Unstoppable Army

[SwissBarbar]

Unstoppable Roman Army


After my Roleplay - Reforms wich happend between 185 and 180 BC, a roman regular legion is composed of

1 x FM who is Sharp/Charismatic/Vigorous
1 x Pedites Extraordinarii
5 x Triarii
5 x Principes
4 x Equites Extraordinarii
4 x Dorkim Shardanim / Accensi

(2880 Men + General)

OR if an auxiliary legion

1 x FM who can be as uncharismatic as he wants
19 x whatever non-factional skirmisher and light infantery troops are available.

(between 3000 and 4000 men + General)

Losses are exceptionless replaced by mercenary soldiers, recruited in the very region the legion is stationed. After every move they have to build a Camp/Fort if possible, where they camp till the next move.

A roman Legion is named after its Location + Leader (Example: Legio Africana Scipio or Legio Britannia Ivlia)



A roman (Invasion-) army is composed of minimum 1 regular legion and 1 auxiliary legion

The boarderline of the Imperium Romanum is in this time (172 BC) protected by

1 Legion in Africa at the boarderline to the Ptolemaic empire
2 Legions in Achaia and Macedonia in order to conquer the macedonian empire
2 Legions in the middle of Britannia to protect the boarderline against the still strong Casse ( with the Auxiliary Legions 4 Forts wich represent the Hadrianic Wall *GG*)
1 Legion in Ireland to conquer the Island

+/- 17'000 men

2 auxiliary Legions in Brittania, composed of Gallic and Brittannic troops
2 auxiliary Legions in Macedonia, composed of Italic and Hellenic troops

+/- 14'000 men

In my 60 Settlements are on average 600 men (normally 3 X light infantery, in regions of crisis more), that makes 36'000 Garrison-Troups.



Therefore in my roleplay (Armies and Population 1/10) 310'000 Men serve in the Roman Army , and 360'000 Cohortes urbanae protect the Cities


if lead capably quite unstoppable, hrhr

[Grriffon]

I'm REALLY not a fan of roman soldiers. I know everyone is SO quick to point out how well regarded they are historically, but when talking about the game EB I find SO many more soldiers that work better for me on the battlefield.

While triarii, pedites extrordinari, and equites extrordinari are good units, I could name any number that I beleive would outperform them. As for the rest of the roman units, I don't hold them in very high regard at all.

[SwissBarbar]

i like that they are so well organized. but you are right, looking at soldiers individually, there are loads of others, that are much better than a roman soldier.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I'm REALLY not a fan of roman soldiers. I know everyone is SO quick to point out how well regarded they are historically, but when talking about the game EB I find SO many more soldiers that work better for me on the battlefield.

While triarii, pedites extrordinari, and equites extrordinari are good units, I could name any number that I beleive would outperform them. As for the rest of the roman units, I don't hold them in very high regard at all.

That's why I like playing as the Romani. It is more of a challenge. I tried playing Seleukids but quit because Seleukids already had pretty much the best units in the game - Hetairoi, Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou, Peltastai Makedonikoi, Hypaspistai, Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi (with reforms), Galatikoi Tindanotae (regional), etc, it is no simply no fun playing as the Seleukids. You have almost no early-game money problems and in every battle you simply grind the proponent with your endless stacks of elites. One solution to that is having some house rules, but I'm no fan of that. With the Romani, you actually have to conquer various territories to gain access to better units, or regionals in this case. The romani may not be as difficult as Haysadan or the Saka, but they're still fun, especially if you are a Roman History nerd.

[Gleemonex]

I'm REALLY not a fan of roman soldiers. I know everyone is SO quick to point out how well regarded they are historically, but when talking about the game EB I find SO many more soldiers that work better for me on the battlefield.

So many other soldiers work(ed) better on the battlefield in reality too. The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.

-Glee

[Aemilius Paulus]

So many other soldiers work(ed) better on the battlefield in reality too. The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.

-Glee

The Romans had a uniform army that was exceedingly skilled with the Roman sword-fighting techniques, the most effective in the world. Each piece of their equipment was specially designed for a specific purpose. Their sword, the gladius, was not too long, both slashing and thrusting, but primarily used for thrusting, which inflicts the most damage. Their shield, scutum, was very large and practical, being rectangular, with curved edges to better deflect blows. The shields were relatively light but yet strong, with an iron boss. The helmets, specifically the Coolus and Imperial Gallic type were masterpieces of their own, especially with the front ridges, to protect from overhead slashing strokes and with the large ear/cheek pieces that covered most of the face. Similar things can be said about the armour as well. In general, Roman equipment outclassed the enemies'. The enemies of Rome possessed very few select units that were superior to, the early imperial legionaries, for example. The Romans, on the other hand had legions and legions of their standardised soldiers in addition to the supplemental auxilia, which was often just as numerous. Even if the enemies did happen to have superior soldiers, the Roman fighting style (as well as tactics for that matter), in my opinion, far outclassed anything their enemies used, especially the more individualistic fighting styles of the northern barbarians.

[Gleemonex]

The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.

I'd be content to leave the subsequent post be, but this thread is called "Unstoppable Army". [1]

The Romans had a uniform army that was exceedingly skilled with the Roman sword-fighting techniques, the most effective in the world.

They had a uniform army with standardised training. [2]

Modularity and logistics.

Each piece of their equipment was specially designed for a specific purpose. Their sword, the gladius, was not too long, both slashing and thrusting, but primarily used for thrusting, which inflicts the most damage.

Idea taken from the Celtiberians. (Hint: Its full name is Gladius Hispaniensis)

Adaptability.

Their shield, scutum, was very large and practical, being rectangular, with curved edges to better deflect blows. The shields were relatively light but yet strong, with an iron boss.

The scutum was effective but unremarkable on its own. I would hope it deflects blows -- it's a shield!

The helmets, specifically the Coolus and Imperial Gallic type were masterpieces of their own, especially with the front ridges, to protect from overhead slashing strokes and with the large ear/cheek pieces that covered most of the face.

The Coolus and Imperial Gallic were both adapted from Celtic designs.

Adaptability and logistics.

Similar things can be said about the armour as well. In general, Roman equipment outclassed the enemies'.

Because it learned from its enemies -- usually after the Romans getting their asses handed to them in the initial encounter.

Adaptability.

The enemies of Rome possessed very few select units that were superior to, the early imperial legionaries, for example.

Early Imperial Legionaries knew better than to wander into Parthia.

The Romans, on the other hand had legions and legions of their standardised soldiers in addition to the supplemental auxilia, which was often just as numerous.

Modularity and logistics.

Even if the enemies did happen to have superior soldiers, the Roman fighting style (as well as tactics for that matter), in my opinion, far outclassed anything their enemies used, especially the more individualistic fighting styles of the northern barbarians.

I can grant you that opinion, but that alone doesn't prove that the Roman Army was "unstoppable". As I said in my previous post, the Roman Army was famous, but its combat prowess alone wasn't the source of that fame.

-Glee

------------------------------------------------
[1] I should point out that I wasn't trying to damn the Roman military machine with faint praise, as you seem to have taken it. Logistics is arguably the most important aspect of generalship! And its modularity allowed generals like Scipio Africanus to fully exercise their genius.

[2] Also, I'd be exceedingly surprised if anyone knew more about Roman sword-fighting techniques than the Romans.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion. Superior equipment of the Romans is a result of adaptability, but then again, all good choices are based on adapting/learning from experience. If Romans just straight-copied from other people, then why were they the only ones to do so in such an extensive way? Lot of their equipment was somewhat innovative.

---------------------------------------------
[1]You're absolutely right about logistics being important though. As they say, smart generals study logistics and stupid ones study tactics.
[2] ??? What do you mean by that?

[Gleemonex]

Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion.

Perhaps. It's hard -- for me at least -- to draw clear lines between logistics and equipment readiness and training regimens and discipline and combat readiness. I think (in my own opinion of course) that I have adaptability nailed though.

-Glee

[Gleemonex]

Lunch break almost over, but I have time to address this.

Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion. Superior equipment of the Romans is a result of adaptability, but then again, all good choices are based on adapting/learning from experience.

True. But this was a singular quality among Romans in Classical Antiquity. Change and adaptation was generally slow and/or misguided in the face of slow, unreliable meatspace communication (Blemmyes anyone?) and the cultural importance of respecting stodgy old traditions.

If Romans just straight-copied from other people, then why were they the only ones to do so in such an extensive way? Lot of their equipment was somewhat innovative.

Well, they didn't straight copy -- they were excellent at adapting and improving what they saw. But it's hard to argue that they were more innovative than the peoples that invented the original product in the first place.

Hrm.. how to bring this back on topic. What army composition is best for taking out an army of well-led Romans?

-Glee

---------------------------------------------

[2] ??? What do you mean by that?

I was being sarcastic. For instance: The Gauls probably didn't know much about Roman sword-fighting techniques, but I'll bet anything that they were pretty good at Gallic sword-fighting techniques ;)

[Pontius Pilate]

I'd be content to leave the subsequent post be, but this thread is called "Unstoppable Army". [1]



They had a uniform army with standardised training. [2]

Modularity and logistics.



Idea taken from the Celtiberians. (Hint: Its full name is Gladius Hispaniensis)

Adaptability.



The scutum was effective but unremarkable on its own. I would hope it deflects blows -- it's a shield!



The Coolus and Imperial Gallic were both adapted from Celtic designs.

Adaptability and logistics.



Because it learned from its enemies -- usually after the Romans getting their asses handed to them in the initial encounter.

Adaptability.



Early Imperial Legionaries knew better than to wander into Parthia.



Modularity and logistics.



I can grant you that opinion, but that alone doesn't prove that the Roman Army was "unstoppable". As I said in my previous post, the Roman Army was famous, but its combat prowess alone wasn't the source of that fame.

-Glee

The thing that made the legions great was that all of them were trained to an equally high standard. In the other factions you have usually had alot of levy units with poor quality equipment and then you had the elites who were highly well trained and good fighters but there were few of them at best. The legions were not elites and yet were not levies. The thing that made the Roman's fighting style superior to the barbarians like say the gauls was that the Romans all fought as if ONE, while the barbarians just threw themselves at the Roman shield wall due to their individual fighting style, for the barbarians there was no plan B, they would either have to break the shield wall or flee.

Yes many of the Roman's equipment is originally from other cultures like Celtic, but the Romans then took the design, improved it, changed it, and perfected it into their own needs, created something uniquely Roman.

Yes, the Romans lost many battles, but then they learned from their mistakes and eventually defeated their enemies a.k.a-adaptablility, a trait very useful for an army.

And yes the Parthians and Germans defeated Rome a few times in battle. But Parthia didn't sack Rome like Rome sacked the Parthian capital multiple times. and the only famous battle of Germans defeating Romans is Tetuburg, (granted their were more) but do you know how many Germanic armies the Romans defeated?

Finally, in the end Rome did conquer most of the factions in Europa Barbarorum and this should say how unstoppable the Roman army truly was.

-Pontius Pilate

[Zarax]

Unstoppable Roman Army



4 x Dorkim Shardanim

OT but... Romans shouldn't be able to recruit nuragic infantry.
Livy cites that Sardinians were known to be the kind of slave that tries to kill the owner at the first chance.
Given the long and bloody resistance they made against roman conquest having them in one legion means that you're going to be backstabbed as soon as there is a chance...

[SwissBarbar]

not under my fair-minded and magnificent rule ;-)

[satalexton]

ie slaughtering every lot of them then turning the bodies into pig feed >_>

[SwissBarbar]

wich would be part of my fair-minded and magnificent rule ....

[Gleemonex]

Alright, now that we've seen a few Roman-killers -- does anyone have ideas on how to stop the other "unstoppable armies" in this thread? I'm curious about mine in particular, as I generally like my grand armies to be generalist.



-Glee

[Grriffon]

something i've never tried in game, but would be possible in a "money is no object" army making thread, is using a few of the large arrow projectors to force a horse archer army to either attack you or slowly get picked off.

perhaps something like this:

3x arrow projector
10x dodisaskeli (sp?) the awesome lusotannan spearmen from 1.0
4x indian longbowmen
3x armoured elephants


I can't remember what army you listed. If it wasn't a horse archer army though, please remind us what it was.