A suggestion

[Galestrum]

From what it sounds, an army will be able to move, intercept and fight based upon some form of movement points per turn. Based on that assumption, I would like to propose that 'all-cavalry' armies be allowed a greater movement rate on the strat map than mixed or all infantry armies.

From a reality standpoint this just makes sense, and secondly, it really adds to the strategic use of cavalry forces. For instance, in the latter empire, as i recall, due to various reasons, majorly the need for mobility, the romans went to a cavalry field army from a infantry based army on the borders.

Also, in the east, great distances needed to be covered, and thus avalry was predominant. Allowing cavalry forces a greater movement on the strat map, in conjunction with bigger battle maps, allows cavalry to be utilized far better and more realistically than envisioned in past TW's. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Stormer]

nice idea, useing the old noodle i see http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Galestrum]

yeah, hopefully CA will use it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Hakonarson]

The "strategic mobility" of all-mounted armies depends upon what accompanies them.

A steppe army of an entire tribe moving with the tribe can only move at thespeed of the slowest wagon or walking person, while a raiding army without any such encumberance could be very fast indeed.

Nominal movement speeds can be deceiving - think of these 3 advance:

WW1 (1914) - the German army from the Belgian border (with Germany) until "stopped" by the British at Mons

WW2: (1940) the German army from the Belgian border to Paris

Six-Day War (1967) The Israeli army from the border to the Suez Canal

The fastest advance on a per-day basis was the WW1 one - depsite being entirely on foot an horse drawn.

Of course these were all defended atacks and somewhat different to ancient warfare, but hte point remains that all is not as it seems.

for example horse-armies must stop to graze every day, and must halt 1 day in 5 or 6 for a whole day's grazing on a long journey.

Foot armies may be slower, but they can march at the speed of wagons carrying supplies, and, if well organised, cover 20-25 miles a day (eg teh standard Roman rates) - which is about as much as all-mounted English raiding parties managed in eth 100 years war.

[Galestrum]

that doesnt really prove anything hark http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

you cant just pick and choose any 3 scenarios that back up your point, the recent coalition march on baghdad was pretty fast, no? i am sure that i could find several instances of cavalry moving farther than infantry in the same space of time.

You also go on the assumption that it is a "well organized" infantry and comparing it to "english raiding parties". well organized infantry and they geopolitics of the hundred years war does not encompass all of ancient/medieval warfare.

In the east, rapid movement by cavalry forces was the norm, and eastern armies were far more cavary dependent. 100 years warfare was also fairly limited in geography. If i recall, the mongol armies moved far more rapidly than 20 miles a day, did they not?

As far as strategic mobility - as stated in the beginning, i was talking about an "all cavalry force" no wagons, infantry or baby carriages http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Hakonarson]

It proves that there's considerations that may not be obvious at a quick glance that can affect something that seems simple.

Given seasonal turn in RTW, the ability to march fast for a few days doesn't seem like something that would be worth reflecting in the game - if the game scale was weekly or daily sure, but seasonally sems too long for such a difference to be important.

I was thinking of the advance to Baghdad actually - the famous American tank "raid" through Baghdad occured on day 17, and it's about 350 miles from Kuwait - so 20 miles/day on average?

That would certainly be faster than any of the 3 I mentioned above while more or less in contact with enemy (the 3 above IIRC are 13-15 miles/day).

[DrHaphazard]

I think the general idea here is that cavalry units should move farther than infantry units in the same turn. I imagine this is largely a correct assumption, although that seems to be in doubt.

However, with turns being a year long, how far should these units be allowed to go? Not just cavalry, but infantry also. Perhaps however, the idea is the troops would only be marching during the campaigning season, which is closer to 4 or 5 months than 12. In any case I wonder how far units will be able to go in a single turn.

[Leet Eriksson]

If your talking about the strategic map then i think it depends on the terrain,for example parthians can naviagte desert regions,or greeks can move through hilly terrain much better than other factions.

[1dread1lahll]

Your in error, The Romans did not depend at all on cav in the period covered by the game....

[Galestrum]

Quote[/b] ]Your in error, The Romans did not depend at all on cav in the period covered by the game

if you are refering to me, i never said they did, i said


Quote[/b] ]For instance, in the latter empire

the purpose was to illustrate its use and possibility, and the later historical application, secondly other factions did have cavalry forces during the games timeframe - this isnt a discussion about whether or not romans used cavalry alot, but rather greater movement rates on the strat map will/should be reflected in the game..........

[kataphraktoi]

If I remember Galestrum - they were used on the frontiers to quickly reach and quell incursions. So they did depend on cavalry in a functional manner.

Procopius describes the typical Roman cavalry as a horseman with sword and a bow - although that was in the 500's it could apply in the late 200's - 300's.

Even then there would be an obvious superior infantry - cavalry ratio - since the core of the Roman was still infantry - I can only assume the numbers for the cavalry arm of the Roman army to be quite sizeable given the enormous size of the army back then.

[Hakonarson]

The 500's would have been early Byzantine rather than ""Roman" per se, and probably followuing the Hunnic tradition as much of the Byzantine cavalry did.

In the 2-300's Roman cavalry started as being pretty much entirely javelin/shield armed - the "classic" cavalry of the time being the Illyricani. There were quite a few horse archers in the Parthian model in the East.

Horse archery became more popular in the West when the Huns started to influence things - say after 350AD - apparently the bow pretty much replacing the javelin after the breakup of Attila's empire in 454 when they started being recruited directly into Roman units rather than as foderati/mercenaries.

[kataphraktoi]

I don't really consider early Byzantine and late Roman era distinct or unique, but rather, only as an operative word for designation of a new era. I consider the Byzantines Roman in every word, in every sense and every adapation in its military composition.
Even in "early" byzantine the infantry was still the dominant majority of the army.
Granted that there were major changes in the role of cavalry between the late Roman period and the so called "byzantine" period.
You could consider the term "byzantine" even cosmetic, an artificial repressentation of the Eastern ROman Empire for scholarly purposes that did not see changes in army as a continuation but a break from continuation.
As far as I'm concerned the "Byzantines" are ROman.

[Hakonarson]

Depends what you consider Byzantine vs Roman. Befoer the fall of Rome I follow a wargaming convention and call them East and West Roman, but after the fall of Rome East roman is generally called Byzantine.

It's a naming convention, not a cultural one.

However the makeup of the army of the Eastern Roman empire was notably different from the Western one from a very early stage - with more horse and foot archers, cataphracts and otehr "eastern" troop types than the West had from the inception of hte empire. Indeed Brutus had a very large force of horse archers recruited from his provinces in the East

By the time of the fall of Rome or soon after infantry had ceased being the primary or even the most common arm in hte Byzantine army - they were primarily cavalry based on the model of the Hunnic horse archer - albeit with armour and training.

My main source for this is Armies & Enemies of Imperial Rome by Phil Barker, and Armies of the Dark Ages 600-1066, both published by WRG.

[Oaty]

I was wondering about the chariots. I knew that the Romans had charioteers for races but how extensively did they use them. The Egyptians were'nt the first to use chariots, I believe they quicky learned that idea from the Hyskos when war broke out with them. However I think the egyptians were the first to use them in mass. I can see the use of them in north africa and the arabian peninsula as long as the sand wasnt too soft. (Don't know what the terrain was like but before the egyptians beacame a major empire the Sahara was a forest and Egypt was fertile beyond the Nile. I think it was a climate in transition with the trees declining but the ground was still not a fine sand yet) So did the Romans maybe use chariots to the south and east where the ground permitted or did the land bcome too soft by this time. Whereas to the north I can see the chariots being hard to control and cumbersome for battle. Figured since chariots are cavalry type units it would fit into this topic and that might have been the type of cavalry unit that was in use during early Roman times

[Hakonarson]

In this era chariots had pretty much disappeared from general use except in Gallic armies (France, Britain & an offshoot in Turkey).

These are described as manouvring noisily, creating disorder in their enemy by their noise and teh mere presence of the moving vehicle clsoe by. The warriors on them are described as getting off to fight, and alternatively as throwing javelins from them.

they don't seem to have been all that impressive militarily tho.

An exception was the sythed chariots used by soem eastern states - these were equipped with scythe blades on the axles, spear points on the chariot poles, and a single ehavily armed driver who was supposed to drive tehm flat out at the enemy and leap off just before contact.

They had mixed success - often being crippled by losing a horse or 2 to skirmishing, or the driver leapong off too early and the horses then refusing to charge home.

However they did work a few times against some Roman armies commanded by lesser generals.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ July 03 2003,17:28)]In this era chariots had pretty much disappeared from general use except in Gallic armies (France, Britain & an offshoot in Turkey).
Chariots passed beneath the military horizon, IMHO, with Alexanders campaign against Persia. While a force of chariots can deal roughly with a less organized footmen, the Macedonian infantry formations and cavalry made mincemeat of the chariots--even once in a battle between Darius's own chariot squadron and Alexander's cavalry troop. Onward, Bucephalus

[kataphraktoi]

Byzantine to me is a misleading title for the Romans who survived the fall of Rome because indeed there were ROmans who survived in the East.
One could argue language and culture separated West and East Rome but one could also argue that such changes do not change one;s identity, but rather, a natural progression of adapatation to their environment. Much in the same way that the Romans adopted heavily from Greek culture without compromising their identity as ROmans, the Byzantines continued to be Roman when Hellenism became more complete after 476.
The case for Byzantines as Romans in a genuine sense rather than one of aesthetic sentiments lies back to the reign of Caracalla who granted citizenship to anyone living in the Roman Empire. henceforth the term ROman adopted a new dimension - universalism. The Byzantines carried this idea through of Roman universalism and anyone residing in the EMprie was considered a Roman by virtue of Caracalla's proclamation.
It is ridiculous that the cultural changes should alone determine the identity. Because in the end that is main argument for Byzantines being Byzantiens not ROmans.
Considering that the Romans were pragmatic people, it should not be a surprise to see them adopt Greek in the later years over Latin - their subjects were mainly Greek speakers but not mainly Greek in origin.
Such is the scholarly influence on the study of the Eastern ROman Empire that the word "Byzantine" is a necessary evil.

I wonder if Parthian Cataphracts will get an appearance in RTW?

[Hakonarson]

"Byzantine" is of course a modern invention - IIRC first used int the 17th or 18th century.

The "Byzantines" called themselves "Rhomanoi" - being Greek for "Roman"

CBR would you say that the English are the same as the Angles and Saxons? After all "England" is merely "English" for "Angle land"??

Or the French the same as the Franks?

I suspect not - both cultures, and many others, have changed massively from the originals (never mind hte technology - you can look at them 500-1000 years after they were "founded" & the tech wasn't so different).

"Natural progression" of societies does produce new societies - it may not be possible to spot a precise time for a change, but it is certainly possible to say that Byzantine society of 700AD had little or nothing in common with the Roman society of 400AD.

[kataphraktoi]

Quote[/b] ]CBR would you say that the English are the same as the Angles and Saxons? After all "England" is merely "English" for "Angle land"??

Or the French the same as the Franks?

I suspect not - both cultures, and many others, have changed massively from the originals (never mind hte technology - you can look at them 500-1000 years after they were "founded" & the tech wasn't so different).

"Natural progression" of societies does produce new societies - it may not be possible to spot a precise time for a change, but it is certainly possible to say that Byzantine society of 700AD had little or nothing in common with the Roman society of 400AD.

You can't compare the English to the Byzantines - each to their own circumstances

So what if the Byzantine society of 700AD had little or nothing in common with Roman society of 400AD. That changes absolutely nothing that the Byzantines are still Romans in every sense of the word.
My argument was that these differences did not constitute reason to consider them as two separate entities - it is merely a case of adaptation that has given a new dimension to what is otherwise "Roman" or as I have said "natural progression".


Quote[/b] ]The "Byzantines" called themselves "Rhomanoi" - being Greek for "Roman"

That is precisely my point - there is good reason why they called themselves "Rhomanoi" - being Greek for "Roman" - because they are

I argued that the Romans had adopted Greek as the vernacular for administration for pragmatic purposes, so therefore, why should they not called themselves "Rhomanoi" through the Greek language - their adopted language - that eventually became the native tongue to the Romans who found themselves in a new situation.

The political realities of the time did not even hint or suggest the Romans through their "anachronistic suit" of "Byzantine" were anything but Roman.

To focus on cultural differences is only a superficial approach, people seem to forget that the line of "Byzantine Emperors" lies unbroken all the way to Augustus - the Romans were well and alive in their new environment with Rome as the capital - after all Constantinople was in all practicality the capital of the ROman Empire since 330 - the administrative nerve of the Roman Empire.

On a lighthearted note: its funny how cavalry turns to a debate about appellations.

[Galestrum]

Byzantines are romans that is it.:p

Let me paint a picture of a modern day country, the US. When it was born, it was predominantly english speaking, agrarian society, heavily protestant, isolationist in politics, a non-professional military etc etc etc.

18th century US has nothing at all in common with modern day US - are they not the same country? Today, more than ever, the US has disparate religions, is a highly indutrialized and urban populace, deeeply involved in the world community, a highly professional army, and within the next 50 years or so, protestant western euro descended ppl will be a minority, did the US end?

Another argument is, the polity/government of the Romans were never destroyed and subjugated, nor did they split up into different factions/governments (at least not until 1204), there was never an "end" to the empire.

The anglo-saxons WERE defeated by the normans and thus "modern" england was born, there was a changing of goverment, from the outside, new language, laws, customs, culture was foisted upon the english - their "state" did come to an end at the battle of hastings - here you can point to an exact date, the same as the western empire in 476 as i recall. Something did happen, the state/government/ruling class did end, and not of its own accord. There was never such a thing in rome until 1453, unless you wanna argue 1204.

There is no demarcation, the people never stopped believing in rome, or that they were roman. The government changed, but very slowly, and by their own accord, noone elses, just like every culture and government does today. Is the western world of 2003 much like that of say the 1903, hardly. I submit that the difference between 1903 and 2003 west is FAR greater than the difference between 400 and 700 rome/byzantium imo.

The very fact that "byzantine" is claimed to begin at different dates by multitudes of scholars, proves the point. Some say it begins with constantine, others with heraclius, some with the advent of this reform, or the change to greek, or this or that. None of that changed rome or its people into something new.

[Nowake]

Man, there are still people that don't know about the Byzantine origin???

[Hakonarson]

Sure the US is the same country as it was in the 19th century, even if the society is the same. Ditto with England.

However consider that Byzantium was not Rome geographically, whereas in the case of hte US and GB the country remains geographically constant.

Consider whether or not a colony remains part of the same country, or if Hawaii decided it wa going to becoem the "Western United States" with a seperate political system - would it still remain "American"?

Maybe consider New Zealand - we share a Queen with England, were goverened from London for many years, gained nominal independance in the early 1900's, "full" independance in the 1930's IIRC.

We WERE British - but we aren't now, even tho' many people consider parts of our culture "more British than the British". We share quite a lot of the same values, insititutions, language, lots of our yuong people make a point of travelling to Britain to work for a few years, we've always "fought where Britain fought", many older folk still regard GB as "the mother country", and the highest court in the land is the Privy council - the British Law Lords in London - the links are deep and ongoing.

But we are not British any more.

[Galestrum]

hehe i think this is at least the second time me and kata have had this debate with ppl http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

but to continue, in the case of new zealand, there was an "end" to being british, there was never an "end" to being roman.

As far as geography, its not important to this conversation, one, constantinople was the city of the empire, rome, the city's importance, ahd been becoming less and less important for some time, heck even the western empire moved the capitol to ravenna. Also, if washington DC was lost to an invader, we wouldnt stop being the US for that reason.

point to an exact date that the roman empire declared or was destroyed and a "new" empire arose?

furthermore, byzantium has always been considered "decadent", there wasnt "alot" of change, even by the time of the cursades, many of the imperial institutions were essentially the same from the early empire.

hell, the diffeence between the US of 1950 and 2003 is so startlingly different, moreso i would think than any 50 year period in roman history.

[Hakonarson]

Many NZ'ers retain BRITISH (now EU) passports and citizenship.....but then Britain has not yet managed to cease to exist as Rome did http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

What would you consier Hawaii & Alaska to be, if the contiguous 48 states were lost, and they set out on their own?

would they be "America"? Certainly Alaska would be American...but America??

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ July 05 2003,11:03)]So what if the Byzantine society of 700AD had little or nothing in common with Roman society of 400AD. That changes absolutely nothing that the Byzantines are still Romans in every sense of the word.
Except maybe for Rome being part of hte nation, living in Rome, and a few minor points like that

I share your amussement - as I said I only used the term "Byzantine" as a simple name for hte Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of Rome.

Personqlly I find it rather sad how people (especially academics of which I have no idea if any are represented here) tie themselves up in knots about such trivial matters

C'est la human condition however http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Hakonarson]

Hey - if you guys are so keen on not using "Byzantium" and Byzantine....then why aren't you typing in "Eastern Rome after the fall of Rome", and "Constantinople"......huh?? HUH??? HUH?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[kataphraktoi]

Quote[/b] ]Except maybe for Rome being part of hte nation, living in Rome, and a few minor points like that[QUOTE]

Under Caracalla Rome was beyond a city, the eventual impracticality of Rome of a capital to a symbol serves my point. Constantine the Great confirmed that Rome was not a "national" ideology but a universalistic identity. As I reiterated before cultual changes don't doesn't change one's identity but one's response.

Hey - if you guys are so keen on not using "Byzantium" and Byzantine....then why aren't you typing in "Eastern Rome after the fall of Rome", and "Constantinople"......huh?? HUH??? HUH??[QUOTE]

Which one of us said that? I myself never said I wasn't keen, I said I didn't agree with its usage and its connatations and ramifications for the Byzantine's as Romans. I also said it was a "necessary evil" as well to be tolerated for all its misconceptions and errors.
If I did no one would understand what I saying - this is a legacy of the anti-Byzantinists of the 18th-19th cent(like Edward Gibbon).Giibbon has managed to separate Byzantium and Rome as two separate entities because his views on what Rome was offended by what Byzantium was even though they were a matter of progression. Another point was Christianity - his personal bias influenced his scholarly bias to segregate Pagan Rome to Christian Byzantium.

So I use Byzantium as part of the vernacular to communicate my views and that explains my controlled reservation from using the appropiate terms.

if u were trying to score some cheap points in this debate then u have failed. How do you like that? huh?? HUH??? HUH?????????
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Hakonarson]

No Kat I didn';t fail - I got you to answer why you use Byzantiine and Byzantium - which was, of course, my question http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kataphraktoi]

[QUOTE]Hey - if you guys are so keen on not using "Byzantium" and Byzantine....then why aren't you typing in "Eastern Rome after the fall of Rome", and "Constantinople"......huh?? HUH??? HUH??/QUOTE]

Your estatic disposition says otherwise. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

New Zealand is a case where the people made a conscious decision that they were no longer "British". Their reasons are varied as they are. Byzantium, however, does not have the same case. To apply the same line of reasoning ignores the varied nature of circumstances. The Byzantines maintained their "Roman" identity because the links were stronger than the geographical distance represented.

Again the same response to Hawaii and Alaska, whether they will be considered America instead of American is due to their circumstances of integration and identity assimilation.
The Byzantines were a case of Romans being hellenised completely - Hawaii was not a case of Americans being Americanised. Also, another point is the ROman universalism I mentioned before in Caracalla's reign. Roman became a mutli-dimensional identity that integrated many cultural facets so the extent it could be claimed as Roman.

Since we're on the Byzantine subject I want to bring up another point of debate: Byzantine sources mention a weapon called a "Rhompaia", although inconclusive, it is often thought to be a "falx-like" weapon. Galestrum I am sure would be interested in this - he's always looking for new Byzantine units.

[Hurin_Rules]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about cavalry movement? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

To bring things back on topic, can I ask where the original poster got the idea that RTW will have movement points for units?

I really do like the idea. Cavalry should move faster than infantry, at least over short distances. This was also one of the reasons knights arose in the Middle Ages-- their swift movement allowed them to catch up with vikings and other invaders.

Over longer distances, I am told, horses (especially before the invention of horseshoes) tend to need to slow down a bit. I am assuming they are still faster than humans, but the gap is less.

Alexander, when chasing Darius, had his cavalry cover something crazy like 50 or 60 miles a day for several days on end. No infantry could do that.

[Parmenio]

Strategic movement in STW and MTW has often seemed to me to be overtly slow across uncontested land, while in constrast strategic sea movement seems to have too great a potential range for ferrying armies.

RTW sounds like it will already have a quite different strategic system though.