The Roman Conquest

[Danest]

I was wondering about something. Let's assume (gasp) first of all that the AI is everything it should be in comeptance and realism. If all the factions were controlled by the computer (no human player), would the Romans still be able to conquer the world? I have no way of knowing of course since I haven't seen the stats or gameplay of EB (though of course it looks great). But I must say those factions sure do look fierce. In other words, do/will the Roman soldiers have a real statistical advantage? I know in a few mods, such as Roma mod, it sure didn't feel like I was playing the mighty Roman empire, so I guess I'm also just getting curious about my own favorite, the Romans. :)

[jerby]

well, the pre-marian units were not remarkably superior. its not until the marian reform that they gain their superiority. still not statistically. romans wons much due to their flexibility. and failure on teh other side.
the great greek empires seen in the previews were crumbled to bits before the roman army came to them. I'm not saying rome accidentaly conquered the world. but rome wasnt a superpower from teh start.
so statistically i predict that rome's elite unit (seen so far) the preatorians will be equal in stats to the torikatai argyraspidai of teh seleucids. or the Spartan Hoplitai. just guessing here, i'm NOT an EB member

[Lord Tomyris Reloaded]

Praetorians cannot be as good as the Spartans, no way. I'd say the best unit of the Romans will probably be the rank and file post-Marian cohorts.

[Ranika]

You're neglecting that the Romans didn't just have the legionarres, but also loads of auxilia, and regional allies. When the Romans invaded Britain for the second time, auxilia and allied British tribes did the majority of actual fighting. The auxilia and allies, supported by the Romans, was what allowed the Romans to conquer; it wasn't individual superiority of any one troop, but tactical flexibility brought on by using soldiers from a huge number of regions, and utilization of allies who already knew how to fight certain enemies. Blindly hurling legionarres at an enemy will not, and should not, be a viable path to victory. It's simply not how it happened.

[bodidley]

How are the early legionary units in EB by the way, Ranika? In RTW Vanilla they already have significant equipment changes from the pre-Marian troops.

I have to agree that Rome's conquest of Europe was not always in the cards. There were plenty of times when Rome's fledgling empire was almost destroyed by foreign competitors (the Punic Wars, for example) and several of the Roman conquests hinged on luck as well as skill. The Roman conquest of Gaul is a perfect example. An extroadinary and ambitious Roman general happened to be there when the Gauls were fighting amongst themselves, and facing Suebi invasion, and he got an exuse to invade because of the migration of the Helvitii. Even then it took him eight years to conquer Gaul, and it was no sure thing.

That's not even to mention the fact if the Romans are bound to win in the game, it devastates replayability.

[Ranika]

The legionarres are good; they were very well trained, disciplined soldiers. However, you will not be able to raise hordes of them to rampage across Europe with. You will need to support them, with allies, and plenty of auxilia (which will be quite varied and offer a lot of options, giving the Romans excuses to conquer whole regions, just to produce auxilia that might aide in conquering elsewhere). Other factions have units that, in single combat, will handily trounce legionarres; real war isn't about single units, it's about how you support those units. A well supported milita would do better sometimes than unsupported elites.

The Romans will have access to allies and auxilia from pretty much anywhere they conquer. This allows them substantial flexibility; the legionarres are better than their pre-Marian counterparts, but we have a statistics system that helps to realistically determine strengths and weaknesses. The Romans are subject to the same system; this doesn't mean they'll be weak, but on equal footing, statistically speaking. However, their unit selection is where they'll have strength. We hope for realistic expansion, but there will be no set path. Any faction, used appropriately, can win, but there are also matters of luck, internal, and external problems. It's not just a matter of who's units have the best stats, but who can make best use of what they have.

[eadingas]

The thing is, a roman legionnary would probably lose in one-on-one combat with most of top elite warriors of enemy armies. Probably even a Roman cohort would lose in combat with a similarly numbered troop made of most elite warriors of say Gauls or Greeks, if they met head-on. This was not how they've won the world, however.

[Dux Corvanus]

Nay, don't hear them. They're biased barbarians...

But they don't make a favour to the factions they love so: if it's true the Romans were not militarily stronger, then we must conclude they were smarter.
What I won't concede is that Rome conquered its Empire by sheer luck.

The truth is: they used superior tactics, and had a better organization. Besides, the common legionaire worked not as an individual warrior, but as a disciplined piece in a complex system. Individualism was reserved for generals, but it wasn't seen with good eyes in the battlefield. Besides, few armies -with notable exceptions- had such interest in logistics and field engineering as the Roman army.

Not to talk about the superior, pragmatic and cunning diplomatic science that Rome employed in its outer relations.

And yes, they used hordes of expendable barbarians as cannon fodder to soften the enemy and save precious lives of legionaires. (Just joking, Ranika... )


Rome ruled. Rome rules. And I rule when playing with Rome.

[Eucarionte]

Mmmm... romans being defeated in a 1 on 1 combat vs. elite warriors...maybe, but wars aren´t fought by elite warriors.

In fact, a roman legionaire was equipped for individual combat, while a Spartan, for instance, was not. Spartans excelled in close-formation combat, but when the phalanx broke out, they were dead. The same problem that the macedonian phalanx had; this was clearly demostrated in pydna and magnesia, for example (20-25000 macedonians dead, vs. less than 1000 romans in pydna).

The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.

Also, if we consider the manpower that Rome fielded during the punic wars, specially the second one, putting more and more legions into combat to feed Hannibal´s ego, we can have as a conclusion that even after heavy losses, it could recover in a relatively short time period.

Better average soldier + Impressive manpower = Potential world dominator indeed

[Sarcasm]

Ranika is gonna pick your post apart, you do realize that don't ya?

[bodidley]

What I won't concede is that Rome conquered its Empire by sheer luck.

The truth is: they used superior tactics, and had a better organization. Besides, the common legionaire worked not as an individual warrior, but as a disciplined piece in a complex system.

Of course the Romans didn't form an empire out of sheer luck, but luck was certainly on their side.

Sometimes the Romans used superior tactics, but other times they did not. Sometimes the Romans were so cunningly outwitted or simply outfought that their legions were wiped out.

As for the Roman soldier being a single piece in an integral system; of course! Like with any disciplined fighting force, the discipline, not the man-for-man capability, is what won the day. It was said of the Spartans that fighting alone a Spartan wasn't a better soldier than any other, but in formation he had no equal.

Excellent logistics, luck, a solid system of military organization and recruitment, as well as a drive to conquer led Rome to become an empire.

[Sarcasm]

Nay, don't hear them. They're biased barbarians...

I can't believe you're betraying your Iberian roots!

The truth is: they used superior tactics (...)

I wonder what the roman maniples sent into Celtiberia and Lusitania would say about that....or those at Carrhae...or those at Cannae...They were far from having superior tactics over anyone. Though I can't argue they were better disciplined (most of the times, anyway) and organized (logistics, engineering come to mind).

Not to talk about the superior, pragmatic and cunning diplomatic science that Rome employed in its outer relations.

Now this is what they did best. Turning tribes against each other, or just plain breaking treaties when they felt like it.

In fact, a roman legionaire was equipped for individual combat, while a Spartan, for instance, was not.

I disagree. Both Romans (short swords, pilum, large shields, close order) and Spartans (short swords, spear, large shields, close order) were equipped to fight as a unit. And actually, Spartans were regarded as great swordsmen as well as just forming a phalanx.

The same problem that the macedonian phalanx had; this was clearly demostrated in pydna and magnesia, for example (20-25000 macedonians dead, vs. less than 1000 romans in pydna).

Though clearly an overestimate, for argument's sake, let's suppose they fell in those kinds of numbers. One can argue that terrain, commander incompetence and lack of discipline on the side of the macedonians is what won the day (rather than the famed flexibility of the Legions).

The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.

Not to take merit from his victory, it is again an obvious overestimate. And the quality of the Gallic warriors present on that day can be regarded as inferior (low numbers of experienced and professional warriors), not to mention the gross msitake made by Vercingetorix, and the lack of coordination between all the Gallic commanders.

Also, if we consider the manpower that Rome fielded during the punic wars, specially the second one, putting more and more legions into combat to feed Hannibal´s ego, we can have as a conclusion that even after heavy losses, it could recover in a relatively short time period.

Now there's the other thing about Romans. If any nation had suffered the kind of losses suffered by them and the Socii, they would have been crippled beyond their capability to fight a war. On the contrary, they could just pull out more and more legions out of their asses.

[bodidley]

Not to take merit from his victory, it is again an obvious overestimate. And the quality of the Gallic warriors present on that day can be regarded as inferior (low numbers of experienced and professional warriors), not to mention the gross msitake made by Vercingetorix, and the lack of coordination between all the Gallic commanders.

By the time of Vercingetorix's uprising many of the best Gallic soldiers and leaders were already dead.

With regards to the Punic Wars, Roman determination and willingness to wage war on the people was part of what made Rome successful.

[khelvan]

The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.

The armies of the Aedui and Arverni/Sequani had all but completely destroyed themselves before Caesar invaded. Caesar was essentially fighting hordes of untrained, poorly armed peasants, as the civil war had wiped out the veteran, trained armies of Gaul. Put 20 units of no-experience, no-upgrade peasants against three units of legionnaires in an RTW game and you will see similar results.

[cunctator]

In fact, a roman legionaire was equipped for individual combat,

A republican scutum weights about 10Kg, it exhausts the legionaire very fastly in individual combat.

One can argue that terrain, commander incompetence and lack of discipline on the side of the macedonians is what won the day (rather than the famed flexibility of the Legions).

The ability to be less limited by the terrain than the phalanx is part of the legions famed flexibility.

[Dux Corvanus]

I can't believe you're betraying your Iberian roots!

Sorry, but as you can see by my nick, romanization was a real success with this vir hispanicus. Since 212AD, I'm a cives fully aware of his rights and debts to the Caesar.

Now I long for becoming part of the equestrial class.

[Eucarionte]

Of course legionaires fought in units...I never said they didn´t. The thing is, can you compare a phalanx with a maniple as close formations? Macedonian phalanx was the best infantry in the world until the manipular legions appeared. I´m no historian, but I´ve read some books about this subject, from prorroman, procarthaginian and prowhatever points of view, and they all agree about the fact that the roman legions were equipped to fight as individuals (meaning individual combat without leaving the unit!) so they could move into the gaps in the phalanx line and slaughter the phalangites, who were not equipped to fight once the phalanx formation was broken (that´s what I mean with "individual combat"). Don´t blame me, blame the historians instead

In Pydna, after the macedonians managed to hold the line against the romans, they started pursuing them. That resulted in gaps appearing in the phalanx line, which permitted the legionaries to move between them. The result was a massacre. About the ashtounding numbers of casualties in ancient battles, many historians also agree in the fact that most of them were caused in the final stage of a battle, meaning one side fleeing with the other side striking them from behind

"A republican scutum weights about 10Kg, it exhausts the legionaire very fastly in individual combat."

Right. I suppose in close formation they can hold each other shields... that´s friendship!

[bodidley]

About the ashtounding numbers of casualties in ancient battles, many historians also agree in the fact that most of them were caused in the final stage of a battle, meaning one side fleeing with the other side striking them from behind

Many historians also agree that ancient historians were overly fond of massive hyperbole Particularly the victors...

In RTW I really get bored of chasing defenseless routers. The routers don't even need to be struck much of the time, just touched, and they never fight back. The reason why a man runs from a battle is that he is desperate to survive, and he'll do so by any means; whether it be fighting his way out or running faster than he's ever run before (if you've ever been chased by a bear you know exactly what I mean ). That is why many of the ancient military methodoligists recommended being wary of fleeing enemies.

From a gameplay perspective, it just gets boring chasing down and massacering all of those helpless routers, there's just no sport in it and it takes up too much time.

[Eucarionte]

With "historians" I mean "contemporary-know-it-all historians", not Polibio or Livio

P.D: I´ve never been pursued by a bear, but... does a BULL do the trick? LOL

[Lord Tomyris Reloaded]

Ah Dux, you are a Roman after my own heart! Truly, I renounce all ties to a Celtic heritage I may have, and embrace the Romanisation of the world!

[eadingas]

In Pydna, after the macedonians managed to hold the line against the romans, they started pursuing them. That resulted in gaps appearing in the phalanx line, which permitted the legionaries to move between them. The result was a massacre.

Also know as the "Hastings scenario" :)

[jerby]

The thing is, can you compare a phalanx with a maniple as close formations? Macedonian phalanx was the best infantry in the world until the manipular legions appeared.

i disagree. The phalanx was still a competent, if not best, formation. but it nEEds a cavalry arm to mash up the sides. the hammer and anvil tactics.
by the time of pydna the cavalry arm wasnt nearly as strong as at its peek. and of course the tactical errors mentioned contribued to the victory of Rome.

As for in General. Rome conquered the world, but not becuase rome slayed everythign else. Everythign else was slaying each other

IMHO, grekes ahd a better military. but lacked the infrastructure, social organizing and diplmocay. greek coudl have ruled. but the kept killing each other.
As for the legionare vs spartan comment. i take it back, legionares werent possibly as good as spartans, it was just a vanilla-sprung-line. but then again. spartans never really met the legionares. nto at full strength anyway.

[DemonArchangel]

Fact: The Romans conquered large areas of land.

Thus it can be said that no matter how the Romans did it, they did it anyway, unlike those other civilizations whose glories you tout.

[jerby]

I'm not disagreeing with you. the romans indeed conquered 'the world' as one might state.
but i also state that the greeks and , as i just read, the 'barbarians' where too busy wiping each other out to face the romans. One coudl state that Rome pretty much one becuase everybody else lost.
but my guess it is just a lot of trivial causes and good infrastructure/diplomacy/social structure but definatly not unit quality!

[bodidley]

Fact: The Romans conquered large areas of land.

Thus it can be said that no matter how the Romans did it, they did it anyway, unlike those other civilizations whose glories you tout.

Fact: The U.S. conquered large areas of land
Fact: We did it by beating up on natives and Mexicans
not by being the S#$%

While the Romans conquered large areas of land, it was not quite *unlike* say, the Seleukid Empire, the Carthaginians, the Parthians, or the Greeks...or how about those "barbarian" germanic tribes who ragged on the Romans?

The fortunes of war are many; it was not a matter of inevitability that the Roman Empire got as powerful as it did.

P.S. Eucarionte, what's being pusued by a bull like?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.

Sarcasm has answered the other questions well, so I won't comment on those, but giving all the credit to the Roman veteran soldiers in Alesia is just plain wrong. The real responsible for the victory in Alesia was Caeser's double wall system filled with traps, holes, towers, wood pikes, etc and the discipline of the army, not specifically the Roman soldier's skill. And we still have to take in to consideration that they were hardened veterans fighting against the remaining soldiers of the Gallic civil war. Most professionals were dead. What Caeser faced were mainly low-quality levied soldiers.

So, it's once again a victory of Roman witt and engeniering, not of soldier's skill.

And if you're not convinced, the Portuguese successefully defended fortress in India against muslim armies with a ratio of 30:1. Once again preparation and strong defensive positions make short work of numbers, although better soldiers will make the task slightly easier.

[Danest]

Ah I didn't really intend to cause a who's the better army thing... I'm just wondering if the Ai controlled all factions, would the Romans do what they did in rl? If not, doesn't that mean there's something missing that realistically did exist?

[Sarcasm]

There are plenty more factors that lead to Rome dominating the mediterranean world, than those that we can accurately represent in-game.


Oh...and the AI sucks.

[jerby]

Ah I didn't really intend to cause a who's the better army thing... I'm just wondering if the Ai controlled all factions, would the Romans do what they did in rl? If not, doesn't that mean there's something missing that realistically did exist?

like sarcasm (living up to his name) already stated. the engine cant handly most thigns that caused Roem to conquer: diplomacy cant be 'better' than other factions. and fortifing cant be more effective, the only real thing that can be represented is the infrastructure.

[Eucarionte]

The Roman legionaire was the result of many centuries of conquering warfare. Roman equipment was a combination of the best weapons, armor and shield that Rome had had to confront in many different battlefields. They adopted the Iberian falcata after Cannae, and later on the mail armor the Celtic nobles wore. They also used their heavy shields as an offensive weapon, and the famous pilum. Maybe they weren´t more strong or agile than their enemies, but they had the best equipment by that time. Many times (not only Alesia) they were outnumbered by barbarian or eastern armies, but they won. And they won due to several factors, the most important one being the simple superiority of their infantry, and with this I mean their discipline and their equipment, not if they were veterans or not. Romans weren´t specially smart at battles (usually), they just charged head on, for they were pretty confident in the superiority of their infantry. Plain and simple. And that´s precisely what led them to the major defeat of their history at Cannae, but that´s because they were facing the @#~€! goD!

The truth is I´m absolutely pro-greek jerby, so I´d like to believe what you say about greek military being superior to roman military, but unfortunately that´s wrong.

About the Spartan issue, I know they were better as soldiers! But as long as they kept the phalanx formation. Even being nice swordsmen compared to other greeks, they weren´t equipped for blade combat. In fact, their swords were about 30 cms. long, for they were reluctant to fight outside the phalanx, and they lacked armor by that time (or just used the Linothorax). In Spartan words, "we use short swords because we fight close to the enemy". Oh... I suppose my sofism is betraying me again

Anyway, this discussion can be eternal...so let´s concentrate in the AI...

Comments about RTW AI :

@ bodidley

Mmmm... you mean the feeling of being chased off by a half-a-ton monster, entirely made of a combination of muscles, bones and horns? It just lasted a few seconds after I realized my foolishness and jumped behind the protective wall again, and it looks that my mind has tried to forget that, so I´m not quite sure