Best army composition for....

[||Lz3||]

um... interesting... I'm going to sticky this thread...

veeeery good ideas so far

Che! here you have your manula!

[LorDBulA]

Ok I have loaded save game to check out my real army composition. I was quite off.
This is how my Kings army looked like.

Galaiche 5
Brihentin 2
LeuceEpos 2
Solduros 2
Beataroas 2
Neitos 3
Iaosatae 1
Sotaroas 2
King/Heir

About Gaesatae.
Well in almost 60 years of game I only trained one unit of this guys.
Before reforms they did serve in my Kings army.

But something like...

1x General
1x Heavy Cavalry (Brihentin, Remi Mairepos etc.)
2x Light/Medium Cavalry (Leuce Epos, Taramannos etc.)
3x Missile (iaosatae, sotaroas)
1x Elite Infantry (Solduros, Arjos, Carnutes Cingetos etc.)
3x Heavy Infantry (Gaesatae, Neitos etc.)
4x Medium Infantry (Bataroas, Botroas, K-H Hoplitae etc.)
5x Spearmen (Gaelaiche, Caturiges Gaedann, Noricene Gaecori etc.)

This I think looks nice. Although I would add max up to 1 Gaesatae and max up to 1 iaosatae .

[The Celtic Viking]

Ok I have loaded save game to check out my real army composition. I was quite off.
This is how my Kings army looked like.

Galaiche 5
Brihentin 2
LeuceEpos 2
Solduros 2
Beataroas 2
Neitos 3
Iaosatae 1
Sotaroas 2
King/Heir

About Gaesatae.
Well in almost 60 years of game I only trained one unit of this guys.
Before reforms they did serve in my Kings army.



This I think looks nice. Although I would add max up to 1 Gaesatae and max up to 1 iaosatae .

I agree on the Gaesatae: one unit is all you really need anyway. Limiting the Iaosatae to just one is unnecessary though, as they're not that great any more. I would probably go a 1/2 split anyway, which one I'd have two of would depend on who I'm fighting.

Cheers. incidently, what sort of formation did they use, as I can't seem to find any mention of them in Livy or Julius Ceaser's thing on gaul.
Have a balloon.

I wish I could help you there, mate, but I'm far from a historian. I think Thaatu came pretty close to the mark with this illustration, though:

[Che Roriniho]

I agree on the Gaesatae: one unit is all you really need anyway. Limiting the Iaosatae to just one is unnecessary though, as they're not that great any more. I would probably go a 1/2 split anyway, which one I'd have two of would depend on who I'm fighting.


I wish I could help you there, mate, but I'm far from a historian. I think Thaatu came pretty close to the mark with this illustration, though:

They were slightly more organised than that. I mean, the Samnites were only partially 'civilised' (note the quotation marks), but still invented, AFAWK, manipular tactics, and the quincux.
The gauls also, had 'sections'. Not quite on a level of the Romans or greeks, but less 'EVERYONE, CHARGE', and more 'THOSE PEOPLE IN FUNNY HATS OVER THERE, CHARGE! EVERYONE ELSE DEFEND THIS HILL!'

[konny]

The gauls also, had 'sections'. Not quite on a level of the Romans or greeks, but less 'EVERYONE, CHARGE', and more 'THOSE PEOPLE IN FUNNY HATS OVER THERE, CHARGE! EVERYONE ELSE DEFEND THIS HILL!'

After all most of these "Barbarian" armies were composed of professional soldiers, at least in their cores. All their commanders would have been experienced officers that knew their trade and were in no way inferior to their Greek and Roman counterparts (just imagine men like Ariovist or Arminius in charge of Antigonos' or Mithradates' army).

The armies would have had division of several kinds; divisions by tribe for example are recorded - what would also include division by traditional waeponary and way of combat. There would have also been divisions by troop type or quality. There was a developed chain of command as well as a way to communicate orders.

What they were lacking, and in what they would have been inferior to the Greeks and Romans, was personal discipline. Each individual ranker seemed to be very eager to gain personal fame in a battle. That would have made it difficult for a commander to keep control over his troops once battle was unleahsed.

To make matters even worse, the leaders themselves would have charged ahead of their men into close combat to proof their bravety; and there is hardly anything more useless on a battlefield than a fighting general. A Roman or Greek general watching the show from a distanced point and not busy fighting for his very live would have been more able to give the right command at the right moment.

[Che Roriniho]

After all most of these "Barbarian" armies were composed of professional soldiers, at least in their cores. All their commanders would have been experienced officers that knew their trade and were in no way inferior to their Greek and Roman counterparts (just imagine men like Ariovist or Arminius in charge of Antigonos' or Mithradates' army).

The armies would have had division of several kinds; divisions by tribe for example are recorded - what would also include division by traditional waeponary and way of combat. There would have also been divisions by troop type or quality. There was a developed chain of command as well as a way to communicate orders.

What they were lacking, and in what they would have been inferior to the Greeks and Romans, was personal discipline. Each individual ranker seemed to be very eager to gain personal fame in a battle. That would have made it difficult for a commander to keep control over his troops once battle was unleahsed.

To make matters even worse, the leaders themselves would have charged ahead of their men into close combat to proof their bravety; and there is hardly anything more useless on a battlefield than a fighting general. A Roman or Greek general watching the show from a distanced point and not busy fighting for his very live would have been more able to give the right command at the right moment.

As ever, Konny always manages to smear the mud of rightness all over the faces of the wrong. Thankyou.

[Ludens]

To make matters even worse, the leaders themselves would have charged ahead of their men into close combat to proof their bravety; and there is hardly anything more useless on a battlefield than a fighting general. A Roman or Greek general watching the show from a distanced point and not busy fighting for his very live would have been more able to give the right command at the right moment.

Before the Peloponnesian war, a Greek general's job also consisted mainly from giving an inspiring speech and leading from the front. This may have had something to do with the fact that hoplite armies didn't allow much in the way of command and control, though (unless they happened to be from Lacedaemon). I imagine this changed when armies became more professional, but Alexander liked to get stuck-in, and most of his successors also felt the need to lead from the front from time to time. According to Goldsworthy, the Romans were special in not expecting their generals to participate in combat.

[konny]

Before the Peloponnesian war, a Greek general's job also consisted mainly from giving an inspiring speech and leading from the front. This may have had something to do with the fact that hoplite armies didn't allow much in the way of command and control, though (unless they happened to be from Lacedaemon). I imagine this changed when armies became more professional, but Alexander liked to get stuck-in, and most of his successors also felt the need to lead from the front from time to time. According to Goldsworthy, the Romans were special in not expecting their generals to participate in combat.

With a Hoplites army there is in fact not much to general around. Once it was aligned parallel to the enemy there was only way it could move: forward. There had also been no independent divisions or reserves that a general could commit. Reducing it to one sentence: Hoplites didn't need a general at all.

Alexander is a complete different story: He was leading the assault wing. The phalanx was very much like the Hoplites of old and could look after itself. Alexander on the other hand kept the "hammer" under his close control. So he was able to strike swift, in the right moment and the right direction without beeing hindered by having to use messangers or having an obscured view from somewhere behind the phalanx. Riding ahead of the decisive charge was certainly also something that fitted his character most.

The Romans were of course not the only ones who used to lead a battle from the "general's hill". Hannibal was another example of a general leading from behind.

[The Celtic Viking]

They were slightly more organised than that. I mean, the Samnites were only partially 'civilised' (note the quotation marks), but still invented, AFAWK, manipular tactics, and the quincux.
The gauls also, had 'sections'. Not quite on a level of the Romans or greeks, but less 'EVERYONE, CHARGE', and more 'THOSE PEOPLE IN FUNNY HATS OVER THERE, CHARGE! EVERYONE ELSE DEFEND THIS HILL!'

Of course I know they were more organized than that. It was just a (bad) joke.

[softiron]

Ave!
My roman armies consist of:
5x Hastati - 1st line
3x Princeps - 2nd line
2x Triari - 3rd line or 2nd line flanks
3x Rorarii - 1st or 2nd line flanks
2x Skuda Fat Aexsdzhytae - 0 or 4th line
2x Misthophoroi Toxotai Kretikoi - 0 or 4th line
2x Enoci Curoas or Druhtiz Bastarnisku - 2nd line
1x General - 4th line