Results 1 to 30 of 118

Thread: Less Civilized Factions

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Post Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name View Post
    Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements.
    Define "credible"? What use to me to cite my things when I know you will not read it? First read some material, then come back and after that I will cite things. What do you need cited? Tell me, and I will try. I have a stack of books from my Uni library that I have been reading for the past month, so I can even look up the page number, if I had all this evening to myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name View Post
    The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.
    I never said that was not true. Romans lost, but also won even more against barbarian tribes. But the Romans could not afford to lose, and their losses were more numerous and disastrous in a time when their foes were uncounted, coming in waves, one after another.


    Quote Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name View Post
    The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.
    I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down. I find it suspicious that you seemingly so grossly misinterpreted my post.

    But while we are at it, no, it was not economical. Well, it was, but to say that it was one thing is clearly erroneous. For one thing, why do you say the money was decreasing? What is your source - this is not an obvious statement. Economy indeed was not prospering, but this was a symptom of something instead of the malady itself. Even with the weaker economy, the Romans actually held more troops, which goes directly against what you have said. In fact, it is supposed that one of the causes of the fall of the Western Romans was the fact they had too much troops. Augustus had only about 150,000, and Diocletian particularly greatly increased that amount, thus destroying the treasury, instead of what you said, or the treasury destroying the army.

    And did you ever notice that it so happen that the fall of the Roman Empire coincided with momentous Migration Period, with uncounted tribes of barbarians and nomads shifting and ravaging lands, pushed by yet more peoples form the East. At the same time, the Parthians evolved into the Persians, for a time free of civil strife, ready to take on the Romans in maximum efficiency. That really was the single major factor in the fall of Rome. At no other time the Romans had to face so many significant enemies at once, with more foes to come, all driven by the nomadic tribes originating all the way from Mongolia and Eastern-Central Asia.



    Quote Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name View Post
    Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?
    WTH? It is not a myth, but one of the most common problems of the 5th century and later. What makes you think it is a myth?? In what book did you ever read "the saying that Roman recruits cut off their fingers is nothing but a myth"? You do not know if what I said is true or not. What makes you think you are correct? This is ridiculous... It is like saying that decimation was a myth...

    This is so obvious, as there is so much clear evidence, and you refute it? Have you actually read anything on Late Roman Times? My sources for the "cutting off thumbs" thing is Pat Southern, The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History. It is a clear fact that many laws were created to prevent potential recruits from cutting their thumbs off. Many Emperors battled this occurrence, and usually failed. This was a serious problem.


    Decimation is one thing. Soldiers always run from battle when things are desperate. If not all, then at least some. Crassus instituted decimation to punish those who shamed themselves in front of Spartacus. Routs always happen. What did not happen, however, (or until Later Dominate), was such unwillingness of people to join the legions. Romans always had plenty of recruits, even in the direst of times, during the Hannibalic War. Some were unwilling during that Second Punic War, but still, they fought. In regular times, there was no trouble recruiting men.

    But by the time of Valentinian and Theodosius I, very few wanted to join the army, specifically the limitanei, which was were most fresh recruits are hypothesised to have went. There were dire problems in recruiting of sufficient numbers of men. And face it, to chop off your thumb, you simply have to be more desperate than a cornered rat.
    Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 09-10-2009 at 01:36.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    @AP I won't reply to the whole of your post now... But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.

    Anyway there's a wealth of debate in the matter, especially in TWC. Try to search for their threads, and a similar engagement between the "traditional" view and mine was fought fiercely and in detail, and by people who provided all kinds of sources yet again.

    I know we're not professors and all (even though I dream of getting a history degree before my 30's), but nevertheless I stand by my position. There are many things which seem so self-evident that in fact are myth, Roman invincibility and superiority of all of them. Fair enough.

  3. #3
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Talking Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name View Post
    But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.
    Not at all. No, that was not the point I was making. I despise those sorts of arguments myself. Not at least because the Domináte armies were tailored to deal with entirely other threats. And very well too. But once again, that is entirely not what I wanted or did debate about.

    Now, I did mention the fact that Romans had a hard time recruiting soldiers, but I will make no judgment on the overall fighting quality of the army itself. Just the state of the Empire.

    All this is evidenced by my previous post:

    I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down.

    But being an ardent debater myself, I went ahead and argued anyway:

    But while we are at it
    ...
    Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 09-10-2009 at 02:17.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians.
    - REVENGE!!!
    - A NEW DYNASTY!!!

    - a very generous bribe from Yarema


  5. #5
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by chenkai11 View Post
    Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians.
    No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.
    Last edited by Macilrille; 09-10-2009 at 11:53.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  6. #6

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    ummm, wow this argument started because i said i got the feeling they were inferior.

    its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.

  7. #7
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Well... read Tacitus' Annals on the campaign, then read some Sagas and Saxo and you are good to go.

    No barbarians are not grand in building cities and infrastructure, nor did they write books...

    Barbarians' greatness is in their heroism!!
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  8. #8

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.
    I don't really meant Germany don't have great warlords. What I meant was, imaging like you used to lived in big cities, like Las Vegas and you love it. Then you transfer to a farm land in Australia. Although both are nice place. Or if you used and love to goto work with a tie, but then you have to wear jeans with your new job. Or more precise example, ahh... hey Ceasar, a Gaul army just surrendered to our side, and we need all your professional Roman soldiers to reinforce the eastern front, so why not try out the new army, they are all yours... well at least they are twice the size of your original army. If you know what I mean.


    Quote Originally Posted by fleaza View Post
    Its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.
    We are on the same boat.
    Last edited by chenkai11; 09-10-2009 at 15:24.
    - REVENGE!!!
    - A NEW DYNASTY!!!

    - a very generous bribe from Yarema


  9. #9
    Member Member Bucefalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    170

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    I enjoy all factions, maybe a bit less the steppe factions because i don´t know much about them and i love infantry warfare but hate horse archers.

  10. #10
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by chenkai11 View Post
    I don't really meant Germany don't have great warlords. What I meant was, imaging like you used to lived in big cities, like Las Vegas and you love it. Then you transfer to a farm land in Australia. Although both are nice place. Or if you used and love to goto work with a tie, but then you have to wear jeans with your new job. Or more precise example, ahh... hey Ceasar, a Gaul army just surrendered to our side, and we need all your professional Roman soldiers to reinforce the eastern front, so why not try out the new army, they are all yours... well at least they are twice the size of your original army. If you know what I mean.
    Actually Ceasar said that the Sweboz force he faced was the most disciplined force he had ever seen, Germanic Tribes most disciplined, and that from a great general with disciplined troops like the legionairries. I think many are underestimating the discipline "barbarians" can have. Its like the Scottish pikemen.
    Last edited by Phalanx300; 09-10-2009 at 18:50.

  11. #11
    Member Member Cyclops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phalanx300 View Post
    Actually Ceasar said that the Sweboz force he faced was the most disciplined force he had ever seen, Germanic Tribes most disciplined, and that from a great general with disciplined troops like the legionairries. I think many are underestimating the discipline "barbarians" can have. Its like the Scottish pikemen.
    While I take your general point, that supposedly uncivilised folks can in fact show amazing discipline (eg Zulus disciplined formations vs British, or rather unsophisticated Spartans vs very civilised Persians) I'd take Caesar with a grain of salt. The Gallic wars is an extended self advertisment, designed to make his conquest of Gaul look as impressive as Pompey's conquests in the east. Everyone he fought was the baddest, meanest, tallest, most lime-moustached, most disciplined, most ferocious etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bucefalo View Post
    I enjoy all factions, maybe a bit less the steppe factions because i don´t know much about them and i love infantry warfare but hate horse archers.
    Yes aside from the Romans (who I guess I resent because they won) and the Mako's (who I have played to death) the steppe cultures are my least played option these days.

    Is there a decent survey of their culture and military history that might inspire me to try? I must say the way their bulding tree works does baffle me a little, maybe I will give it more of a shot in EB2 when it comes out...
    Last edited by Ludens; 09-11-2009 at 19:29. Reason: double post
    From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan

    Jatte lambasts Calico Rat

  12. #12

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    can anyone give me a reason to play those factions.
    To kill those Roman dogs?

    Seriously, if you don't enjoy playing barbarian factions, don't play them - it's not compulsory. I mainly enjoy Carthaginians and Dacians, but in a computer game is pretty much aesthetics that decide who plays what faction. Pretty much all of them (including 'civilised' factions like the Romans and Greeks) were very barbaric, uncivilised and brutal, much like 9/11 and Abu Ghraib more recently, but without even the modern amount of dissenters against atrocities.

  13. #13
    Member Member Intranetusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Playing the "less civilized" factions is fun since it's usually harder...ie, Saba having to train loads of crap infantry to defend your frontiers against full stacks of phalangites from Silver and Gold Death...

    Even playing as civilized factions, I love training mercs and using local levies as the bulk of my armies in the frontiers...I can't count the times when my stacks of barbarian levies got annihilated by enemy elite units...

    I find it extremely fun to lose with levy troops, especially after you've been kicking AI arse with your regulars...
    Last edited by Intranetusa; 09-30-2009 at 00:15.
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...but there is one thing that science cannot accept - and that is a personal God who meddles in the affairs of his creation."
    -Albert Einstein




  14. #14
    Member Member Kevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA!
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    True, I like playing as Saba because it requires a lot of tactics I don't have to use on my Romani campaign.

  15. #15
    Member Member Cyclops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    968

    Default Re: Less Civilized Factions

    Oh the Sweboz are an ace faction to play. Their bodyguards fight like lions* and they need too. There's something about infantry generals, you just can't bug out like the horse boys can and with the lack of armoured line troops for the Sweboz you will find FM's getting bloody all the time.

    I play on general-cam and you get a strong sense of putting your guys in harms way, again and again. I love the way the chevrons stack up like honourable scars. You need to plough in with the few heavies you have and savagely claw at the enemies flanks with the rest of your poor guys, but don't let your boys get sucked into a slugfest. Its rip and retreat, ambush and fall back, until the enemy are panting and ready to rout.

    When you finally get the celto-German reforms c.190 you will be a practiced infantry warrior, and the next phase of tackling foes head on will be juicy revenge time. Sacking Roma is one of this game's great rewards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    ...
    I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, ....
    No there was one, and it will be summed up in a 2-hour cable TV special consisting of 1 hour 59 minutes of waffling, and some dramatic music.

    It can be adduced from a single reference in an obscure source "discovered" by a non-proffessional historian with a bad haircut, and involves fungus on the rye or lead pipes contaminating the water.

    Anything more than that is getting needlessly complicated.


    *"We do both kinds of combat: hand-to-hand spear and hand-to-hand sword!"
    Last edited by Cyclops; 09-10-2009 at 06:48.
    From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan

    Jatte lambasts Calico Rat

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO