New unit at the com: Roman Comitatenes !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

No, according to what I know the first saddle didn't exist until 365(+-5 years) AD in Sarmatia.

---

Interesting. having searched around the internet for a while, I found several sites saying that the Sarmatians invented the saddle in AD365. However, I also found sites that showed that the Romans had saddles for their cavalry. It seems that the Sarmatians invented the saddle we know today, but that the Romans did have saddles before this. They just weren't as advanced as the saddles we have now. They had four 'horns' on them to stop the rider falling off:

http://www.hightowercrafts.com/roman%20saddle.jpg

Source please ??
Gotta remember that one of the reason that historians bash "the gladiator" is because they are using saddles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

Source please ??
Gotta remember that one of the reason that historians bash "the gladiator" is because they are using saddles.

---

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Stage/3591/army.html

Quote:

---

Roman cavalry of the early and middle Empire was organized in alae, units of 500 to 1,000 men divided into squadrons, or turmae, of 30 or 40 horsemen under the command of decurions. We know that the Romans used a kind of saddle, with four saddle horns for anchoring baggage, but they had no knowledge of stirrups, although they did use spurs

---

http://www.caerleon.net/history/army/page7.html#saddle

scroll down to the 'cavalry' bit

http://www.scran.ac.uk/packs/exhibit...s/56/Auxil.htm

Quote:

---

Archaeological discoveries, however, have revealed that the Roman saddle was designed with projecting horns to keep the rider firmly in place, rather like the cowboy saddle of more recent times.

---

http://www.legiiavg.org.uk/articles/..._wholedoc.html

Quote:

---

The all-important saddle had no stirrups. These were replaced by the use of 4 horns on the saddle itself, which offered a great sense of security, as the horseman could not fall out.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry

Quote:

---

The decline of the Roman infrastructure made it successively more difficult to field large infantry forces, and during the second and third centuries cavalry began to take a more dominant role on the battlefield, also in part made possible by the appearance of new, larger breeds of horses. The replacement of the insubstantial Roman saddle by variants on the Scythian model, with pommel and cantle, was significant too.

---

p.s. it's 'Gladiator', not 'the Gladiator'. Maybe they were using the wrong kind of saddle?

I stand corrected then :bow:
However the cavalry in the pic is still fantasy tho since it is the wrong saddle ~;)

Um, no. That unit is NOT fantasy in anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Um, no. That unit is NOT fantasy in anyway.

---

According to your and many others mentality it is.
They didn't use that saddle during this period of RTW so it is obviously a fantasy unit.

Yes, they did...


Prove that they didn't use the saddle :smartass:

See the previous post. ~;)

That saddle may not be 100% accurate, but im sure prometheus has researched this much more than us.

I don't get want your point is. We complain that a ahistorical unit is ahistorical and you try to get back by saying that the saddle may or may not be hisrotical. In truth it is probably hard to say what the romans had. Sometimes skinners have to just do guess work as this was a very long time ago. I would not complain to Ca for doing their best to make a histoical based impression.

There new units seems to have been done this way, which actually may be the reason why it doesnt look good to me.

This saddle is 100% accurate for a 1st century ad unit like Prometheus equites singulares. The RES GESTAE mod ends 69ad.
The four horned saddle apaered in sculptural and aercheological evidence around the very late 1st century BC/ early 1st century ad. This kind of saddle is not realy inferior to modern ones, it was just designed for another purpose.
I can post pictures of roman monuments showing this kind of saddle tomorrow if you are not convinced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

That saddle may not be 100% accurate, but im sure prometheus has researched this much more than us.

I don't get want your point is. We complain that a ahistorical unit is ahistorical and you try to get back by saying that the saddle may or may not be hisrotical. In truth it is probably hard to say what the romans had. Sometimes skinners have to just do guess work as this was a very long time ago.

---

I believe his point is that it's rather ironic that you, as a staunch supporter of historical accuracy, point everyone towards a skin that is (possibly) not in fact 100% historically accurate.

As a side note, I don't think it's really worthwhile to be arguing over the looks of a unit. Units etc can be modded in or out. The real thing that will make or break BI for people here is the AI. I don't care if CA gives us Armored Bicycle Knights; as long they've greatly improved the AI then it will be bought if only to mod. (And I'm sure the armored bicycle knights will be the first to be removed)

http://img263.echo.cx/img263/8247/13gg.jpg

As far as I can see, the saddles in this screenshot match the saddles that the Romans used:

http://www.hightowercrafts.com/roman%20saddle.jpg

There are no stirrups and the saddle has two large 'horns' pointing sideways from the front of the saddle to hold the rider in place.

The unit appears to be historically accurate, although Bob has a point when he says that the AI will probably be more important to most people than whether a unit is 100% historically accurate (although I do support historical accuracy wherever possible).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobTheTerrible

I believe his point is that it's rather ironic that you, as a staunch supporter of historical accuracy, point everyone towards a skin that is (possibly) not in fact 100% historically accurate.

---

actually the "looks" of units is always debatable. Thus i never judge Ca for being inaccurate by its skins. It't the units themselves that i care about.

And if you look at the post above you will see that this unit is probably accurate. Again, i dont really know enough about roman saddles to know, but as I said the skins are always the artist impression and they cant possibly be 100% accurate, though these are possibly very accurate, as their maker Prometheus knows what he is doing.

I believ it is rather ironic that people know more about me than i do. Did i every complain about a units skin saying its not accurate? I think not.

Bob,

the ai is more important and really ahistorical units dont bother me that much. People trying to argue the priest fighting is realistic does bother me. But then again thats not even what this thread is about though most people seem to be trying to get revenge for that thread here.

I still have seen very few people post their opnions about this unit, as it seems most people find it funner to flame me or assume things that i never said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

I still have seen very few people post their opnions about this unit, as it seems most people find it funner to flame me or assume things that i never said.

---

You're right, this thread does seem to have gone a bit off-topic (and I suppose I am partly responsible for that, so sorry). If you got the impression that I was one of those trying to flame you then I apologise, it certainly wasn't my intention.

So back to the Roman Comitatenes (which is what this thread is about, after all).

I quite like the skin. It's not as nice as say, the Roman legionaries but it's still pretty good.

Marcellus you certainly werent flamming me as most of your post seemed to be agreeing with me and dont worry about you taking this thread off topic. Ever since the first page people have been more intent on attacking my opinion than giving their own. I would be pleased if this stopped and am happy to go on with the thread.

~:grouphug:

Im guessing this unit is supposed to look "barbarian" as that is what was happening to the roman army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

No what's ironic in that trying to prove me wrong you made yourself look the fool. I've learned from latin/Roman experts that it's,

When your a gladiator thumb down= bad (loser gets the *point* )

thumb covered by fingers = good (loser lives)


The tumbs down for killing the losers (accompanied by a downward thrust of the forearm) came about as it mimics the killing blow with a gladius or dagger. Thumbs covered for sparing his life came about as to represent sheathing your weapon.

---

Hmm, that's interesting. It's thumbs down good according to Discovery Channel. I'm curious, what's your source if oyu can give a online source?

I don't think we should put so much stock on whether a unit looks historically accurate. It's not like we have time machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Hmm, that's interesting. It's thumbs down good according to Discovery Channel. I'm curious, what's your source if oyu can give a online source?

I don't think we should put so much stock on whether a unit looks historically accurate. It's not like we have time machines.

---

I can't as my source is in a similar vien as yours, TV. Specifically some documentary about the movie Gladiator. They guy who gave the little speach I recited was a British Roman/Latin expert who works in Rome. He also gave the latin terms that accompanied the hand gestures (don't ask as I don't remember them).

That's not much better than several historians trying to debunk that famous Rennaissance painting of the gladiator fight where everyone's doing the thumbs down.

Moot.

I've been trying to remember more of what was said about Gladiators and the thumb signs. They did say that there was documenatry (IE written records) evidence to support that tumbs down was the sign to kill the loser. But that tumbs up to spare the loser came along later due to a mistranslation of a script or something like that. And that thumbs covered was the sign to spare someone.

Well, atleast we can agree that it wasn't thumbs up. It was either a thumb to the side or thumb covered as you said.

What`s with the shield......roman comitatanes shiled is totaly unrealistic.....and where`s that clasic red roman shield ?? ~:confused:

that makes it first mistake of BI so far

The shield seems to be accurate as you can see here.
Maybe not the motive on the shield but the rest seems to be accurate.
http://par.toutatis.free.fr/comitatus/img1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfish

What`s with the shield......roman comitatanes shiled is totaly unrealistic.....and where`s that clasic red roman shield ?? ~:confused:

that makes it first mistake of BI so far

---

The classic Roman shield has, like the shiney legionary, faded away. Armour, weaponry and even commanders had become very Germanic. Round shields and chain mail became the norm

......Orda

ummm...i didn`t knew that....i thought in that period romans still used that rectangular shield..thanks for the info....anyway i think those rectangular red shields legionaires had....are better for protection

I think everyone just needs to calm down, have a cookie or biscuit (mm), and just think of the mod possibilities with the new units. :smug: