AOR systems, and the historical vs the realistic

There is a thing that bothers me about EB1: the recruitment system seems to be historical (based on what happened) rather than realistic (based on what might reasonably have happened). The seems contrary to the spirit of "it's historical up to the start date, after that the player takes over and makes alternate history". I must insert the disclaimer that I'm no historian or modder, and I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick, and EB1 may be doing things for reasons other than those I'm assuming. But assuming I'm on vaguely the right wavelength...

Here are a couple of examples:

1. The romans can't recruit legionaries in Scotland, or most of Mesopotamia, or Persia. I can't see why not. They are allowed to in the Alps/Pyrenees, North Africa, Egypt, Spain... which seem (to my non-expert mind) to be pretty similar sorts of terrain. The only explanation I can see is that they're being allowed to recruit in the places they conquered, not in the places suitable for raising troops.
2. The Saka Rauka can recruit heavy Hellenic hoplites in Bactria, a post-Alexander semi-Greek area they conquered. Yet they can't recruit them in other similar areas, which featured an equally good supply of Greeks. I don't see why they couldn't have recruited them in, say, Byzantion if they'd conquered it and made the effort.

It seems to me that if a faction showed an inclination to export their recruiting/training to places they'd conquered in history, they should be able to do it in the game too. The only restrictions that make sense to me are:

1. Fundamental restrictions on resources. If an area doesn't have horses, no cavalry. If it's too damp for composite bows, no horse archers. If it's Eremos, no troops at all.
2. Historical attitude. If a faction showed a definite disinclination to train locals in their own methods, e.g. because they preferred to pick up on existing native approaches (e.g. Carthage in Spain), then that's how they should be in the game.

Well, I hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree. I would be grateful to hear the team's thoughts on this, and anything they're prepared to share about what EB2 will do.

I should add the obvious qualification that it might take a very long time to build the infrastructure/institutions/way of life required for some troops. An expert slinger is not made in 3 months...

It is always tricky to find a balance; conquest may well lead to social and political transformation (Pahlava, SPQR).

It is perfectly possible that if the Saka had taken over Persia, that they'd become another version of the Pahlava, but can you imagine having to write a script to check for such a thing (NOT based on conquest of provinces)? Who is to say they would settle down? They might, they might not.

There are no national policies, to actually guide such a script, let alone an easy way to dynamically set recruitment options in a province. What if say the Epeirotes would have massacred the Celtic populations of the Po basin? Can happen in alternate history, but one cannot alter recruitment scripts on such a basis.

I'm no historian either but I get the impression from playing EB that it was rare for a state to export it's fighting style to far-away conquered lands, usually they just recruited from the local culture. The Romans were one of the exceptions, so it does make sense for them to recruit legionaries in more provinces, I'm interested to see if their recruitment will change in EB II. As far as the Saka Rauka are concerned, remember that the Saka hoplites wear Saka style armor, and I doubt you would find many Saka armor smiths in Byzantion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

I'm no historian either but I get the impression from playing EB that it was rare for a state to export it's fighting style to far-away conquered lands, usually they just recruited from the local culture. The Romans were one of the exceptions, so it does make sense for them to recruit legionaries in more provinces, I'm interested to see if their recruitment will change in EB II. As far as the Saka Rauka are concerned, remember that the Saka hoplites wear Saka style armor, and I doubt you would find many Saka armor smiths in Byzantion.

---

The Klerouch system springs to mind.

Well Imho one has to differenciate here between Equipment, Population and Tradition as units often(almost exclusively) represent a fixed setting of the three.

A good example here is the Hoplites: A guy in hellenic equipment, of hellenic orgin fighting in the traditional Hoplitai way. If you interchange one of these you get a different unit - Saka HH, Kardaka(pl?), Thureophoros (in EB terms)
As the Equipment is not really hard to get (not made from special material or smithed in a funny way) and Tradition often travels along the people, you can train Hoplitai In regions that had a significant Hellenic population - thus Hellas, Successor states and old colonies all around the mediterranean(and Black sea). To train Hoplitai in .... Scotland. You'd have to migrate a large chunk of hellens to Caledonia let them settle(and breed) there for some time and finaly build a level 3 MIC^^. It's hard to simulate such a Migration in TW games yet I think It'd be cool to make a building(line) availible that unlocks recruitment of units like Hoplitai everywhere a Hellenic Power settles for a Generation or the like.
For population this process is rather "simple"(if you consider relocating whole peoples simple), Tradition and Equipment are a bit more tricky, Either they go without saying or they simply don't, at all.
Tradition for example, you can teach every populance how to fight in a phalanx, some may be better at it some may suck at it but basically it's not that big a problem, turning a bunch of shepard into skilled archers takes far too long for any politician to grasp, infact it takes about the lifespan of one and thus is not an option for TW.
Equipment fares similar, if provided with the tools your civilisation brings with it and maybe 10 imported specialists you can just aswell make Aspis Dory and linothorax in Gaul or anywhere else they have the basic raw materials or suitable replacements. But if you need something more unique, like ... Yew bows, Meteor iron swords or simply put Elephants you are reliant on Imports. So you may field a unit of ... Gaut Elephant Bamboo longbowmen with Silk tunics in Sweden but It'd cost you a heck lot of extra money to get all the stuff, IF you get it at all. In some cases it may actually be possible to build up certain industries that did not exist in an area before.

In the End The EB policy "no fantasy units" is a main restricting factor. And every unit that did not exist in a certain region IS a fantasy unit, the Saka hoplites eg did not exist on the Peleponnes, for the simple reason that the sakans did not conquer the peleponnes. IF they did they might have used units like that, they might have used Hoplitai of this Type but they might aswell not for various reasons. In a way a unit is a different unit when it was trained in a different region, so scottish Hoplitai ARE fantasy units. I think the EB team wants to be on the safe side without loosing all the fun that reforms and expanded AoRs bring. That's why they only added units that actually existed(at least as far as I know) or are a safe bet. Personally I think that there should be more optional reforms with expanded AoR or enhanced units - It's not like the Germanics would have sticked to guys in shirts with spears when they'd have conquered the area of Charlemagne's empire and relocated themselves so that you can train Factional troops in northern Italy. But as this did not happen and is open to specualtion on how it would have worked you can only train Germanic troops in, well germania.
Secretly I hope that through more room for scripts the EB team will add some enhanced units and expanded AoR reforms to EB2 tho^^

Thats the best part of playing the Hai. They are really the only ones with reforms like this.

In Roma Surrectum 2 to recruit legionaries in conquered provinces you must give the civitas right which takes time

As far as I recall, you can actually recruit Klerouchoi Phalangitai in some of Carthage's starting positions when playing as the Ptolies, but not when playing Macedonia for example. Obviously I'm not an expert, but I don't think eiter of them ever conquered these regions... Also playing as the Sweboz you can recruit your awesome German-Celtic spearmen in almost any region with celtic population, even though they were never under Sweboz controll. There are actually tons of examples like these. I never really understood why some peoples seem to have the possibility of recruiting 'fantasy units' while others don't.

RE: An Idealistic EBII Community

The thing with all these threads is that the first version of the mod isn't even out yet and everybody is already making idealistic demands which, if reasonably possible (usually not so), would be something that the team might focus on as pollish later on... Once they've, you know, worked out the modelling, skinning and animations of the mod.

I guess my point is that the sheer workload of modeling/skinning a bunch of Medieval Age warriors, settlements, siege-eqp. and boats from their MIITW base into their historical Iron Age predecessors is impressive enough that we should be happy to even look forward to playing MIITW skinned for the Hellenistic era. This is a total modification, it takes a lot of time to even get the base finished, let alone to somehow reinvent the entire game like some are proposing.

Although having a TW game that behaves exactly like you believe history could have reasonably unfolded sounds appealing in theory, in practice it is impossible. This is a creation by humans, not the real world itself which we live in, and we will never be able to simulate the impossible chaos that has shaped our world through history in an accurate and believable way--because the world isn't accurate and believable. It's chaos!

TL;DR version: OMG EB DEVS I HAVE AN tOtAl C0oL IDEA-- YOU CANCREATE YOUR OWN FACTION! YOU CAN DESIGN THEIR CULTURAL BUILDINGS AND ARMOR ETC. IN A FACTION EDITTER, KINDA LIKE SPORE! ALSO, UNLIMITED FACTION SLOTS AND EVERY FACTION HAVE 8 MIRROR FACTIONS THEY CAN DISSOLVE INTO! WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY! LET US REINVENT REINVENTION!

Your point was better made without the caps at the end. Now I just want to dismiss what you say because of that (poor) attempt at humour.

At least my last post had a point at all, I suppose.


Unlike these last two...



Edit: Would like to clarify that my previous comments on back-seat modding were not directed at any one person in particular, but instead were more or less a lamentation based on my observations lurking this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morte66

1. The romans can't recruit legionaries in Scotland, or most of Mesopotamia, or Persia. I can't see why not. They are allowed to in the Alps/Pyrenees, North Africa, Egypt, Spain... which seem (to my non-expert mind) to be pretty similar sorts of terrain. The only explanation I can see is that they're being allowed to recruit in the places they conquered, not in the places suitable for raising troops.
2. The Saka Rauka can recruit heavy Hellenic hoplites in Bactria, a post-Alexander semi-Greek area they conquered. Yet they can't recruit them in other similar areas, which featured an equally good supply of Greeks. I don't see why they couldn't have recruited them in, say, Byzantion if they'd conquered it and made the effort.

---

How about this for 'role-playing' explanations?

1. The Romans can't recruit legionaries in Scotland, or most of Mesopotamia, or Persia because the populations living there are different in some way to the populations in the Alps/Pyrenees, North Africa, Egypt, Spain... despite having pretty similar sorts of terrain. Maybe the Caledonians, Mesopotamians and Persians don't make good legionaries. Why? Maybe because they are too proud of their own culture to fully integrate Roman ideas, and thus they can only be auxiliaries retaining elements of their own culture. Or maybe they are only loyal to local Roman governors and not the Emperor in Rome, and thus would make untrustworthy legionaries. Or maybe like the Persians, they were slave/conquered peoples for too many generations and have become too soft to make tough legionaries, or maybe the Roman method of fighting is just too different from their own to allow them to be fully retrained. Maybe you can't make good legionaries out of people who have devoted themselves to archery for centuries, their nature makes them prefer to shoot arrows and run away instead of fighting hand to hand.
   
2. The Saka Rauka can recruit heavy Hellenic hoplites in Bactria, a post-Alexander semi-Greek area they conquered. But not in Byzantion because the Bactrians are only half-Greek while the Byzantians are fully Greek, thus their integration into the Saka culture is too difficult. Maybe having proud Hellenic hoplites raised in Byzantion would be too politically dangerous, either because the troops would be disloyal, untrustworthy and rebellious, or the Saka nobles would become jealous of them, thinking the king likes the Greeks more than them, making the Saka empire unstable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morte66

But assuming I'm on vaguely the right wavelength...

---

In any case I would not say you are too far off. We've formulated ideas along the same line, especially on #2; though partially for different reasons.


With EB1 there are many reasons for things being the way they are, and in case of recruitment a major reason is that each line of recruitment code carries a cost. Unless it is possible to generalise multiple lines of recruitment into one (and there probably is such possibility, subject to engine bugs in the way it evaluates logical operators) each new region costs 1 line of code per building per level per province.

So a unit like akontistai which is available right from level 1 thru 5 (IIRC) on 3 building complexes carries a cost of some 15 lines of code per province in EB1 as it stands today. Now you know why that export_descr_building is so huge and also one of the reasons why it takes so much time to load EB1. (I think each line of EDB is evaluated by the engine at the game's start, based on M2TW's error logging behaviour even if you don't actually launch campaigns or battles.)

As a result there's a very real drag on entertaining what-if scenario's, especially for highly speculative behaviour in game. For instance while it is quite possible for the Saka to expand to Byzantion when controlled by a player, it is highly improbable. (After all: by that time you would've completed your campaign objectives already which most people don't do for the sheer amount of time and the somewhat repetitive gameplay after you become a giant.) Next to impossible for the AI. So unlikely in fact, that as far as I know nobody on the team ever entertained this specific example.

Then, without a more general approach to expressing cultural osmosis which can yield benefits in other scenario's, the next good question is: why bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

Well Imho one has to differenciate here between Equipment, Population and Tradition as units often(almost exclusively) represent a fixed setting of the three.

---

Well, this reminds me of an ancient but really great game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, in which you can research different branches of technology, e.g. chassis, engine, weapon, armor, etc., then create your own unit from your technology pool at your disposal. Maybe we should develop an EB mod on Alpha Centauri...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

Well, this reminds me of an ancient but really great game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, in which you can research different branches of technology, e.g. chassis, engine, weapon, armor, etc., then create your own unit from your technology pool at your disposal. Maybe we should develop an EB mod on Alpha Centauri...

---

Hahaha.

this reminds me on current XGM and XC interactive recruitment system, pretty doable, but rather different than EB playstyle

What if the Romans controlled Scotland? Then maybe they would have recruited units from there, maybe they would have never truely quelled the region, who knows.

It's easy to speculate but with EBs service to history I'm not sure they can always be applied. Maybe a fan based script or addon can be created one day to expand the AOR for EB2, but again I'm just speculating... :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

What if the Romans controlled Scotland?

---

Agricola won there or at least marched quite north, but just like Germania, there wasn't urbanization and the Romani would have had to build most from scratch: just not worth it, not to mention the locals didn't "understand" such a society and would rebel 24/7...

Beyond Dacia, simply could have never happened; the Kimmerios Bosporos would be just too isolated and culturally developed to be romanized; in Arabia and Mesopotamia the Romani tried and tried, but I don't see how anything other than local rulers could be implemented...

From what I can tell the recruitment limits for the Romans was a product of having to draw a line somewhere to prevent (like Tellos said) the EDB code ballooning to unworkable sizes. It would have been perfectly possible for the Romans to raise legions in Scotland (excluding the highlands and west coast which were just too sparsely populated for that) and Mesoptamia, it was just that historically they never were never in control of those regions for long enough to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Beyond Dacia, simply could have never happened; the Kimmerios Bosporos would be just too isolated and culturally developed to be romanized; in Arabia and Mesopotamia the Romani tried and tried, but I don't see how anything other than local rulers could be implemented...

---

The Bosporos area did become Romanised eventually and was even a Roman province for a short time. Its status as a client kingdom for most of its time under Rome was more down to the whim of the Emperor's than any real barrier to incorporation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Scotland (excluding the highlands and west coast which were just too sparsely populated for that)

---

That's like 30% of what Scotland is?
Works with the roman nomenclature though :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The Bosporos area did become Romanised eventually and was even a Roman province for a short time.

---

I thought was nominally incorporated into Moesia and five years later was left to local elite...

In overall, since romanization required at first settling of roman citizens, the whole process had a geographical and cultural limit...
The eastern mediterranean was "romanized", if we can call it that, due to leadership succession and kept in place with extensive military presence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

That's like 30% of what Scotland is?
Works with the roman nomenclature though :P

---

That still leaves 70% was just as controllable by Rome as the rest of Britain was. The point still stands.

Quote:

---

I thought was nominally incorporated into Moesia and five years later was left to local elite...

---

Nero intended to conquer the northern coast of the black sea but died before he could carry it out, the incorporation of the Bosporan Kingdom was the first step in that plan. My point was that there was nothing stopping the Romans doing it other than the personal preference of the current emperor, it had nothing to do with the area being too remote or culturally developed. It was also later a ERE (Byzantine) province which further demonstrated my point.

Quote:

---

In overall, since romanization required at first settling of roman citizens, the whole process had a geographical and cultural limit...
The eastern mediterranean was "romanized", if we can call it that, due to leadership succession and kept in place with extensive military presence...

---

Romanisation did not require that, it means the adoption of Roman customs and culture. It has nothing to do with whether Rome could raise legions in the area, plenty of areas in the empire were decidedly un-Roman in culture and yet still furnished them with troops.

Anyway there we're plenty of Roman citizens and soldiers in the Crimea, hell even one of the Bosporan kings was a Roman citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

In overall, since romanization required at first settling of roman citizens, the whole process had a geographical and cultural limit...

---

I don't know of any settling of Roman citizens in Gaul, though, which was thoroughly Romanized. Romanization had more to do with the local elite becoming part of the Roman system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

That still leaves 70% was just as controllable by Rome as the rest of Britain was. The point still stands.

---

If it's true that the east and south was as populated to provide for urbanization...
Also I wouldn't count too much on that coast controlling the rest, it would be right under the highlands, with natives easily harrassing and retreating...
It's the cost/gain decision all over again, for sure would required soldiers from many provinces and to secure a small amount of settlers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Nero intended to conquer the northern coast of the black sea but died before he could carry it out

---

That doesn't mean he was going to achieve that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

plenty of areas in the empire were decidedly un-Roman in culture and yet still furnished them with troops.

---

Yes, but the OP was speaking of roman legionaries (at least I think so) and not auxiliares, that's why I was saying for that you needed few roman settlers at the beginning, who would take care of the administration and provide for the officers training the locals...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I don't know of any settling of Roman citizens in Gaul, though, which was thoroughly Romanized.

---

Yes, that was too vague, but beside nobles, there were latin colonies, which provided the first step toward citizenship...
That's why I said both geographical and cultural: if the natives weren't willing to join, even if relatively close in distance, it wasn't going to happen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

It was also later a ERE (Byzantine) province which further demonstrated my point.

---

That's not completely true, the region was under the protection of Bulgars and Khazars, the former initially allied to the Byzantines and the latter being a major player in interal politics of the imperial court...
It was their officers who reside in the Crimea, not the other way around, maybe only religious officials came from Constantinople...
Plus, yes there were more contacts between the Bosporos and Romaioi, but the new capital and its vicinity was a crucial part of it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Roman citizens and soldiers in the Crimea, hell even one of the Bosporan kings was a Roman citizen.

---

Honourary grants are just that, doesn't speak for any bigger social picture, other than an increase in status for the king and an alliance or mutual interests...

All in all, for the very southern coast of the kimmerios bosporos, yes it would be possible, as the area was already hellenized, but not any further inland...
And being a boundary it would require a huge military presence or complexes of fortifications, most likely costing more than the region's income; so leaving the area under locals, who acknowledge or ally with Roma, was the best and feasible solution...

In the west you had cultures with some groups willing to become provincials and interested in the economic growth coming with it, but that "common ground" was within reach in an urbanized society...
In the east, Roma was increasingly becoming hellenized in the first place, and the locals' acceptance was a matter of military protection, rather than cultural importation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

What if the Romans controlled Scotland? Then maybe they would have recruited units from there, maybe they would have never truely quelled the region, who knows.

It's easy to speculate but with EBs service to history I'm not sure they can always be applied. Maybe a fan based script or addon can be created one day to expand the AOR for EB2, but again I'm just speculating... :clown:

---

The Romans probably could have conquered Scotland, and held it, had they set their minds to it. That they didn't was because they saw no return on their investment. Scotland didn't have any obvious resources to make it worth while. In EB the fact that the player gets no cool units to recruit there, to me, simulates the same factor. No cool units = i don't make the place a priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

If it's true that the east and south was as populated to provide for urbanization...

---

They were as populated as plenty of other parts of Roman Britain, the south east has some of the highest concentrations of hill forts in the UK.

Quote:

---

Also I wouldn't count too much on that coast controlling the rest, it would be right under the highlands, with natives easily harrassing and retreating...
It's the cost/gain decision all over again, for sure would required soldiers from many provinces and to secure a small amount of settlers...

---

So how does that make it any different from any other frontier of the empire? And the east coast is a wide area of very fertile land (some of the best in the UK), not some tiny sliver overshadowed by the wild highlands.

Quote:

---

That doesn't mean he was going to achieve that...

---

Given that he was able to take control of the Bosporos effortlessly to provide a base for those plans, shows the Romans were more than capable of ruling the region if they so wished.

Quote:

---

Yes, but the OP was speaking of roman legionaries (at least I think so) and not auxiliares, that's why I was saying for that you needed few roman settlers at the beginning, who would take care of the administration and provide for the officers training the locals...

---

Nope actual legions were raised from places like Gaul and Spain while they were still very native in culture, one would imagine that this was actually part of the Romanisation process, not dependent on it.

Quote:

---

That's not completely true, the region was under the protection of Bulgars and Khazars, the former initially allied to the Byzantines and the latter being a major player in interal politics of the imperial court...
It was their officers who reside in the Crimea, not the other way around, maybe only religious officials came from Constantinople...
Plus, yes there were more contacts between the Bosporos and Romaioi, but the new capital and its vicinity was a crucial part of it...

---

No, the ERE directly ruled parts of the Crimea throughout history.

Quote:

---

Honourary grants are just that, doesn't speak for any bigger social picture, other than an increase in status for the king and an alliance or mutual interests...

---

The were part of the Roman world, they were about as linked up to the Empire as a client state could get without actually being part of it. There was a Roman colony there, Roman forts, Roman garrisons in various cities, Chersonesos was the base for a Roman fleet, need I go on?

Quote:

---

All in all, for the very southern coast of the kimmerios bosporos, yes it would be possible, as the area was already hellenized, but not any further inland...

---

Nope, most of the Crimea with the exception of the Tauric highlands would have easily incorporated, plus the Taman peninsula and probably the coast up to the mouth of the Tanias (Don). Neither was Hellenisation was to a prerequisite of Roman control.

Quote:

---

And being a boundary it would require a huge military presence or complexes of fortifications, most likely costing more than the region's income; so leaving the area under locals, who acknowledge or ally with Roma, was the best and feasible solution...

---

Again how is this any different than to say the Rhine frontier? If fact the Crimea was a major grain producing region of the ancient world, far more productive than many of Romes interior provinces let alone its border ones. At the end of the day it came down to political will and a bit of chance, not some inherent aspect of the region, that stopped the Romans from fully incorporating it into their empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

No, the ERE directly ruled parts of the Crimea throughout history.
There was a Roman colony there, Roman forts, Roman garrisons in various cities, Chersonesos was the base for a Roman fleet, need I go on?

---

That's the coast with its ports, contemporary to that there were iranian or turkic parts: it was a buffer zone...
With, in the case of the Romani, a military presence to protect the emporia, making sure trading routes were safe...
Having a base, within a state that relies on your protection, doesn't make it a direct possession, they were simply controlling commercial exportations...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Again how is this any different than to say the Rhine frontier?

---

For the Crimea, you have extremely active and united military entities right at its border, getting assimilated by even larger ones...
When there was a similar situation at the Rhine, the limes collapsed...
As for Scotland, the hill forts are below the antonine wall, above there was little arable land...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Nope actual legions were raised from places like Gaul and Spain while they were still very native in culture

---

They ceased to be native and yet they weren't roman: they were romanized into a new cultural synthesis...
My point isn't that Roma could have never controlled specific areas, but that the training of legionaries couldn't have happened in such places...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

That's the coast with its ports, contemporary to that there were iranian or turkic parts: it was a buffer zone...
With, in the case of the Romani, a military presence to protect the emporia, making sure trading routes were safe...
Having a base, within a state that relies on your protection, doesn't make it a direct possession, they were simply controlling commercial exportations...

---

You have quoted my replies to two completely different time periods as one, the first is about the Byzantines influence in the Crimea and the second is about the Roman Empires influence in the Bosporan Kingdom, its needlessly confusing matters.
I wasn't saying that it made it a direct possession, but the sheer level of Roman presence in the Bosporan Kingdom, for such an extended period of time, with the acquiescence of the locals, makes the idea that the Bosporans were somehow incompatible with Roman culture a bit ridiculous.

Quote:

---

For the Crimea, you have extremely active and united military entities right at its border, getting assimilated by even larger ones...
When there was a similar situation at the Rhine, the limes collapsed...

---

And the Rhine and Danube frontiers had exactly the same situation for centuries before the Limes collapsed, not to mention the eastern frontier with the Parthians/Sassanids.

Quote:

---

As for Scotland, the hill forts are below the Antonine wall, above there was little arable land...

---

Untrue, like I said before some of the most fertile land in the UK is Scotland, above the Antonine wall, Perthshire, Tayside and Aberdeenshire have always been major food production areas. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with that hillfort statement, firstly its wrong, there are quite a few hillforts north of the wall ( I should know, there were at least two within a couple of miles of my house). And secondly quite a lot of Scotland was below that wall, so to say that Scotland was too sparsely populated for the Romans to control and raise troops from but imply that the signs of high population densities were only found south of a wall that runs right through Central Scotland doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

---

They ceased to be native and yet they weren't roman: they were romanized into a new cultural synthesis...
My point isn't that Roma could have never controlled specific areas, but that the training of legionaries couldn't have happened in such places...

---

No they were very much native in culture, it was only later that they became Romanised, my point being that Rome was perfectly able to recruit soldiers from non Roman cultures. A good example was the Legio V Alaudae, which was raised from the native population of Gaul in 52BC and was used to fight Vercingetorix during the Gallic Wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

makes the idea that the Bosporans were somehow incompatible with Roman culture a bit ridiculous.

---

I didn't say they were incompatible, the opposite, since they were already hellenized, just had to accept roman overlordship, which they did...
Can't see them recruiting legionaries among the locals, that's all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

And the Rhine and Danube frontiers had exactly the same situation for centuries before the Limes collapsed, not to mention the eastern frontier with the Parthians/Sassanids.

---

The Rhine held until the situation changed; the Danube and the eastern frontiers were at constant war, with few diplomatic breaks, both sides coming and going in the other's territory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Scotland, above the Antonine wall

---

That I didn't know, thanks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

A good example was the Legio V Alaudae, which was raised from the native population of Gaul in 52BC and was used to fight Vercingetorix during the Gallic Wars.

---

This I strongly disagree, both sides fought in a very similar manner, in the east and steppe it would be quite difficult and in a very limited number, actually more about whether the professional troops decide to side with Roma...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

I didn't say they were incompatible, the opposite, since they were already hellenized, just had to accept roman overlordship, which they did...
Can't see them recruiting legionaries among the locals, that's all...

---

The Bosporans were the locals, they were a mix of Greeks, Tauricans, Cimmerians, Maeotae, Scythians etc, even the ones that weren't Hellenised would have been no more difficult to recruit than Gauls or Germans were, they still had the same concept of rulership as anyone else did.

Quote:

---

The Rhine held until the situation changed; the Danube and the eastern frontiers were at constant war, with few diplomatic breaks, both sides coming and going in the other's territory...

---

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

Quote:

---

This I strongly disagree, both sides fought in a very similar manner, in the east and steppe it would be quite difficult and in a very limited number, actually more about whether the professional troops decide to side with Roma...

---

The Bosporos isn't the true steppe, most of the soldiers in the region fought as infantry, usually spearmen or archers. This is entirely compatible with the Roman mode of fighting. The same goes for the east where again the majority of soldiers were melee infantry or archers, Rome had already successfully recruited from such martial traditions in its eastern regions like Syria so I don't see how they would fail to do so in Mesopotamia or even Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

---

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

they still had the same concept of rulership as anyone else did.

---

Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Rome had already successfully recruited from such martial traditions in its eastern regions like Syria so I don't see how they would fail to do so in Mesopotamia or even Iran.

---

Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...

---

My question was how were the Rhine, Danube and Eastern frontiers feasible borders for the Roman Empire despite being next to aggressive and organised states and peoples yet the Bosporos wasn't?

Quote:

---

Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...

---

Which it wasn't.

Quote:

---

Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

---

And Spain and North Africa had military doctrines based around skirmishing, yet legionaries were recruited there with no problem. The fact of the matter is that the only people the Romans would have had a tough time turning into legionaries were nomads, everyone else could be trained in the Roman battle styles. And melee infantry was a tradition in Mesopotamia, the Shipri Tukul unit from EB was an example of this.

As to point A, it depends how you define 'border.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

the Bosporos wasn't?

---

As it was, given the steppe people didn't have siegecraft or a navy, protecting the coastal ports and cities required only a fleet and some garrisons; but had the Romani tried to expand further north, a limes system would have needed many legions, plus I don't know how effective they would have been against steppe warfare and imo such a border, coupled with all the others, would reach the point of a too big economic burden to arm so many troops...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

And Spain and North Africa had military doctrines based around skirmishing, yet legionaries were recruited there with no problem.

---

They didn't lack shock or heavy "single" close-quarter with slashing and thrusting blades either and they were hired by or fought against the Romani for decades: the leap to become legionaries would have been quite natural...

In case of North Africa, they formed up as skirmishing bands to fend off small nomad raids...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

And melee infantry was a tradition in Mesopotamia

---

They fought quite differently though, supporting thureophoroi and cavalry more by presence than actual fighting skills to discourage flanking...
Not to mention they were usually kept as garrisons, just like the Romani did with the Syrians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

---

I'd argue that the Roman handbook regarding borders would tell you that rivers make the finest boundaries of empire. The Rhine and Danube clearly. In the east against the Parthians and Sassanids the border shifted more, but was generally based around the Euphrates region. In Africa there were no major rivers but the Atlas mountains and the Sahara were natural boundary markers. In Britain they eventually built a wall although its uses and purpose are arguable. Also as long as the capital of the empire was Rome, the Crimea was somewhat far away and as long as the native Bosporans were friendly and willing to trade their grain, there would be no reason to incorporate them into the empire unless they were in danger of being deposed by native revolt or foreign invasion.

[QUOTE=Arjos;2053408492]As it was, given the steppe people didn't have siegecraft or a navy, protecting the coastal ports and cities required only a fleet and some garrisons; but had the Romani tried to expand further north, a limes system would have needed many legions, plus I don't know how effective they would have been against steppe warfare and imo such a border, coupled with all the others, would reach the point of a too big economic burden to arm so many troops...[quote]
Well it is a good thing I wasn't talking about them trying to hold onto steppe territories isn't it?

Quote:

---

They didn't lack shock or heavy "single" close-quarter with slashing and thrusting blades either and they were hired by or fought against the Romani for decades: the leap to become legionaries would have been quite natural...

---

No more natural than it would have been for any other infantry tradition. If the Romans required people that fought in exactly the same to them to join their army they wouldn't have made it beyond Italy.

Quote:

---

In case of North Africa, they formed up as skirmishing bands to fend off small nomad raids...

---

Your point being?

Quote:

---

They fought quite differently though, supporting thureophoroi and cavalry more by presence than actual fighting skills to discourage flanking...
Not to mention they were usually kept as garrisons, just like the Romani did with the Syrians...

---

They fought as infantry in close order formations, that would have been more than enough for the Romans to work with. And as for the Syrians, well the Romans were always ones to take advantage of native skills if so a lot of the became Sagittarii, they were also found in the Legions too though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I'd argue that the Roman handbook regarding borders would tell you that rivers make the finest boundaries of empire. The Rhine and Danube clearly. In the east against the Parthians and Sassanids the border shifted more, but was generally based around the Euphrates region. In Africa there were no major rivers but the Atlas mountains and the Sahara were natural boundary markers. In Britain they eventually built a wall although its uses and purpose are arguable. Also as long as the capital of the empire was Rome, the Crimea was somewhat far away and as long as the native Bosporans were friendly and willing to trade their grain, there would be no reason to incorporate them into the empire unless they were in danger of being deposed by native revolt or foreign invasion.

---

Have a look at a map, the first thing you will see is that the Crimea about as far from Rome as Britain is, it is actually closer in travel time when you consider that it could be reached by boat in a more or less direct route.

The second thing you will see is that it is joined the Steppe regions by a few thin strips of land, it is about as good a defensible border as you could hope for, especially when take into account that the potential enemies in the region had absolutely no form of navy what so ever.

Well the discussion was about whether the Romans could incorporate the Bosporan Kingdom, not whether they actually wanted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Your point being?
take advantage of native skills

---

That's my point, not forcing them to fight scutum and gladius, but exploiting the local military tradition to its fullest...
So, that's why imo, answering the OP, legionaries (as in Cohors Reformata and such) shouldn't be recruitable in certain areas...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

With EB1 there are many reasons for things being the way they are, and in case of recruitment a major reason is that each line of recruitment code carries a cost.

---

That's a reasonable answer. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Unless it is possible to generalise multiple lines of recruitment into one (and there probably is such possibility, subject to engine bugs in the way it evaluates logical operators) each new region costs 1 line of code per building per level per province.

---

FWIW, the way I would have recruitment work if it were practical would be to make it dependant on resources/terrain (horses etc), MICs, historical tendencies, and pseudo-buildings representing culture and way of life. Only some of the latter would be buildable, at least in a reasonable length of time.

For the romans to build Pricipes might need a mid-level MIC, low level Roman culture (which they can build), low level Roman government, Polybian reforms, and suitable geography (not desert/steppe etc). The culture requirement is low because they were good at training foreigners. The government is low because the MIC can administer what they need above that. All of that is independent of historical borders, so Caledonia or Sicilia are equally good for Principes once you've got settled in.

For the Saka to build Saka Hoplites would need a mid level MIC, mid-level Hellenic culture (which they can't build but can conquer), mid-level Saka government, and suitable geography. It requires a higher level of culture because they're relying on Greek traditions to teach the troops, and higher level government to trust the armed Greeks to work for them instead of against them. Byzantion is of course a long way from Chigu, but Pantikapaion is not unreasonable -- ISTM there's no reason the Saka had to go south, plenty of factions have gone West instead (Goths, Huns, etc).

As for our slingers, they need a pseudo-building called "culture of slinging" or whatever, which you find in the appropriate places. If you really want you can build it in 50 years (200 turns). Otherwise it's where you find it.

Of course, I have no idea whether this is feasible in the engine. Anyhow, thanks for your time and for indulging my question. I hope this is at least food for thought. :)

It seems certain that the engine would not allow it, but I think the ideal solution would be for you to have the ability to build anything, anywhere, but at wildly varying costs. After all, certainly the Romans had the option of co-opting the local culture and training whatever they wanted; it was simply far more time- and cost-effective for them to work out tactics which employed, e.g., hoplites. If things were properly expensive in the hinterlands, then the player would almost certainly arrive at the same conclusion and the effects of AoR would continue virtually unchanged most of the time, but if you were wealthy and had time and REALLY wanted Legions in Scotland, you could lay out a ridiculous sum over a long period and accomplish it, in the same way that the Romans presumably could have, had it been a priority for them.

Assuming that's not even an option, I quite like the existing AoR as an alternative, since bucking that system would be a rare exception even if it were available.

Forgive me if I am merely paraphrasing something someone else has already said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morte66

Caledonia or Sicilia are equally good for Principes once you've got settled in.

---

That, imo, is bonkers...
Citizens voting at the assemblies, recruitable in a province...

While the other matter about the Saka, I skipped it, Hoplitai Hellenikon are already recruitable (EBI) in hellenic settled areas, even the much desired Byzantion, so what's this all about? XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

That's my point, not forcing them to fight scutum and gladius, but exploiting the local military tradition to its fullest...
So, that's why imo, answering the OP, legionaries (as in Cohors Reformata and such) shouldn't be recruitable in certain areas...

---

Exploiting a local tradition does not preclude being able to train soldiers in the Roman system, they could do both, and did throughout history in places like Gaul and North Africa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

did throughout history in places like Gaul and North Africa

---

I understand your view, but imo, that was possible only within specific cultural environments, ie (for the roman infantry type) the western Mediterranean and north Africa...
For instance, in later years with troops coming more and more from the Danube basin, like Illyriciani and germanic people, the legionaries adopted more shieldwall like tactics and equipment...

Its not a view, that is what actually happened. If history isn't enough to convince you I don't know what is.

As to the second point, one could argue that it was the Roman armies adapting to fighting the various Germanic enemies they faced, not because of where the troops came from, that caused these changes. They also greatly increased their cavalry and missile contingents during that time despite Germanic warfare being focused around infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Its not a view, that is what actually happened. If history isn't enough to convince you I don't know what is.

---

Ofc that's what happened, the point was that for example in Britain, Crimea, Armenia and Mesopotamia didn't happened: rather soldiers from other regions were deployed there, that's what I've been talking about...
Afaik even in Spain and Gaul only certain areas provided legionaries, like the southeast for the former, Narbonensis, Lugdunensis and Belgica for the latter...
In your view given any people in any place, if they were ordered to fight in a demanded manner it would have happened, I disagree on that and imo it's about the local military traditions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

one could argue that it was the Roman armies adapting

---

Why there wasn't any "adaptation" after Carrhae for example?
While roughly two centuries later it happened in the same area...
On one side you don't have any natives for hire and on the other you do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

They also greatly increased their cavalry and missile contingents during that time despite Germanic warfare being focused around infantry.

---

Nothing to do with Sauromatae and Alani for you?
Both being hired by Roma...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Ofc that's what happened, the point was that for example in Britain, Crimea, Armenia and Mesopotamia didn't happened: rather soldiers from other regions were deployed there, that's what I've been talking about...
Afaik even in Spain and Gaul only certain areas provided legionaries, like the southeast for the former, Narbonensis, Lugdunensis and Belgica for the latter...

---

Well it didn't happen in the Crimea and Armenia because those were client states and so were not part of the Romans military administration, they undoubtedly would have furnished them with specialist troops for the Auxillia though. Mesopotamia was only ever part of the empire for a short period of time and so the necessary mechanisms were not in place. Britain on the other hand did provide legionaries to the army.

Quote:

---

In your view given any people in any place, if they were ordered to fight in a demanded manner it would have happened, I disagree on that and imo it's about the local military traditions...

---

That is not my view, if there was sufficient access to manpower they could have trained them into Legionaires, that is what training is all about! They taught them how to fight in the Roman style, if that was impossible then you would have Gauls hacking away with their Gladius like it was a longsword, Numidians throwing their pila before running away when the enemy got anywhere near them and Iberians skulking around preforming hit and run attacks.

Quote:

---

Why there wasn't any "adaptation" after Carrhae for example?
While roughly two centuries later it happened in the same area...
On one side you don't have any natives for hire and on the other you do...

---

But was adaptation after Carrhae, the use of missile units increased and horse archers were brought in (later being directly trained by the Romans). The eastern legionaries armour became heavier as well and scale mail became more common.

Quote:

---

Nothing to do with Sauromatae and Alani for you?
Both being hired by Roma...

---

So? These tactics were being used to directly deal German armies, the Romans saw what kind of troops the Germans used and brought elements of their own that would be able exploit weaknesses in those armies to the region, that is adapting if I'm not mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

if that was impossible then you would have Gauls hacking away with their Gladius like it was a longsword, Numidians throwing their pila before running away when the enemy got anywhere near them and Iberians skulking around preforming hit and run attacks.

---

I did say it was possible only for certain cultures, like those you listed, what I'm saying is that for example in the east, locals at most could have been trained as archers or spearmen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The eastern legionaries armour became heavier as well and scale mail became more common.

---

I was speaking of training and tactics rather than technology and equipment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

These tactics were being used to directly deal German armies

---

Afaik Quadi and Marcomanni allied with the Sauromatae during those campaigns and cooperated...

Any man can be taught any fighting style; it is merely a matter of convincing him that learning the style will increase his chances of achieving whatever it is that he values (victory, glory, survival, etc.) However, it takes time and money to do this. Where Rome did not do it, why do you assume it was because it was impossible, and not simply a question of expediency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

I did say it was possible only for certain cultures, like those you listed, what I'm saying is that for example in the east, locals at most could have been trained as archers or spearmen...

---

Why? What makes training a person who is used to fighting with a spear to use a sword and more difficult that a person who is used to fighting with javelins? And I should point out that this never stopped the Greeks, who were big fans of the spear, from being trained for the legions, neither did it prevent the urban poor of Rome who had never fought a day in their lives.

What you seem to be saying is that humans are completely incapable of learning skills that are foreign to them, which is a very bizarre idea to me.

Quote:

---

I was speaking of training and tactics rather than technology and equipment...

---

Adopting new technology and equipment is the same as adopting new tactics, because these things facilitate changes to tactics, if you add a bunch of missile units to your army you don't keep fighting like you would with just swordsmen.

Quote:

---

Afaik Quadi and Marcomanni allied with the Sauromatae during those campaigns and cooperated...

---

What about the tribes on the Rhine? The used archers and cavalry on those frontiers too. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Roman commanders were able to see the benefits of using archers and cavalry against a enemy who didn't use them and fought largely as unarmoured infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

And I should point out that this never stopped the Greeks, who were big fans of the spear, from being trained for the legions

---

They did have xyphos, kopis and machaira, plus since the invasion of the Balkans they were already moving toward new styles...
While to keep with the examples in the east, for close quarters were much prefered shock weapons like sagaris and mace...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

What you seem to be saying is that humans are completely incapable of learning skills that are foreign to them, which is a very bizarre idea to me.

---

No, I'm not speaking of the learning process, but of the training one: an unknown skill, without the help from someone who already mastered it, takes quite some time of "try and fail"...
While teaching whole communities, requires time and willingness from those communities, which if asked to fight, should they possess a rooted tradition would prefer to bring their arms...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Why is it so hard for you to believe that Roman commanders were able to see the benefits of using archers and cavalry against a enemy who didn't use them and fought largely as unarmoured infantry.

---

You are not understanding what I'm saying, I have no problem with that assumption, what I'm talking about is the use of mounted archers and armour clad cavalry (in this very case), put in use by hiring locals, at first and in the most imminent time, while later it was about those very communities, to settle and train in such fashion people...

In overall, for ancient peoples, blood and traditions could sometimes transcend reason in decisions...
In something as characteristic as warfare, unless people made the decision to do so, or they were already accustomed to similar styles, the imposition of other's ideas was, I dare say, impossible...

I have no problem with auxiliary troops from those areas, but increasing the AoR of legionaries is an hypothetical out of preference: just how one could argue they could have provincialized the area, the other side of the coin tells, they could have suffered a "Teutoburg Forest" scenario...

Tbh already in EBI that specific AoR is quite expanded, with "provinces" that lasted less than five years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

They did have xyphos, kopis and machaira, plus since the invasion of the Balkans they were already moving toward new styles...
While to keep with the examples in the east, for close quarters were much prefered shock weapons like sagaris and mace...

---

And eastern populations commonly used the Kopis as well as the Akinakes. I should also point out that the Kopis/Makhairia was much closer in intent and use to a mace or axe than to the Gladius.

Quote:

---

No, I'm not speaking of the learning process, but of the training one: an unknown skill, without the help from someone who already mastered it, takes quite some time of "try and fail"...
While teaching whole communities, requires time and willingness from those communities, which if asked to fight, should they possess a rooted tradition would prefer to bring their arms...

---

This is a professional military we are talking about here, not some militia, they fought in what ever manner suited the Romans, not themselves. If a local tradition was beneficial to the Romans they would be formed into specialist Auxilia units based around that tradition (eg Numdian Cavalry, Cretan Archers etc), if not and if they were still needed they would be trained in Roman fighting styles.

Quote:

---

You are not understanding what I'm saying, I have no problem with that assumption, what I'm talking about is the use of mounted archers and armour clad cavalry (in this very case), put in use by hiring locals, at first and in the most imminent time, while later it was about those very communities, to settle and train in such fashion people...

---

While there was a need for natives to set the ball rolling, once the tradition was established in the military the Romans didn't need to access to those same natives to continue it, they could also export it to other areas as they saw fit. They may have continued to do so in a lot of circumstances because the natives were usually the best, but that does not mean it was impossible to train others.

Quote:

---

In overall, for ancient peoples, blood and traditions could sometimes transcend reason in decisions...

---

Sometimes yes, but you are implying that it was all the time.

Quote:

---

In something as characteristic as warfare, unless people made the decision to do so, or they were already accustomed to similar styles, the imposition of other's ideas was, I dare say, impossible...

---

My point is they didn't get to decided how they fought in the legions! It's not like on the first day of legionary training Antigonos the Makedone said "Actually nice Mr Centurion I think I'll stick to my Sarissa thank you very much, I just can't get my head around your way of doing things....so how much do we get paid again?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

They may have continued to do so in a lot of circumstances because the natives were usually the best, but that does not mean it was impossible to train others.

---

Yes, but the focal point is that it must get started by natives...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Sometimes yes, but you are implying that it was all the time.

---

All battlefield deployments by origin and citizenship, all administrative and command offices by origin and citizenship...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

My point is they didn't get to decided how they fought in the legions!

---

The argument was that for the OP is reasonable to export the legionary fashion to any other area, with similar resources and geography; I say that's not all of it...
Plus iirc, it was always about voluntaries and not conscripts, so those professionals would come with their trade...
And if they were from the poorest of the poors, again the choice would have gone for origins, making the easterner a sagittarius, postguard or rower...

And historically I don't know of legionaries from Germania, Mesopotamia, Crimea and Armenia, I can easily see them fighting as auxiliares, but again that increased AoR is a one sided hypothetical...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Yes, but the focal point is that it must get started by natives...

---

Of course they were, but your argument was that these natives would be the only source of soldiers trained in that tradition...period, that their skills were not transferable to others from elsewhere in the empire. Which is false.

Quote:

---

All battlefield deployments by origin and citizenship, all administrative and command offices by origin and citizenship...
What was decided by merit? Promotions in those already fixed hierarchies I guess :P

---

The Roman Empire was hardly a meritocracy but even then people from otherwise undesirable origins could rise up the ladder, even to the position of Emperor.

Quote:

---

The argument was that for the OP is reasonable to export the legionary fashion to any other area, with similar resources and geography; I say that's not all of it...
Plus iirc, it was always about voluntaries and not conscripts, so those professionals would come with their trade...
And if they were from the poorest of the poors, again the choice would have gone for origins, making the easterner a sagittarius, postguard or rower...

---

No it wouldn't have, the available manpower would have been allocated to where the Romans needed it, if they needed people for the legions that's where those volunteers would have gone.

Quote:

---

And historically I don't know of legionaries from Germania, Mesopotamia, Crimea and Armenia, I can easily see them fighting as auxiliares, but again that increased AoR is a one sided hypothetical...

---

The AoR in EB is hypothetical, they needed to draw the line somewhere so they based it on the maximum extent the empire reached.

Quote:

---

Mesopotamia, Crimea and Armenia,

---

Again, they would not have come from those places as they were either not part of the empire or were only incorporated for a very short time, I just explained that only a few posts ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

that their skills were not transferable to others from elsewhere in the empire. Which is false.

---

I said "at first and in the most imminent time ... to settle and train in such fashion people" meaning that afterwards they would train whoever or settle and raise their own children, I know my syntax is awful, I apologize for that :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

undesirable origins could rise up the ladder, even to the position of Emperor.

---

But they still were from within the empire...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

if they needed people for the legions that's where those volunteers would have gone.

---

Given how vast the manpower was, they would have made "westerners" fight in the legion and "easterners" in other fashions, which is what they did...
Such preferences were written countless times during the classical and hellenistic periods, in such "nations" as Asia and Egypt, the natives were trained in macedonian fashion due to:

- lack of greek manpower, preserving the few who settled to be part of the assemblies, unless there were enough klerouchoi.
- desire by the locals to take part in higher social circles.
- easy transition from spearmen to pikemen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The AoR in EB is hypothetical, they needed to draw the line somewhere so they based it on the maximum extent the empire reached.
Again, they would not have come from those places as they were either not part of the empire or were only incorporated for a very short time

---

Hence why I said they shouldn't be able to recruit them there: "with "provinces" that lasted less than five years"...

I'm off for the weekend, happy new year everyone ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Hence why I said they shouldn't be able to recruit them there: "with "provinces" that lasted less than five years"...

---

Why are you so obsessed with what really happened, the point of EB is to rewrite history, not relive it. Who says no one in EB2 will ever hold Mesopotamia or Armenia for more than 5 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stark

Why are you so obsessed with what really happened, the point of EB is to rewrite history, not relive it. Who says no one in EB2 will ever hold Mesopotamia or Armenia for more than 5 years?

---

EB, and EB2 are intended to be more historically accurate representations of this era, not just a boundary-less 'what if'. In the same way that one cannot hold (in modern times) such as Afghanistan as a recognisably 'Western' state, so the power structures in Armenia were jot, at that time, particularly amenable to a Romaised state structure. I think (from the previews) this is exactly the sort of cultural reality that the EB team are trying to recreate.

Dacia, Gaul, Spain, North Africa...all fell into line after protracted and/or near genocidal conquest. They didn't simply embrace Roman ways. There is an argument that the Germanic peoples (and their environs) offered a greater threat to Roman stability than the Romans would gain by their conquest (as shown by Arminius). The same could be said for those areas bordering the nomadic Steppe cultures. Let's not also forget that the larger the Empire became, the more internal dissensions plagued it. I'm rather hoping that these aspects of Empire building are addressed in EB2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...



Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...



Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

---

Please correct me if I'm wrong but when the limes were built wasn't the importance of traffic control, police force and alerting the garrison about raids of monumental importance when the Limes got built? In importance in fact not something the rome total war engine is even capable of showing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I don't know of any settling of Roman citizens in Gaul, though, which was thoroughly Romanized. Romanization had more to do with the local elite becoming part of the Roman system.

---

The Roman colonization of Gaul isn't easy to recognize from the ancient literature, but it began in the late 2C BC and resumed in the 2nd half of the 1C BC. There appear to have been 15 coloniae (except for the first, probably all are coloniae militares) founded in Gaul before Augustus' death: (all dates BC)

Narbo Martius 114 and 45
Arelate 45
Lugdunum 43
Rauricorum 43
Noviodunum 43-32
Baeterrae 36-27
Arausio 33-35
Forum Julii 30

In addition, there were another six colonies (including one at Aquae Sextiae) founded on unknown dates by either Caesar or Augustus. Roman colonization in Gaul continued throughout the principate.