Will the roman general remain mounted? Or will he become part of an infanrty unit like in rtr? I know that depending on the general he would fight mounted or on foot but I'd like to know if the team has decided yet.
Printable View
Will the roman general remain mounted? Or will he become part of an infanrty unit like in rtr? I know that depending on the general he would fight mounted or on foot but I'd like to know if the team has decided yet.
I don't know if we have decided this yet.
speaking of generals.
have you changed the 'barbarian' general yet. if yes can you post a screenshot.
and will britannian, gallic, germaian etc. etc. generals all have a different model, or will you give them all the same one like in the original RTW.
Factions only share generals where appropriate, such as some of the Successor states. We'll have new generals for most of the other factions.
Even among non-playable tribes/factions?
The only non playables are the rebels...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
So......?
Within game mechanics I guess they´re only one faction, but in concept they represent all the various smaller factions. Further, I believe that it´s possible to create more than one type of leader per "faction".
I doubt it but it would be cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
Well....there are captains , generals, standart bearers....thats at least 3 different "leaders".
I would prefer to have no generals bodyguard at all, rather then an infantry unit. I have not played rtr but i don`t think that an infantry general with reduced mobility could still be a useful battlefield unit to sally troops and boost up morale.
Hi to everybody first is mine post, it was historically no mounted. even the Dictator had the prohibition to follow to horse his Army!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gangstaman590
sorry for my english ~;)
Well, I believe it is realistic to have unmounted generals (as far as I know, which is little), but if you were to do so PLEASE do not make the generals bodyguard be spearmen(triarii0, as (at least in 1.1) spearmen tend to underpreform when they arn't phalanx.
Pertinax:
Cannae (216 BC):
According to Livy, Paullus was severely wounded in the head by a slinger right at the start of the battle (in contradiction with Polybius, who claims that Paullus was wounded only later). Eventually, he became unable to control his horse, and then his entire bodyguard dismounted to share the destiny with their commander. But the wound didn't obstruct Paullus from taking control of the army after Varro so shamelessly fled before the field was completely lost, as he essayed (in vain) to save the day. Hannibal later honored him by having his body buried with ceremonial rituals.
One fled with the cavalry, the other definately had mounted bodyguards, so I will assume that both consuls commanded from horseback and had somekind of mounted bodyguards (presumably veterans in the form of heavy horse).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
at the moment I do not remember if for the Cannae battle a dictatorship had been proclaimed but if was the Dictator, on foot, it would have been taken by his Magister Equitum, commandant of the cavalry and second in command, which was authorized to be to horse. it is also possible that a commandant preferred to check develop him they of the battle to horse for a convenience matter but historically the few generals which were throwing themselves in the fray were making it taken by infantry formations, Caesar for example
There is evidence for generals being both mounted and dismounted, as well as having both foot and horse bodyguard. So it is really a choice, since we can't do this on an individual general basis.
had seemed to me to understand that one talked about general fighters, not of commandants that look from far the battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
as you know the Roma strength well it was the infantry and not the cavalry so an infantry general would be more right. several for other factions like the Ellenistic, Parthia, and the various barbarian factions
We don't have to guess here. We know from primary textual evidence that the Roman generals went to battle both mounted and unmounted; this seems to be an individual choice. So the choice is ours, really, since again we can't very well show this on an individual basis.
is not to contradict you but driven of cavalry charges by the general shes speaking only toward the end of the empire, or rather when the Roman generals had only the name...Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Would it be possible to have a bodyguard unit that could dismount before battle, like some of the cavalry in Medieval? I think thats the most realistic way.
Pertinax:
Here is a quote from Polybios histories (Book 3/65):Quote:
Originally Posted by Pertinax
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/...yout=&loc=3.65
The roman consul Publius Scipio led his cavalry personally in battle with Hannibals horsemen. 218 BC it`s hardly toward the end of the empire.
Here is another Polybios quote (Book 15/10) that shows Scipio Africanus using a cavalry bodyguard:
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/...yout=&loc=15.6
Sarcasm has posted another example for republican generals fighting on horseback.
be able to choose if assigning the general an united one of cavalry or infantry would be the best thing also for me before the battle!Quote:
Originally Posted by cunctator
the cavalry and relationship Roman infantry is as what there is Germanic faction between cavalry and infantry...
I believe that it was cumstomary for a General to go on foot (He would then choose a Master of the Horse) but in certain circumstances they could request to have a mount and the senate could either accept or reject the request.
Someone posted this sometime ago -
Roman generals fought on foot. It was a way of showing equality within the army. Hence some Roman generals were very popular with the troops and people. On the other hand, riding on the horse is a sign of being disrespect and usually a sign of rebellion. Thus the Senate was alarmed when Julius Caesar wore purple and rode the streets of Rome on a horse, indicating self-proclaimation of Emperor.
Hope this helps.
Apart from other considerations, it's simply more practical to ride a horse in battle than to go on foot. Not only can you get from place to place more quickly, you also have a better overview thanks to your elevated position.
This would be of less consideration when you commanded from a fixed, elevated position, like Agricola at Mons Graupius.
Caesar for one often commanded from horseback, but also fought on foot in the front rank if he needed to inspire his troops.
A roman general could decide from case to case if he wants tocommand his army from horseback or on foot.
Tacitus mentioned specially that Agricola sent away his horse at mons graupius to encourage the troops and praise his valour. So that was not the normal way he commanded his forces.
Quote: Agricolca chapter 35
"Agricola, fearing that from the enemy’s superiority of force he would be simultaneously attacked in front and on the flanks, widened his ranks, and though his line was likely to be too extended, and several officers advised him to bring up the legions, yet, so sanguine was he, so resolute in meeting danger, he sent away his horse and took his stand on foot before the colours."
http://members.aol.com/antoninus1/piety/agricola.htm
I think what we should do is make the imporatant family members with horse and the normal or low generals with ground troops. I saw this is possible on the RTR mod where the barbarian generals weren't all mounted. One of them was in a barbarian warband.
Why would any sane person, much less a general fight on foot?
There was actually some sort of law that they had to fight on foot in a specific office (consul/dictator?) until some date when things changed. It might have been about the time of Telamon, 225 BC, I can't recall. It might have been 100 years earlier. I know I've seen the references but I cannot recall where. There was some exception made because of the need to do a rapid forced march for interception of a major threat.
Was it practical or sane as warfare advanced? Hell, no! Traditions often aren't. Remember that the legions were originally hoplites and military tradition changed slowly over centuries. Hoplites scorned cavalry in ancient times. "Real men/citizens" fought in the ranks. It is much different than modern armies or later armies: where the rank and file are middle class at best, and often recruited primarily from the less wealthy (as happened in later Roman history.) In hoplite and Republican legionary society the foot soldiers were the upper class and dipping down to upper middle class. There was also a wealthy elite equestrian class. For hoplite warfare you had to be wealthy to afford both the gear, and the time away from your property for a military campaign. (The hoplite panoply was equivalent to about 6 months to 1 years wages.) If only we could do the same today...would be nice to see some of our "leaders" actually fight at least in their youth rather than hiding in the National Guard and failing to even show up for mandatory service for extended periods, they might do a bit better job of managing a war...but I digress. ~D
I agree. I would like to see leaders of countries actually be there in the moment of fighting. The morale would be unbreakable. I hate this coward system that modern warfare has created. It's become almost obsolete for any high rank to actually be there fighting. We should look at the honor of battle again.
You want to be in a foxhole with George Bush or Bill Clinton? 'Cause... yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
I wouldn´t. But it would be for diferent reasons for each one..... ~;)
I'm pretty sure that Gaius Julius Caesar both command his army on foot and mounted. His horse were famous and brought courage to all who saw it. It was grey white but had some freak foots. In his early days Julius Caesar fought on foot but in the Gallic Campaign i'm sure he rode on his horse. He needed the overview but many times during the fights he may unmount himself to fight amongst the infantry in the battallions there was under pressure.
I'm also very sure that normal Roman Generals wasn't like Julius Caesar and under the hole battle sat on their horse to maintain overview. It's correct when the army march the general normally marchs with them on foot. But in battle it's on horse.
Generals should be mounted, with a small bodyguard (less than 10). As well as an elite, trainable unit of infantry/cavalry to be kept a seperate strategic reserve/mobile bodyguard.
This is how I've modeled it in my (unfinished) mod.