"sacred band" of carthage!!!
They are greek hoplites of the persian war era!! ~:confused: ~:)
Printable View
"sacred band" of carthage!!!
They are greek hoplites of the persian war era!! ~:confused: ~:)
Nope, they actually did exist -- just that it is probable that by the beginning of RTW they no longer were employed on the battefield.
That fighting style and basic armour would be historically correct from what I've gathered. The Sacred Band fought in hoplite phalanx with helmets, cuirasses, and large round shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
Hoplite warfare was the standard way for many advanced cultures to fight in the 4th century BC, and into the 3rd. Roman armies were hoplite style in the 5th century and probably throughout most of the 4th century. The game starts in the early 3rd century. The Sacred Band itself was no longer in existence at that time, having been wiped out earlier while fighting in Sicily vs. the Greeks.
i dont disagree with the existance of sacred band unit,and the y way of fighting(almost all the hellenistic world was fighting in phalanxes)
,but for their equipment: corinthian helmets,hoplon shields,linen cuirasses,greek gaiters all put together....they are greeks :knight:
The Carthaginians brought Spartans over to train their army, so it is quite logical, really... just that there are important cosmetic inaccuracies such as the pattern that runs around the border of the shield.
did their trained the carthagenian blacksmiths too ?~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I know this,but this training is refered to the battle tactics and army organisation.
I don't think most would object to changing some of the style to match what is known about Carthaginian troops, but the essentials of the armanent were correct. (Ignoring RTW problems with hoplites in general.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
There was a lot of sharing/purchase of gear from various nations and sources. Carthage was a trade based economy/society. While the Spartan training being referred to (Xanthippus?) came primarily from the 1st Punic War, Carthaginians were fighting in some sort of hoplite phalanx much earlier than that. It was not as drilled and disciplined as it should have been and Xanthippus, a merc was given control to improve them. Of note, however, is that when the army went into combat later against Regulus, the mercenary hoplites (Greeks?) were the ones that were routed, not the Carthaginians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
CA did not develop as many individual models/skins as they probably should have. Some of it might have had to do with limitations in the game engine on the number of units. Overall though, the product seemed rushed, and they probably just didn't have the time to do more differentiation.
Yes, and these battle tactics required these armaments. Suffice to say, the shield pattern, helmet and several other things are incorrect, but on a more general level little can be said of their inaccuracy -- regarding equipment, mind you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos
The point really, is that a Carthie noble would most likely have been able to recognize the Sacred Band we see. Sure he could say a lot of things weren't true the same (the helmet in particular) but so is it with basically all units (yes the Romans too).
My favorites:
When the vanilla game begins in 270 BC, Ariminum has almost half the population of Rome. Which is remarkable since the city wasn't founded until 268 BC.
Polybius tells us that in 260 BC the Romans built 100 quinquiremes using a four year old Carthaginian wreck as a model. Yet at the beginning of the game, no port on the game map can even build a trireme.
I'll pass over the pigs and dogs which have almost been pilloried enough by others.
I don't think head hurlers can be adequately appreciated without looking at their stats. CA actually created a weapon type ("head") used only by the head hurlers. The heads have the "armor peircing" attribute. They have a range of 40 meters and each head hurler carries 6 heads. The Olympic record for the shot put is about 23 meters and the shot itself is 16 lbs (7.25 kg) which must be about what a head weighs. I can only assume that the additional range is due to the added torque developed by grasping the head by its hair and whirling it rather than spinning and "pushing" the shot.
Speaking of hair, I couldn't help but notice that all the heads are brunettes. Does anyone know of a mod which substitutes a blonde or perhaps a redhead? Dreadlocks maybe?
On to the various town watch units.
In the Roman case, I'm guessing that these are based on the vigiles, which didn't exist until 6 BC, at the tail end of the vanilla game time frame. The vigiles were formed as a fire brigade and night watch and only (to my knowledge) in the city of Rome itself. Though they became part of the regular army by the time of Septimius Severus, I can find no mention of them ever engaging in combat. The situation elsewhere in Italy is less clear, but I can't find any justification for the Roman town watch unit.
Polybius mentions a Carthaginian citizen militia but describes it as a phalanx, which I take to mean something a bit more formidable than a bunch of un-armored guys with pitchforks. OK, they're supposed to be spears. And Carthage prohibited any other cities under its control from having military forces of their own, so I don't see any basis for the Carthaginian city militia unit.
The greek hoplite militia unit seems plausible but, given that it's "highly_trained" why no armor?
I'd be interested in any information anyone has concerning the historical basis for the town watch units.
My biggest complaint is about the 'barbarians'. Everything about them is silly.
I don't know. I think that, forgetting Egypt and some of the more fanciful units, CA has gotten the basic army line-up correct, even if the barbarians armies are simplisticly represented. What bothers me more is that they lump Iberians, Celts, Germans, Thracians and Scythians together and give an uniform and stereotypical image of them in the descriptive texts and building trees. This is a rather lazy solution, and not at all appropriate for a game that presents itself as historical.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Mind you, even if they had spent more time on a historical background, the fans would probably modded them anyway. And a thin historical justification never bothered anyone much when playing S:TW or M:TW.
marian reforms and lots of units...marian reforms werent till round 80 BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
........
I can't pull quotes off the top of my head, but all the readings I have done indicate that there was no form of town watch or police unit in any Roman city at all until the Empire. Justice and protection were reliant upon actions by the plebs themselves, there was no help provided by the government. Rome itself shouldn't even be ALLOWED to have a garrison before the Imperial period. If cities needed protection from outside forces or suppression of internal turmoil, the local legions would take care of those problems on a temporary basis before returning to the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
This is a difficult point because of what the game calls Marian Reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Marius' most important reform was the elimination of the property requirement for service in the legions, which took place in 107 BC, though reductions in the property requirement had happened several times earlier. In game terms, this has no effect.
Marius also introduced the legionary eagle (replacing the use of several animal standards), but I can't find a good date for this. It would obviously have to be before his death in 86 BC.
In the game, the Marian Reforms change the unit types available to the Roman faction(s). However, it's not clear to me that Marius any direct influence on the change in the composition of the legions. These changes were more likely driven by the settlement of the Social War in 87 BC, which awarded Roman citizenship to virtually all Italians south of the Po. This meant that the men who had served in the alae were now citizens eligible for service in the legions proper. If this is correct, the the date of circa 80 BC for the change in the composition of the legions is right, though of course the transition was probably gradual.
I appreciate your other, more specific comments also. Regarding the hoplite militia, I see your point about the level of training necessary for a functional phalanx. I probably should have simply said that the hoplite militia unit seems reasonable but should have armor. The stiffened linen stuff used by regular hoplites could not have been expensive.
This is my impression as well, and of course I'm aware of the prohibition against any Roman citizen crossing the pomerium in arms. I'd be anxious to have any references if you run across them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
[ EDIT: spelling! ]
Well, I did run across this in the book I'm currently reading (Caesar by Christian Meier):Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
No sources are cited for this section, so I can't point to a first-hand source, but Meier is certainly reputable. I'll go back through some of my other books and post anything I find.Quote:
The Roman commonwealth had not evolved an autonomous state apparatus. Innumerable functions that the modern state has arrogated to itself or evolved over time - and that are no longer feasible without it - were performed by the citizens acting among themselves: they thus had no need of a bureaucracy, a public prosecutor, a police force, a public edution system or a postal service. Even the need for public order was normally met by individuals, assisted by neighbours, clients or slaves.
well yeah atillius
the marian reforms were mostly about the way they were organised
-the payment
-the composition (cohorts etc)
-the aquilifier (eagle)
now legions were loyal to the general instead of the senate a dangerous thing wich proved disastrous as effective later on
I have this (excellent) book also, but it's been several years since I read it. I'll have to check out the section you quoted from.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Thanks Tin Cow.
Yep, the homogenous "barbarian culture" in RTW is indeed silly. Carthage has cultural penalties when they conquer Iberian cities, though they did have lots of contact with them this is understandable. But if Iberia conquers a town on the far away Scythian plains, they have no culture penalties. :san_undecided:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
It's silly that Rome has acces to Praetorian and Urban cohorts, the Praetorians didn't exist until Augustus created them and the Urbans even after later (not sure about the exact dates)
It annoys me that when the Marian reforms hit, you go from a fairly balanced hastati-principes-triarii instantly to supremely trained legionares.
The Legionaires depicted would be fit for the Caesar/Augustus period, but not for the time when the Marian reforms occur in the game. There should be no testudo, no perfectly square shields, and they're too strong compared to the principes you had just a few turns ago. The legionaires got better and better until reaching their peak under Caesar, they didn't just switch from pre-marian units to uber cohorts.
Praetorian cavalry- I'm not sure if they existed, but they're way too powerful. As the faction description (truthfully) suggests, Rome should have strong infantry and limited cavalry. Yet Praetorians are better then the companions of Macedon, wich is ridiculous.
Archery has been mentioned, and I'm going to do it again :san_tongue: . Romans didn't use archers at all until much later, and those they did use were all foreign auxilia. The Greeks used them sparingly. Neither had much respect for archery, because it was looked down upon. Generally only people who couldn't afford true war gear (hoplon and curras, scutum and gladius...) would be pressed into service as skirmishers and archers.
To many bare breasted units! CA seemed to want to create a "barbarian" feel with them, but don't tell me Scythians rode the northern plains with no clothing except pants...especially in the winter.
Germaanse Strijder
I rather disagree on this point, at lest with respect to Greece. While I think this bit of conventional wisdom is overstated and something of a modern focus on only particular evidence for the classical period, it is really out of tune with the Hellenistic (RTW period) Greeks. Cretan archers Rhodian slingers, neo-Cretans, peltasts, Thracians and light infantry of all types figured prominently in Greek armies from the 4th century BC forward.Quote:
Romans didn't use archers at all until much later, and those they did use were all foreign auxilia. The Greeks used them sparingly. Neither had much respect for archery, because it was looked down upon. Generally only people who couldn't afford true war gear (hoplon and curras, scutum and gladius...) would be pressed into service as skirmishers and archers.
GS
i dunno if the peak was under ceasar...but i do know that the "late roman legions" in RTW were used in Hadrian and trajans time way after the end date of RTW so with all due respect they should have been banned or atleast changed.
the early would become normal and befor normal another early should have been made
If they would have left out the lorica-segmentata wearing legionary cohort, the forum would be flooded with posts of "Why do the Roman wear chainmail? Everyone knows they used segmented armour!". In other words: they had to include Imperial Legionaries because that are the Romans everyone knows.I think the oldest known example of Lorica Segmentata dates from Augustus' reign, so it is not entirely out of place, but it would take some time before it was in common use. A worse error is that all legionaries, even the pre-Marian ones, use a square Imperial shield.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Urban cohorts, Praetorian infantry and cavalry were all established by Augustus IIRC, so they are not out of the time-frame. Whether they, or the legionary cohorts for that matter, where as powerful as they are in the game is questionable. I think the game portrays the Romans as they were under the best conditions, which was seldom the case in reality.
As it is, R:TW is more (but not entirely) a popular view of history, as opposed to a historical one.
It was my understanding that the Greek polises only started employing these alternative troops because the "warrior population" of most cities were depleted. I recall someone mentioning that at the peak of Athens power she could field around 14,000 hoplites, and only about 1,000 when Alexander ascended the throne. Ippicrathes did make use of peltasts, because he couldn't rely on his own hoplites to defeat the Spartiates.Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
By what I've read the ball was really put rolling by the Athenians and their allies (based on some earlier experiences) during the Peloponnesian War for the fairly simple reason they had slight difficulties dealing with the Spartans in a straight hoplite clash.
By what I know most armies (that now were organized as such to begin with - hodge-podge barbarian tribal warbands don't really count) of the period covered by RTW actually had a fairly flexible approach to their armies. Oh, their "native" troops tended to have pretty standardized gear and tactics - but everyone was only too happy to supplement them with all sorts of odds and ends in the form of allies, auxiliaries and mercenaries whenever anything of the sort was available (which was most of the time). The Roman legions proper may have had only a lot of heavy infantry, a handful of cavalry plus probably some artillery, as per official specs - but that certainly didn't keep them from scraping together every archer, horseman, javelineer or whatever they could add to the army to help out, and it is difficult to imagine why other armies would act differently. If it's even remotely useful and can help you win the fight, it gets brought along. Basta.
One gets the impression it was in practice pretty much the norm to keep various kinds of support auxiliaries attached to the legions, which is understandable as in their basic configuration they were uncomfortably limited in certain areas (it is no doubt rather easy to find this out in practice in RTW too). The famous case of settling an entire population of Sarmatian auxiliaries in Britain (ie. pretty much to the other side of Europe) would probably be a bit extreme manifestation of this.
Wow you guys are good, I got a headache from all the knoledge I just stored in my head...im going to sleep now.
Thucydides writes that in 426 BC, during the Pelopennesian war, the Athenian commander Demosthenes invaded Aetolia with a force of hoplites and archers. This is before any serious battle losses, certainly nothing like those preceeding the huge Syracusan expedition 11 years later, so employment of archers was clearly not due to a shortage of hoplite manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
Demosthenes suffered defeat and severe casualties at the hands of the Aetolians, who were armed with javelins and avoided contact with the Athenian hoplites. The Athenians were only capable of hurting the Aetolians until the archers ran out of arrows.
Demosthenes apparently learned his lesson: later in the same year he used light-armed troops to spring an ambush on a Peloponnesian force in Amphilochia.
The next year, after besieging the island of Sphacteria with hoplites, he was able to capture it when Cleon brought him a force of peltasts and 400 archers. In the process, the unthinkable happened: almost 300 Spartans were captured, including 120 Spartiates. This shocked the Helllenic world and could only have inspired imitation.
I agree that deployment of light troops seems to have increased during the Peloponnesian war, but I don't think the impetus was the Athenians trying to deal with the Spartans. The Athenians had intended to avoid the Spartan hoplites from the beginning and it's striking that a war lasting 27 years had only two large-scale hoplite battles: Delium (which can almost be classified as an accident) and Mantinea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Also, according to Thucydides, at Delium the Boeotians (Spartan allies) had about 7000 hoplites, 1000 horse, 10,000 "light troops", and 500 peltasts.
Germany. The spearmen can use the phalanx. Now where might I ask would they learn how to do that? And the women with meat cleavers... sorry not happening.
They can do that because Gaius Julius Caesar wrote that the Helvetii tribe fought with long spears in a phalanx like formation.