Unstoppable Army

[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

[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 ;)

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

An all phalanx and a bit of cavalry army or an all-HA (preferably some heavy cavalry with bows as well, in addition to the light HAs) army would do very well against the Romani in EB.

[Gleemonex]

@Pontius Pilate: All basically true, minus the overly-simplistic barbarian stuff. And none of that contradicts what I said; else verily confirms it.

Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?



-Glee

EDIT: Thanks, Aemilius Paulus! I imagine that would do the trick.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?

I already did, you just forgot to hit the 'Refresh" button. Apparently you were still typing our answer while I posted mine.

[Pontius Pilate]

@Pontius Pilate: All basically true, minus the overly-simplistic barbarian stuff. And none of that contradicts what I said; else verily confirms it.

Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?



-Glee

EDIT: Thanks, Aemilius Paulus! I imagine that would do the trick.

none of that condradicts what you said, but it confirms it? so what are you trying to say exactly? are you not trying to press the point that Roman army was not unstoppable? so explain how my last post helped you explain how the Roman army was not unstoppable. for anything, I think it did show how the Roman army was unstoppable.

On the barbarian note, did they not have a fighting style that emphazied the role of heroic and individual combat? I mean come on, it is not like every barbarian army was pulling off tactical maneuvars and was as well organized as the Romans.

[Gleemonex]

I think it did show how the Roman army was unstoppable.

How exactly did the Roman war machine it learn from its mistakes if it never made any (ie was never stopped)?

On the barbarian note, did they not have a fighting style that emphazied the role of heroic and individual combat? I mean come on, it is not like every barbarian army was pulling off tactical maneuvars and was as well organized as the Romans.

GJC himself observed a Germanic phalanx. The phalanx, or anything resembling it, required plenty of discipline to use. As far as emphasising individual combat, that was actually pretty smart as they were superior individual combattants, as well as it being equally applicable in heavily-forested terrain.

And despite the barbarians "just throwing themselves at the [superior] Roman shield wall", they managed to sack Rome herself three times.

-Glee

[SwissBarbar]

An all phalanx and a bit of cavalry army or an all-HA (preferably some heavy cavalry with bows as well, in addition to the light HAs) army would do very well against the Romani in EB.

all HA - yes

all phalanx - nay. Phalanx - even elite ones - are too slow and immobile. Roman heavy infantery would just hold the phalanx in melee, killing the few cavallery (not a problem even against heavy cavallery, with some triarii and some pedites-javelins thrown in their back). Without flank-protection even the hugest phalanx army is easily outflanked. A charge in the rear of the phalany and the battle is over.

Example:







edit: OK, i just see.... against the stupid AI you would do well with an all phalanx army, thats right

[Pontius Pilate]

How exactly did the Roman war machine it learn from its mistakes if it never made any (ie was never stopped)?

GJC himself observed a Germanic phalanx. The phalanx, or anything resembling it, required plenty of discipline to use. As far as emphasising individual combat, that was actually pretty smart as they were superior individual combattants, as well as it being equally applicable in heavily-forested terrain.

And despite the barbarians "just throwing themselves at the [superior] Roman shield wall", they managed to sack Rome herself three times.

-Glee

Yes, Rome was defeated many times but in the long run it defeated almost all of its enemies. Also, whenever a legion was destroyed another would be raised to take its place, which to Rome's enemies must have looked pretty unstoppable. and remember, in the ancient world raising multiple armies to replace lost ones was something many factions could not do.

true, the germans did use a phalanx but don't get the impression it was the same type of phalanx the greeks or makedonians used which required way more disciplined. As for the notion that the barbarians using individual combat was pretty smart, well I think GJC himself would have to disagree with that one after he conquered Gaul and a million Gauls were slain.

Yes, the barbarians did manage to sack Rome many times, but every civilization has its high and weak points in its history, every civilization declines, and no civilization lasts forever.

EDIT: Anyway, to stop this from turning into another Rome vs. the Barbarians thread (which I don't mind by the way) here is my unstoppable army composition:(spelling might be off)
1 equites singulares
1 imperial legionary first cohort
8 imperial legionary cohorts
4 imperial auxillaries (2 western and 2 eastern)
2 pretorian guard cohorts
1 imperial cavalry wing
1 pretorian guard cavalry
2 imperial eastern archer auxilia

[Grriffon]

It's like people are simply unable to not sing the praises of the Roman Military Machine in history ANY time the Romani faction is mentioned.

As far as an army that could easily beat a Romani army, I will try to name a few.

The phalanx army could work. As someone pointed out, phalanxes are slow to maneuver and vulnerable from the rear, but to prevent this you would need to bring along some peltasts and lighter infantry as well as your phalanxes and heavy cavalry.

If we say we are using an Epirote army for the phalanx, I would compose it something like this:

8x Phalanx (any kind, really)
4x Heavy Cavalry
6x thracian peltasts
2x hellenic spearmen

While the phalanxes are slow, when maneuvered correctly, they are the best defensive unit in the game, in my opinion. Of course you can beat an AI phalanx army. That does not prove that they could not defeat a Romani army.


For a Carthaginian army, mine would look something like this:

10x elite liby-phonecian axemen
2x elephants
5x sacred band cavalry
3x balaeric slingers

Those axemen would mow through legionaires.



Any number of horse archer armies could defeat a Romani army, although they are heavily armored enough that you would need some melee capable cavalry in there for when you eventually ran out of arrows.


others off the top of my head include:


6x thracian heavy phalanx
6x elite thracian infantry
4x elite dacian archers
4x thracian peltasts


8x elite hellenic spearmen
4x armored elephants
6x indian longbowmen
2x hellenic cataphracts


10x spartan hoplites
4x rhodian slingers
6x heavy cavalry



That's plenty for now , I think

[Aemilius Paulus]

all phalanx - nay. Phalanx - even elite ones - are too slow and immobile. Roman heavy infantery would just hold the phalanx in melee, killing the few cavallery (not a problem even against heavy cavallery, with some triarii and some pedites-javelins thrown in their back). Without flank-protection even the hugest phalanx army is easily outflanked. A charge in the rear of the phalany and the battle is over.

I'm talking about defeating an AI Romani army.

[Gleemonex]

Yes, Rome was defeated many times but in the long run it defeated almost all of its enemies. Also, whenever a legion was destroyed another would be raised to take its place, which to Rome's enemies must have looked pretty unstoppable. and remember, in the ancient world raising multiple armies to replace lost ones was something many factions could not do.

Yes, that's true -- again an example of the Roman Army modularity and mastery of logistics. But that's wandering away from the EB context now; I think the OP (and other posters) were thinking more along the lines of a MP or "quick-start" battle sure-winner.

true, the germans did use a phalanx but don't get the impression it was the same type of phalanx the greeks or makedonians used which required way more disciplined.

There's zero hard evidence for that, one way or the other. The above statement is just a default to the "smelly naked savages" precept.

As for the notion that the barbarians using individual combat was pretty smart, well I think GJC himself would have to disagree with that one after he conquered Gaul and a million Gauls were slain.

Caesar's successes, brilliant as they were, were due more to his own leadership and charisma, and his forces' esprit-de-corps, which again wanders from EB territory.

EDIT: Anyway, to stop this from turning into another Rome vs. the Barbarians thread (which I don't mind by the way) here is my unstoppable army composition:(spelling might be off)
[...]

Alright, good idea. I'm guilty of OT-ing here too. Here's my "unstoppable" army:

1 x Late Saka Bodyguard/General
1 x Pahlava Late Cataphracts
1 x Armoured Indian Elephant
1 x Dahae Rider
2 x Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou
1 x Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi
2 x Thraikioi Peltastai
1 x Rhodian Slinger
2 x Balearic Slingers
1 x Persian Archer-Spearmen
1 x Gaesatae
6 x Liby-Phoenecian Spearmen

-Glee

[teh1337tim]

mine is still bettter... an campaign ending ctd.. mwauhahahahah..
lol
m armor would be...
3x hetaroi
2x thessalian
2x thraiken prodimo
1x thracian light calv
6 phalanxes (preferably pezhetaroi or klourochi)
4 theurophia or hoplites (rly any spearmen or medium infantry)
2 kretan archers.. wam :)

[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.

[Gleemonex]

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

Interesting. But would they fire rapidly enough to make a difference?

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

1 x Late Saka Bodyguard/General
1 x Pahlava Late Cataphracts
1 x Armoured Indian Elephant
1 x Dahae Rider
2 x Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou
1 x Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi
2 x Thraikioi Peltastai
1 x Rhodian Slinger
2 x Balearic Slingers
1 x Persian Archer-Spearmen
1 x Gaesatae
6 x Liby-Phoenecian Spearmen

-Glee

[Grriffon]

Well, it looks like you have an elephant, some heavy cavalry, a couple different types of archers, and 10-11 units of infantry, mostly spearmen.

To counter that army I would use something like:

4x indian longbowmen
2x thracian peltasts
2x heavy cavalry, kinsmen if I could take any, I guess
2x armoured elephants
10x elite liby-phonecian axemen


For me, that's a pretty all purpose army that I would put up against almost anything.