Printable View
Well, I know some think Wikipedia is a poor source; but the article I linked above is still backed by some decent sources, and it quite plainly says the Marian reforms introduced a professional army, where the soldiers were trained year round. Now, how extensive that training was could be questioned; but the same could be said of Hellenic forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
It is widely interesting to see that many lands conquered by Napoleon were pillaged during XVIII century wars before and "conquered" by European powers. It's also interesting to notice that they were all re-conquered by these European powers before, so that must mean that the Grand Armee really sucked.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
No, you're wrong. Only after Marius the army became professional. Augustus just reformed and improved it.Quote:
Only under Augustus did the army become professional, the Makedonian or Seliukid soldiers were more than a match one-for-one before that.
Tell me where I was trolling. Should I be banned just because I and the other disagree with you? Hmm....Quote:
I move for Basileos towhatever and his prepubescent buddy Charge, neither of whom can speak in coherent english for that matter (leading me to doubt they can actually understand and comprehend the counter arguments here instead of spouting OMG Y ARENT ROME THE BEST LUL!!!111 I CHARGE PHALANX FROM FRONT AND IT DONT BREAK!!!!1111 EB U SUK, ROME DA BEST like a droid), be banned for relentless and quite frankly unoriginal TROLLING . They can still browse the forums and download stuff but both have lost their talking privileges in this sad, sad display of a thread.
This thread is now about evocata/reformata. GO!
Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon
At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.
The idea that the Greeks were "just" farmers is absurd, like the Romans the local militiamen trained regualrly, and were then drilled en masse to bring them up to fighting stanard after call-up.
See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.Quote:
Most of the Greeks didn't have a standing army and no continual military training. Post-Marian legionaries at least were continually mobilised, undergoing training (you think they would just be idle all the time). It's true that quality went down during war, when a mass of recruits was needed, but there are so many evidences of the awesome Roman discipline and organization that no average guy could ever manage to do that without heavy training and discipline and, being heavily disciplined and trained, they inevitably also fought well.
When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.
Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.Quote:
Depends on who uses the best tactics :).
Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.
Roamn armies were mincing machines, flexable in their own way but also quite limited.
But they were still constantly under arms, like the Pre-Marian legions earlier.Quote:
Wiki is wrong. After Marius the legions were often kept under arms because of the almost constant state of war, the term of service was actually fixed under Tiberius according to Tacitus.
Does that make the Greeks superior to the Romans as in EB? Actually, the Greeks also suffered a lot of defeats that went to history, and their level of training was quite even.Quote:
There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.
At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.
Yet these are only the elite corps of the army. The great majority of the rank-and-file soldiers was only mobilised during an emergency, and as such they can't be classified as "permanent" soldiers.Quote:
See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.
Great when you talk in equal terms. The Pre-Marian army wasn't permanent, yet they reached a great level of experience with the continual fighting during the 3rd and 2nd Centuries B.C., particularly with Scipio in Zama.Quote:
When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.
We all accept that Roman cavalry really didn't have the level of Macedonian Cavalry, yet we're talking about different situations here. As said, if Alexander chose to fight Caesar, then the number of possibilities is great.Quote:
Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.
Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.
Plus, later on the Romans adopted auxiliaries to fill supporting roles to heavy infantry. But in-game, timing isn't relevant as the Macedonian army was pretty decadent in 272 B.C, and the Romans still relied heavily and solely on infantry.
But with a near-constant state of war, wouldn't that just mean that the state of readiness of the Roman legions was kept high just as much as it would have been in a peacetime professional army? Perhaps even more, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So in that light, the Roman forces should perhaps be treated as a professional standing army even if they were not formally a standing army.
Units that have been kept under arms will have more XP, won't they?
My point is very simple, the base level of training was fairly even and the Romans did not have the elite permenant soldiers other armies did until after Augustus.
So why should a newly recruited Marian cohort be better than a newly recruited unit of mid-level phalangites?
Edit: Just to be very clear here, the post-Marian army was still a militia, conscripted in emergencies, not a proffesional force. Which was why when Pompey returned from the East he had great trouble settling his veterans.
I'm not asking that, I just expect that a cohort should, man for man, stack up fairly evenly with eg. pezhetairoi. Like I said earlier, I haven't done the testing to find out whether this is the case; if it is, then the cohort is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
My point about the evocati stands, though. I don't see why veterans should be better at throwing the pilum but identical in every other respect. I doubt the older veterans would have stronger arms or better eyesight; it seems much more likely that their experience (yes, even a freshly recruited cohors evocata would consist of veterans with experience) would give them better morale and perhaps slightly better melee skills. It depends how big the effects of being older vs. being more experienced are, and that is debatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Funny, the experts believe differently?
Quote:
There were loads of Roman defeats, two Legions were routed during Corbulo's campaign. The Roman soldiers were only as good as their commanders. I don't know why you think I'm talking about an "unwillingness" to fight. Corbulo's men had spent too long in camp without fighting, Tacitus tells us there were 20 year veterans who had never constructed a night-camp. Even if he is exagerating the situation was certainly dire.
No one has ever said that the Roman army has been great since the beggining and it is widely known that sometimes things went pear-shaped in a very bad way, especially if the commander didn't do his job. The same can be said of any army in history, without a good leader no army, no matter how powerful, is useless.
Quote:
At no point did I say the Romans were inferior, but under Marius they remained a militia and although four months was the standard training period often they recieved far less. These men were either disenfanchised farmers or beggars and vagabonds, of the latter Marius could not take many because they were unfit for service.
The fact that they had nothing else to lose made them better fighters and soldiers. They had grown up living harsh lives and were used to things being rough, joining up with Marius gave them an income, food and a purpose. Their equipment was standardised and so was their training and their is quite a few important historians who believe this wasn't the first time such men had been used. People like those you have described saw the army as a career and a chance to make something of themselves and to gain a lot of money from plunder. The fact that he did not take some with him was nothing new to the Roman army and had happened many times long before Marius.
Quote:
The idea that the Greeks were "just" farmers is absurd, like the Romans the local militiamen trained regualrly, and were then drilled en masse to bring them up to fighting stanard after call-up.
The Romans did it yearly, the Greeks only did it when it was needed, mercenaries were used a great deal more.
Small numbers of men compared to the rest of the citizens who formed the rest of the army. Much like in Celtic society where a small number of men would be full-time fighters and the rest were conscripts.Quote:
See above, the Greeks had standing units of infantry and cavalry, the Silver Shields, Shieldbearers, Companions, Theban Sacred Band.... the list goes on. By contrast until Augustus Rome had NO standing army, only men unfortunate enough not to have been discharged.
Quote:
When Successor armies were kept in the field for extended periods they reached a comparative level of excellance. When the Romans beat the Makedonians the latter were mostly fresh levies while many of the Roman Triarii had joined as Hastati to fight Hannabal.
Same can be said for the Romans, the longer they were in the field the better they got, infact the same can be said for any army. Please stop throwing out excuses when it suits you, first you say that the Roman armies were less effective than others because they had no real standing army til Augustus BUT then you say the only reason they won is because they had experienced men in the ranks, you are only supporting my earlier statement that in general, a newly raised Roman army would have somewhat more experience than say Greece or Macedon because a good portion of Roman men would of already seen service in previous call-ups.
More flexible than armies of that time. superior combined arms? How would an army several hundred years older have superior arms? The Romans carried 2 pila a man, a good sword and a large sheild. The Pila would remove the protection of the Phalanx's shields and leave them vunerable to the swords. The tactics employed by the Romans seems to of come on quite fast by ancient standards and after Alexander, things in the army barely changed in the Hellenistic world.Quote:
Not really, Alexander's army was more flexable, tougher, and at least as well armed and armoured. They also used the superior combined arms tactics that it took the Romans a very long time to adopt.
Quote:
Take a look at the cavalry engagement at Pharsallus, once Pompey's supperior cavalry were eliminated Ceasar relied on his veteran infantry and he even used those infantry to kill the opposing cavalry themselves, rather than his own horsemen.
Roman armies were mincing machines, flexable in their own way but also quite limited.
He knew his horsemen would never stand up to Pompey's cavalry so he used his greatest asset to deal with them, his veterans, there is nothing wrong with that and if you wish to use that example then it means that Alexander and his cavarly weren't very good because he used light infantry to run along side his cavarly in close support, not unlike Caesar did at Pharsallus.
The Roman armies were indeed flexible, unlike the phalanx which is why they had the advantage in their engagements.
I really do not wish to carry on a debate about Alexander, this is about the balance of the Romans in the EDU and simply wish it to be resolved.
Basileos, I think everybody has understood your concerns and since stats are the core of the battles, it's something to which we devoted much time both in development and testing.
The team already explained the reasons why the stats were changed. They are based in the directions of historians and scholars that help the team. You may not agree, but as you saw, there are other people who think the stats are fine.
I would ask you to look at this thread where Watchman makes a "matter-of-fact" report about things that in his oppinion are not correct in the EDU. We'll look at his suggestions to see if anything really needs to be changed or corrected. No fuss and no endless discussions about this or that.
As a sidenote, you must know that no matter how much we adjust the stats of the units, the AI still doesn't have the capacity to win you in battle (unless it has huge odds), so this whole discussion is useless because you will always beat the AI, regardless of the stats, be it roman or nomad.
IMO, you should make a matter-of-fact description of what you think is wrong and, most importantly, the solution you propose. Then, we can look at it and see if they are valid. In the meantime, you change your EDU to reflect the changes you proposed and even if the team doesn't accept your suggestions, you keep your changes and play with the stats that you prefer.
And everybody will live happily ever after.
PS: and don't forget about the -4 penalty. It makes all the difference.
I haven't downloaded the new 1.0 version of the mod yet, so I realise that my opinion is not the best to trust here, but I gotta say, I agree with the EB team regarding their uprgrading spear units' statistics.
I mean, at least this way, playing as Romani, you can do the historical thing when playing against AS, KH, Mak, Ptol, or any of the Diadochi for that matter, and that is: Not face an unbroken mass of spear units head-on, but rather splinter the enemy army, isolate their units, and then hit those units from several sides at once (front+flank, flank+rear, etc). EB is all about historical accuracy, and this, and other tactics, is the best way to reflect how Romans, who were at a disadvantage when it came to phalanx formations, were able to overcome them by using their flexibility and innovative nature to the fullest extent. Historical tactics for a historically-accurate mod, eh?
(Of course, and speaking from campaign experience, when playing as Romani it helps when you constantly outnumber your opponent ~;) )
Hell, the only reason the Romans were able to trounce the Maks at Pydna was because they were able to exploit the rocky and uneven battlefield terrain, which seperated the Mak army nicely enough for Roman units to get between the gaps and butcher the phalanx soldiers at close quarters, where Roman swordsmanship was, I imagine, generally superior to greek swordsmanship.
And this goes both ways. I can imagine that Hellenic players wouldn't want to seperate their armies, or send their units into woods, where their formation is broken, thus again reflecting the rigid and, while formidable, ultimately un-adaptive nature of the Greek/Diadochi war machine.
As Tellos said, this is about creating a more brainy, thoughtful, and tactical-savvy approach to the mod, instead of relegating it to a slug-fest between two colossi. Yes, perhaps the mod is unbalanced and unfair, but then again, HISTORY is unbalanced and unfair!! And as we all should know by now, EB is all about history.
And as to the Cohors Evocata, in 0.81 I've never found them to be particularly superior to the Cohors Imperatoria. Simply slightly better armoured and with better morale. As it was then, and as it should be.
The Romani certainly have powerful units, but in my opinion the late units just aren't quite powerful enough. And like you said, some phalangite units do get larger unit sizes compared to a Romani cohort (Aanatim Aloopim, some Argyraspides, etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I don't have a problem with Romani losing against an elite unit of equal or almost equal size. I'm not say they were the best but they certainly were good. The problem I am seeing is that there are units which cost the same (or less), and can still massacre a Praetorian cohort, even when the other unit is outnumbered.
In my tests a unit of 103 Cohors Praetoriana did indeed lose to 61 Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou in Medium battle difficulty.. and they didn't just lose, they were absolutely massacred. Yes, the Thorakitai is certainly the elite of the elite, and I don't mind losing to them, but I wish it wasn't such a massacre; it was 12 Thorakitai killed vs 92 Praetorians killed. The Praetorians also were cut to pieces by Pheraspides, which cost noticeably less and again is only a unit with 62 men vs 103. (95 praetorians killed vs 31 Pheraspides killed)
All I am saying is that most factions get several elite units, as well as some form of "super-elite", which just blows the late Romani units away, and I just wish the Romani had a little bit better defense to represent their superb training and discipline, along with their use of the well-designed Imperial Italic helmet and large 2" thick scutum shield. So, even more specifically, I am looking for a +1/2 increase in their armor and shield values for Post-Marian/Imperial cohorts.
I understand all your points and I actually have no problem with the elite pike units being as powerful as they are; they're elite, they should be powerful. I just think that the Romani should receive a higher armor/shield rating. That's my opinion. My problem isn't with their sword attack strength at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
That's a good point. But it should be noted that the RTW engine is not capable of simulating the effects of rough terrain, so it should somehow be incorporated into a unit's stats how good it is in such conditions; that is, giving the legions a bit more power compared to the phalangites than would be merited by the basic performance in less tricky terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Alco
Didn't I already talk about the difference in the forest penalties ? :inquisitive: And I understand there may be some issues with the "scrub" terrain modifier, whatever the kind of tactical-map ground it now actually covers...
Your test actually yielded very, very accurate results. If you'd care to read about the Goidilic units in the Eleutheroi section of the unitpages on the website; you'll come across some fellow of which a historical source tells us they were so powerful that they had destroyed a quarter or so of an invading army (quite large one at that); by the time the other forces reached the fight.
Now that unit is a somewhat lighter copy of the Vasci original; and the Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou is an exact copy of the Vasci. Those Vasci were among the tribes to hold of & beat Romans very, very, very often. They are the absolute zenith of heavy infantry know-how back then -- outfitted in the very best equipment the entire Western world had to offer; recruited from among the best and fittest within the royal guards.
Such things cannot be said about the Praetorians. Actually; Praetorians existed even before Augustus: they are the guards of the tent of the chief commander of the army. As such they are chosen because of their comparative strength as soldiers; but most of all because of their unquestionable loyalty. So there you have it: the best equipment the Roman state has to offer (which isn't particularly good - compared to what you could get in Celtic & Iberian cities; or from the smiths in Syria) plus soldiers who are more loyal and have greater skill at arms than your average back-bone soldier. In the AS they'd have been the Argyraspides based on their skill at arms; and the Royal guard based on their loyality.
But they'd not have been considered good enough for Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou....
Romani is usually my main campaign, and while I haven't gotten 1.0 yet, (I'm picking it up from my mothers work tomorrow) I have to say I thought they were overpowered in .8x.
Roman soldiers were not Gods. They relied on experience and good generalship to win their battles. When either of these fails, the unit failed. Rather miserably. So, it should be rather logical, that to have great Roman armies, you should keep the same units on the field for extended periods, and use them with tactical effectiveness.
I guarantee that it will make all the difference.
The battle of Pydna was decided by the terrain... But not forested terrain. Those effects are not simulated by RTW and therefore need to be accounted for somehow by the unit stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
...who were bad enough dudes to rescue the Basileus. :rockstar:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
That would be the problematic "scrub" terrain then, I presume. Granted even hoplites tended to have some issues with surprisingly minor pieces of rugged terrain, and phalangites doubly so; but as that particular terrain attribute has some issues in-game AFAIK, not much to be done about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
After all, even if it was pretty secondary the phalangites were still taught to fight with their swords and shields mano y mano if need be too, so it's not like you can really credibly go reduce their melee skills either...
Them's the breaks. You either lure phalanxes into woods, shoot them to bits, or outflank them (preferably all three).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon
but the romans recruited heavily from their newly conquered areas. this meant that actually many of their legionairies would have been of germanic or celtic ethnic stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I was just testing basic strength...even running head first, I expect a fully trained veteran Post-Marian Cohort of the Roman empire to defeat a half trained peasant militia levy-phalangite from a disintegrating rebel Greek city state...
And how is what I wrote not fair? If levy phalangites can defeat a veteran post-Marian cohort, we might as well just spam levy phalangites. And I doubt Rome would've conquered anything beyond Italy if their post Marian Veteran cohorts were that weak.
:wall: :wall: :wall: DUDE!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I ask this question to you...
What makes you believe you can take a group of heavy infantry with swords and do a frontal assult on phalanxes at the READY and win?????:dizzy2:
It doesn't matter if the phalangites are levy or not... U ain't gonna walk through 5 metal points! :skull:
UNLESS you FLANK THEM or charge them when the pikes are UP then its where the quality of the phalangites comes into question.
Why is my post from the swastika thread quoted in this thread? :inquisitive:
For what my input is worth, I rather like the stats. While I have yet to get to the Marian Era (obviously) I find that my trusty Camillan Legions perform roughly comparably as well in 1.0 as in 0.8x. And sometimes I think people get mislead a lot by the numbers, as units that look mediocre seem to perform beyond expectations. Or maybe it could be because I love to use guard mode. Hastati or Principes in guard mode rock as far as pinning even quality units down, Gaesetae included, though they WILL lose, and quite handily after a while if you don't get the support in (ie roll up the weaker flank of the enemy). Maybe people expect something different out of legions of any era, but for me the obivious advantage of playing Romani is this: from top to bottom, even in the Camillan Era, the Roman army's infantry units are pretty even in quality, and even though the difference in quality is evident at the Camillan stage of the game, it is nowhere near as great as, say, the difference between Levy Hoplites, Standard Hoplites, and Elite Hoplites like Spatiatoi or Syrakousoi. That means that a Roman player has no truly weak flank, and as such can reasonably expect the flank facing the stiffest competition to hold out long enough for the side facing inferior opponents to chew through that flank, at which point the battle is over. Of course, if that DOESN'T happen you're screwed six ways from Sunday. But then that's where superior tactics comes into play, no?:whip: Which goes to show that the Roman's best asset was tactics and logistics, plus a certain societal mindset, as has already been stated in this thread previously.
That being said, IF the Evocata are practically identical to standard Marian legions, then I guess I just won't recruit them. I see no problem in giving them one or two more points of attack and defense skill to represent the first term of service. Though I will hardly weep if that is not done.
I would like to add my contribution to this post which I find very interesting except maybe for the anti/pro roman boys (although I am myself a roman fanboy:laugh4:) but I just want EB to be as close as possible to reality.
First of all, I always hate when people say that spear was as good as sword in battles. Spear is not worse or better than sword, it was meant to have a different battlefield role. Although I can't quote which page exactly, anyone who read The Prince of Machiavelli might remember this text.
In Machiavelli times, German pikemen but even more Swiss ones were reputed for their quality and were excellent anti-cavalry units. Yet, Machiavelli retold a fight in which Spanish heavy infantry(armor, shield and short sword probably) went under the row of pikes pointed at them using their shield to protect them and then they started slaughtering the pikemen. Only the timed arrival of some allied cavalry drove the Spanish infantry back and save the pikemen. So spear should be anti-cavalry weapon and the sword an anti-spear weapon. As for sword vs cavalry, I think swords already have a penalty:inquisitive:
As for the debate concerning roman soldiers. Roman soldiers were, as warriors, very competent, well trained and in good physical condition nonetheless, but it was their tactical flexibility as an army that allowed groups of armed roman soldiers to excel against others well trained and well equipped armies.
Here a good link to a website that I find extremely interesting:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...z/gabr000c.htm
It is mainly a study of the evolution of the military theory of the ancient armies.
But the real problem being, as a player, we have SO MUCH control over our troops, thousandfold times the amount of control generals had in ancient and medieval times as we fly over the battlefield as a all-seeing god (especially those playing without the general camera view) able to redirect every unit in a single click and all armies working as well oiled machines with the same efficiency.
But it is impossible to modify this aspect, especially for the AI. If in E:TW, units has to be grouped in formation before the start of the battle and then giving orders, orders that can only be modified with the use of runners then romans could be given an advantage to represent their tactical flexible. Until then, I guess the easiest way to represent this roman "superiority" would be give roman units a somewhat better stats as this would represent this so-called superiority.
BTW, if roman units were to be "power up" I would play them in this way to ad a little more realism to the game. As my battle lines and wings would advance to meet the enemy, instead of ordering them what to do exactly, I would simply delegate them to the AI. Sure they might (and will!) do stupid things but let just call it "battlefield confusion" :clown:
Watchman posted this pages back and everybody seems to have overlooked this? This pretty much explains clearly why spearmen have got their stats boosted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I can go rant about Roman soldiers. But most of the things are probebly already said and I havnt read the entire thread word to word.
I got a idea for the the elite cohort imperatoria (Sorry forgot the name) If its possible you could make the cohort imperatoria upgrade to elite soon as they get like 3 silver chavron. Maybe..
Firstly many thanks for 1x. Its feckin awesome.....
Reading through this thread I can see no validation to this argument apart from 'I'. There is no justification apart from a lot of conjecture on an individuals opinions on events.
Now the stats could be wrong historically, but they have been set up this way over five years of development. I am sure the team have used all types of feedback and testing to reach this point.
I am sorry, but I see no argument here for the team to answer or even constructively respond to.
'I' does not equal reason.
Two questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Internet
What experts?
And:
Who am I?
Legions were recruited yearly but the level of training was actually fairly even. Greeks didn't actually go to the gymnasium just to get buff.Quote:
The Romans did it yearly, the Greeks only did it when it was needed, mercenaries were used a great deal more.
Compared to none of the Romans?Quote:
Small numbers of men compared to the rest of the citizens who formed the rest of the army. Much like in Celtic society where a small number of men would be full-time fighters and the rest were conscripts.
I have tried to explain this every way I can think of but you all simply refuse to pay attention to what I am saying.
So frankly I'm done.
The Romans were not amazing, for most of our period they were just another citizen militia, you might think about how they won in spite of that.
On the post-Marian Legions: Those forces did not appear out of the nowhere overnight. In fact the Roman state allready pays for/provided equipement for the militia soldiers since or soon after the Thrid Punic War. It is all to sensible to assume that a level of unification in armour and weaponary has been achieved in the following century until Marius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon
Ah I see, we are closing in to the main problem of this threat: When an army was more successfull than its opponents, its units must have been better than theirs. Right? Wrong.
Speaking of your example, the Napoleonic Wars, the common battalion French infantry of the line was by its "stats" (if we would make an EB 1800) not better than, for example, a comperable British or Austrian unit. The Prussian army of 1806, that was curshed within a few hours, was a well equiped force of long serving professionals. The army of 1813/15, that sent Napoleon to exile twice, was a levy mob that had to borrough weapons and uniforms from their allies.
So you see, that the quality of a unit most not go according to the victory of an army made of those units - and vice versa.
Someone's building up for a nazi-flame invasion! Damn, these always end like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Anyway, I certainly haven't played with marian or augustian Rome, so I can't comment on much...
...other than on fighting against levy phalangites. They may be effective head on, but other than that, I don't put much trust on them. They rout very easily, and once the formation is cracked, that's pretty much it for them. So if someone tests unit stats head on against levy phalangites, he's playing to their strongest part. And remember, just the fact that they can form a phalanx requires a lot of training, so they're not exactly half-trained peasants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I wouldn't be surprised by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_rome
I wouldn't say barely. He beat a Roman army twice. Both victories would have been considered great victories, but for the fact that Rome could reinforce, Pyrrhus could not. The third battle is considered a draw by some, a Roman victory by others, but after that Pyrrhus saw no reason to continue his campaign. Thus, it's arguable whether Rome ever defeated Pyrrhus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
it just seems to happen sometimes! obviously i was trying to quote the the first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv