Arcani/Praeventores

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I'm possibly asking this already knowing the answer but anyway: Did they really, at least partially exist or are they just another figment of CA's imagination? :san_tongue:
.

[Geoffrey S]

I remember something about the Arcani being used for work behind the lines in the current Scotland, such as sabotage, but that's all very vague and I don't remember much on this subject.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

The Areani were agents in Imperial Roman military units based in Roman Britain during the later part of the Roman occupation of the island. They were used both as scouts for the legions and as undercover spies. Many of them were mercenaries; at the time of the Great Conspiracy, which they helped instigate, a good deal of them were sailors. Due to their participation in the Conspiracy, Count Theodosius disbanded them.

They are sometimes (inaccurately) called Arcani.

Praeventor (LA): late Roman skirmisher.
:computer:
.

[lars573]

Mouzafphaerre I was curious about this to so I googled Arcani and Praeventores. They were spies/special forces, from what I've found. They lived and worked beyond the borders of the empire, in the settlements and cities of Romes enemies and potential enemies. Paeventores if mentioned at all seem to be like the Scholarae palantina, a replacement for the disbanded Arcani. Or they were created along side them as a domestic intelligence service and simply took over their role as foregin intelligence after the Arcani were gone.

I just googled Arcani as I was writing this post and got this on Arcani. It comes from a forum about the ancient empire and someone started a thread asking about Roman special troops and Arcani and Praeventores were brought up.

On Arcani

The Arcani are attested to only once in a short notation by Ammianus Marcellinus and they acted as foreign spies. He indicates that they were in existence under Constans but that they had been 'established in early times'. By the late 4th century Theodosius) they seem to have become unreliable and were disbanded.

On Praeventores

the Praeventores were more like the CIA in that they were spies and counter espionage inside roman territory, yet they could be moved into enemy territory to spy on enemies and carry out covert missions.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
In any case they weren't likely maigic units that could hide anywhere (?!?). I'm going to mod them out...

Thanks mates!
.

[lars573]

I wouldn't just yet. The limited information I can find points to the fact that Arcani/Praeventores acted as spies and assassins. That having them on a battle field in a small assassin squad while a stretch is not completely out of the realm of the possible. At least that's how I look at it.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
It's that silly "can hide anywhere" part what makes me see them like flaming pigs or screaming maids.
.

[Kralizec]

Even if they existed in the form of foreign spies, that does not justify making them into uber ninjas with better fighting abilities then legionares :san_rolleyes:

Their equipment is another thing of ridicule. Double gladius :san_huh: Wich gives a shield bonus of 2? :san_laugh:

[Atilius]

.
It's that silly "can hide anywhere" part what makes me see them like flaming pigs or screaming maids.
.

I agree whole-heartedly about the invisible Arcani and flaming pigs.

The screaming maidens (actually "matrons" as it turns out) are a slightly different matter.

Here is Tacitus from his Germania:

What proves the principal incentive to their valour is, that it is not at random nor by the fortuitous conflux of men that their troops and pointed battalions are formed, but by the conjunction of whole families, and tribes of relations. Moreover, close to the field of battle are lodged all the nearest and most interesting pledges of nature. Hence they hear the doleful howlings of their wives, hence the cries of their tender infants. These are to each particular the witnesses whom he most reverences and dreads; these yield him the praise which affect him most. Their wounds and maims they carry to their mothers, or to their wives, neither are their mothers or wives shocked in telling, or in sucking their bleeding sores. Nay, to their husbands and sons whilst engaged in battle, they administer meat and encouragement.

In history we find, that some armies already yielding and ready to fly, have been by women restored, through their inflexible importunity and entreaties, presenting their breasts, and showing their impending captivity; an evil to the Germans then by far most dreadful when it befalls their women.


So I don't think the screeching women unit is necessarily absurd. It depends on how reliable you consider Tacitus to be on this point and how effective they might be. What is certainly silly is the fact that they are armed with battle axes. It would seem reasonable for them to be a morale raising unit, like the druids for the gauls, only unarmed.

I've modded them out of my current game, but might consider putting them back (unarmed) if I could be sure that the AI wouldn't recruit them in huge quantities. It's also clear from the above that they should be carrying babies and be bare-breasted. ;)

[Ludens]

I think the Screaming Women are not so much historically as tactically incorrect. Why do you have to bring them as a seperate unit? Didn't the Romans have support units too? Why aren't those featured? Similarly the druids, they may well have been present, but using them as their religous cheerleaders during the battle is quite absurd (not to mention their ridiculous gear :rolleyes: ). I just classify them under the same heading as Arcani/Praeventores and carroballista: not incorrect, but overly fanciful.

[Atilius]

I think the Screaming Women are not so much historically as tactically incorrect. Why do you have to bring them as a seperate unit?

That's an interesting idea Ludens, and certainly more elegant. In that case perhaps a small boost to the base morale value of the german units might be appropriate.


Similarly the druids, they may well have been present, but using them as their religous cheerleaders during the battle is quite absurd (not to mention their ridiculous gear).

Gimme an A! Gimme a B! Gimme an N! (et cetera...)
What does it spell? ABNOBA!

How can that not get you lathered up into an adrenaline-charged, Roman-gutting, berserker fury? You're a stone Ludens, a stone.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
BI's monks are more rational in that aspect. 1 attack, 1 defense, 1 HP and morale boost. If only CA found a more elegant way to deploy non combatant units though...

Back to the topic: Is it Areani and not Arcani as the Wiki article suggests?
.

[Ludens]

That's an interesting idea Ludens, and certainly more elegant. In that case perhaps a small boost to the base morale value of the german units might be appropriate.
Celts sometimes took their families with them on the battlefield as well. In fact, it was not unheard of for Celtic women to fight. So it all depends on the circumstances.


BI's monks are more rational in that aspect. 1 attack, 1 defense, 1 HP and morale boost. If only CA found a more elegant way to deploy non combatant units though...
There should be a way to simulate this. If the game (or the player) could define a main battle-line and place a standard behind that, with the standard functioning as a rally point and the location of medics, priest, etc., in game terms giving a morale boost to (and only to) the main battle line. If the standard was taken by enemies, the army should suffer a massive morale penalty.

But I don't think it would have much use in the current version of TW, with fast battles, little skirmishing and (relativily speaking) small maps.

Sorry, just thinking out loud. :embarassed: Is it Arcani or Areani?

[Kraxis]

I think the Screaming Women are not so much historically as tactically incorrect. Why do you have to bring them as a seperate unit?
That question can be applied to almost every other unit in the game... Usually the 'barbarians' had a noble or two followed by a number of warriors and then a mass of local fighters (call them levy if you want). That doesn't fit very well with the unit system either. Obviously there was a need to cut corners there.

If it is the 'hide everywhere' part that bugs you Mouza, why not replace it with 'hide in grass'?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Yeah, that's a feasible option too. :san_wink: Actually I haven't yet touched unit modding seriously. I'll consider making the screaming housemids, druids etc. like BI monks.

So, before this thread loses its Monastry value, was it Arcani or Areani? :san_grin:
.

[Ludens]

That question can be applied to almost every other unit in the game... Usually the 'barbarians' had a noble or two followed by a number of warriors and then a mass of local fighters (call them levy if you want). That doesn't fit very well with the unit system either. Obviously there was a need to cut corners there.
Very true. But simplifying unit composition and simulating support units for one side but not for the other are not the same things.