roman legionary and infantry

well i want to comment this: why the roman legionare are so polemic? i mean they conquered a lot but in the game there is a lot of unit better , and everyone knows they were the best infantry !! i didnt want to toned up in game and be more easiest with the romans i just want to said that the thigs that make him the best wasnt the equipment (it was very good but not my point) wanst the brilliant generals and wanst the courage beacuse there was a lot brave men in ancient , there was only one thig , the most important thig in the roman society = the discipline and the pragmatism !!! that made they conquer and won ! that is why i think that the romans mut have one of the best morale and stamina like infantry , stamina because they fight in turns the front line soldier wen was tired goes to the backward an that way every one rest in the fight that discipline havent the gauls and other so the were excellent and brave soldiers but fight alone not as a group so they tired earlier than a legionare. when i read about naval battles wiht cartaghe i realized the pragmatism of the romans they werent a sea people so they lose every battle against the cartaginian navy but in the field they win ! so they invent : boarding the ships wiht hooks and the roman infantry won in the sea !!! so that makes the roman infantry extremely flexible and adaptable no like the phalanx and the hoplites or the spearmen . so i think better way is to toned up the morale and the stamina and the others stast you decided becuase i believe with a better morale and stamina they could be more effective in close and long time battles.

sorry chap but you're compareing roman legionaries with elites of other factions, which is just wrong. you have to compare them with units with a similar price and similar standing - Hoplitai not epilektoi, Pezhetairoi not Argyraspidai, Dugunthiz not Xorjonoz Dreugondijoz, bataroas not Soldurus, Dorkim Liby-Ponnim Kbedim not
Dorkim Leebi-Feenikim Aloophim... the latter mentioned are either Nobles or senior Veterans, often both. Cohors reformata are "raw recruits" of the middle class.
because if you do so you will see that roman heavy infantry is often more cost efficient and most of the time much heavier than their counterpart in other factions. and please Cohors reformata has moral 14(15 would be elite and there are elites with less ;) ) have both highly trained and diciplined, are hardy, have an AP Pilum, 10 armor, 4 shield, what else do you need?!!? a falx as secondary weapon? fear effect? two hitpoints?

you can´t compare warriors with soldiers warriors had alot more to loose or gain while the roman soldiers where just better then their counterpart plebeians but not the elites

for instance a dunaminaca unit was probably never more then 2.000 men while the romans could loose 10.000 and next year they would return because they had the manpower

rome´s secret was manpower they had enough to replace lost armies while for instance the spartans in their final days couldn´t even amass 700 hoplites and had to rely on those "citizens" who hadn´t been able to finish the agoge or couldn´t pay for their mess seats so a spartan army in the end was around 10% spartiates 30% homoi and 60% slaves and others conscripted in a hurry to serve rather as haploi or skirmishers and thats around what you can imagine in a regular army of non romans so no you can´t compare the 10% "elites" with the regular roman raw recruit

cesar took 10 years in gaul building up his army the entire roman politics revolves around the "veterans" because the freshly recruited legionaire wasn´t as effective as people think they where just better then the fresh recruit of other people but never better then the veterans of other people and certainly not better then the elites who where born and raised to war (also the romans always had a choice to enter gaul and until cesar never did because they knew they could be outnumbered cesar took big gambling on his divide and conquer politics and in the end had to kill 1million people and enslave 2 millions before it was done and at the time the population in italy was around 3 millions)

romans = best rank and file (cost effective) not elite units

Well... and it's not like they get slaughtered ingame... in my opinion they fare pretty well against most opponents...

Also let's be fair, is not like a roman army was composed 100% by roman born citizens behind a scutum with a gladius...

Like Danny Glover said... I'm too old for this ****. I think this must be the 100th thread like this in my time on this forum :clown:

surely but this time I answered first :D

See: Pyrrhus of Epirus or "Pyrrhic victory."

Roman Infantry are balanced perfectly in my opinion, a very well made faction. They are simply the best standard infantry due to a myriad of reasons, one of them AOR, cost ratios, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

Roman Infantry are balanced perfectly in my opinion, a very well made faction. They are simply the best standard infantry due to a myriad of reasons, one of them AOR, cost ratios, etc.

---

Well, the cohors reformata and late units have great AoRs. Pre-Marian units' AoRs suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constantius III

Well, the cohors reformata and late units have great AoRs. Pre-Marian units' AoRs suck.

---

That's why they're pre-Marian :D

Quote:

---

there was a lot brave men in ancient , there was only one thig , the most important thig in the roman society = the discipline and the pragmatism !!!

---

Firstly the Roman society was only notably disciplined and pragmatic during the Republic. In converse The Imperial Roman society was known for impracticality and extravagance. You seem to be implying that the more disciplined and practical the society the better the warriors they produce. I doubt this is the defining factor of "great" soldiers as many other nations shared the same values and never formed great empires.

History can't always be divided into clear cut reasons for everything and I'm sure the Roman Empires expansion and military prowess were effected by many variables including but not exclusive to: manpower, economics and resources, timing, social structure, technology, and their infamous (but clever) "borrowing" from other cultures.

Quote:

---

when i read about naval battles wiht cartaghe i realized the pragmatism of the romans they werent a sea people so they lose every battle against the cartaginian navy but in the field they win ! so they invent : boarding the ships wiht hooks and the roman infantry won in the sea !!!

---

Although the Roman did at first use the corvus extensively and somewhat successfully it was soon removed from common use. It proved a liability during rough weather and limited deck space, maneuverability, speed and versatility. Thereafter they trained their marines to board enemy vessels in the traditional manner.

That said I think The Roman Troops, in EB, are well balanced decent line soldiers who seem to be able to put up a good fight at a relatively low cost.

General Aetius

I think the Roman soldioers won their empire because they stayed in wars when they weren't going well, and were prepared to stay at war for lengthy periods. I guess they trusted that their homes were not being pillaged by their neighbours.

I blame the Gauls. Everyone in Italy was so scared of the Gauls that once they were beaten by the Romans and offered Borg-like absorption they went "oh well its better than being trampled by naked torc wearing barbarians on a semi-regular basis".

Dunno how to represent this in-game: there doesn't seem to be a morale-based strategic attrition or war-weariness component, although troop (and merc) refresh rates might go some way to representing this.

I think the Romans kept their empire because they evolved a professional military, but it meant heir empire became a monarchy rather than remaining a republic.

nothing can be explain so simplistically, just the 'evolving a professional military' is a result of hundreds of years of various developments, strokes of luck, economics, politics, everything. NOTHING is so simple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

nothing can be explain so simplistically, just the 'evolving a professional military' is a result of hundreds of years of various developments, strokes of luck, economics, politics, everything. NOTHING is so simple

---

What if I were to disagree, and say yes it is that simple, in fact Rome became great because one day Camillus woke up and said to himself "I know, three lines of infantry in quincunx with spearman in the rear! That will surely lead to the Principate and limes and proconsuls and immortal fame" and all because he had a dream about a chequerboard mosaic floor due to too much garum with dinner the night before? Hmmm? Hmmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

What if I were to disagree, and say yes it is that simple, [...]

---

Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...

Quote:

---

What if I were to disagree, and say yes it is that simple, [...]

---

As TheLastDays said:" Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...". Even you, in your previous post, gave several (not so simple but limited) reasons for the rise of the Roman Empire: determination, national security, Gallic collapse, and exploitation of fear.

A single change in battlefield tactics is useless if the whole nation, society and military hasn't reached a stage where it can use the tactic effectively. For example: Hannibal repeatedly conquered the Romans but even so Carthage didn't win the war. So although Hannibal had the correct tactics his nation, as a whole, wasn't able to take advantage of his victories.

General Aetius

Its not only about manpower when it comes to Romans. Also a great deal comes to politics and diplomacy but lets not forget the Romans were a willing people to learn from others and they had also their fair share of able generals and officers.

I think its a myth to think the roman soldier was only a tool not capable of getting the job done without a good general leading him. And its not like the romans were outnumbering their foes on every occasion.

Romans were not only muscle but they were brains (not always) as well. Its way to simple to put it on manpower alone. Hannibal was great(test) but Scipio who learned from him was in my opinion greater because he did defeat that genius and more.

Another thing the romans had was willpower (arrogance maybe) to come out on top. But now they are all gone and part of history.

It was an reply to moonburn that their secret was manpower which is true for most part (I agree) but its not the whole story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLastDays

Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...

---

I believe he was speaking in jest. I found it amusing. :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Aetius

As TheLastDays said:" Then, my friend, you'd be wrong...". Even you, in your previous post, gave several (not so simple but limited) reasons for the rise of the Roman Empire: determination, national security, Gallic collapse, and exploitation of fear.

A single change in battlefield tactics is useless if the whole nation, society and military hasn't reached a stage where it can use the tactic effectively. For example: Hannibal repeatedly conquered the Romans but even so Carthage didn't win the war. So although Hannibal had the correct tactics his nation, as a whole, wasn't able to take advantage of his victories.

General Aetius

---

Yes, the whole war with Hannibal and the Carthiginians is quite important. I think that the Republic, at this time, was so competitive that an element of 'arrogance' and determination was almost inevitable, compared to the state of Carthage at that time. Carthage seems to have been at the nadir of its republican constitution, such that it had coalesced to two major power centres (The Barcids and Hanno). This wouldn't happen until much later in Rome. At the time of Hannibal's invasion power was balanced between many factions - oligarchical familial (and class based) as well as a strong Plebian mandate. There was just too much competition for power for there to be surrender. One could not risk one's position within the power structure by showing weakness.

I've been playing SCII for the last couple of months and have only just recently returned to playing EB (at last!) as the Romans. My 2-cents for this thread would be that I've found the Romans to be remarkably similar to the Zerg, minus the Kerrigan. Legions, on this regard, are very similar to 'lings (not bane, since romans cannot explode). They are numerous, individually expendable, yet extremely effective (A siege tank, would be kinda like a keltoi warrior nob). Pyrrhus of Epirus would indeed be the classic example of (a protoss) being zerged by wave after wave of 'lings (and other zerg horror).

I have just finished an excellent book about Greek and Roman military, Soldiers and Ghosts - A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity.
The author argues that the Roman legions are by no means really so disciplined as everyone believes it to be, they were reckless, arrogant, self-centered, childish, they threatened to or even did disobey or at least ignore their commanders all the time. Their poor commander almost always had to appease them one way or another to ensure their obedience, no matter if he was named Scipio or Caesar.

Teleological history ftw!

And they all wore segmata...... :crowngrin:

And EBII was released in 272 BC but there were no computers so we never get to play it. :disappointed:

I think the Romans in Europa Barbarorum are somewhat underpowered. Not because their stats are wrong or their enemies statted too strong or anything, but because the total war engine is bad at modelling the advantages the Romans had and good at modelling the advantages their enemies had.

The Romans for example were able to operate in more tactically sophisticated formations than tribal enemies, who due to limitations of command essentially had to deploy in a big block. The Romans could keep large portions of their force in reserve, including veterans like the Triarii. Those highly skilled Gallic nobles on the other hand had to be on the front lines or they'd lose the respect of their followers. Same with generals. A Roman general encouraged his troops from behind the lines, watched for weaknesses, send reserves where they were most needed. A Germanic warlord would be on the front lines hacking and stabbing because that's how he proved his courage. Even Hellenistic generals fought like this in imitation of Alexander the Great. There are plentiful accounts of Hellenistic or tribal armies breaking through the first line of a Roman force only to be checked and routed by reserves.
Another thing would be unit structure. The legion was divided in well-organised sub-units led by junior officers who could take the initiative and respond to developments that no general could be aware of due to lack of communication. Many of Rome's enemies had nothing compared to centurios.

Julianus undoubtedly is correct that even the Romans had far from perfect command over their armies and soldiers. They still had more than the vast majority of their opposition, though, and that I think is a large part of what made their armies so effective.

But in the Total War engine everyone has perfect command over all their units, everybody can deploy in multiple lines and execute complicated flanking manoeuvres. That rather erodes the advantages the Romans had.

(Edit re: Recklessness: especially in the mid-early republic, lots of Roman armies were, far more so than armies led by generals trained in the Hellenistic tradition. And I do count Hannibal here. Hannibal taught the Romans what happens if you don't take care to choose your ground. A lot of the advantages I describe above only developed over time.)

Another aspect of Roman warfare in the later era that can´t be displayed in the game is the the building of fortifications. Of course you can build a camp, when you have a general leading an army, but we all know that sieges are not a streght of M2TW or RTW. You also can´t build a wall arround a besieged city, like Ceaser did at Alesia. So another advantage that the Romans had over Gauls and other armies (which has nothing to do with stats or morale) is gone.

Add to that internal divisions, most of the time caused by the Romani...

Though to be fair, the Romans had plenty of those themselves at various times. Ask king Mithridates of Pontus about how to exploit them sometime...

Absolutely, all these features should be added by CA in new games...

Aren't there some ways to mod lower cohesiveness of formations etc in the MTW2 engine? So that turning or forming lines takes much longer or shorter?

well if a roman soldier was undisciplined they could always loose 1 in each 9 friends people should know they can´t disobey crassus (so instead they get 10.000 friends dead and 10.000 made prisioners by the parthians)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

well if a roman soldier was undisciplined they could always loose 1 in each 9 friends people should know they can´t disobey crassus (so instead they get 10.000 friends dead and 10.000 made prisioners by the parthians)

---

I am detecting a bit of sarcasm here but, I'll still ask do you consider the defeat at carhae being a product of lack of discipline and not due to crassus making grave strategic blunder by trying to cross a desert and having brought inaquate cavalry support?

I think he was saying that because of Roman discipline the legions marched into the desert despite the stupidity of the order. If there was any time to show undisciplined behavior that would have been a good time. Not sure if that was the only reason but it certainly had to play some role.

I seem to recall that Crassus' soldiers were actually quite eager because of the rumoured wealth of Parthia.

At this stage of history, both Romans and Parthians gravely underestimated one another. First Crassus thought the Parthians would be crushed as easily as the Armenians and Pontus and other eastern people had been by the likes of Sulla, Lucullus and Pompeius. Then, when the Parthians destroyed Crassus' entire army with what had been meant as a scouting and harassing force, they thought the Romans were pushovers and invaded Syria. Enter Publius Ventidius Bassus. A series of bloody Partian defeats later they each started to recognise the other's strengths and weaknesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

well if a roman soldier was undisciplined they could always loose 1 in each 9 friends people should know they can´t disobey crassus (so instead they get 10.000 friends dead and 10.000 made prisioners by the parthians)

---

I think you are confusing your battles here. Crassus ordered a legion to be decimated after it was defeated by Spartacus, not Surena. This was highly unusual, and I suspect Crassus only got away with it because the Romans were terrified of revolting slaves. Decimation after the disastrous defeat at Carrhae seems... pointless. I mean: how much of the army was left? More to the point: decimation is a punishment for cowardice, not defeat (or lack of discipline). The legionaries at Carrhae stood their ground all day. It's just a kind of bravery that is not effective against horse-archers.

Decimation was already an archaic practice in Crassus' time; does anybody know of other instances during the Roman Republic when it was used? Caesar threatened to decimate the tenth legion after it had grown mutinous, but I am certain it was never more than a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Decimation after the disastrous defeat at Carrhae seems... pointless. I mean: how much of the army was left? More to the point: decimation is a punishment for cowardice, not defeat (or lack of discipline). The legionaries at Carrhae stood their ground all day. It's just a kind of bravery that is not effective against horse-archers.

---

I think you misunderstand him. He seems to me to be saying that they went there because they were afraid of decimation if they didn't; i.e., the discipline created by the fear of losing 1 in every 10 soldiers resulted in 10 000 dead and 10 000 prisoners instead. The overarching point being that discipline, which everyone is praising as the Roman legionnaires' strong point, could be a double-edged sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

I think he was saying that because of Roman discipline the legions marched into the desert despite the stupidity of the order. If there was any time to show undisciplined behavior that would have been a good time. Not sure if that was the only reason but it certainly had to play some role.

---

Whole army disobeing orders is a real rarity no matter how stupid they think their commander is. Remember also that this time period none of the Roman legions had experience in dealing with mounted enemy which refused close combat preferring to haras enemy from a safe distance, if there were any breaking out of formation accidents those must have happened early in battle caused by the said eagerness and frustration.

Early Roman-Parthian wars were ineffective engaments for both sides, neither side had needed resourses to make significant conquests this was mostly caused by internal unreast. Rome had had social war, slave war and offcourse civil war between Sulla and Marius, Parthians had just 50 or so years before been ruled by dual kingship. I think that crassus's "conquest of parthia" was just large scale raid with intention to grab wealth and place few client rulers, not total conquest of assyria/babylonia.

thanks you celtik viking seems it takes a kind of special warrior menthality to understand that crassus had gained a fame for himself with the decimation of a legion/s (?) so when he went to parthia most men wouldn´t dare to speak because of peer pressure by their comrads afraid of being killed by cowardice wich resulted in a total blunder

as for crassus invasion of parthia it as many reasons the least not being the fact that his 2 triumvir comrades where acomplished generals while he who had worked so hard and placed everything on the line to stop spartacus got his honours stolen by caius julius and pompeii so it was not so much about money he had alot

(altough probably pompeii with his goverment of hispania and cesar with his gaulish conquests had already surpassed him for the time being but in the long run marcus crassus would always be the richer one since he controlled many markets that could only grow as cesar´s men came back home and started spending and as pompeii wasted his money with public festivals and constructions to engrandeur his own name)

crassus needed to be recognised as a great general after cesar conquest of gaul since with the death of julia sooner or later pompeii and cesar would be at odd´s and if he had enough influence he could outdo them both but for that he needed respect not just money

I'd like to hear some examples where troops had mutinied before a campaign against enemy they had not faced before, all the examples I managed to think of mutiny involved either men being sent against enemy who they had faced before with disastrous results like french troops on WWI or the officers/generals having disrespected troops customs/beliefs like the sepoy rebellion.

Even if Crassus had not practiced decimation before I find it highly unlikely that battles outcome whould have been any less disastrous for the Romans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian

Early Roman-Parthian wars were ineffective engaments for both sides, neither side had needed resourses to make significant conquests this was mostly caused by internal unreast. Rome had had social war, slave war and offcourse civil war between Sulla and Marius, Parthians had just 50 or so years before been ruled by dual kingship. I think that crassus's "conquest of parthia" was just large scale raid with intention to grab wealth and place few client rulers, not total conquest of assyria/babylonia.

---

I disagree. Crassus surely intended to conquer Parthia. Whether he understood just what he was undertaking is another question, but his objectives are perfectly clear.

Ceasar was conquering all of Gaul, to Roman ears just as huge an undertaking.

Pompeius had conquered multiple kingdoms in the east, defeated Mithridates for the final time and added several provinces and protectorates, doubling Rome's eastern possessions.

Crassus wanted to equal them so he would not be overshadowed. A large-scale raid would never have accomplished that. Besides, the Romans believed the Parthians just as weak as the eastern kingdoms Pompeius had crushed, so why couldn't it be done? Alexander had conquered far more than just Mesopotamia.

As for lack of resources, for Rome at least this did not apply. The period of the civil wars was the period that saw the greatest growth in Rome's power and possessions, as ambitious generals strove to outdo one another. See Caesar and Pompeius above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian

Whole army disobeing orders is a real rarity no matter how stupid they think their commander is. Remember also that this time period none of the Roman legions had experience in dealing with mounted enemy which refused close combat preferring to haras enemy from a safe distance, if there were any breaking out of formation accidents those must have happened early in battle caused by the said eagerness and frustration.

---

Well Roman legions had to be placated several times even before the Imperium and later legions were routinely promised things in order to get some "special" service which usually meant civil war or questionable legal actions.

Decimation was the ultimate punishment for cowardice- had nothing to do with defeat. Not saying that Crassus probably easily encouraged his legions with tales of the wealth of Parthia but most mutinies are not by the common soldiers but by the NCO and junior officers who might not have been as swayed by tales of loot. However having threats of cowardice hang over them before having even engaged the enemy as you pointed out would be enough to stop any muttering about stupidity.

So its probably not a single cause and the threat of decimation was probably minor compared to the ideas of honor and manhood versus cowardice but discipline arises from many factors and the final threat of decimation can't be totally discounted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian

Remember also that this time period none of the Roman legions had experience in dealing with mounted enemy which refused close combat preferring to haras enemy from a safe distance

---

Cassivellaunos and all mounted Keltoi fought like that, Romani were quite lucky that urbanization brought all those chiefs and power centers together so that they could get killed and controlled...

A small portion of a tribe fighting from chariots with javelins does not compare to 9000 mounted archers...

Romans had plenty of experience in dealing with javelin-armed cavalry and their armies habitually included plenty of their own. Caesar used Gauls, Germans and Numidians against the Gauls. (Maybe Iberians too, I forget.)

The majority of the Celtic armies still fought on foot and it was the heavy infantry clash which generally decided the battles between Romans and Gauls. Again, no real comparison to a fully mounted army like the Parthians fielded.

There were like 4000 chariots iirc, also I don't know much about the Numidian Wars or previous engagements with Numidians, but few hit and run there too...
Anyway ok, Phalava was the absolute first...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

thanks you celtik viking seems it takes a kind of special warrior menthality to understand that crassus had gained a fame for himself with the decimation of a legion/s (?) so when he went to parthia most men wouldn´t dare to speak because of peer pressure by their comrads afraid of being killed by cowardice wich resulted in a total blunder

---

I stand corrected.
:bow:

Still, I agree with Inchon here: mutiny is something that usually arises from the officers, not the men. And those wouldn't be cowed by threats of decimation or corporal punishments. They're citizens, many of them from influential families, so even someone as powerful as Crassus could not trample their rights. The consul may have had absolute authority, but he could not execute people at a whim.

Anyway, is there any evidence that the army was unwilling to advance into Parthia? With hindsight we know it was a disaster, but at the time Romans did not have a high opinion on the martial ability of Easterners. My guess is they would have shared their general's overconfidence.

according to my readings crassus had recruited 2 many legions with too few men in each he wasn´t trusted as a great general or tactician (i mean it was the reason why he was going for it in the 1st place ) caesar said that many of his higher officers where displeased at the type of legionaires he had mustered (the best soldiers where with pompey and the younger more willing where all being recruited by cesar to replace his soldiers in gaul wich was almost a closed deal but they could still gain part of the final loot devision made by cesar before ending his duty in gaul so this "eagerness" combined with taking the scraps of what was left to recruit since the best and more prone where either with pompeii or cesar might have caused control power over the men)

furthermore crassus started to get the suspictions of his officers and centurions when he trusted an arab instead of trusting the armenian king and his choice for the higher officers where noted by both pompeii and cesar as bad (he chose his 2 sons as his lieutenents)

in the end the man who saved the campaign was his questor who rearranged what was left and protected the roman east or it could have ended far worse for the romans then the loss of just 4 legions (another interesting story that fallows up on this one was one of a bibulus(?) who had to recruit an evocata from aygyptus and lost a son to a legion of men over 60 years old)