Spears are very unbalanced

political timing.

Strategy, politics, economy, a commanding position in a peninsula at the very divide between the eastern and western basins of the Med, a fair few clever ideas applied effectively, and some luck ? Seriously, you don't need to have any real tactical advantage over your opponent if you otherwise play your cards right.

@TWFanatic-- Decline on the part of their enemies, never facing a truely challenging opponent, stubborness, manpower, luck, logistics, and geography.

Unfortunantly, many of those elements are very hard to represent with RTW.

Quote:

---

never facing a truely challenging opponent

---

In EB, all successor factions are far superior to Rome. Doesn't this seem to contrast with history?

The Romans didn't start fighting with the Diadochi until nearly a century after the starting date of EB you know; at which point the latter had been busily bleeding each other white and developed not a few internal issues and other external problems. Nevermind now that Macedon is borderline on the ropes already at campaign start...

Ever played EB MP? Phalanxes and heavy cavalry beat the best of the Roman infantry every time unless played by a complete oaf. And I haven't played MP with 1.0 yet. I can't imagine how poor Rome is now. This certainly seems to contradict Polybius' Histories (chapter 28 through 32 I believe), where he discusses the Roman maniple's superiority over the Macedonian phalanx. If Polybius (and history, for that matter) is right, then why are my Roman maniples and cohorts inferior to the phalanx (and vice versa)?

Speaking of phalanxes...if you look throughout history, you will see that in battles involving phalanxes (classic Greek or Macedonian), there were typically very few casualties until one side or the other broke. Why, then, do phalanx units in EB have such high attack statistics, and why do they kill so quickly?

Actually you will note than in victories over the phalanx, successful Roman commanders never chose to engage the opposing force where the phalanx could be successfully deployed (i.e., even, open terrain). Only a fool would do so, as it is nigh impossible to defeat a phalanx when it can present a frontal press against its enemy.

The way Romans achieved victory was to wait until it became disordered on the rough, as at Pydna, or charge into its unprotected rear or flank as at Cynoscephalae or Magnesia.

It was the Romans' good fortune to never face a truely first class enemy, and never two second class enemies at the same time. Carthage, Macedonia, and the Seleucids could field armies similar in size and training to the Romans, for instance. Cynoscephalae might be regarded as a fluke overall, and Magnesia as a standard cavalry victory, for the Romans energetic ally Eumenes precipitated the rout of Antiochus' infantry with an Alexandrian-style flank charge.

Alexandrian style flank charge ftw

wait... someone forgot to mention the Carthaginian sarissa: as in, we sure are repeating the same debates of history and RTW... there is no magical army formation or tactic people... there is no uber~;) -unit of the ages... spears will always be better for range and swords will always be better for close up- where's the rub?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

It was the Romans' good fortune to never face a truely first class enemy, and never two second class enemies at the same time.

---

To be fair, Hannibal Barca wasn't exactly a second class enemy, no matter how much the aristocratic idiots in Carthage tried to hamper their own war effort. Moreover, the Persia of Darius III that Alexander conquered was a far cry from the Persia of Darius I. When he met serious opposition by highly competent and well supported enemies (I presume that's what you mean by first class), like say with Poros in India, he wasn't exactly rolling over them either.

What is true however is that Rome never really faced the Hellenistic Empires at their best, except perhaps at Magnesia. And even then one could argue that neither Antiochus nor his army were in their best elements.

What I think this thread needs the most is actual gameplay records (screenies, replays, whatever) to show that the Romans really had troubles doing stuff that they were supposed to do well at (like killing phalanxes at the flanks), otherwise we're here shouting "ROME IS UBER" and "ROME SUCKS" until the octosquids have had enough and kill us all.

Even when the Seleukids were in turmoil, I wouldn't rate them as 'second-class' enemies either. Surely the empire had degraded by this point, but it was still an empire nonetheless.

One thing is certain all empires came into existence because of a power vaccume. From Persia, to Rome, to America. The story is the same with all.

I see your point, but PLEASE don't bring this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

..., to America...

---

up again. It has the unfortunate tendency to mess up discussion threads.

Indeed. Not a good thing. I've actually been guilty of this in the past, but have since learned to not concern myself with such things....it never produces good results, and only detracts from the discussion....not that I know exactly where this discussion is going. :no:

As if this wasn't messed up already.

https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/...ivertedvt9.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

To be fair, Hannibal Barca wasn't exactly a second class enemy, no matter how much the aristocratic idiots in Carthage tried to hamper their own war effort. Moreover, the Persia of Darius III that Alexander conquered was a far cry from the Persia of Darius I. When he met serious opposition by highly competent and well supported enemies (I presume that's what you mean by first class), like say with Poros in India, he wasn't exactly rolling over them either.

---

Hannibal did win a lot of battles did he not. But we all know that Rome won by just outsourcing our Elephant loving Carthaginian. One army killed? Raise another. Rome only had to kill one big army (Hanibal's) and it had won, Hannibal needed to defeat multiple armies. Or he could just lay siege to Rome...:wall: :sweatdrop:

Octosquids!? Don't mess with them, I believe the bartixians even use them at the battle of Omenuphlam under the lead of Obokassix Ranix II the slimey.

Can anyone reply on my suggestion?

Is a "Bonus fighting spear\pikemen" possible for swordsmen?

Then you wont have to rebalance anthing.

As stated many times before, spearmen already have a -4 penalty when fighting other infantry, so there is no need for additional boni for swordsmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

Even when the Seleukids were in turmoil, I wouldn't rate them as 'second-class' enemies either. Surely the empire had degraded by this point, but it was still an empire nonetheless.

---

Well, it's how you define first & second class. First class would mean to me; int their full potential. Antiochos III did not reign over a such a first class empire.

He had to make do with whatever funding was available and he had to make do with the few military resources he still had. One generation after him the Seleukid Empire was definitely declining to the point of regional power; but not that much either anymore. It's the time of the great success of both Baktrian & Parthian armies against their former overlords. It's the time that Pontos is on the rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Well, I'm glad you asked (not really, cause now I have to type alot).

Some historians have traditionally ascribed the high level of training and discipline to Romans that you've probably come to know. Lawrence Keppi put it as such:



But honestly, does this apply to all of the Romans? Most Roman armies were, on the one hand rather heterogenous and consisted of a core of more seasoned troops, with a lot of inexperienced troops added in to give it bulk. In Livy, he gives us a detailed story of the dilectus of the army to fight Perseus in 171 BCE. (AUC 42.32). It talks about how there are so many experienced centurions, etc, that all of them couldnt get the proper posting and were complaining.

Livy's story reflects common practice, of course any Roman commander recruiting wanted to get as many experienced officers and soldiers as possible. This is reflected in Livy 32.9.1



Or, blah blah blah, Titus Quinctius wanted seasoned soldiers from Spain or Africa.

Even Marius:

Sallust (B. Jug. 84.) said:



Note: "Mostly proletarians, not all of them!"

Marius' Mules as we know them did not really constitute a professional mercenary force, but became nearly as good as one by experiencing one military campaign after another--Africa, Numidia, Germanics.

From 88 BCE onward, most wars became longer and had to be fought in far off lands, which naturally led the armies fielded to gain more cohesion and a higher level of esprit and drill. Legions came to represent something like a home to the soldiers serving in them, for many, indeed, it was all they knew.

New legions, recruited in the Social Wars and Civil Wars, had to go against these cohesive legions that had been around for in some cases years, and were certainly no match. Not because of a lack of some supposed training, but because they were new formations.

The contingency legions (levies) of the Marians who fought Sulla in 82 and those of Ahenobarbus and other Pompeian generals who commanded recruits against Caesar's veterans had no chance of winning.

In Familiares 10.24.3f Munatius Plancus, one of the combatants in the civil wars of 44-43, wrote to Cicero that the armies that were commanded by Brutus were large, but worthless, because they consisted of miserable recruits who would have to confront the smaller but more homogenous legions of Caesaran veterans.

It wasnt until Augustus and the establishment of a professional army that a regular training routine was emplaced.

---

I recognize your points, Zak. I'm not here without any evidence, indeed, all the history books I've read and many do indeed glorify the experience of the Romans.

But as I said, and confirmed before, there were several different levels of training among legionaries. An ancient writer (do'nt recall his name) used to say Eastern Legions were inferior to the Western Counterparts, and of course there were a lot of recruits going on with tough, seasoned warriors.

As I proposed, wouldn't it be a good idea for EB to make different legionary units representing these disparities within the legions? One made mostly of recruits, cheap, but with inferior stats and more numerous, another with less numbers but tough, seasoned and more expensive warriors with more stas, etc...? I think this would be far better tahn just generalizing everything into a "Cohors Reformata" or "Cohors Imperatoria", plus EB has the reputation of making several units even if their differences were just small (In my opinion :P). I guess this would sove complaints that the Romani are underpowered and give them a good elite, while at the same time expensive enough to not attract complaints.

Last advice to the roman fans: stop posting here! Instead open EDU and increase legionary's pilum, armour, defence, shield, morale, cost value and play without insults. If you care about MP, than...

Those who's debating about history, I very doubt that this thread is different than others I've saw. They all stuck with their starting opinions.

Quote:

---

Listen you twat, you need to get out of this sub-forum. Fast.

---

With pleasure :bow: hehehe ~:wave:

You are mistakenly implying that this thread was in some way a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

As I proposed, wouldn't it be a good idea for EB to make different legionary units representing these disparities within the legions? One made mostly of recruits, cheap, but with inferior stats and more numerous, another with less numbers but tough, seasoned and more expensive warriors with more stas, etc...? I think this would be far better tahn just generalizing everything into a "Cohors Reformata" or "Cohors Imperatoria", plus EB has the reputation of making several units even if their differences were just small (In my opinion :P). I guess this would sove complaints that the Romani are underpowered and give them a good elite, while at the same time expensive enough to not attract complaints.

---

As a point of order, history books are not evidence, ancient writers and artifacts are.

To answer your point. A veteran unit is represented by a higher level of experience anyway. Why would we have a veteran and green version of a unit we already had. If you build a unit of Cohors Reformata then those a green troops. If you want veteran units I suggest you send them out to fight.

Either way the Roman faction already had 2.5 times as many unique units as any other faction. We are at our absolute limit.

I'd disagree that the army Antiochos took to Magnesia was second rate. He had nearly 10,000 heavy cavalry. His phalanx was much smaller than it could have been because of the call-up for the campaign, and due to casualties in Hellas, but aside from that, and a weakened left flank with its foolish dependence on scythed chariots, he had a very expensive, fairly successful army at his command.

What's more revealing is not to downgrade Antiochos, but to look at what actually happened at the battle:

1) On the Seleukid left, the failed scythed chariot charge was followed up by a vigorous Pergamene attack, which scattered a weak and disorganized (due to the chariots) Seleukid left, leaving one phalanx flank wide open.

2) On the Seleukid right, a major assault on the Roman left routed thousands of Romans (mainly allies actually) and the steady pursuit of them toward the camp drew the Seleukid right well away from their 16,000 strong phalanx as they pursued a defeated but not scattered Roman left. They encountered heavy fighting outside the camp, as pockets of Seleukid attackers came to grips with the routing enemy and the camp guards. By the time Antiochos got that wing under control again, with its ~20,000 high quality, undefeated troops, point 3) was well underway.

3) The Seleukid center, denuded of its flanks, and with a much smaller potential frontage (due to spacing and rank depth) than the two Roman legions opposed to it, and so, facing the immediate prospect of being attacked on the flanks (obviously dangerous to phalanx), they formed a square to force a Roman frontal assault. At this, the Romans balked. They would be attacking (slightly uphill) into a compact pike formation. Rather than attempting hand-to-hand combat, the Romans allowed their auxiliaries and allied light troops to pummel the Seleukid phalanx, until the weight of missiles eventually overcame their remaining resolve, and the Seleukid katoikoi routed.

First class enemy? I'd say so. Victory for the legions in hand-to-hand combat? By no means. Helpful in this discussion? I can only hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

I find an absurd when they say the average Roman legionary was just another ordinary soldier. Then I quote the battles Romani had with several barbarians that ended up in heroic victories against Buddica, the Parthians, and practically everyone who dared to raise their hands against the Post-Marian and Imperial legions. They keep telling: "Teutoburger Wald, Carrhae" but they ignore that Germany was just ignored later, and the victories over the Germans and their shiny barbarian infantry were just as crushing as the one against the Britons and the Parthians. Wasn't for Adrian's unwilligness to keep Parthia, and the general sense that Rome was too big, then Parthia would become a Roman province.

---

...I'm not in the mood. In the least. Apparently someone has a difficulty understanding that neither Mesene/Dasht-î Meisân/Mesopotamia nor sacking Ctesiphon equals the capture of Parthia, even in spite of numismatic propaganda machine minted during the Trajanic age. Those conquests were not safe either. Trajan had failed to capture the Parthian client state of Hatra, and the fact is that Trajan captured Ctesiphon merely through improved logistics, rather than open battle. In other words, don't flatter yourself. The most minor of clashes with the Indo-Scythians or the subsequent Kushans were more devastating than even the most gruesome sack of cities in the Parthian west; That the last of the Parthian-Roman battles ended up in victory to the Parthians, resulting in the end of an almost 200 year long conflict (With no significant change in borders) speaks bounds about your dishonest perception.

If Hadrian did not withdraw his troops, the Arsacids would have little trouble in rallying the nobles to counter-attack; With the Roman East spread so thin over Mesopotamia, a perfect season could turn the tide of the conflict; Instead when Septimius Severus understood this underlying weakness of the Parthian army, only shortly after the withdrawal, the strategy that entailed the same successful model for logistics was further capitalized for another capture of Ctesiphon. Caracalla too managed to "defeat" the Parthians through this way; Quick mobilization, but also deception. Artabanus, in the midst of a civil war, still managed to prove that the Parthians did not take insults lightly. The battle of Nisibis, even with many injured Parthian cataphracts (Thanks to the usage of caltrops) still managed to carry the day for the Parthians.

The shift between Parthian and Sassanian rule was perceived with little difference by the Romans; Both Ardashir and Shapur were considered Parthian. Not entirely an outrightly false label, but Shapur proved himself to be an absolutely devastating force to be reckoned with.

Now, unless you've got some evidence that Romans were knocking on the gates of the Mithradatkart citadel and marched all the way to Hecatompylos to pay visit to the Parthian Shahanshah... No, the Romans never conquered the Parthians. I know certain Romanophiles are infatuated with the idea of Rome ruling the world and "The world is Rome", but in my presence, I'll make it absolutely sure that this image not only is shattered but also completely discredited.

You are free to leave at anytime.

They did, at least, manage a big chunk of it for awhile. :P

If by "A big chunk" is represented by Zabdicene, Adiabene, Osrhoene, Sophene, Assyria, Mesene and Characene, which constitute the formerly Parthian possessions seized by Trajan, then you have a skewed idea on proportions; The Parthian empire constituted of more than just Mesopotamia. Only a few years of foreign possession at most; Where do we hear of Pacorus, Pharnapates and Quintus Labienus who almost recreated the old Achaemenid frontiers for the Parthians? Poor Ventidius Bassus gets to stand in the shadow for literally saving the Roman East and brilliantly conducting the battle of Cyrrhestica, smiting Pacorus, while opportunists like Trajan and Septimius Severus get to stand in the spotlight for victories that did not even involve a great battle. Caracalla? Artabanus invited him after said person had nagged him for wanting to marry his daughter. Artabanus repaid the insult after he was deceived. So much for "Roman valour"...

I'd rather not follow popular perception; Tocharii and Sacae killed two Parthian King of Kings in battle/open conflict while being a serious threat to Parthian economy. Fortifications of the Iranian East dated to the Parthian period appear to be more sophisticated, which further hints at the magnitude of the Indo-Scythian and later Kushan threat. Shapur I made sure to impose a heavy-handed silence upon the Kushans, until the advent of the Hephtalites. Ever heard about the White Huns? They almost put to end the Sassanians after having killed most of the royal entourage and nobility through a devious trap; Chosroës I repaid this by permanently crushing the Hephtalites. Then came the Göktürks who supplaunted the Hephtalites as the main enemy in Central Asia. The Göktürks too were defeated, in two instances almost completely, all the while Shâhîn and Shahrvarâz were busy having fun in the newly seized Egyptian (Almost all the way to Carthage) provinces and Asia Minor up to Chalcedon, including Cyprus and Rhodes.

Paying in mind all the civil wars of the projected Persian empires through the Parthian and Sassanian dynasties, and the fact that they multitasked themselves out of wars between several super-powers... I have gained a completely new perception and appreciation for their military achievements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

...I'm not in the mood. In the least. Apparently someone has a difficulty understanding that neither Mesene/Dasht-î Meisân/Mesopotamia nor sacking Ctesiphon equals the capture of Parthia, even in spite of numismatic propaganda machine minted during the Trajanic age. Those conquests were not safe either. Trajan had failed to capture the Parthian client state of Hatra, and the fact is that Trajan captured Ctesiphon merely though improved logistics, rather than open battle. In other words, don't flatter yourself. The most minor of clashes with the Indo-Scythians or the subsequent Kushans was more devastating than even the most gruesome sack of cities in the Parthian west; That the last of the Parthian-Roman battles ended up in victory to the Parthians, resulting in the end of an almost 200 year long conflict (With no significant change in borders) speaks bounds about your dishonest perception.

If Hadrian did not withdraw his troops, the Arsacids would have little trouble in rallying the nobles to counter-attack; With the Roman East spread so thin over Mesopotamia, a perfect season could turn the tide of the conflict; Instead when Septimius Severus understood this underlying weakness of the Parthian army, only shortly after the withdrawal, the successful logistics was further capitalized for another capture of Ctesiphon. Caracalla too managed to "defeat" the Parthians through this way; Quick mobilization, but also deception. Artabanus, in the midst of a civil war, still managed to prove that the Parthians did not take insults lightly. The battle of Nisibis, even with many injured Parthian cataphracts (Thanks to the usage of caltrops) still managed to carry the day.

The shift between Parthian and Sassanian rule was perceived with little difference by the Romans; Both Ardashir and Shapur were considered Parthian. Not entirely an outrightly false label, but Shapur proved himself to be an absolutely devastating force to be reckoned with.

Now, unless you've got some evidence that Romans were knocking on the gates of the Mithradatkart citadel and marched all the way to Hecatompylos to pay visit to the Parthian Shahanshah... No, the Romans never conquered the Parthians. I know certain Romanophiles are infatuated with the idea of Rome ruling the world and "The world is Rome", but in my presence, I'll make it absolutely sure that this image not only is shattered but also completely discredited.

You are free to leave at anytime.

---

Bravo Professor TPC...~:thumb:
I don't know about anyone else but i always enjoy TPC's post when shedding insight to Parthian or Sassanian rule. It's obviously coming from someone who know's his business...

I, too, appreciate them, just as I appreciate Psycho's posts about the Celts. I'm really lucky to have found such a great mod, with a forum that hosts such exceptional individuals as them. Kudos to you. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

To be eligible for service a citizen must have registered as an assiduus , i.e. a citizen with proper property qualification. As early as 146 BCE this minimum amount was 4,000 asses (Polybius 6.19.2).

---

I hate to cut in on this, but that's a lot of ass.