View Full Version : Whats the deal w/...
MackBolan
03-05-2005, 03:30
How come the Marius reforms make your Spearmen nonexistant, and the tradeoff is weak light inf. Triarii were great mobile spearmen. Although they dont mess up cavalry as well as a phalanx, they're super mobile and they can take a beating before running. Then I get Auxila which suck. I try to hold my flanks from cavalry and the Auxilia book it. Triarii would stand there and impale my foes, keeping my archers and my line in safe solid formation. Does anyone know why they made Auxilia so weak and basically took out "Spearmen?" And yes, I know Auxilia have bonus vs Cav.
-Mack
Productivity
03-05-2005, 03:52
How come the Marius reforms make your Spearmen nonexistant, and the tradeoff is weak light inf. Triarii were great mobile spearmen. Although they dont mess up cavalry as well as a phalanx, they're super mobile and they can take a beating before running. Then I get Auxila which suck. I try to hold my flanks from cavalry and the Auxilia book it. Triarii would stand there and impale my foes, keeping my archers and my line in safe solid formation. Does anyone know why they made Auxilia so weak and basically took out "Spearmen?" And yes, I know Auxilia have bonus vs Cav.
-Mack
I would imagine it would have something to do with history, but I'm not the scholar around here ~;).
Uesugi Kenshin
03-05-2005, 04:24
The Triarii were not used in the manner you described, they were last ditch elite troops who were only used when they needed to pull the Roman Bacon out of the fire. They were the last of three lines......
The Roman armies had many many more Auxilia available than they ever had Triarii, so they could use them in a more general support role. Roman armies always revolved around the legionarry, the spearmen were secondary and not used as the main fighting force. It is a pain from a gameplay perspective but to my knowledge it keeps with history.
professorspatula
03-05-2005, 04:33
It's a pity Auxilia aren't more cost efficient. They'd make for good garrison troops and a cheaper fodder unit on the battlefield. Unfortunately legionaries although more expensive, are far more effective on the whole.
I think they did it for balancing. Archer Auxilla is overpowered. Their range is very long. With a powerful spear blocker, they would be even deadlier.
The Stranger
03-05-2005, 14:40
well here is what id did, put 2 auxilares closely behind each other so it it looks like one unit, after a cavalry charge in the center the first unit will bend inwards a little and the center of the 2nd units start to fight to this way they can take some beating before running.
Count Belisarius
03-05-2005, 15:24
After the Marian reforms, true "Roman" army units did not field spearmen, per se. Certainly, auxillary units would have contained spearmen; but as a previous post already indicated, the Marian armies revolved around the legionary armed with pila and gladius. Historically, the legions did have a tactic for dealing with cavalry.
Interestingly, the tactic was an antecedent to anti-cavalry tactics in the Napoleonic era: the front rank of legionaries would kneel, and plant the butts of their pila into the ground, holding the point out towards the oncoming horsemen at an angle. Unlike the Napoleonic soldiers, the legionaries could also shelter behind their shields. This tactic would impale the horses, using their own momentum against them, and would allow the following ranks of legionaries to ply their own pila.
Now granted, the pilum, like the flintlock musket of the Age of Napoleon, was not a perfect anti-weapon, only being 5-6 ft. in length. Hence, the Romans had a very difficult time dealing with enemies who fielded large numbers of heavy shock cavalry, such as the Sarmatians, among others.
So much for history. In the game, I have found that mercenary hoplites or a double rank of (admittedly substandard) auxillia infantry make a reasonably effective cavalry screen. However, the best anti-cavalry weapon in the post-Marian Roman arsenal is other cavalry. Legionary Cavalry units, while not as dominant as Companions or Cataphracts, are adequate if deployed in sufficient numbers. They may not win the battle for you, but they certainly will whittle away the enemy cavalry, which will allow your weak auxillia screen to mop up the rest, thereby protecting your precious legionaries and missile troops. Not that the Romans don't field decent cavalry. Praetorian Cavalry, of course, can hold their own with practically any horse cavalry unit in the game. My advice: don't rely on your auxillia, but rather meet cavalry with cavalry.
The Stranger
03-05-2005, 15:43
interesting advice, but as a defending player i would suggest a double line, the best is 2 hoplites infront and auxilia behind it.
The_Mark
03-05-2005, 20:43
Well, legionaires are pretty tough themselves. Once the cavalry stops their charge they will be cut into small, easily cookable pieces. Well, the horses at least. Dunno about the cavalrymen.
That's assuming cavalry doesn't steamroll them.
In my experience, if the legionaries dont rout at the charge or shortly after (1-4 seks) they noramally win. wich makes them capable cav killers. (for having swords)
Use the Auxilia as cheap fodder. Line em up in front of your legionaires to absorb the charge. Once the enemy cav gets tied down, and pila have been used, move up the legions to cut down the cav.
Put multiple auxilia units inside each other to make them more durable.
Uesugi Kenshin
03-06-2005, 04:22
I just use anti-cavalry cavalry. Not only does it eliminate the AI flanking you, it also allows you to flank the enemy without reprisal.
Interesting bit about the pila set against charges....
MackBolan
03-06-2005, 05:28
However, the best anti-cavalry weapon in the post-Marian Roman arsenal is other cavalry. Legionary Cavalry units, while not as dominant as Companions or Cataphracts, are adequate if deployed in sufficient numbers. They may not win the battle for you, but they certainly will whittle away the enemy cavalry, which will allow your weak auxillia screen to mop up the rest, thereby protecting your precious legionaries and missile troops. Not that the Romans don't field decent cavalry. Praetorian Cavalry, of course, can hold their own with practically any horse cavalry unit in the game. My advice: don't rely on your auxillia, but rather meet cavalry with cavalry.
But thats what Spearmen are for. The effective countering of a cavalry charge. Sure, you can deplete your precious Heavy Cavs by having them block other cavalry, but thats a very bad tactic imo. While I do agree w/the balancing out between Archer Aux. and Aux., it seems very odd that the brilliant Romans w/their Aqueducts and Academies, never had a specific units to deal w/enemy cavalry. Im sure Auxila probably packed more punch, historically speaking, but not neccesarily used as anti-cav units. As far as I know, Auxilia were used in a more urban setting, as police, w/Preatorians being the FBI, and Urbans being the CIA. It was a big conspiracy.
Uesugi Kenshin
03-06-2005, 05:37
Remember what happened at Carrhae? Maybe that proved not only the arrogance of the roman general (Crassus right?) but also the inferiority of Roman anti-cavalry tactics. Other than the Parthians they did not face many strong cavalry dependent enemies.
Indeed the romans had lots of problems with the horse archers, but in general they didn't have it too hard with the cataphracts. At Carrhae it was the arrogance that did them in, not any inherent lack of ability dealing with cavalry.
Dutch_guy
03-06-2005, 13:03
Remember what happened at Carrhae? Maybe that proved not only the arrogance of the roman general (Crassus right?) but also the inferiority of Roman anti-cavalry tactics. Other than the Parthians they did not face many strong cavalry dependent enemies.
well that was probably it, the Romans armys were based on their heavy infantry beiing the legionares they thought that their legionares could take on everything, and well that assumption was right when facing barbarians , but certainly not when facing parthians or sarmatians so they probably thought '' why do we need spearmen ? ''
and as said before triarii were not anti-cavalry units, merely the most experienced troops.
ps : Kraxis it wasn't really their arrogance that killed them at carrhae it was probably their lack of morale after following the Parthian army for weeks in the dessert
The Stranger
03-06-2005, 13:03
what about the Sarmatians.
ps : Kraxis it wasn't really their arrogance that killed them at carrhae it was probably their lack of morale after following the Parthian army for weeks in the dessert
Caused by Crassus' arrogance in refusing to follow the Armenian advise of not going into the desert and his arrogant son's cavalry charge prior to the battle. The soldiers were not arrogant themselves (well they might have been), but were lead to their doom due to arrogance.
The Stranger
03-06-2005, 13:21
well it was not mainly arrogance Crassus was losing his prime position in Rome to Ceacar and Pompejus both celebrated generals, while Crassus was only rich, he needed a victory to return to the top. and in his arrogance he thought he would succeed, while he wasn't a good general.
That was what caused him to be arrogant. He needed the big victory. But the arrogance was what brought the army into dire straits.
But thats what Spearmen are for. The effective countering of a cavalry charge. Sure, you can deplete your precious Heavy Cavs by having them block other cavalry, but thats a very bad tactic imo. While I do agree w/the balancing out between Archer Aux. and Aux., it seems very odd that the brilliant Romans w/their Aqueducts and Academies, never had a specific units to deal w/enemy cavalry. Im sure Auxila probably packed more punch, historically speaking, but not neccesarily used as anti-cav units. As far as I know, Auxilia were used in a more urban setting, as police, w/Preatorians being the FBI, and Urbans being the CIA. It was a big conspiracy.
Auxilia used as police? ~:confused: That's new. I thought auxilia were the more or less non-Roman auxiliary forces, so units who retained there own native officers, although they might be under a higher-ranking Roman commander. They might get Roman weaponry and/or outfits, but they could be used in whatever kind of form they fought best at. For example, along the Rine frontier in what are now the Netherlands, Batavian (from a German tribe) horsemen :charge: were recruited and used widely in many Roman campaigns. As it were, the Batavians (by the way, hence: "Batavodurum", wich is not located right, but that's beside the point) were officially not a conquered people, but "allies" (who were, of course, very much dominated by the Romans), who didn't have to pay taxes, so that makes there auxilia more like allied troops. The Romans had many more forces from different peoples as auxilias.
Arrowhead
03-06-2005, 15:31
No, auxiliaries are underrated, even historically. At the battle of Mons Graupis the romans left their Legions in reserve and used the auxiliaries to hack through British lines. So in the game this would mean auxiliaries hacking through Chosen swordsmen. ~:eek:
Also auxiliaries should carry swords.
Remember what happened at Carrhae? Maybe that proved not only the arrogance of the roman general (Crassus right?) but also the inferiority of Roman anti-cavalry tactics. Other than the Parthians they did not face many strong cavalry dependent enemies.
Actually one of the first things that happened was a charge with cataphracts against the Roman infantry. The infantry held and the cataphracts withdrew instead of getting slaughtered to set there losses at a minimum. That is when the horses archers came to whittle the Romans down. It is the fact that Krassus learned the Parthians had a nearly unlimited supply of arrows that did them in. Then when the HA's were getting chased down the cataohracts reemerged slaughtering all or almost all of there cavalry. This is when Crassus opted for a withdraw and in the next few days the Romans were harassed endlessly resulting in the loss of the whole army.
Count Belisarius
Interestingly, the tactic was an antecedent to anti-cavalry tactics in the Napoleonic era: the front rank of legionaries would kneel, and plant the butts of their pila into the ground, holding the point out towards the oncoming horsemen at an angle. Unlike the Napoleonic soldiers, the legionaries could also shelter behind their shields. This tactic would impale the horses, using their own momentum against them, and would allow the following ranks of legionaries to ply their own pila.
Actually in most cases the horses won't impale themselves, they'll just dance around ignoring there riders commands. And it probably was'nt the Romans pila that scared the horses away but the solid shield wall. The horses see this as the same as a brick wall. Also Alexander the great had a plan and it worked. He left a gap in his line, the chariots ignored the infantry even though the riders steered them towards the line. Most of the horses took the chariots into a gap where javelin/skirmishers made quick work of them.
I conquered Britain with my auxiliary, there chariots caused havoc with me so I trained up alot and had them in the front lines, even non vets will hold a charge as long its not alone.
What I did was just overlap the and stayed still, the chariots would mow thru the ranks but if deep enuf even their momentum will slow. Now the bad thing is half of the time I had to give a attack order or they just milled around trying to reform. This is were having them paid off, once you can hold the charge those auxilia will bring down chariots fast, at least to me this was best unit for them.
The javelin throwers get good bonuses to chariots but they cant withstand a charge and cant outrun them if chased.
My bane so far has been the mobile archers, as since the equites are gone, I dont have a light cav, except for the auxilia javelin units and they always lose unless charge like melee. Right now my only tactic has been to charge them with heavy cav and since they are skirmishers that keeps em moving hopefully so I can use my foot troops to fight unmolested. The bad part is I get my cav support scattered all over and hard to get back when needed.
Well, the thing is that Romans weren't exactly famed for their cavalry use. Their infantry were the best trained in the entire Meditteranean area, and so they used those as the backbone of the army with infantry/skirmisher auxilia support. The Roman cavalry that were attached to most legions were primarily escorts and ill-suited for fighting on the battlefield.
Base your tactics around this. As a Roman, you're going to be primarily using legionary cohorts with infantry backup. This tactic works brilliantly for things like barbarians (which for a long time the Romans were fighting). Remember, the strength of the Legions are in their discipline and their strength as their ability to act as a well coordinated team. With good teamwork and good generalship, a Roman legion could easily wipe out an army of barbarians a few times bigger than them.
Against the primarily cavalry nations, you may have to rely on defensive tactic (only really useful when you've got the timed battles, since your opponent will lose if they don't wipe you out in time), but if your infantry can receive the charge and hold their line, you've got a good chance you'll slaughter the cavalry since Roman soldiers generally have very good defence, so they win through stamina.
and concerning the strength of their archer auxilia - there is evidence that specialised troops such as Syrian Archers served in the Roman army as auxiliaries, stationed on the Danube. From my understanding, Syrian archers were some of the best foot archers in the world at the time, being trained from infancy to wield some very powerful bows.
Count Belisarius
03-07-2005, 15:00
Actually in most cases the horses won't impale themselves, they'll just dance around ignoring there riders commands. And it probably was'nt the Romans pila that scared the horses away but the solid shield wall. The horses see this as the same as a brick wall. Also Alexander the great had a plan and it worked. He left a gap in his line, the chariots ignored the infantry even though the riders steered them towards the line. Most of the horses took the chariots into a gap where javelin/skirmishers made quick work of them.
You're right. Horses are smarter than people think. Try galloping a horse towards a hedge of pointy objects or a brick wall, and the horse quite sensibly will shy and baulk. In a cavalry charge, however, the first few ranks of horses might TRY to "dance around ignoring their riders commands", but the horses of the following ranks cannot see the brick wall. The momentum of the following ranks would carry the charge on and impale the front ranks on the waiting pila.
As for your contention that the horses would have been frightened more of the shields than the hedge of pointy objects, I'm not so sure. If that were true I pose you this question: why did cavalry - even heavy cavalry and lancers - in the Age of Napoleon have such trouble breaking a properly-formed infantry square? The square formation, so long as discipline held, was basically invulnerable to melee cavalry; and the Napoleonic soldier carried no shield, of course.
Gunpowder technology is not the answer. Even the best British soldier under Wellington could not fire more than 3 times a minute under ideal battlefield conditions. The Brown Bess musket had an effective range (meaning it could hit something smaller than the Great Wall of China) of around 100 yards or so, and had absolutely no chance other than blind luck of hitting anything horse/human sized beyond 50-60 yards. I guarantee you that a galloping horde of cavalry can cover 100 yards in MUCH less than 20 seconds (1/3 of a minute), hence, the infantry square.
The pila and the flintlock musket were fairly similar in length: approximately 5-6 ft. Therefore, I hold to my original major premise: horses are scared of pointy objects.
The Stranger
03-07-2005, 15:08
Actually in most cases the horses won't impale themselves, they'll just dance around ignoring there riders commands. And it probably was'nt the Romans pila that scared the horses away but the solid shield wall. The horses see this as the same as a brick wall. Also Alexander the great had a plan and it worked. He left a gap in his line, the chariots ignored the infantry even though the riders steered them towards the line. Most of the horses took the chariots into a gap where javelin/skirmishers made quick work of them.[/QUOTE]
that's true, horses are very smart and won't trample everything in their way. instead they jump or walk around it. cows however just trample everything and won't turn around the object.
I guess one could say that Auxilliaries might be considered police, though not in the literal sense. They were more often than not used as garrison troops as the legionarries were far more valuable on the field to be allowed to sit around. So the Auxilliaries would patrol and keep watch and one would suppose generally "keep the peace" in a sense.
However any that might posess certain special skills (archery, superior horse-back riding, etc.) would typically be kept with the legions as well as any that might be needed due to special circumstances ( such as spearmen when dealing with cavalry heavy armies) or simply those that had been recently raised from the local region in which the campaign is taking place.
The only problem with Auxilia I see is their high upkeep (170 denari).
Auxilia is good enough to block cavalry. You only need a couple of seconds anyway before you flank whatever you are blocking. Just have a secondary blocker at the back waiting just in case you get in trouble.
Blocker Blocker Blockers
-----Archer Lines------
Sec. Blocker+General Cav
Say you have three blockers covering for your archers. Put another blocker just behind the archers (I personally put them beside the General). If one of your blockers get charged, reinforce them with your secondary blocker so they hold long enough.
For heavy chariots, you need a mercenary hoplites or swarm them in all directions with Auxilia and cavalry (of course you shoot them first with archers).
:charge:
Actually it ISN'T the pointy objects the horses are scared of, but the dense (or seemingly dense) formation they face.
Horses have a rather bad eyesight, add to that that they have a blind spot in front of them and that the rider will have the head of the horse pulled back (the horse will have to look upwards which it is even worse at) it becomes hard for the horse to see that there are in fact pointy objects.
In the wild horses do not shy away from bushes (not the dense one but light ones), eventhough there are many branches pointing at them. They can't see them. Luckily for the horse it seems that any branch it can't see is not likely to be harmful to it. A solid stone wall on the other hand tends to be rather harmful if you gallop into it. And because horses have no depth perception (the dark spot prevents that) a seemingly solid line of men becomes much denser to the horse.
Uesugi Kenshin
03-08-2005, 04:25
I think everything is afraid of pointy objects. They are just painful to touch, who is not afraid of running into pointy objects? I bet they could train the horses enough to get them to ride into things, or at least not dance around so much that they lost their edge in the charge.
well that was probably it, the Romans armys were based on their heavy infantry beiing the legionares they thought that their legionares could take on everything, and well that assumption was right when facing barbarians , but certainly not when facing parthians or sarmatians so they probably thought '' why do we need spearmen ? ''
and as said before triarii were not anti-cavalry units, merely the most experienced troops.
Its interesting that many of the Romans greatest foes and major losses came against armies that wielded superior cavalry. They never could beat the horse people like the Parthians or the Sarmatian people (although I'm not sure if they ever intended to really conquer the steppe). Hannibal and Carthage beat them several times and the superior Numidian cavalry was the key in those battles. In the later days of the empire they would face the Huns and some of the German cavalry (I think only the Germanic people living further east like the Goths had heavy cavalry) and suffered losses against them as well.
They actually beat the Parthians and Sarmatians enough times each. The Parthian capital of Ctesiphon was sacked several times by Roman forces. It is even beleived that those sacks were what helped the empire survive a century longer than it should have, due to all the gold, silver and other precious materials they looted.
Watchman
03-08-2005, 22:39
I've gotten the impression the Romans never made much permanent progress past the Danube in Pannonia (Hungary nowadays), the region where they chiefly had their turf wars with the Sarmatians. Going into the deep steppe proper has notoriously been a lose-lose business for "civilized" armies anyway, and that's not only because the nomads are nasty to fight against - it's that they can just move out of the way and wait until you leave, if it comes to that. Sort of difficult to get conquering done in those conditions.
The border between Rome and the Parthian Empire (and its successor Sassanid Persia) was apparently a rather mobile one. Both sides were constantly pushing it this way and that, and neither ever really got the upper hand.
But yes, Roman legionaires with their short swords tended to have their hands full with heavy cavalry. Commanders apparently often had to improvise special tactics, formations and ruses to even the odds a bit - use of caltrops and feinted retreat is one I've read of, another was to bluntly give the legionaires spears and form them into a deep shieldwall.
I've gotten the impression the effectiveness of spears (and the like) as anti-cavalry weapons stems from the general shape of the weapon. First of all, it's long; one-handed infantry spears could apparently get well over two meters long without becoming unmanageable. This gives the trooper reach, which is a rather useful thing to have when there's nearly a ton of big animal plus a nasty fellow with a spear or a sword approaching at high speed - the farther away you can start hurting them, the better.
Another is that it doesn't take much "elbow room" to use - indeed, for anti-cavalry work it's often quite sufficient to prop it solidly on the ground and let the horses' own momentum provide the killing power. Even in more active it allows the soldiers to be formed into a quite close, solid formation difficult to distrupt by just bodily ramming it (not that horses were particularly keen to try anyway).
The reluctance of horses to run headlong into something they think is a big, solid obstacle has already been discussed. Cavalry's most important asset on the attack has always been the fright effect - the sight of a literal wall of big animals and armed men bearing down at you, with all the accompanying noise and rumble of the ground and whatever, is quite simply ungodly scary. If this psychological impact is enough to make the infantry waver and weaken their formation, they often disperse just enough that the cavalrymen can plow right in and tear the hapless footsloggers to bits. What happens when cavalry charges home against disordered infantry isn't pretty, and could often be summed up as "total annihilation".
It rather obviously helps the infantry's resolve if they're carrying weapons that can kill the big nasty horses at an arm's lenght and have the reassuring mass of fellow soldiers immediately around them; but ultimately it's a matter of resolve and discipline. Roman legionaires and Saxon huscarles alike could take a heavy cavalry charge and beat it off, and neither normally used either spears or close formation. Spears help, though.
There's also the minor detail that one strongly suspects the horses will promptly try to stop and go the other way the instant they hit the first spearhead arrayed against them - it's a natural reflex for living things to shy away from pain, and there simply isn't any way to train a horse to willingly impale itself on something long and pointy. The beast will try to brake and get away, and that's going to play havoc with both the cavalry formation and the momentum of the charge.
I've long though among the main reasons cavalry have so universally liked long spears and lances is the ability to reach long past your mount and hopefully take out the nasty, unmoving infantryman before his obstinacy becomes a major problem, and failing that, the ability to fight it out in melee with reach at least equal to that of the infantry (not counting pikes, natch). A cavalry charge that doesn't carry through will result in a swarm of horsemen before the infantry line trying to hack and stab holes in the ranks, and it's obviously good if this can be done from outside the footsoldiers' reach.
'Course, having the longer weapon is a big advantage in horse vs horse clashes too. Just ask the lucky Persian cavalry who got to go against the Companions and their three-plus-meter lances...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.