Best army composition for....

Ok I have loaded save game to check out my real army composition. I was quite off.
This is how my Kings army looked like.

Galaiche 5
Brihentin 2
LeuceEpos 2
Solduros 2
Beataroas 2
Neitos 3
Iaosatae 1
Sotaroas 2
King/Heir

About Gaesatae.
Well in almost 60 years of game I only trained one unit of this guys.
Before reforms they did serve in my Kings army.

Quote:

---

But something like...

1x General
1x Heavy Cavalry (Brihentin, Remi Mairepos etc.)
2x Light/Medium Cavalry (Leuce Epos, Taramannos etc.)
3x Missile (iaosatae, sotaroas)
1x Elite Infantry (Solduros, Arjos, Carnutes Cingetos etc.)
3x Heavy Infantry (Gaesatae, Neitos etc.)
4x Medium Infantry (Bataroas, Botroas, K-H Hoplitae etc.)
5x Spearmen (Gaelaiche, Caturiges Gaedann, Noricene Gaecori etc.)

---

This I think looks nice. Although I would add max up to 1 Gaesatae and max up to 1 iaosatae .

Ave!
My roman armies consist of:
5x Hastati - 1st line
3x Princeps - 2nd line
2x Triari - 3rd line or 2nd line flanks
3x Rorarii - 1st or 2nd line flanks
2x Skuda Fat Aexsdzhytae - 0 or 4th line
2x Misthophoroi Toxotai Kretikoi - 0 or 4th line
2x Enoci Curoas or Druhtiz Bastarnisku - 2nd line
1x General - 4th line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

I would certainly hope not, since it lacks 3 units I feel are obligatory, considering that he's likrlu talking of a post second reforms Aedui army judging from the brihentin (otherwise it's still 2). These are the Neitos, Leuce Epos and the Gaesatae. No Time of Soldiers army should go without them, or at least no army for a manual should. Another thing to note is that the Batacorii are only available in the Belgae settlements and southern Britain, so not really viable for an army in southern Gaul.

But something like...

1x General
1x Heavy Cavalry (Brihentin, Remi Mairepos etc.)
2x Light/Medium Cavalry (Leuce Epos, Taramannos etc.)
3x Missile (iaosatae, sotaroas)
1x Elite Infantry (Solduros, Arjos, Carnutes Cingetos etc.)
3x Heavy Infantry (Gaesatae, Neitos etc.)
4x Medium Infantry (Bataroas, Botroas, K-H Hoplitae etc.)
5x Spearmen (Gaelaiche, Caturiges Gaedann, Noricene Gaecori etc.)

... Perhaps? I don't know. I'm not going after any pre-made setup when I play a Celtic faction, I'm just taking what is available in the area, preferring local units. This is what my Arverni army looks in my current campaign (no reforms):

1x General
2x Leuce Epos
1x Liguriae Epos
3x Iaosatae
1x Gaesatae
3x Botroas
1x Bataroas (fighting in Cisalpine Gaul, these are being faced out)
3x Gaeroas
1x Kluddacorii
2x Caturiges Gaedann
1x Noricene Gaecori
1x Mori Gaesum

I wouldn't say it's the "best army composition", but it's the result of how I play as an Arverni warchief. That's also why I haven't said anything earlier in this thread.

---

Cheers. incidently, what sort of formation did they use, as I can't seem to find any mention of them in Livy or Julius Ceaser's thing on gaul.
Have a balloon. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LorDBulA

Ok I have loaded save game to check out my real army composition. I was quite off.
This is how my Kings army looked like.

Galaiche 5
Brihentin 2
LeuceEpos 2
Solduros 2
Beataroas 2
Neitos 3
Iaosatae 1
Sotaroas 2
King/Heir

About Gaesatae.
Well in almost 60 years of game I only trained one unit of this guys.
Before reforms they did serve in my Kings army.



This I think looks nice. Although I would add max up to 1 Gaesatae and max up to 1 iaosatae .

---

I agree on the Gaesatae: one unit is all you really need anyway. Limiting the Iaosatae to just one is unnecessary though, as they're not that great any more. I would probably go a 1/2 split anyway, which one I'd have two of would depend on who I'm fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roniniho

Cheers. incidently, what sort of formation did they use, as I can't seem to find any mention of them in Livy or Julius Ceaser's thing on gaul.
Have a balloon. :balloon2:

---

I wish I could help you there, mate, but I'm far from a historian. I think Thaatu came pretty close to the mark with this illustration, though:

https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/87...tacticskw7.jpg

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

I agree on the Gaesatae: one unit is all you really need anyway. Limiting the Iaosatae to just one is unnecessary though, as they're not that great any more. I would probably go a 1/2 split anyway, which one I'd have two of would depend on who I'm fighting.


I wish I could help you there, mate, but I'm far from a historian. I think Thaatu came pretty close to the mark with this illustration, though:

https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/87...tacticskw7.jpg

~;)

---

They were slightly more organised than that. I mean, the Samnites were only partially 'civilised' (note the quotation marks), but still invented, AFAWK, manipular tactics, and the quincux.
The gauls also, had 'sections'. Not quite on a level of the Romans or greeks, but less 'EVERYONE, CHARGE', and more 'THOSE PEOPLE IN FUNNY HATS OVER THERE, CHARGE! EVERYONE ELSE DEFEND THIS HILL!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

The gauls also, had 'sections'. Not quite on a level of the Romans or greeks, but less 'EVERYONE, CHARGE', and more 'THOSE PEOPLE IN FUNNY HATS OVER THERE, CHARGE! EVERYONE ELSE DEFEND THIS HILL!'

---

After all most of these "Barbarian" armies were composed of professional soldiers, at least in their cores. All their commanders would have been experienced officers that knew their trade and were in no way inferior to their Greek and Roman counterparts (just imagine men like Ariovist or Arminius in charge of Antigonos' or Mithradates' army).

The armies would have had division of several kinds; divisions by tribe for example are recorded - what would also include division by traditional waeponary and way of combat. There would have also been divisions by troop type or quality. There was a developed chain of command as well as a way to communicate orders.

What they were lacking, and in what they would have been inferior to the Greeks and Romans, was personal discipline. Each individual ranker seemed to be very eager to gain personal fame in a battle. That would have made it difficult for a commander to keep control over his troops once battle was unleahsed.

To make matters even worse, the leaders themselves would have charged ahead of their men into close combat to proof their bravety; and there is hardly anything more useless on a battlefield than a fighting general. A Roman or Greek general watching the show from a distanced point and not busy fighting for his very live would have been more able to give the right command at the right moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

After all most of these "Barbarian" armies were composed of professional soldiers, at least in their cores. All their commanders would have been experienced officers that knew their trade and were in no way inferior to their Greek and Roman counterparts (just imagine men like Ariovist or Arminius in charge of Antigonos' or Mithradates' army).

The armies would have had division of several kinds; divisions by tribe for example are recorded - what would also include division by traditional waeponary and way of combat. There would have also been divisions by troop type or quality. There was a developed chain of command as well as a way to communicate orders.

What they were lacking, and in what they would have been inferior to the Greeks and Romans, was personal discipline. Each individual ranker seemed to be very eager to gain personal fame in a battle. That would have made it difficult for a commander to keep control over his troops once battle was unleahsed.

To make matters even worse, the leaders themselves would have charged ahead of their men into close combat to proof their bravety; and there is hardly anything more useless on a battlefield than a fighting general. A Roman or Greek general watching the show from a distanced point and not busy fighting for his very live would have been more able to give the right command at the right moment.

---

As ever, Konny always manages to smear the mud of rightness all over the faces of the wrong. Thankyou.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

To make matters even worse, the leaders themselves would have charged ahead of their men into close combat to proof their bravety; and there is hardly anything more useless on a battlefield than a fighting general. A Roman or Greek general watching the show from a distanced point and not busy fighting for his very live would have been more able to give the right command at the right moment.

---

Before the Peloponnesian war, a Greek general's job also consisted mainly from giving an inspiring speech and leading from the front. This may have had something to do with the fact that hoplite armies didn't allow much in the way of command and control, though (unless they happened to be from Lacedaemon). I imagine this changed when armies became more professional, but Alexander liked to get stuck-in, and most of his successors also felt the need to lead from the front from time to time. According to Goldsworthy, the Romans were special in not expecting their generals to participate in combat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

They were slightly more organised than that. I mean, the Samnites were only partially 'civilised' (note the quotation marks), but still invented, AFAWK, manipular tactics, and the quincux.
The gauls also, had 'sections'. Not quite on a level of the Romans or greeks, but less 'EVERYONE, CHARGE', and more 'THOSE PEOPLE IN FUNNY HATS OVER THERE, CHARGE! EVERYONE ELSE DEFEND THIS HILL!'

---

Of course I know they were more organized than that. It was just a (bad) joke. :tired:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Before the Peloponnesian war, a Greek general's job also consisted mainly from giving an inspiring speech and leading from the front. This may have had something to do with the fact that hoplite armies didn't allow much in the way of command and control, though (unless they happened to be from Lacedaemon). I imagine this changed when armies became more professional, but Alexander liked to get stuck-in, and most of his successors also felt the need to lead from the front from time to time. According to Goldsworthy, the Romans were special in not expecting their generals to participate in combat.

---

With a Hoplites army there is in fact not much to general around. Once it was aligned parallel to the enemy there was only way it could move: forward. There had also been no independent divisions or reserves that a general could commit. Reducing it to one sentence: Hoplites didn't need a general at all.

Alexander is a complete different story: He was leading the assault wing. The phalanx was very much like the Hoplites of old and could look after itself. Alexander on the other hand kept the "hammer" under his close control. So he was able to strike swift, in the right moment and the right direction without beeing hindered by having to use messangers or having an obscured view from somewhere behind the phalanx. Riding ahead of the decisive charge was certainly also something that fitted his character most.

The Romans were of course not the only ones who used to lead a battle from the "general's hill". Hannibal was another example of a general leading from behind.

Wasn't Julius Caesar the exception to the "lead from behind" rule? I remember hearing that he liked to get stuck-in too.

Probably propaganda to gain popularity made up by the man Gaivs Ivlivs himself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Wasn't Julius Caesar the exception to the "lead from behind" rule? I remember hearing that he liked to get stuck-in too.

---

Not really. There were a handful of examples where he took to the field in person, but they were very much the exception, not the rule. Generally when things had gotten really bad (Gergovia, Alesia, Munda). He makes a point in his own commentaries of highlighting his role as director, not participant.

By his era Roman generals really were spectators, who's job it was to inspire and observe the actions of his men (and punish cowardice), not take part. Generals could still win the spoila opima for killing an enemy king/general, but it was rare. I think Marcellus (before the Second Punic War) was the last Roman general to win it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

SPQR: ...... Cavalry is not so usefull because your (Barbarian) enemies will use spears in huge numbers and even the best Barbarian cavalry, Brithentin, aren't really battle-tanks.
.......

Fighting Romans with them is a different story, because Romans are perfectly equipped to fight Celts and the like....

---

I FULLY disagree on these two points.

Brithentin is an EXELENT cavarly, true is not a cataphract (sp) tank or a Hetaroi lightling, but Brithentin can give and take a beating. They are pretty fast and have a strong charge. Plus they are a pretty cheap for a heavy cavarly.

Besides, u don't send Brithentin (or most other cavarly) to the front of a ready wall of infantry.

Romans are strong and cheap, but they ain't "perfectly equipped" to fight celts. The bigger swords of the Celts have a higher lethality than the gladius, and if against axemen (teceitos, tekastos, Alpine phalax) Romans are F***. Plus Roman cavarly ain't that great, save for Eqvites Extraordinarii (Elite Heavy Cavalry of the Italic Allies).

Now a war winning gallic army has to have the following, Gesatae, axemen, moral-reasing units, and VERY strong cavarly wing.

The strenght of a Gallic army falls in applying the following combination on ur enemies in battle:

(1)Solid front+Scaring units+Cavarly charge= Rout.
(2)Rout+Mass Infantry+Scaring units+Cavarly= Routing cascade.

U want a quick battle as a Gaul, long protracted ones are not good as most of units lack armor.

Also, 1 Gaesate is NOT enough, you need a at least 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

Brithentin is an EXELENT cavarly, true is not a cataphract (sp) tank or a Hetaroi lightling, but Brithentin can give and take a beating. They are pretty fast and have a strong charge. Plus they are a pretty cheap for a heavy cavarly.

---

In fact the charge of Brihentin is weaker than that of Prodomoi. Yes, they aren't Eastern Kataphrakts - and they aren't even Mediterranian standard.

Quote:

---

Romans are strong and cheap, but they ain't "perfectly equipped" to fight celts. The bigger swords of the Celts have a higher lethality than the gladius, and if against axemen (teceitos, tekastos, Alpine phalax) Romans are F***. Plus Roman cavarly ain't that great, save for Eqvites Extraordinarii (Elite Heavy Cavalry of the Italic Allies).

---

The wast majority of Gallic soldiers are unarmoured spearmen; and for fighting those Romans are perfectly equipped. Of course, when "Gallic" armies are made of picked soldiers from outside Gaul, things might be different. And Roman cavalry is far superior to their Celtic opponents. Equites Romani and Campanii should have no difficulties dealing with Leuce Epos, and Extraordinarii are superior to Brihentin in all disciplinces, be it charge, AP secondary weapon or armour.

My Getic "Kings Army"

2x FMs
1x Dacian slingers
1x Dacian Archers
1x Elite Dacian Archers
3x Dacian Skirmishers
1x Elite Dacian Skirmishers
2x Thraikian Spearmen
3x Light Dacian Phalanx
1x Heavy Dacian Phalanx
1x Falxmen
1x Costobocii Axemen
1x Rhomphaiaphoroi
1x Dacian Horse Archers

No idea how historically accurate it is, but it crushes anything the Greeks throw against me. It's a bit bigger than I would usually prefer, but I have more money than I know what to do with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

My Getic "Kings Army"

2x FMs
1x Dacian slingers
1x Dacian Archers
1x Elite Dacian Archers
3x Dacian Skirmishers
1x Elite Dacian Skirmishers
2x Thraikian Spearmen
3x Light Dacian Phalanx
1x Heavy Dacian Phalanx
1x Falxmen
1x Costobocii Axemen
1x Rhomphaiaphoroi
1x Dacian Horse Archers

No idea how historically accurate it is, but it crushes anything the Greeks throw against me. It's a bit bigger than I would usually prefer, but I have more money than I know what to do with.

---

I'm sure you can squeeze another unit in! If there isn't 20 units in an army, what's the point? If you're after historical accuracy, I'd focus more on the Falxmen, as these were the backbone of the getai tribes.

Yeah, I know they used a lot of falxmen but they are just too good! I limit myself to one unit of slingers per stack with all factions, and with the Getai I have given myself a one falxmen per stack limit to give the game some sort of challenge. I also leave the Rhomphaiaphoroi in reserve unless I really need them. The only weakness in the army is a lack of armour. I guess the phalanx wouldn't survive one on one with Hellenic phalanx, but then why would I let them do that when I can throw falxmen, komatai and cavalry at the enemy from behind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Wasn't Julius Caesar the exception to the "lead from behind" rule? I remember hearing that he liked to get stuck-in too.

---

If I remember Goldsworthy correctly, Ceasar didn't actually participate in the fighting. He just went far nearer to the frontline than was expected from a general in order to encourage his men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

With a Hoplites army there is in fact not much to general around. Once it was aligned parallel to the enemy there was only way it could move: forward. There had also been no independent divisions or reserves that a general could commit. Reducing it to one sentence: Hoplites didn't need a general at all.

Alexander is a complete different story: He was leading the assault wing. The phalanx was very much like the Hoplites of old and could look after itself. Alexander on the other hand kept the "hammer" under his close control. So he was able to strike swift, in the right moment and the right direction without beeing hindered by having to use messangers or having an obscured view from somewhere behind the phalanx. Riding ahead of the decisive charge was certainly also something that fitted his character most.

The Romans were of course not the only ones who used to lead a battle from the "general's hill". Hannibal was another example of a general leading from behind.

---

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I merely pointed out that Hellenic generals did join in the fighting, unlike their Roman counterparts. Fair point about Hannibal, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

Now a war winning gallic army has to have the following, Gesatae, axemen, moral-reasing units, and VERY strong cavarly wing.

The strenght of a Gallic army falls in applying the following combination on ur enemies in battle:

(1)Solid front+Scaring units+Cavarly charge= Rout.
(2)Rout+Mass Infantry+Scaring units+Cavarly= Routing cascade.

U want a quick battle as a Gaul, long protracted ones are not good as most of units lack armor.

Also, 1 Gaesate is NOT enough, you need a at least 2.

---

TRUST THIS GUY!!!

he can kick anyone's ass with those frigin brihentins!!

ARG I hate them now just cause of him :p

he always beat the crap out of me when I try to play with romans, hell my frontline just mass routes after his charge...

Brihentins are not weak! but well they dont do that well in mele though :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I merely pointed out that Hellenic generals did join in the fighting, unlike their Roman counterparts. Fair point about Hannibal, though.

---

The difference is that Hellenic generals usually fought leading the tactical reserves. They kept control on the battle until these were committed. In fact another saying is that once a general has committed his last reserves he can't do different than line up with the men. Another point with those Hellenic generals is of course the imitation of Alexander himself.

A Germanic general, for example, would have most likely to be found in the first line of the centre of his army, and so he would be leading the first full scale attack on the enemy. After that he would most likely not have been able to control the battle. In fact his subordinates would have had difficulties to even find their general in that chaos. That does not follow that they had been poor generals, it is more that the lads expected their leader to do so.

Another example for commanders leading from behind would be Xerxes and Darios (and with them probably Persian commanders in general).

Alexander didn't use much in the way of reserves. His personal unit may not have been the first to engage, but he definitely didn't wait long to engage either. IIRC most later Hellenic generals were more cautious, but they still wouldn't have the same amount of control and mobility as a Roman general.

His assault wing or the heavy cavalry, plus infantry support, under his personal command was the reserves - in tactical terms. The difference is, of course, that it was usually the only body that did actively attack the enemy, while the centre and the refused wing acted very passive. That's the difference between Alexander and, for example, Napoleon who prefered to attack the enemy with different parts of the army on various spots before committing the reserves.

So shortly after the start of the engagement Alexander would have been somewhere in the enemy lines, and therefore unable to control the greater battle.

The decision took place where he was (not because of his person, but due to the nature of the troops he commanded). The other parts of the line where a static phalanx and a screen on the other wing, neither of which needed any superivsion by the general. That all had to do with the composition of the army and the overall tactics. Hannibal, for example, would have never won Cannae had he commanded the Spanish cavalry in person.