesian war shows these effect, but no others. I am not an expert on that conflict, but I am sure there were a few of "decisive" battles. A good commander is likewise, not interested in a battle of attrition.
II Maccabees describes a Jewish Horsemen, named Dositheus, chased an attempted to kill the Seleucid commander Gorgias at the battle of Elesa. Dositheus was obviously accompanied by a unit of cavalry, since only a madman would chase a cavalry unit alone. I Maccabees also describes Simeon commanding a unit of cavalry in a battle c. 138. So we must conclude they had cavalry, and they probably had some type of heavy cavalry, probably borrowed from the Seleucids, since the Hasmonean cavalry left a good account of themselves vs the Seleucid cavalry.
The types of troop available of the early Hasmonean army are as such.
Light Cavalry, Heavy/ Semi-Heavy Cavalry, High quality slingers, varying skirmishers, Heavy Phalangial-like troops, and light to heavy Spear and Swordsmen.
On a final note on the Hasmonean arry, c. 160-120, we must remember that the books of Maccabees are good histories, but are biased, so as to portray the battles won as won only with Divine internvention. So it is probable that the numbers of the Hasmonean troops are diminished in the account, though I do not doubt they were probably outnumbered somewhat, and the odds were stacked against them. This is why the Seleucid troops are described in some detail, while Jewish armament is deliberately vague, so as to make them out to be poorly equiped, and rag tag, so to speak.
Hasmonean Arms and Armor c 160-120
References:
Paul was not a Christian - Pamela Eisenbaum
The Complete works of Josephus
I-II Maccabees
The Army of Herod the Great - Samuel Rocca
Judas Maccabaeus - Bezalel Bar-Kochva
Daco-Roman
08-06-2011, 20:30
The Dacian Warrior
The Dacians were a tribal people, with a society at least superficially similar to that of the contemporary Gauls and Germans. We know from Roman writings that there were two "castes" in Dacian society - the upper class wore caps, long beards, and medium-length hair; while the lower class, made up predominately of farmers, went bare-headed with longer hair and less facial hair.
A man of the cap-wearing caste, unless he was a priest, probably devoted most of his time to war. Factors like his birth, merit, and connections would determine whether he became a war-chief like Decebalus, serving as an officer in the Kingdom's army; or whether he fought simply as an elite warrior in the battle-line.
The fact that Dacian priests are known to have used both bows and arrows, and spears, in rituals, would suggest that they were able and perhaps expected to fight alongside the "laymen" in Dacian society.
The average Dacian warrior was just that - a warrior, by no means a professional soldier. Probably a farmer, hunter, or miner by trade, he was obligated to take up the spear when the local clan-leader was preparing for a raid - or preparing to muster his contingent for service in Decebalus' Army.
Appearance and Clothing
Dacians were said by contemporary writers to have been similar to the Germans and Celts in physical features - tall, fair-skinned, and blue-eyed, and tending to have red hair and muscular builds. How much of this is true, and how much of this is based simply on the Roman stereotype of the northern "Barbarian" cannot now be discerned. If nothing else, considering the possibility of intermarriage with Germans, Sarmatians, Celts, Thracians, Greeks, and Romans, it is likely that most or all hair colors, eye colors, and skin tones were to be seen in Dacia.
Male Dacian dress was the same as that of other northern European Iron Age peoples. It consisted of a short-sleeved tunic, loose-fitting trousers, and shoes made from leather or even bark. Capes, as well as "Phrygian Cap" type headwear, were also worn by the upper class. Warriors wielding the dreaded falx apparently did so naked to the waist, wearing only their trousers and shoes. Trousers were tied at the ankles with leather or twine, and tunics were usually belted at the waist. Clothing may have often had Celtic-style tartan patterning.
Weapons and Armor
Dacian Armor
There is little evidence for Dacian armor; it was worn only by elite, upper class warriors and was based predominately on that used by contemporaries and neighbors. Roman artistic renderings of Dacians occasionally depict Thracian style helmets and Sarmatian style scalemail. The possibility of a Greek breastplate, or chainmail lifted from a dead Roman or Celt should not be left out.
Shields
Dacian shields were identical in design to those used by contemporary Celts and Roman auxiliaries - they were flat or only slightly dished; were usually oval but sometimes hexagonal in shape; and they were capable of covering most or all of the body for use in a shieldwall or primitive copying of the Roman testudo formation.
Individual Dacian warriors personalized their shields. Most shields were white, but were painted with swirling abstract patterns, real and mythical animals, astronomical and astrological symbols, and flowers and vegetation. Like Roman legionaries, Dacian warriors put great effort into beautifying their shields to make them look more intimidating to the enemy.
Bows
The bow was not a weapon employed by the Thracians, who strongly preferred the javelin. But the bow was a favorite weapon of the Scythians, and was also employed by the Celts, and it is from these peoples that the Dacians came to field proficient archers. The Dacian bow was a scythian composite style bow. Dacian archers functioned predominately as skirmishers, or for harassing the enemy during a siege.
Spears
The Dacians used a broad-headed thrusting spear just like those used in Celtic lands. The shield and the spear were considered the basic panoply of the farmer-warrior. Lighter spears or javelins were carried both by light infantry skirmishers, and by cavalrymen.
Swords
At least two kinds of double-edged sword were used by the Dacians. They used a short stabbing blade closely based on the Roman gladius, and noblemen and cavalrymen also used a longer blade like those used by Celtic warriors. Dacian warriors wore their sword on the right side of the body, so that they would not be covered by the shield. Most warriors did not own a sword, so these privileged few were keen to show off their luck.
Knives and Daggers
As in pretty much all armies in history, the Dacians carried small blades for a variety of utilitarian purposes, in addition to self-defense. Lower-ranking warriors who had only a spear or a bow probably had a dagger on their belt for self-defense in the even of their breaking their spear or running out of arrows.
The Falx
The dreaded Dacian "war scythe" is the iconic weapon of these peoples - and few other weapons ever instilled such anxiety in Rome's gritty legionaries as this vicious blade. The falx came in many sizes - there was a hand version not much bigger than a dagger; others were nearly as big as the men wielding them.
This weapon crucially represented a samurai sword turned inside-out. It curved sharply at the tip, forming a sort of "beak" at the end which could be used to puncture helmets, armor, and shields - not to mention unguarded flesh. The Dacian warrior appears to have wielded the falx almost like a huge medieval broadsword - lifting it above his head before swinging it down onto his enemy. In loose formations Dacians also wielded the falx in broad, sweeping strokes that could slash a man's legs out from under him.
Archaeology and Roman testimony indicate that the falx - though an important weapon - was not a prestigious one - it was wielded to terrible effect by nobleman and commoner alike. A partially Germanic tribe living near the Dacians, the Basternae, were especially famed for their dreadful skill wielding the falx, but all Dacian tribes produced this weapon. During Trajan's Dacian Wars, legionaries were actually equipped with gladiatorial-style arm and leg armor (manicae) to offer at least slightly more protection against the falx.
Just a little bit of what their soldiers used in combat
The typical weapons the dacians used were:
Falx https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/falx.jpg
Sica https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/sica.jpg
Celtic type sword https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/celticsword.jpg
Axe https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/images-2.jpg
Scyth
Spear
Bowhttps://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/images-1.jpg
Sling https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/sling.jpg
Dacian helmeants https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/dacianhelmeants.jpg
Dacian shields
Skirmish shields
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_skirmishshields_03.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_skirmishshields_02.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_skirmishshields_06.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_skirmishshields_05.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_skirmishshields_04.jpg
Spearmen sheilds
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_shields_04.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_shields_03.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_shields_02.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_shields_01.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_shields_06.jpg
https://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/jucator14/ad_dacian_shields_05.jpg
I'll edit this when i find some more or if i need add something
EDIT: i DID NOT make those shields,i found them on the Mount and blade modding forum
Nice work Daco-Roman we can use this to make units for beta
Dacian Axes?
uh oh:) dont let skull see this;)
Dacian Axes?
Hmhm....:stare:
Oh no!! He found it hahaha! Well I think that argument was finally won
Oh no!! He found it hahaha! Well I think that argument was finally won
Hmhm...I think you mean "over".....................
haha oh boy.. maybe we can implement dacian axemen in alpha by using the scythian axemen skin
Daco-Roman
08-07-2011, 08:31
can somebody explain whats all the fuss about?^-^
well it seems like from the dawn of time Valkar (Davyjones) and Skull have had an argument about Dacian Axemen.. Skull has said they existed while Valkar has always said there was no way.. it looks like you won the battle for skull though haha
For the Hasmoneans I'd advice you to take a look at the Dead Sea scrolls 1Q33 (or 1QM) and 4Q491. Or if you guys don't have acces to them see this: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/NewSonsOfLight.html. On a Jewish phalanx, one could also follow Sekunda's view which is the one I'd follow.(1) Especially when 1Q33 seems to back it up.
(1) SEKUNDA, N., Hellenistic infantry reform in the 160's, Gdansk, 2006, pp 98-100.
Just my two cents.
-Moros
hmm i'll take a look.. if you know youre history you are welcome to join the team:)
well it seems like from the dawn of time Valkar (Davyjones) and Skull have had an argument about Dacian Axemen.. Skull has said they existed while Valkar has always said there was no way.. it looks like you won the battle for skull though haha
Oh...I did not noticed that dacian posted a axe....
GLORIUS VICTORY 1791
(1) SEKUNDA,
SEKUNDA???
PFFFFF...:laugh4:
Lord President of Gallifrey
08-09-2011, 17:48
From 280 BC to 14 AD, the Roman army has undergone various reformations. The first reformation was the introduction of the manipular army. The next change was a minor reformation that refined the old system, including weaponry changes. Then the Marian Army was introduced, which used Legionary Cohorts instead of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii maniples. The Augustan Cohort Army was the last reformation of the discussed time, and it refined the Marian system.
THE CAMILLIAN ARMY 280 BC - 264 BC
In this period, the Republic of Rome was using the maniple system for their armies. Introduced after the failure of the Greek overhand phalanx at the Battle of Allia, Camillus Furius implemented the maniple system for Roman use. Historically, the Samnites had previously used the formation.
The end of the Camillian army can be put anywhere from 280 BC, at the start of the Pyrrhic Wars to 218 BC, at the start of the Second Punic War. The date of 264 BC refers to the fact that the organization and equipment of the Roman army matched that of the Polybian era.
There are also various similarities between the Camillian and Polybian army such as the officers and the Allied forces. They are included in the Polybian section because there is more proof of them during that era.
Maniple System
A system whereby there are three main ranks of heavy infantry to combat the enemy along with cavalry and medium range infantry. The name derives from the units in the formation, called maniples. Soldiers marched in a triplex acies formation with gaps between the lines to allow skirmishers and front line troops to retreat behind rested troops. When fighting, troops would form a single line. This formation was used over a phalanx because it was easier to maintain in elevated terrain, and would allow reserves and units to respond to flanking manoeuvres.
Each soldier was usually a farmer would not fight for very long as armies would be raised and disbanded. They also had to pay for their own equipment. As for Legion sizes, there would be 15 maniples of each type of infantry. There would also be 60 men per maniple of each infantry class apart from the Leves, who had 20 men. This meant there were 4800 Roman infantry in a Legion. Finally, 10 turmaes of 30 cavalrymen would accompany the army.
Hastati
The Hastati were the first line in the army and they were equipped with the Italic sword, two pila, a rectangular scutum shield, a bronze greave, a bronze or iron helmet and had no armour to light armour. They most likely had a Hasta in the early days of the reformation.
They were the poorer men in society would wear down the enemy so that the main force in the army -the Principes- could shatter enemy lines. The Hastati would retreat through gaps and reform behind the Principes.
Principes
The Principes would engage the enemy lines, allowing the Hastati to reform behind them. They were also richer than the Hastati, but fought with relatively similar armour. A few differences included improved armour over the Hastati such as a chest protector or a coat of mail. The Principes would usually break most enemy lines, or they would reform behind the Triarii.
Triarii
The Triarii were composed of even richer citizens who would fight in the old overhand Greek formation. Their equipment included a Lorica Musculata -bronze cuirass-, a Hasta spear, a sword, a Greek “Clipeus” shield, a bronze or iron “Corinthian” helmet, and one bronze greave.
They would hold the line while the other maniples regrouped to launch a counter attack or tactically withdrew.
Other Units in the Army
There was also the Rorarii, who were equipped with javelins. Their role was to support the Triarii. There were also the Leves, equipped with javelins and a small round shield. They would fight with the Hastati. The Accensi were the military servants, and their role was extremely limited.
The Cavalry were composed of the richest citizens as owning a good horse was expensive. Their purpose included defending the flanks and scouting. They could also fight since they were equipped with the Hasta spear, a Spatha sword, along with Lorica Musculata armour, and a helmet. There would also be lightly armed cavalry in the army.
Non-Roman troops would be on the flanks, supporting the Roman cavalry. The Allied cavalry would be more heavily armed than the Roman counterpart would with greaves, a Kopis sword, and a Xyston spear. The infantry would be equipped similarly to the Principes and Triarii with chest protectors and a Lorica Musculata. Despite that, they also fought in a Hellenic style with the Kopis sword and phalanx formation.
POLYBIAN ARMY 264 BC-107 BC
The Camillian army worked well until the “Polybian era” where the Punic Wars meant the army needed refinement. The Maniple system was still in use, although there were changes in tactics and armament. The name of the army is derived from the fact Polybius recorded much information in this era.
In a Legion, there would now be ten Maniples of each line of Infantry, with the Hastati and Principes maniples having 120 men. The Triarii maniple had 60 men and there would be forty Velites in addition to each Maniple. The Cavalry divisions were the same so the total Legion included 4200 men, and 300 cavalry.
There would also be a varied amount of troops from allied states. Since those states were capable of raising hundreds of thousands of troops, the amount of non-roman troops would be similar, if not greater. The amount of allied infantry was slightly greater than that of the Roman infantry while there were two-three times more allied cavalry when compared to the Roman cavalry. Finally, 1/5 of allied infantry and 1/3 of allied Cavalry formed the extraordinarii, a special unit always used in an army. The allied infantry would also be organised into 10 cohorts varying from 460-600 men.
There would also be officers in the army to command troops. A man of high political influence would command the overall army. Six Tribunes were includes in an army. Each maniple would have two centurions, based on the facts that were two centuries composed 60 men per maniple. Officers also included the cornice -the horn blower-, the signifier -the man who carried the standard-, the Optio -the second in command-, and the Tesserarius -the guard commander-. The Cavalry was commanded by the Praefectus, who had overall command of turmae. Each turmae had two decurio who commanded ten men, and they each had an Optio.
The Allied cavalry were commanded in the same way as the regular cavalry, except there were three Praefectus Sociorum to command all allied troops.
Hastati
The Hastati were now composed of the younger citizens -as opposed to poorer- and were better armed. Mail coats/chest protectors were used if the soldier could afford it. A universal change throughout the Roman Infantry at this time was that they received the Gladius and the Celtic-type “Montefortino” helmets.
Principes
The Principes went under a several changes, as they received chain mail armour. They were also now composed of middle-aged men who had more experience than the Hastati.
Triarii
The Triarii still kept their original role, yet with different armour. Mail coats had replaced the cuirasses, and the Greek shield was abandoned in favour of a scutum. They were also the older men in society now.
Other Units in the Army
Rorarii, Leves and Accensi became Velites. The Velites carried several javelins to harass the enemy and support the main line. Along with javelins, they carried a shield and a sword.
Cavalry would be similarly equipped to its Camillian forbearers, except they now had Lorica Hamata, and Kopis/Spatha sword.
Allied troops would be on the flanks supporting the cavalry. Some of the allied infantry fought in an imitation roman style with a scutum, javelin and sword. Others fought in a similar fashion to their Camillian counterparts with the Spatha sword, and Aspis shield. The Allied cavalry was still heavily equipped in comparison to Roman cavalry.
MARIAN COHORTS 107 BC – 30 BC
The Punic Wars and Germanic tribal invasions devastated the Roman Republic. There were simply not enough men to fill the traditional infantry roles and to farm the land. To solve the problem, Gaius Marius abolished the rule that the soldiers had to be roman citizens and property owners. This meant there was a larger pool of men from which to recruit but the soldier had to fit height and weight requirements. He also started to make a more professional army, first by turning the Hastati, Principes and Triarii into Legionary Cohorts. Another difference was that now the state paid for the equipment, and as much as 30-40 kilograms had to be carried by the soldier. Furthermore, the army was a long-term commitment, as men would not disband after several battles. This meant their pay increased, from a measly 120 denarii per year to a proper wage with a reward at the end of it all. The one drawback was that the General did this, so the Legions became loyal to the General instead of the Senate - and cue the Roman Civil Wars.
The Marian army were composed of nine cohorts, with 6 centuries composed of 80 men. This meant 160 men per maniple, 480 men per cohort, and 4320 Legionaries in a legion. However, with reconnaissance cavalry and the first cohort, armies increased to 5240 men. Finally, officers like the Aquilifer and the Legatus were introduced. The Aquilifer was the man who controlled the treasury of the legion, as well as the man responsible for carrying the Legionary Eagle. The Legatus was the commander of the Legion (unless a Consul led it) and would be of high rank.
For the Legionary Cohorts their equipment included a more Rectangular scutum shield, Lorica Hamata for armour, a Gladius, a Pugio dagger, two pila, and a Celtic-type “Montefortino” helmet.
Cavalry would secure flanks and attack if need be. There would be 512 of them in a Legion, divided into 16 turmaes. The type of cavalry changed since the Polybian times as cavalry mostly came from outside of Italy. Skirmisher cavalry had a few javelins and no armour while shock troops had the Lorica Hamata, a long sword and a lance.
AUGUSTAN ARMY 30 BC - 14 AD
The Roman army under the time of Augustus was reaching its evolutionary peak due to various reforms he made. The actual peak came after Augustus.
The Augustan Legionary had kept most of the equipment but there were changes. The helmet evolved to become the more protective “Coolus” types and the rectangular scutum changed into the more protective Imperial shield. Finally, the Lorica Segmentata was implemented in the army (though the Lorica Hamata was still popular).
The auxiliary idea would evolve further and they were integrated into the Legionnaire army. The auxiliary infantry were organized into 6 centuries of 480 men. They would be equipped with more lightly than the Legionnaires, with Lorica Hamata, a Hasta spear, an oval shield, and a Montefortino helmet. The amount of Auxiliaries, like in the Marian times varied.
There were approximately 960 auxiliary cavalrymen divided into 24 turmaes in a Legion. There were still the native cavalry, but Romanized cavalry was introduced. They would be equipped with the Hasta spear, a Spatha sword, a Coolus helmet, Lorica Hamata, and an oval shield. There were also archers from Syria who were renowned for their composite bow.
While there was auxiliary cavalry to support the Infantry, the Legionary Cohorts remained the main branch of the army. While the other branches of the army were less impressive, the cavalry and auxiliary could still win entire battles.
Organization changes meant that soldiers had to serve about 20 years or 26 if you were an auxiliary soldier. Other things such as the size of the Legion sizes and the equipment of cavalry remained the similar to the Marian times. The auxiliary command system also changed. In the Marian times, Kings were the head of cavalry, but now they were replaced by the Praefectus Alae. There was also the Praefectus Cohortis, who commanded the auxiliary infantry. Despite the Roman Republic changing into an empire there were still Tribunes.
SIEGE WARFARE AND ENGINEERING
Despite the focus on the soldiers in this article, the siege equipment and engineering were a crucial part of the Roman army.
Roman soldiers could build defensive fortifications such as forts with little difficulty due to extensive training. The Legion also carried appropriate equipment like wooden stakes. This resulted in fortifying their position every night. It is noted that while Roman troops were vulnerable during this time as soldiers went foraging and scouting, there were soldiers who formed defensive lines. Forts usually consisted of a staked wooden wall, a ditch behind it, and an earth rampart. When the situation required it, even greater forts could be constructed, such as in Alesia. The camp layout would also be much organised, allowing for easy formation of troops. Historically, soldiers from the Polybian era onwards are thought to have done this.
The Romans had also built several siege weapons such as rams, siege towers, ballistas, and onagers. They had learnt it from the Greek living on the south of Italy, but they would not become siege masters until the Marian period, where trial and error perfected the system.
The ram consisted of a wooden frame with a sloped roof and a wooden beam with a ram’s head made of metal to batter down walls. It is disputed whether the ram had wheels or was built at the base of the enemy walls. It would easily break down walls, usually within several if not the first blow due to the force from the large size.
The Ballista refers to an actual Ballista and its variants, such as the Scorpions and Cheiroballistra. The resembled a crossbow on top of a wooden frame. The original Ballista threw rock about 20 to 100 kilograms. It would be used on siege towers, fortifications, but also in battle. There would be ten of these Ballistas in a Legion. The smaller Scorpion fired bolts at the enemy during a battle from as far away as 400 metres. There would be 59 of them in a Legion. The cheiroballistra was used after 14 AD, and was a more durable and accurate Ballista. There was also a Repeating Ballista created by the Greeks.
Onagers were used against fortifications. They would launch rocks of 80 kilogram from at least 30 metres away. Soldiers would operate this device by winding back the throwing arm until it hits the “buffer”. This releases all the tension, which sends the projectile hurtling away. It would be used to break down walls.
NAVAL EQUIPMENT AND TACTICS
The Romans did not have a substantial navy until the First Punic War, when they needed a fleet to overcome the famed Carthaginian navy. Luckily, for the Romans, they managed to build a fleet of over 100 ships of Quinqueremes and Triremes based of Punic design. Quinqueremes were the largest ships, with a metal ram, a sail, and three decks with oars on both side of the ship. There were also two men per oar for the first two decks and one for the last deck. The Trireme was similar except was slightly smaller with less rowers. Of course, with inexperienced Roman soldiers at command, there would be losses but eventually, Roman tactics wrested control of the Mediterranean from Carthage, winning several famous battles. Later the Romans would also encounter Pirates, but that threat was overcome too.
Roman tactics at sea included ramming the vessel or boarding them. In the beginning of the First Punic War, there was a Corvus, which allowed Roman troops to board the enemy vessel. This was dropped due to making the ship more unstable as storms would be even more damaging to ships. When Julius Caesar fought the Gallic tribe of Veneti at sea, their vessels would outperform the Roman ones. Julius Caesar then used hooks to take out their sails as the Veneti ships only used sails and he defeated them. Another tactic was to fire ballistae bolts at the opposing ships; however, water would make the ballistae less accurate.
TRAINING AND TACTICS
Ever since the Rome was a Republic, training and organization has been an integral part of their army. In the Marian times, the training increased due to increased professionalism. Polybian troops also trained but their less professionalism nature hindered them in battle.
Roman soldiers were also trained to only eat their rations and have self-discipline in this matter. They believed this inner control set them above barbarians.
Roman soldiers were trained to have the ability to march nearly 30 kilometres in 5 hours and fight for hours. Legionaries would first have to be disciplined so they would follow orders and understand their role in the army. Then they would have to know how to use the Pila, the Gladius, and their shield, which meant daily practices. Tactical strategies and formation such as rotating tired troops and units with fresh ones would be drilled into soldiers.
While this training did not stop units from routing, it did keep them in the battle considerably longer, which made all the difference. Of course, good Generals were also needed.
In the Camillian era and early Polybian era, troops would break the enemy via the maniple system and the cavalry would secure flanks. Tactic reforms occurred when Scipio Africanus showed the Romans how to use outflanking effectively. At the battle of Zama, Scipio outflanked Hannibal he used via the Triarii and remaining cavalry. Terrain was also important as the height advantage was useful when launching missiles or fighting rigid formations. The importance of other factors like logistics, strategic planning engineering, loyalty, the knowledge of advantages and disadvantages were perhaps best showcased in the life of Julius Caesar where he used all the factors to win the Gallic War.
Lord President of Gallifrey
08-10-2011, 04:20
wow nice work Flanker:)
Thank you.
However, I do feel that the article is slightly vague/inaccurate in parts.
well feel free to edit it man we wont complain
medievaldude
08-10-2011, 17:18
well feel free to edit it man we wont complain
After i finish overcoming these CTDs i would like to write for Seleucids xD
write what? unit descriptions?
write what? unit descriptions?I think he ment Seleucid Army History...:P
sure, but ive seen his work on unit descriptions as well
*Major Edit of format, information, new areas*
The phrase Roman army is one that is accompanied by images of Imperial Legions, a vast empire and a ruthless military machine. While we think of infantry in red tunics and Lorica Segmentata, the Roman army has actually changed various times throughout its existence to adapt and become a military powerhouse. In this article, I shall examine the various aspects of the Roman army.
From 280 BC to 14 AD, the Roman army has undergone various reformations. The first reformation was the introduction of the manipular army. This began the use of the maniple system and more appropriate equipment. The next change was a minor reformation that refined the old system, including weaponry changes. Then the Marian cohort Army was introduced, which used Legionary Cohorts instead of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii maniples. The Augustan Cohort Army was the last reformation of the discussed time, and it refined the Marian system.
THE CAMILLIAN ARMY 280 BC - 264 BC
In this period, the Republic of Rome was using the maniple system for their armies. Introduced after the failure of the Greek overhand phalanx at the Battle of Allia, Camillus Furius implemented the maniple system for Roman use. Historically, the Samnites had previously used the formation.
The date of 264 BC is derived from the fact that the description of soldiers at the start of the first Punic War resembled that of a Polybian army rather than a Camillian army. However, the evolution of the Roman army was gradual and there may have even been elements of the Camillian army in the Second Punic War.
Despite the changes from this army to the Polybian army, things such as the amount of allied forces and the officers commanding the army stayed the same. They are included in the Polybian section because there is definite proof of them during that time.
Maniple System
A system whereby there are three main ranks of heavy infantry to combat the enemy along with cavalry and medium range infantry. The name derives from the units in the formation, called maniples. Soldiers marched in a triplex acies formation with gaps between the lines to allow skirmishers and front line troops to retreat behind rested troops. When fighting, troops would form a single line. This formation was used over a phalanx because it was easier to maintain in elevated terrain, and would allow reserves and units to respond to flanking manoeuvres.
Each soldier was usually a farmer in non-wartime and therefore would not fight for very long as armies would be raised and disbanded. They also had to pay for their own equipment. As for Legion sizes, there would be 15 maniples of each type of infantry, and there would be 60 men per maniple, (apart from the Leves, which had 20). This meant there were 4800 Roman infantry in a Legion. There would be 300 Cavalry, divided into tenths called a turmae.
Hastati
The Hastati were the first line in the army and they were equipped with the Italic sword, two pila, a rectangular scutum shield, a bronze greave, a bronze or iron helmet and had no armour to light armour. They most likely had a Hasta in the early days of the reformation.
They were the poorer men in society would wear down the enemy so that the main force in the army -the Principes- could shatter enemy lines. The Hastati would retreat through gaps and reform behind the Principes.
Principes
The Principes would engage the enemy lines, allowing the Hastati to reform behind them. They were also richer than the Hastati, but fought with relatively similar armour. A few differences included improved armour over the Hastati such as a chest protector or a coat of mail. The Principes would usually break most enemy lines, or they would reform behind the Triarii.
Triarii
The Triarii were the richer citizens who would fight in the old overhand Greek formation. Their equipment included a Lorica Musculata -bronze cuirass-, a Hasta spear, a sword, a Greek “Clipeus” shield, a bronze or iron “Corinthian” helmet, and one bronze greave.
They would hold the line while the other maniples regrouped to launch a counter attack or tactically withdrew.
Other Units in the Army
There were the Rorarii and Accensi as projectile infantry, respectively equipped with javelins/slings. Their role was to support the Triarii.
There were also the Leves, equipped with javelins and a small round shield. They would fight with the Hastati.
The Cavalry were composed of the richest citizens as owning a good horse was expensive. Their purpose included defending the flanks and scouting. They could also fight since they were equipped with the Hasta spear, a Spatha sword, along with Lorica Musculata armour, and a helmet.
Non-Roman troops would be on the flanks, supporting the Roman cavalry. The Allied cavalry would be more heavily armed than the Roman counterpart would with greaves, a Kopis sword, and a Xyston spear. The infantry would be equipped similarly to the Principes and Triarii with chest protectors and a Lorica Musculata. Despite that, they also fought in a Hellenic style with the Kopis sword and phalanx formation.
POLYBIAN ARMY 264 BC-107 BC
The Camillian army worked well until the “Polybian era” where the Punic Wars meant the army needed refinement. The Maniple system was still in use, although there were changes in tactics and armament. The name of the army is derived from the fact Polybius recorded much information in this era.
In a Legion, there would now be ten Maniples of each line of Infantry, with the Hastati and Principes maniples having 120 men. The Triarii maniple had 60 men and there would be twenty Velites in addition to each Maniple. The Cavalry divisions were the same so the total Legion included 4200 men, and 300 cavalry.
There would also be a varied amount of troops from allied states. Since those states were capable of raising hundreds of thousands of troops, the amount of non-roman troops would be similar, if not greater. The amount of allied infantry was slightly greater than that of the Roman infantry while there were two-three times more allied cavalry when compared to the Roman cavalry. Finally, 1/5 of allied infantry and 1/3 of allied Cavalry formed the extraordinarii, a special unit always used in an army. The allied infantry would also be organised into 10 cohorts varying from 460-600 men.
There would also be officers in the army to command troops. A man of high political influence would command the overall army. Six Tribunes were includes in an army. Each maniple would have two centurions, based on the facts that were two centuries composed 60 men per maniple. Officers also included the cornice -the horn blower-, the signifier -the man who carried the standard-, the Optio -the second in command-, and the Tesserarius -the guard commander-. The Cavalry was commanded by the Praefectus, who had overall command of turmae. Each turmae had two decurio who commanded ten men, and they each had an Optio.
The Allied cavalry were commanded in the same way as the regular cavalry, except there were three Praefectus Sociorum to command all allied troops.
Hastati
The Hastati were now composed of the younger citizens -as opposed to poorer- and were better armed. Mail coats/chest protectors were used if the soldier could afford it. A universal change throughout the Roman Infantry at this time was that they received the Gladius and the Celtic-type “Montefortino” helmets.
Principes
The Principes went under a several changes, as they received chain mail armour. They were also now composed of middle-aged men who had more experience than the Hastati.
Triarii
The Triarii still kept their original role, yet with different armour. Mail coats had replaced the cuirasses, and the Greek shield was abandoned in favour of a scutum. They were also the older men in society now.
Other Units in the Army
Rorarii, Leves and Accensi became Velites. The Velites carried several javelins to harass the enemy and support the main line. Along with javelins, they carried a shield and a sword.
Cavalry would be similarly equipped to its Camillian forbearers, except they now had Lorica Hamata, and Kopis/Spatha sword.
Allied troops would be on the flanks supporting the cavalry. Some of the allied infantry fought in an imitation roman style with a scutum, javelin and sword. Others fought in a similar fashion to their Camillian counterparts with the Spatha sword, and Aspis shield. The Allied cavalry was still heavily equipped in comparison to Roman cavalry.
MARIAN COHORTS 107 BC – 30 BC
The Punic Wars and Germanic tribal invasions devastated the Roman Republic. There were simply not enough men to fill the traditional infantry roles and to farm the land. To solve the problem, Gaius Marius abolished the rule that the soldiers had to be roman citizens and property owners. This meant there was a larger pool of men from which to recruit but the soldier had to fit height and weight requirements. He also started to make a more professional army, first by turning the Hastati, Principes and Triarii into Legionary Cohorts. Another difference was that now the state paid for the equipment, and as much as 30-40 kilograms had to be carried by the soldier. Furthermore, the army was a long-term commitment, as men would not disband after several battles. This meant their pay increased, from a measly 120 denarii per year to a proper wage with a pension at the end of it all. The one drawback was that the General did this, so the Legions became loyal to the General instead of the Senate - and cue the Roman Civil Wars.
The Marian army were composed of ten cohorts, with 6 centuries composed of 80 men. This meant 160 men per maniple, 480 men per cohort, and 4800 Legionaries in a legion. However, with reconnaissance cavalry and the first cohort, armies increased to 5240 men. Finally, officers like the Aquilifer and the Legatus were introduced. The Aquilifer was the man who controlled the treasury of the legion, as well as the man responsible for carrying the Legionary Eagle. The Legatus was the commander of the Legion (unless a Consul led it) and would be of high rank.
For the Legionary Cohorts their equipment included a more Rectangular scutum shield, Lorica Hamata for armour, a Gladius, a Pugio dagger, two pila, and a Celtic-type “Montefortino” helmet.
Cavalry would secure flanks and attack if need be. There would be 512 of them in a Legion, divided into 16 turmaes. The type of cavalry changed since the Polybian times as cavalry mostly came from outside of Italy. Skirmisher cavalry had a few javelins and no armour while shock troops had the Lorica Hamata, a long sword and a lance.
AUGUSTAN ARMY 30 BC - 14 AD
The Roman army under the time of Augustus was reaching its evolutionary peak due to various reforms he made. The actual peak came after Augustus.
The Augustan Legionary had kept most of the equipment but there were changes. The helmet evolved to become the more protective “Coolus” types and the rectangular scutum changed into the more protective Imperial shield. Finally, the Lorica Segmentata was implemented in the army (though the Lorica Hamata was still popular).
The auxiliary idea would evolve further and they were integrated into the Legionnaire army. The auxiliary infantry were organized into 6 centuries of 480 men. They would be equipped with more lightly than the Legionnaires, with Lorica Hamata, a Hasta spear, an oval shield, and a Montefortino helmet. The amount of Auxiliaries, like in the Marian times varied.
There were approximately 960 auxiliary cavalrymen divided into 24 turmaes in a Legion. There were still the native cavalry, but Romanized cavalry was introduced. They would be equipped with the Hasta spear, a Spatha sword, a Coolus helmet, Lorica Hamata, and an oval shield. There were also archers from Syria who were renowned for their composite bow.
While the other branches of the army were less impressive than the Legionnaires, the cavalry and auxiliary could still win entire battles.
Organization changes meant that soldiers had to serve about 20 years or 26 if you were an auxiliary soldier. Other things such as the size of the Legion sizes and the equipment of cavalry remained the similar to the Marian times. The auxiliary command system also changed. In the Marian times, Kings were the head of cavalry, but now they were replaced by the Praefectus Alae. There was also the Praefectus Cohortis, who commanded the auxiliary infantry. Despite the Roman Republic changing into an empire there were still Tribunes.
SIEGE WARFARE AND ENGINEERING
Despite the focus on the soldiers in this article, the siege equipment and engineering were a crucial part of the Roman army.
Roman soldiers could build defensive fortifications such as forts with little difficulty due to extensive training. The Legion also carried appropriate equipment like wooden stakes. This resulted in fortifying their position every night. It is noted that while Roman troops were vulnerable during this time as soldiers went foraging and scouting, there were soldiers who formed defensive lines. Forts usually consisted of a staked wooden wall, a ditch behind it, and an earth rampart. When the situation required it, even greater forts could be constructed, such as in Alesia. The camp layout would also be much organised, allowing for easy formation of troops. Historically, soldiers from the Polybian era onwards are thought to have done this.
The Romans had also built several siege weapons such as rams, siege towers, ballistas, and onagers. They had learnt it from the Greek living on the south of Italy, but they would not become siege masters until the Marian period, where trial and error perfected the system.
The ram consisted of a wooden frame with a sloped roof and a wooden beam with a ram’s head made of metal to batter down walls. It is disputed whether the ram had wheels or was built at the base of the enemy walls. It would easily break down walls, usually within several if not the first blow due to the force from the large size.
There was also the ballista. While it had many variants like the Scorpion, the basic form would be a crossbow like device on top of a wooden frame, which would fire small projectiles at the enemy. These projectiles would be bolts and rock about 20 to 100 kilograms. The Scorpion was a smaller variant and would be used in battle. The ballista and Scorpion would also be put on siege towers, boats, and fortifications.
The onager would launch rocks of 80 kilogram from at least 30 metres away. Soldiers would operate this device by winding back the throwing arm until it hits the “buffer”. This releases all the tension, which sends the projectile hurtling away. It would be used to break down walls.
NAVAL EQUIPMENT AND TACTICS
The Romans did not have a substantial navy until the First Punic War, when they needed a fleet to overcome the famed Carthaginian navy. Luckily, for the Romans, they managed to build a fleet of over 100 ships of Quinqueremes and Triremes based of Punic design. Quinqueremes were the largest ships, with a metal ram, a sail, and three decks with oars on both side of the ship. There were also two men per oar for the first two decks and one for the last deck. The Trireme was similar except was slightly smaller with less rowers. Of course, with inexperienced Roman soldiers at command, there would be losses but eventually, Roman tactics wrested control of the Mediterranean from Carthage, winning several famous battles. Later the Romans would also encounter Pirates, but that threat was overcome too.
Roman tactics at sea included ramming the vessel or boarding them. In the beginning of the First Punic War, there was a Corvus, which allowed Roman troops to board the enemy vessel. This was dropped due to making the ship more unstable as storms would be even more damaging to ships. When Julius Caesar fought the Gallic tribe of Veneti at sea, their vessels would outperform the Roman ones. Julius Caesar then used hooks to take out their sails as the Veneti ships only used sails and he defeated them. Another tactic was to fire ballistae bolts at the opposing ships; however, water would make the ballistae less accurate.
TRAINING AND TACTICS
Ever since the Rome was a Republic, training and organization has been an integral part of their army. In the Marian times, the training increased due to increased professionalism. Polybian troops also trained but their less professionalism nature hindered them in battle.
Roman soldiers were also trained to only eat their rations and have self-discipline in this matter. They believed this inner control set them above barbarians.
Roman soldiers were trained to have the ability to march nearly 30 kilometres in 5 hours and fight for hours. Legionaries would first have to be disciplined so they would follow orders and understand their role in the army. Then they would have to know how to use the Pila, the Gladius, and their shield, which meant daily practices. Tactical strategies and formation such as rotating tired troops and units with fresh ones would be drilled into soldiers.
While this training did not stop units from routing, it did keep them in the battle considerably longer, which made all the difference. Of course, good Generals were also needed.
In the Camillian era and early Polybian era, troops would break the enemy via the maniple system and the cavalry would secure flanks. Tactic reforms occurred when Scipio Africanus showed the Romans how to use outflanking effectively. At the battle of Zama, Scipio outflanked Hannibal he used via the Triarii and remaining cavalry. Terrain was also important as the height advantage was useful when launching missiles or fighting rigid formations. The importance of other factors like logistics, strategic planning engineering, loyalty, the knowledge of your and the enemies strengths and weaknesses were perhaps best showcased in the life of Julius Caesar where he used all the factors to win the Gallic War.
Nice update. Just one question: I understand your text that way, that the romans got the siege equipment right from the start, but not using them effectively till Marian reforms - Is that right?
Lord President of Gallifrey
08-15-2011, 17:05
Nice update. Just one question: I understand your text that way, that the romans got the siege equipment right from the start, but not using them effectively till Marian reforms - Is that right?
Well siege equipment came after Roman encounters with Greek cities, so the first part is correct.
As for using them effectively, that statement came from “The Roman Army of the Punic Wars 264-146 BC" by Nic fields.
There is evidence though, that siege engineering was a step up from the Polybian times. The fortifications at Alesia, are an example of that (That may be due to the Caesar's ingenuity though).
Also, during the second Punic War, a Roman army had repeatedly failed to take Syracuse. While Archimedes may have delayed their efforts, I don't believe there were ballistas firing at the walls as a form of "covering fire". This allowed Syracuse to mount a defence. At the Siege of Masada, the ballista technique was used to ward of the defenders
Well siege equipment came after Roman encounters with Greek cities, so the first part is correct.
As for using them effectively, that statement came from “The Roman Army of the Punic Wars 264-146 BC" by Nic fields.
There is evidence though, that siege engineering was a step up from the Polybian times. The fortifications at Alesia, are an example of that (That may be due to the Caesar's ingenuity though).
Also, during the second Punic War, a Roman army had repeatedly failed to take Syracuse. While Archimedes may have delayed their efforts, I don't believe there were ballistas firing at the walls as a form of "covering fire". This allowed Syracuse to mount a defence. At the Siege of Masada, the ballista technique was used to ward of the defenders
Wow, you really know much about history.
Why I asked?
It is possible to make Siege Equipment fire more accurat after a certain number of turns. For Forts changes aren´t possible, at least not in a campaign. Editing the files would of course work.
It is also quite hard to implent the Roman Forts - it is no problem to make every legion always camping in 1, but that would heaviest change gameplay in favor of the romans.
Lord President of Gallifrey
08-15-2011, 18:07
Wow, you really know much about history.
Why I asked?
It is possible to make Siege Equipment fire more accurat after a certain number of turns. For Forts changes aren´t possible, at least not in a campaign. Editing the files would of course work.
It is also quite hard to implent the Roman Forts - it is no problem to make every legion always camping in 1, but that would heaviest change gameplay in favor of the romans.
Well the idea of making shots more accurate-that's good and realistic since Roman ballisatas repeatedly took out gauls at the siege of Avaricum
Maybe we can make ambushes more profitable for the barbarian/celtic factions
When they ambush, the map could change into a Teutobeger style map (like normal)
Or it could change to a half finished camp, with the army spread out all over the place. This might level the playing field out.
Well the idea of making shots more accurate-that's good and realistic since Roman ballisatas repeatedly took out gauls at the siege of Avaricum
Maybe we can make ambushes more profitable for the barbarian/celtic factions
When they ambush, the map could change into a Teutobeger style map (like normal)
Or it could change to a half finished camp, with the army spread out all over the place. This might level the playing field out.
I don´t know what you mean with Teutoburger style map. I´d be happy if any1 would correct me, But I´m very certain it isn´t possible to have a half finished camp ambush - sadly, that would be nice. Also, check your private messages.
Lord President of Gallifrey
08-15-2011, 18:34
I don´t know what you mean with Teutoburger style map. I´d be happy if any1 would correct me, But I´m very certain it isn´t possible to have a half finished camp ambush - sadly, that would be nice. Also, check your private messages.
By Teutoberg style map I mean dense forests and things like that
By Teutoberg style map I mean dense forests and things like that
Ambushes can just be placed in forests, so it would be doable - but dense forests would definitly annoy the player, regardless which faction he plays - he can´t see his troops. Also, I fail to see a great advantage, apart from the +2 forest fighting ability.
But if we would generaly make the winter bonus of the barbarians higher, slow movement rate of the more "civiliced" Factions, and make the game last 4 turns a year - That would strengthen the barbarians, while making it more historically correct that most factions didn´t fight in the winter.
that should work since barbarians are very weak
Lord President of Gallifrey
08-15-2011, 20:11
Ambushes can just be placed in forests, so it would be doable - but dense forests would definitly annoy the player, regardless which faction he plays - he can´t see his troops. Also, I fail to see a great advantage, apart from the +2 forest fighting ability.
That's true.
But if we would generaly make the winter bonus of the barbarians higher, slow movement rate of the more "civiliced" Factions, and make the game last 4 turns a year - That would strengthen the barbarians, while making it more historically correct that most factions didn´t fight in the winter.
That is also true, but would it change the gameplay too much?
Anyway, I'm not sure if we should put the Romans in forts when they're out of movement point because of the Roman advantages.
Also, it would be better for the player to decide whether they want to build a fort (using up 25% movement, could we implement that?) or use that extra distance to attack the enemy
using up 25% movement, could we implement that?)
Might. Going to check it.
I agree with your second sentence, and for the first - well, trying. Wouldn´t be too much work, I think.
SEKUNDA???
PFFFFF...:laugh4:
Yes, Sekunda. While I don't agree with all he says, especially when in comes to overating he Roman influence on the 'reforms'. He however is right on one thing there were more and more heavy thureophoroi units. While you might not like Osprey, note that I did not refer to an Osprey, the sources don't lie about there seemingly being an evolution. If you don't like Sekunda, you might still want to trust the documents I referred you to. Or do you laugh with primary sources as well?
Somehow you don't struck as much of an Historian at all, to anyone if your only response on a helpfull post is an argument ad hominem. :no:
Yes, Sekunda. While I don't agree with all he says, especially when in comes to overating he Roman influence on the 'reforms'. He however is right on one thing there were more and more heavy thureophoroi units. While you might not like Osprey, note that I did not refer to an Osprey, the sources don't lie about there seemingly being an evolution. If you don't like Sekunda, you might still want to trust the documents I referred you to. Or do you laugh with primary sources as well?
Somehow you don't struck as much of an Historian at all, to anyone if your only response on a helpfull post is an argument ad hominem. :no:
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What?
Yes, Sekunda. While I don't agree with all he says, especially when in comes to overating he Roman influence on the 'reforms'. He however is right on one thing there were more and more heavy thureophoroi units. While you might not like Osprey, note that I did not refer to an Osprey, the sources don't lie about there seemingly being an evolution. If you don't like Sekunda, you might still want to trust the documents I referred you to. Or do you laugh with primary sources as well?
Somehow you don't struck as much of an Historian at all, to anyone if your only response on a helpfull post is an argument ad hominem. :no:
I think he just thought that "Sekunda" is a funny name. His Statement was neither political nor personaly meant.
I think he just thought that "Sekunda" is a funny name. His Statement was neither political nor personaly meant.
:yes:
Lord President of Gallifrey
09-12-2011, 01:32
A bit of information on the Kingdom of Atropatene. I'm not sure how much of my research relates specifically to Atropatene rather than Media.
The Kingdom was created by the satrap of Northern Media, Atropates. After Alexander's death, Atropates was succeeded by Peithon. The Kingdom had a varying degree of independence as it was apparently as "vassal state" for the Seleucids. The Kingdom may have also taken parts in rebellions that occurred in Media. Eventually, the Parthians came and turned it into a province. Later on, the Romans would also invade the area.
The overall area was less Hellenised than one would expect. Zoroastrianism was the main religion in the area, and the natives of the areas were the Medes. However, Greek settlers did come but did not replace them. This among other factors led to some cities in Media not being granted the title of "polis". However, there were Greek cities found in Media, and they were inhabited by former soldiers. The landscape was intriguing too. Media had rough, mountainous terrain, but it may either have had light or heavy forests. There would also be heavy rain when compared to the rest of Iran.
The Atropatene army was very interesting. As a lightly forested hilly area, one would expect light troops, no cavalry or phalanx. However, when a rebellion occurred in Media, the army core was made of Phalangites. However, it is unlikely they saw much action due to uneven terrain. Also, infantry may have been a supporting role compared to cavalry. However, when the Seleucid Kings raised armies from Media, there was much more infantry than cavalry. The natives became the light infantry, and there were Cyrtian slingers. The cavalry was from a tough Parthian breed, and sources mention many cavalry men coming from Media. There would also be heavy cavalry, but their effectiveness may have been limited by the terrain.
Good work! we can give them some hellenistic units
Lord President of Gallifrey
09-12-2011, 01:51
Good work! we can give them some hellenistic units
Maybe one Phalangite unit but not more. I would give them AOR Mercenary Phalangites and spearmen though
Maybe we could name the one unit "Greek Settler Phalangites" or something like that.
maybe.. THS has a Phalanx Pikemen Unit for Atropatene.. we can just use that one
Lord President of Gallifrey
09-12-2011, 03:28
maybe.. THS has a Phalanx Pikemen Unit for Atropatene.. we can just use that one
The Hellenic States (just looked up THS right now)? They have a phalanx unit for Atropatene?
If it can be confirmed by a secondary source that the phalanx was used in Atropatene, not just Media, then we can allow them to have it.
Otherwise, I would be against it.
yes they do, i have the mod.. and there are very few sources but i remember someone saying that Atropatene was mainly Persian, but they had some hellenic influences.. i think having Phalanx pikemen would be good for them
Lord President of Gallifrey
09-12-2011, 21:52
yes they do, i have the mod.. and there are very few sources but i remember someone saying that Atropatene was mainly Persian, but they had some hellenic influences.. i think having Phalanx pikemen would be good for them
Well then, we can have it. Even if it is not correct, we can always change it.
Warfare & Warriors of Iron Age Britain
The game period spans two distinct phases of the British Iron Age: Middle and Late. The two are very different. In the following post, I shall be dealing with the hillfort-dominated zone of Southern Britain. I would suggest that this be where the British faction starts, for two main reasons:
a) It is the area which we know most about, because it has undergone the most study and was most in contact with the Roman world.
b) It had a high population density; many more people lived in central Southern Britain than lived in Wales, Scotland, or Northern or Central England, for example.
So, the faction should start off in one of these two provinces, with one of these names:
a) Camulodunom ("settlement of warriors"), province Cantiom (+/- Kent). Faction name: Cantiacoi.
This simply means "inhabitants of Kent".
b) Maisodunom ("greatest settlement"), province Dixsoua ("the South"). Faction name: Pritanoi, Durotriges.
Pritanoi is the name that EB2 are using for their British faction, because it is definitely contemporary to our period, and is pretty generally applicable. The problem is, it probably did mean "Britons", not just a single tribe.
Durotriges is the name of the tribe that lived in the area of Dorset in the Late Iron Age (LIA). There is no evidence for this name in the MIA; however, there is strong continuity in the archaeological record between the MIA and LIA in this region. It is possible that the same tribe survived the social turmoil of 150-100 BCE.
I am making this post just to try and sum up in a nutshell how the British units should be, roughly.
MIA
The only weapons in the archaeological record are spears and slings. Axes are also known, and they could have been pressed into service. There are no swords in the hillfort zone, and I cannot think of any from anywhere else except the Arras culture. This strongly suggests a more egalitarian society, deliberately at odds with the powerful hunter-magician chiefs vs peasant farmers system of the Bronze Age. The settlement pattern - some hillforts and many open settlements - is not in keeping with the common belief that this period was characterised by raiding; you would expect fewer, more strongly defended settlements. Battles were probably pre-arranged organised battles between polities.
There should therefore be only three types of units available: spearmen, slingers, and a few axemen. The melee troops should/could have light javelins too - not pila, mind (!), just sharpened sticks. However, there should be a trigger fairly early (first minor city built? Wales and Northern England conquered?) which sets off a reform, bringing you into the Late Iron Age, with its warrior-chieftains and golden torques and what-not, parallel to the overthrow of the old system and the institution of the timarchies which we more often associate with the Celts.
LIA
This is where warfare becomes more varied and interesting. You now have two distinct classes: the farmers, and the warriors. The farmers are still the spearmen and slingers (and axemen) of the earlier period; but we now have the nobles too. They will have swords, chain mail, horses, and chariots, as characteristics - no helmets, only one has ever been found in Britain and it's too small to be worn by an adult man and too flimsy to offer protection in battle. From these you can make a great variety of units. Iron also comes into wider circulation in this period, so iron spears will be more common - in the MIA spearheads were probably mostly fire-hardened wood, as not very many iron spearheads have been found. Again, javelins were probably used by all melee troops; the richer the social class, the better the javelin.
**********
That's it, in nutshell. Hope it helps.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.