Combat questions - Romani perspective

Hi All,


For years I've set-up my roman troops during deployment with 'guard' mode on (and fire at will). I normally try to lure the enemy into charging me (velites make good bait). I simply receive the charge while throwing some pila in his face, then I sit there and grind him out (while my flankers sweep around the sides). In the process I notice that my men don't seem to do much fighting.


As I've read more and more about legionary fighting techniques (and classical warfare in general), I'm starting to think that guard mode is a bit too 'phalanx' for Romans. Without guard mode, my troops mingle more with the enemy (they actually look like they are advancing into combat), but the unit formation ends up as a bit of a mess. So does a roman cohort/maniple stick to its formation like glue, or adopt a more fluid shape during combat? I'm tending to follow the latter now, and reform my unit when the enemy has been dispatched before charging into another enemy unit.


So;

- do you leave guard mode on or off, and why?

- do you charge at the last moment, or do you receive the charge?

- what is the statistical effect of 'guard mode'?


The next question I have is regarding the effect of ranks. What is the benefit of more ranks? Is it worth the sacrifice of frontage? I find my early Camillan armies (5 lines of infantry) are deeper than they are wide (caused the Romans are bloody nose at Cannae doing just that).


Thanks in advance :beam:

Personally I use the guard mode if I want my units to keep position and not pursue routing ennemies. Which means in most of cases, except for the very end of battles, when the last ennemy units are being defeated.

Now concerning the fire at will, in the case of heavy infantry units, (let's say legionnaries) I usually allow it for the first of my lines, keeping the second and third (if any) with full ammunition, for critical moments. (Like a charge a Gaesatae...) I don't apply this for ranged units like archers or slingers, in this case I usually allow fire at will for 2/3 of my long range shooters. Javelins throwers are usually not allowed to fire at will being keeped for critical moment.

Concerning charging back, it's I think 50/50. I think it is wiser as you add the charge bonus on your attack, but then it require some management to keep your line. (And above all time, if you do not use the pause fonction as a rule.)

No for the stats effect on guard mod : I don't know!!! (:sweatdrop:)

And usually I use formations larger than deeper. (But it depands, if I'm outnumbered against lower quality troop I'll use less deep formations.)

Hope it helps! :beam:


Regards

Martel

As the Romani, I rarely use guard mode. In fact I rarely use it at all except with Makedonian phalanxes (but then again I use short_pike so I don't need guard mode for hoplite phalanxes). A while back I did some tests with a friend of mind via multiplayer and found the results to be conclusive: if you place one unit in gm and charge it with another of the exact same unit not in gm, the latter will always win. Units in gm do very little attacking and as a result are much better at dieing than killing. Lighter units or units with deteriorating morale can even rout on contact if they choose to stand still and receive an enemy charge. I have to agree with Caesar on this one--it is better to charge than stand still and receive the enemy charge in most circumstances.

I hope that helps.

I don't see the guard mode as black & white as TWFanatic. Although it is true that on 1 vs. 1 the one without guardmode will win, it is not because they fight somehow worse it is because the one without guard mode surrounds the one on guardmode. The right way to test this is to eliminate the possibility of envelopment. I tested this a while ago, and the results were, that without envelopment a unit in guard mode does not fight worse than one without.

So, it's all about formation. If you need your units to keep their formation, guardmode on. If you need them to push and envelope or your formation has been broken, guard mode off.

One big advantage of guard mode is that units in guard mode tend to tire slower.

So if your plan is to hold and tire the enemy and swing around the flanks, i usually use guard mode for my frontline.
If the enemy is exhausted and routs, your front line troops are still more fresh and will easily catch up with them during routs, and they are still fresh enough to charge other units that are still holding one -> massive rout.

I never do guard mode for my units. Units loose more casualties that way.

I recieve the charge, but it usually the enemy charges are useless because I keep all my missile units in the front and fire at anything that comes close enough. When I do charge, I march up my whole army to the enemy, stop,then charge.

I'm not too sure about the statistics because I never tried using guard mode for anything.

From my experiences, deeper ranks cause the unoccupied troops to move around to the side or the back (if they're the units that are at the far left or right) or the unit(s) they're fighting. A deeper rank attacking the middle of a line is useless. Wider lines allow more soldiers in a unit to engage a line. but charges against it are more devastating because the ranks are wide but thin.

From my experience, guard mode units will survive longer and kill less, so I use them for troops that need to hold the line, preferrably lesser spearmen. I'll flank the enemy with better units with guard mode off. Usually works ok.

Not only do units on guard mode kill less, they tire slower. I have every single unit directly in frontal contact with the enemy on guard mode. I only take it off for flankers and chasing down routers.

You can go and have a look at the results in my AARs - I rarely have more than about 10-15% casualties, even in the nasty battles.

For me I usually have my Princepes in the middle line, with them autofiring their javelens. This usually takes out a good number of enemies. On my flanks, I usually put Triarii/Pedites Extraordinarii, and usually one or two of these units in a second line in the middle to support where the enemy charges the hardest.

With that said, most of the enemy army is engaged with the middle line and the flank forces, I concentrate my one or 2 cavalry units on one flank, and continually crash the rear of the enemy on that one flank, between the flanking infantry and cavalry, they route, and I continually do this down the line until their entire army is surrounded or routing, where I send my entire cavalry force to whipe them up.

I usually dont use Guard mode as I like the counter charge my men sometimes make after routing the enemy, it gets them chasing when I would more then likely order it anyway.

depends on the situation really.

Do units in guard mode actually tire at all if they stay in the one spot? I have noticed quite a few times a unit in guard mode still being fresh even after 15-20 minutes of constant fighting, the enemy being exhausted.

It is true. The units in guard mode do not tire at all. They do lose less men and yes it is likewise true that they also kill less. Usually when you turn the mode off, the battle becomes very disordered and a battle between two units disintegrates into tens of two- or sometimes even three-man duels. Your own units now have to watch out for attacks from the sides and rear. That is why I always lose a quite a bit more units when guard is turned off as opposed to being on. A unit that is attacked from the right or the rear takes more damage and is more likely to be die because it cannot use its shield. Elite units and especially spearmen units have to be placed in the guard mode. Sword infantry, who do not have a long reach, and cheap but numerous units (who can surround a smaller-strength unit) should have guard mode off. Elite units usually have 60 men, so each one of the soldiers from the elite unit will have two weaker units attacking it from two different directions - not good. Spearmen do not have long pikes, but in guard mode they can still form somewhat of a phalanx albeit having considerably shorter weapons. You should engage cavalry ONLY in guard mode, because cavalry has a large mass value, which will push your soldiers all around the area and disperse your formation - which is exactly what the horsemen need, being of inferior quantity. If one cavalryman has two or three units attacking him at once, he die fast, but one that is engaged in a duel will easily gain the upper hand.

Historically, the roman manipules fought in what can be defined using RTW terms as a strict guard mode fighting. The manipule fought as a whole, and that was its greatest strength. Roman soldiers were very bad at duels and "every-man-for himself" fighting. The barbarians could easily dispatch the roman soldiers one by one, the romans weren't good at that. However, the barbarians fought in rather disorderly formations that completely disintegrated as soon as hand to hand combat began. A manipule was comparable in coherence to a phalanx although the men were much more spaced out. Yes, it did "stick to its formation like glue". If the formation was ever broken, the battle would be lost. "More fluid shapes" and individual duels were only used by Hollywood Roman soldiers, where such styles of fighting possessed greater visual appeal and were more action-packed.

That is why I think the EB creators did the right thing by giving the roman units rather lower stats - they were not supermen, quite the opposite actually. An average Roman was shorter than his contemporaries, especially shorter than most northern barbarian tribes. They were also spoiled, weak city slickers when compared to most of the less civilized people even though the Romans were perhaps the most agriculturally focused nation in the antiquity before the latifundas came in. So important was agriculture that all other professions/social classes, such as craftsmen and merchants were left for the foreigners to fill. Senators were prohibited to engage in anything but agriculture in the early days. For roman soldiers it was the discipline and superior training as well as quality standarised weapons & armor that made them so much better than the others, not weapons skill, strength or bravery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

They were also spoiled, weak city slickers when compared to most of the less civilized people even though the Romans were perhaps the most agriculturally focused nation in the antiquity before the latifundas came in. So important was agriculture that all other professions/social classes, such as craftsmen and merchants were left for the foreigners to fill. Senators were prohibited to engage in anything but agriculture in the early days. For roman soldiers it was the discipline and superior training as well as quality standarised weapons & armor that made them so much better than the others, not weapons skill, strength or bravery.

---

Uh, no. Roman soldiers pre-Marius were smallholding farmers in the main. There was a property requirement to be in the legions, unless your free city-dwelling citizen was rich enough to own land in the countryside as well as a home in Rome, they wouldn't be eligible to join the legions at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Uh, no. Roman soldiers pre-Marius were smallholding farmers in the main. There was a property requirement to be in the legions, unless your free city-dwelling citizen was rich enough to own land in the countryside as well as a home in Rome, they wouldn't be eligible to join the legions at all.

---

That's true that they were farmers, but to barbarians, all of the Romans must have seemed like spoiled city dwellers. Romans were farmers and most of the barbarians were hunters and warriors. The Roman way of life seemed very pampered to barbarians. Romans weren't city slickers but when compared to the tough and ruthless barbarians they sure seemed like ones.

I think it might have been the otherway around in a lot of cases. Take the Celts for example, the average celt had nicer looking cloths (colours, fashion, torcs,...) while the average roman would wear just a plain uncoloured tunics. Also For celts levies were mainly farmers too. While the professional soldiers/warriors were well soldiers/warriors...
Dacians weren't that poor and only hunters either. Certain Iberian tribes weren't that bad off either. Now while the Lusotanann were perhpas mainly sheppherds and the germans weren't that rich either, not all barbarians would be that poor.

Not poor, true, but a lot rougher life for the barbarian tribes. Germanic tribes, for instance only practiced hunting, I do not think they farmed, although they were an extreme. Celts wore colored clothing if they could afford it, because flashiness was more fashionable among their peers and not because Celts were on average more well-off, whereas in the early republic virtues like simplicity were what many consuls and patricians were praised for. Now, the consuls and patricians, or at least most of them, were not actually so simple, but just the fact that they were praised for being simple, shows that simplicity was a virtue and not a vice (for most people) as it was in the times of the Roman Empire. The Romans were relatively hardy people in the Early republic, but by the time of Augustus, the Romans became very soft, which is somewhat supported by the fact that Augustus' guard was almost exclusively made up of Germanic soldiers, not Roman (surely an insult to the contemporary Roman military).

I use guard mode religiously as the Romans but then I tend to fight very defensively and wait for decisive moments in the battle to attack directly and in force. The major benefit to fighting in Guard Mode as I see it is that if you have not ordered an attack your units will concede ground under the mass of the opponent while maintaining their formation. This is exceptionally noticable when facing a cavalry charge with any kind of non spear melee unit that has a reasonably tight formation as standard. The formation will almost never break if sufficiently wide enough to prevent envelopment and will generally halt most charges completely in their tracks with limited casualties by conceding ground under the mass of the enemy unit.

In Guard Mode the Flanks are very important, but with secure flanks Units set to Guard Mode On will survive much longer under sustained pressure and allow for decisive actions to be completed. If you intend to absorb any kind of a charge from the opponent then I find it rather perplexing to not use Guard Mode and have you units stationary and without orders facing the opponent. Attempting to resist the charge will result in your formation being broken or infiltrated with significantly FASTER casualties. The casualty rate may be the same if left unattended, but the decreased rate of casualties will allow you to bring up support units in flanking attacks.

Indeed if you have for example three units of Milnaht set in Guard Mode and alongside each other then issuing an attack order with the two flanking units after the centre one has resisted the charge will result in complete butchery of the opponent with minimum possible losses because at no point has any of the three units or any of the men in each of the units exposed their right or left side to attack. The enemy will have to fight you frontally at every single point of combat.

Obviously this example requires a 3 to 1 advantage, but it is the ideal and should be considered as the ambition wherever speed of your victory in the local area of the battlefield is not a concern, or indeed where speed of your defeat is a vital concern. If you happen to be up against some kind of Elite Unit like Gaesatae and have managed to leave yourself with only 3 Units of Hastati to prevent them rolling up your line, then Guard Mode is a no brainer for the centre unit, but it is also a no brainer for the two flanking units as they can attack the Gaesatae at weaker points of their defence while forcing the Gaesatae to fight through their strongest point of defence.

Guard Mode On prevents units at the centre of a formation from being attacked from the sides. Guard Mode Off gives no such prevention and allows any unit in a formation to potentially be attacked from defensively weak angles, irrespective of the orientation of the formation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Roman soldiers were very bad at duels and "every-man-for himself" fighting. The barbarians could easily dispatch the roman soldiers one by one, the romans weren't good at that.

---

Are u sure? Of course the strength of Roman legion consist of its discipline, but is there any ancient writer positively affirm the Romans were extraordinarily weak in duels compared to their contemporaries? Livy recorded several cases in which a Roman soldier dispatched his opponent in duels, at least two duels won against a champion of Gauls. Of course if there were any book written by Gaul writers we may find some contrary cases.

The common "barbarian" Celtic warrior was not more or less a "city slicker" that a pre-marian Roman Soldier. They were farmers, the Celts also knew farming, they knew towns and cities etc.etc. They were not these raw-meat-eating Arnold Schwarzeneggers you see in some Hollywood movies, and the Romans were no sissies.

Celtic warriors were quite well equipped, their armor was not less good that the one of a pre-marian Roman Soldier and their weapons were of high quality too. Of course they had their rituals, some fought naked etc.etc. But on the other hand their cav. was surely much stronger that the Roman.


A post-marian legionnary - i think - could compete with any warrior of any people at any time.


As for the germans: The Germans were mostly farmers, and - different what most people think - did not go hunting much more often than Celts or Romans. They also had Blacksmiths, carpenters, potters and different craftsmen. They did not know money, though.

They knew different sorts of wheat, rye, oat, millet, but most important: barley. They knew pease and different berries, also honey from wild bees. They bred mostly beefs, sheep, swines, poultry but also horses, dogs and cats. And they knew how to make cheese.

According to Tacitus, the Germans lived monogamous, which was quite unique among "the barbarians"

And they brewed beer, so they could NOT be as barbarous as one would think.

Neither AP or SB is entirely correct about the Germans.

AP needs to practise some Source Criticism on Tacitus and SB realise that in the small hamlets, villages and single farms that most Germans lived in you would only have the very rare specialised craftsman (including warriors), but rather all farmers would know basic carpentry and a little bit of blacksmithing, no jewellery or specialised smithing.

If we look at Denmark in the LCIA to EGIA we see a land covered with small villages, hamlets and a few single farms. Now remember, denmark is the far north to a Roman and would thus by his definition be the most primitive, just as it was home of the fearsome Cimbrii and Teutons. By this definaition the Roman (Tacitus) would be preconditioned to see believe it very primitive and with no farming. In sharp contrast to what archeology tells us. This however, was the Greco-Roman way of understanding the world and in that tribes got progressively more primitive the further north and away from the civilised centre of the world you got (to some extent true, barter economy and such). What was reality was that at this time Denmark was almost as heavily exploited as in the middle ages, more even in some places as over-exploitation of the poor soild of western Jutland and wind-erosion only actually set in at this time, so the desolate heaths present in that area was not there then, they were in fact a result of the Iron Age over-exploitation. In other places not all land had yet been exploited with large-ish wooden areas on Sjælland and in Central Jutland slowly being exploited from here to the Viking Age.

Anyway, the land was generally as exploited and open as all through the middle ages, most land was either under plow or being used for grazing (in various forms, the proces is very interesting and if you read Danish I can give you titles to read), and villages of 1- 22 (Hodde, the largest we know until GIA) dotted the land every 1½- 3 Km on moraine hilltops with a bit of farmland around, then "overdrev" (grazing woods, later meadows) sometimes some woods, but mostly the neighbouring village's "overdrev".

Now in this rural area only the largest villages, probably residences of the chiefs, had specialist craftsmen. We know Hodde had a smith, but in order to have someone specialised you need a surplus of food and storage space, for the specialist (be it profesional warrior of the chief or blacksmith) does not himself produce food- yet still has to eat. Only large villages could create this (again this is the very first steps whole proces of state-building and urbanisation and very interesting IMO), and only the most powerful chiefs would have been able to employ the specialist wainwrights, weaponsmiths and gold-/silversmiths we see traces of in magnificent wagons and some jewelry. Perhaps it was all imported or foreign specialised craftsmen employed for a time, we do not know.

The average farmer would be a jack-of-all-trades regarding his farm, including being able to defend it. While his wife would weave and do pottery, again specialists were very rare or the goods imported- and only by the mightiest.

As for the monogamy of Germans, it is likely as it is a good family structure for such a rural society, but rem,ember again to apply Source Criticism, Tacitus might very well be implicitly criticising his own contrymen by contrasting them to the Germans. Whether or not the latter actually were monogameous would in that case be irrelevant to him.

IMO magnates, chiefs and kings would probably have more wives or "friller" as we see it in the Viking Age and early Middle Age and used as a very powerful political tool in forming alliances. This is supported by Caivs Ivlivs' who tells us that Ariovistvs had two wifes, a Suebi and (I think the other is Boii or some other Celtic tribe he would be interested in having as allies). Arminus seems to have had only Tusnelda, but it is hard to tell. Other examples would be more convincing than "Germania" as it is almost as much a criticism of Imperial Roman decadent ways by the Republican-at-heart Tacitus.

Anyway, gtg and I have rambled enough.

Edited to add, I am also going OT, but enlightenment is important and we have all agrred to read more history by installing EB- well... here is some ;-)

Edited yet again to add that here is the book on the subject, a groundbreaking work as it was published in 1992-ish it has inspired others and been translated to and published in English, a rare thing for a Danish archeological dissertation. It is very heavy reading though.

Very interesting post, Mac.! Thank you.

Caesar wrote, that the Germans did not even own land, but that they changed their lands from year to year. Half of the men went to war, and the other half stayed at home and looked for the land. A year later the other way round. Wonder if this is true

Thanks Macilrille, a good post and a nice read. :2thumbsup:

At least for Jutland it does not seem so. However, even into the 19th century the village in common would decide on which fields to sow what, this might be what he means. Or it may have been that land was common, but the animals were not, hard to say. There must, however, have been some private ownership or the chiefs could not have developed as they were probably originally the most successful farmers generatuion after generation or in other ways leaders in the ECIA that would allow them to accrue surplus enough to become the sort of chiefs we see at Hodde in the 2nd cent BC (LCIA).

It may also be that what Caesar describes derives from the lack of Kings as such but that parallel power hierarchies existed far into the middle ages and that these powerful men would meet and discuss decisions like we can see the Cherusci do in the battles against Germanicus and the Icelanders do in the sagas.

I do not know, and I think no one can say for certain. Caesar saw things through Roman eyes and thus warped, much like Europeans saw natives when we colonised the world.

I never used gaurd mode before because I always thought that having it off was better (I thought it was just another thing that the creators messed up on in coding). My reasoning was because I thought that with guard mode off, more of my men would try to attack whereas with it on, only the men being engaged will fight. Also, when I tested battles, the ones on guard mod always died. But I realize that's because the other unit would flank them.

After reading this thread and another, I'm starting to think that I'm wrong. I will start to use it much more. Especially for the front middle line infantry.


One thing that kind of stumps me is how did the Romans defeat a phalanx? Would the front middle line infantry just be on "guard-mode" with their shields up? Then the units on the flanks would do the actual engaging? So the only way they would win is by flanking them with infantry, which they could do because they were more maneuverable?

More questions. Should I charge with guard mode on or just absorb the enemies charge or it doesn't make a difference? Same question when cavalry attacks my infantry? Should I attack with guard mode on or only defend?

-Apple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applebreath

One thing that kind of stumps me is how did the Romans defeat a phalanx? Would the front middle line infantry just be on "guard-mode" with their shields up? Then the units on the flanks would do the actual engaging? So the only way they would win is by flanking them with infantry, which they could do because they were more maneuverable?
-Apple.

---

The Romans would often exploit the gaps and rips of phalanxes as they advance through uneven terrain. Once the Roman infantry infiltrated through the sarissa, their superior melee skills would allow them to cut the phalangites to pieces.

The battle of Pydna is one of the best examples of the exploitation of the weakness of the phalanx. Lucius Aemilius Paulus originally had the whole Roman front engage Perseus's phalanx, but after being unable to penetrate the wall of pikes, and having the line pushing the Romans back, Aemilius saw that portions of the phalanx had clefts and intervals in it, and that some were hard pressed while others were pressing forward. Paulus therefore ordered the Romans to attack in small sections, disrupting the Macedonian line. Once the Romans got between the ranks, the phalangites would face a soldier trained for close combat, whilst having only a dagger and a small shield to protect himself.

The Romans won decisively, having killed ~25,000 while having lost ~100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JinandJuice

The Romans would often exploit the gaps and rips of phalanxes as they advance through uneven terrain. Once the Roman infantry infiltrated through the sarissa, their superior melee skills would allow them to cut the phalangites to pieces.

The battle of Pydna is one of the best examples of the exploitation of the weakness of the phalanx. Lucius Aemilius Paulus originally had the whole Roman front engage Perseus's phalanx, but after being unable to penetrate the wall of pikes, and having the line pushing the Romans back, Aemilius saw that portions of the phalanx had clefts and intervals in it, and that some were hard pressed while others were pressing forward. Paulus therefore ordered the Romans to attack in small sections, disrupting the Macedonian line. Once the Romans got between the ranks, the phalangites would face a soldier trained for close combat, whilst having only a dagger and a small shield to protect himself.

The Romans won decisively, having killed ~25,000 while having lost ~100.

---

Propaganda...
But yes the roman way of fighting was superior to the makedonian one, but unfortunatly in Eb it isnt...:juggle2: