History Questions?

I know everyones been flushed with joy since the OBs release but i have a few history questions for all the historians here (you can run but you cant hide),

1. Does anyone have any information as to the 28 legions which remained after Augustus disbanded the others? Where they were drawn from, where they were deployed, what there "titles" were, any particular type of troops they were supposed to have speciallised in (didnt the tenth have more cavalry than normal?).

2. Does anyone know of any more minor kingdoms that although were considered too small to be included in EB proper had large amounts of contact with the Roman empire prior 14AD? (sorry if i just opened a can of worms)

3. Does anyone know large amounts about the other legions that served in the civil war and were disbanded yet performed some famous deed or possesed a unique fighting style?

Might add more if these get answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spitful

I know everyones been flushed with joy since the OBs release but i have a few history questions for all the historians here (you can run but you cant hide),

1. Does anyone have any information as to the 28 legions which remained after Augustus disbanded the others? Where they were drawn from, where they were deployed, what there "titles" were, any particular type of troops they were supposed to have speciallised in (didnt the tenth have more cavalry than normal?).

2. Does anyone know of any more minor kingdoms that although were considered too small to be included in EB proper had large amounts of contact with the Roman empire prior 14AD? (sorry if i just opened a can of worms)

3. Does anyone know large amounts about the other legions that served in the civil war and were disbanded yet performed some famous deed or possesed a unique fighting style?

Might add more if these get answered.

---

Answer to 2.; We didn't select kingdoms or factions based on contact with Rome, but there are several that didn't make it in. Numerous Iberian peoples, Hellenic alliances, numerous Gallic kingdoms and confederacies (like Aquitania and Galatia), Noricum, Numidia, Liguria, etc. The list is massive; it's not like the world was a void with only a few organized governments in it. There were dozens and dozens of them.

I know EB didnt do that, but i want to know for something else im working on

This seems like a good thread to ask a question that's been bugging the hell out of me.

Pezhetairoi, how do you pronounce this?

I've got another question. THe RTR team, and ravenous fan base, claim that the Britons are insignificant in the time frame of 280- 1 AD for the game. Is this true? Did the Casse ever invade or raid mainland Europe?

No, the Casse didn't, but they did conquer southern Britain and had a monopoly on tin trade in northern Europe, and controlled so much tin that traders as far as the middle east went to Britain to buy it cheaply (it was so cheap it offset the expense of the long trip and STILL saved them money). They also sheltered Gallic leaders and supposedly provided soldiers to Gallic revolts (which Caesar used as an excuse to invade Britain). They fought the Romans in the period when Caesar invaded, and at the time, controlled all of the south of Britain (and Cassivellaunius was recognized as 'king of Britain', though they called the Casse, at the time 'Catuvellauni', which is something like 'Kingdom/Land of Vellaunius').

They were selected in part because they are a trading power, and also because of their political importance to the Gauls. Like the Aedui and Arverni, the Casse were inheritors of Ambicatus's former great Gallic kingdom. They did not seem overtly interested in recreating it, though they did support the Aedui at times, suggesting that they were supporting the legitimate claimants. Further, they had the most advanced military in Britain, and British armies are unique enough that it would be hard to represent them as just some roving rebels; at the same time, remember that RTR once said that all Celts are basically the same, which is laughably false; many of them didn't even consider eachother the same people (though the Casse, Aedui, and Arverni did; they were all Gauls, as the southeast of Britain was Gallic).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

at the same time, remember that RTR once said that all Celts are basically the same, which is laughably false

---

We didn't say that, and while I cannot speak for what every RTR team member says, they certaily shouldn't have said that, for it is indeed laughably false. The idea at making those provinces controlled by the gauls was gameplay based using the fact that they were both celts as our "historical backing." It was a bad choice which we quickly fixed.

I still stand by us removing the britons as a solid decsion. They didn't ever invaded the mainland to our knowledge, and factions that didn't invade can be potrayed as rebels, and I also believe that 19 factions can be found that are more historically important. However I do enjoy playing as the britons, and keeping a briton faction isn't a horrible way to go, as you say certain groups like EB's choice of the Casse did have political and economic impact.

Now back to my questions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabolous

We didn't say that, and while I cannot speak for what every RTR team member says, they certaily shouldn't have said that, for it is indeed laughably false. The idea at making those provinces controlled by the gauls was gameplay based using the fact that they were both celts as our "historical backing." It was a bad choice which we quickly fixed.

I still stand by us removing the britons as a solid decsion. They didn't ever invaded the mainland to our knowledge, and factions that didn't invade can be potrayed as rebels, and I also believe that 19 factions can be found that are more historically important. However I do enjoy playing as the britons, and keeping a briton faction isn't a horrible way to go, as you say certain groups like EB's choice of the Casse did have political and economic impact.

---

I'm not saying it's a bad choice to remove them; I actually lobbied for a while in our private forums to maybe replace them with Belgae, but the Belgic invasions were mostly over, and while they had some neat unique aspects, they weren't really that different from Gauls, though they might have had something interesting, like an axe unit. More defending that it is also not a bad choice to keep them. They provide an interesting division of Ambicatus's old kingdom, with a lot of unique units (you'll see if you follow later releases; they have a lot to go in still), and there are just some really unique gameplay decisions with them. My personal favorite thing is the use of 'champions' (who have the legionary eagle trait) to offset the poor morale of other units (mostly the midland units); I've been looking into ways to do something similar with Gauls, but they were headed for a much more standardized army at the time. They're also not an ahistoric faction, just, some people probably won't get the same rush out of trying to build a trading power up (which is the idea; even most of their in-game goals after conquering the isles involve the capture of coastal regions, building a trade-empire).


Also, sorry to Spitful for derailment. This'll stop now.

Of Romans, there were funtidores, I believe they were called. Used a sling on a staff. There were also legions who were dedicated to fighting elephants, but I don't know much about them.

Quote:

---

2. Does anyone know of any more minor kingdoms that although were considered too small to be included in EB proper had large amounts of contact with the Roman empire prior 14AD? (sorry if i just opened a can of worms)

---

Sorry to rob your thread. I figured it was a generic "ask a history question" deal.

You should check out this page https://www.europabarbarorum.com/fac...i_history.html

It gives you some missed factions. A couple other I know- A bunch of small celtic tribes ,lol, and the Numidians.

Thanks for the response, Ranika. I guess you could go 50/50 on wether to include them or not. It sucks that CA has forced us to make these hard choices.

Sorry, but we don't include factions based on whether or not they invaded a particular area, or came into contact with a particular culture. The Casse were expansionistic and did conquer a relatively large area, about the size of Dacia at its height.

Our team looks at the entire map, and cultures that affected the whole world, not just a Romano/Greek-centric view.

There were plenty of other important minor kingdoms. Syrakosoy, the two Numidian kingdoms, all the minor warlords of Iberia (conquered by Hamilcar Barca), Belgae, Helvetii, Sabeans (early Arab culture), Illyrians, and so on...
the list goes on..

I think this webpage will be a lot of help on the legions, Spitful. It lists all imperial legions by name and number, and details their founding, their deeds, their emblems, and their locations over the years.

I don't know about famous civil war legions that didn't make it to Augustus' selection.

1. Normally late republican legions had no cavarly at all, the tenth too. Caesar called it Legio X equestris, because they had to escort him on boroughed horses of his Gallic cavalry to a meeting with Ariovist in lack of regular roman cavalry that did not exist at this time.(BG 1.42) In BC 1.44 Caesar mentions that soldiers form Pompeius spanish legions had adaped a more skirmisher style warfae from their iberian foes. I never heard froma dedicated anti elephatn units, Romans didn't fight enough Elephants that a whole dedicated legion would make sense.
Caesar Legio V Alaudae fought sucesfully Elephants in the battle of Thapsus and was rewarded with an elephant as symbol, but was originally created in Gaul and fought mainly in western europe and Germania for the greatest time of their existence except the civil war era. None traditonal legionary weapons as Glandes(lead slingshot) with legion names or hasta tips and since Augustan times even the reminders of composite bows were also frequently found in legionary forts. Some authors believe that a part of the legionaries could be trained to fight as archers as well, especially because according to Vegetius fourth century writings a third of soldiers should be trained as bowmen, but the bows could also be from auxilary troops. To some degree all legions had to modify their tactics to counter certain enemys especially if no specilaised auxilary troops were available, but


2. To add some more: the bosporan kingdom (on crimea), the kingdom of Meroe(Kush), the garamante state, the Judaen kingdom, the Nabataens, Kommagene, Pergammon, kappadokia.....

I know im going to be cruucified for this but would you give me the top three of these peoples that did nto make it in to EB that had massive contact with the Romans, (being as i am doing a Romano-Centric Mod)

Define "top" and we might be able to help you. What, to you, is the standard by which a faction should be included? Different peoples affected the ancient world in different ways.

Also depends on the time period, roving Gallic bands that burned rome early in its history obliviously affect Roman development greatly, but the Illyrian tribes brought Rome into conflict with Macedon during the Punic Wars and that put even more pressure on Rome, which she was close to losing entirely at times.

Peoples that affected the development of the Roman Empire throuhg Force fo Arms.

My two cents, without claim of exclusivity.

Commagene. Their cataphracts gave the Roman armies a run for their money and had a majot effect on the Romans' later development of heavy cavalry of their own.

Pergamon (sp) Their heavy cavalry, led by Eumenes II played a major role at Magnesia, crushing the Seleukid left wing and helping the Romans win the battle. That alliance was crucial for the Roman establishment in Asia Minor and the famous Pergamon Heavy Horse influenced the Roman creation of heavy cavalry later on.

Numidians - the constant raids, rebellions and light skirmish tactics eventually forced the Romans to develop more mobile units in Africa and to expand beyond the territories of Carthage, in order to remove the Numidian Threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chester

Pezhetairoi, how do you pronounce this?

---

Minor derailment: I believe it's something like peh-zdeh-tay-roi, with the P as spin and not as pin (sounds more like a B, really); the Z like mazed; E like pet; T as stone and not as tone (more like a D); AI like hay but a bit longer; R "rolled" as in Spanish and certain other languages; and OI as boi. In IPA it would be something along the lines of [pɛzdɛteiroi], and in Greek orthography I believe it would be πεζέταιροι. The second syllable (ze/zdeh/ζέ) would be pronounced with a rising tone, as if you were ending a question.

I could be a bit off, but I believe that's roughly accurate.

Thanks, Simmetrical. That's been bugging the hell out of me for some time. I couldn't find a pronounciation of it on the web.

Pergamon (sp) Their heavy cavalry, led by Eumenes II played a major role at Magnesia, crushing the Seleukid left wing and helping the Romans win the battle. That alliance was crucial for the Roman establishment in Asia Minor and the famous Pergamon Heavy Horse influenced the Roman creation of heavy cavalry later on.

I think Pergamon would be a great choice. I know many people here don't want to see another hellenetic faction (phalanx over dose?) but I wouldn't mind too much. I'm more towards another barbarian faction but Western Europe is pretty congested as is. Does pergamon have many unique units?

Zeta is really tricky. Sometimes it's clear it was pronounced 'zd' or 'sd' but at other times that it was pronounced 'dz' - 'ped-zeh....' A few people today want to say it's always one or the other but it seems likely both were used either for specific word variations or for different dialects. Coming from a combination of the words for foot 'ped-' and companions 'hetairoi', I would say it sounds more appropriate to say 'ped-zeh-tai-roi' than 'pez-deh-tai-roi'.

ok heres a random question...how do you pronounce aedui? its been buggin the hell out of me...