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?
Re: The Roman Conquest
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?
Re: The Roman Conquest
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.
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars”
-- Oscar Wilde
Re: The Roman Conquest
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
Re: The Roman Conquest
Correct. Not just the best equipment, but the best equipment to work with one another. And the best large range trainning.Originally Posted by Eucarionte
Wrong. Don't believe what RTW says in the Scutarii description. Romans adopted the short straight hispanic sword known to them by Gladius Hispanniensis. The Falcata is a quite different weapon: longer heavy-tipped sabre.
Read what I posted again. And please, pay attention to what I wrote this time...
Re: The Roman Conquest
And their training and endurance. Roman strength was in their infantry. They had great stamina and could march longer than most of their enemies and faster and carry more equipment.
Managing perceptions goes hand in hand with managing expectations - Masamune
Pie is merely the power of the state intruding into the private lives of the working class. - Beirut
Re: The Roman Conquest
I did say:
Re: The Roman Conquest
Heh...since I´m SPANISH, I can assure you that the name of the weapon is "falcata ibera". The Gladius Hispaniensis is a roman modification of the original Iberian Falcata. I´m not talking about the Dacian falcata. Don´t be so sure about things you just don´t know, will you?
Re: The Roman Conquest
Eucarionte, Aymar is Portuguese and as Iberian as you and me. And he's right, and you're wrong.Heh...since I´m SPANISH, I can assure you that the name of the weapon is "falcata ibera". The Gladius Hispaniensis is a roman modification of the original Iberian Falcata. I´m not talking about the Dacian falcata. Don´t be so sure about things you just don´t know, will you?
This is a falcata iberica -a big single-edged sword that can both slash and stab:
This is a gladius hispaniensis, another weapon developed by peninsulars, but rather different -a short straight two-edged stabbing sword. This was adopted by Romans:
BTW: There's nothing bad in being pursued by bulls. Go Pamplona in July or any other city that has encierros in popular festivities, and you'll have the pleasure of being pursued by a dozen of them. The bad thing is actually being caught by them...
Last edited by Dux Corvanus; 06-04-2005 at 13:41.
Re: The Roman Conquest
Aymar is also from Iberia. But that's not the point. You can't wave around your nationality as if it's a guarantee that you know everything about your own people. In many cases, there are people who are experts on YOUR/MY culture, and these experts don't need to be of the same nationality. If I was a regular joe from, say.. Lebanon, I couldn't have carte blanche to tell Charles Krahmalkov that he's wrong about the Phoenician language - because he has studied it more than I ever would bother to.. EVEN if Krahmalkov is from the United States.
I'm not saying that Aymar is an expert btw.
The falcata is most certainly a curved blade, and is only related to the gladius hispaniensis by culture. The gladius was a design adopted from ANOTHER iberian weapon alltogether. The only names we have for these weapons are the latin names. Falcata is latin. Gladius is latin. Though it is not unlikely that these names are latin transliterations of the original iberian names for them. The problem in proving/disproving that is that we know next to zilch about the original iberian language. We know of Celtiberian (q-celtic) and mere scraps about Tartessian, but these are languages and cultures with celtic backgrounds and celtic undertones..
From a SPANISH site even!
-edit, LOL Dux beat me to it.
Last edited by Shigawire; 06-04-2005 at 13:51.
"To know a thing well, know its limits. Only when pushed beyond its tolerances will its true nature be seen." -The Amtal Rule, DUNE
Re: The Roman Conquest
Just like Dux said. And please, don't mistake the dacian falx with the iberian falcata, ok? The falcata is similar to the greek kopis and both are derived from the greek machoira.Heh...since I´m SPANISH, I can assure you that the name of the weapon is "falcata ibera". The Gladius Hispaniensis is a roman modification of the original Iberian Falcata. I´m not talking about the Dacian falcata. Don´t be so sure about things you just don´t know, will you?
Some very confusing ideas running inside your head.
Please, be sure to read good reliable information before making claims, ok?
Re: The Roman Conquest
I was interested that you many have had a contrary point or some interesting obscure historical factoids to share, but between using "Falcata" and "Dacians" in the same sentance and referring to the Portugese as a "happy fishermen tribe with a funny accent" you lost all credibility as far as I am concerned.
Now here's my whole take on how the Romans managed to conquer the known world and grow as they did, a combination of versaitlity, tactical awareness, diplomatic cunning and a bit of luck.
When I think of the Roman army the first thing that comes to mind is "versatile" the Romans used superior logistics and engineering techniques to take advantage of any situation and hence their infantry developed into a versatile soldier capable of filling many roles, to exemplify this examine their equipmen.
The short stabbing Gladius sword
Chain or banded mail armor depending on the time period
The large Scutum shield
And the Pilum
Generally, the Romans would advance before their enemy, unleash their pilum then charge pushing forward using the force of weight to knock the enemy back while stabbing at whatever was in front of them. However they were fully capable of filling other roles such as using their heavy pilum to form a sort of in-prompt to spear wall as a defence against calvalry, like all heavy infantry they were vulnerable to flanking by calvalry and light infantry but in their zenith at least the Romans were fully aware of this and made efforts to ensure it didnt happen. A lax in taxtical awareness like that mentioned above and a signifigant growth in arrogance and a belief in invicinibility is what lead to them being utterly annihalated by the Goths much later.
The Romans also used their logistical and engineering skill to make sure they were in the most advantageous position possible in battle, and as Aymar stated earlier, that can go a long way in winning a battle.
Also if you look at the way Rome expanded, they knew "exactly" when to strike at a foe, just look at the Gauls. The Gauls were fully capable of fighting and defeating Romans, and they had proved it before...However, when Ceasar expanded into Gaul they were at civil war amongst themselves with the various tribes and their military was really a shadow of it's former power. The Gauls were capable of functioning as an oprganized and very effective military force, but Rome "caught them with their pants down" so to speak.
In effect, what I'm saying is that the entire notion that Rome, or any people are just "better" then another is stupid. There are extenutating circumstances, political/economic landscapes, tactical decisions and realities and yes, even luck that determines who is in power, when, and how. There are pros and cons to every military formation, nothing is an "end all beat all" way of doing things, its all a matter of how the cards are played.
"This is a-radi-hi-iiic-ulous"-Zeek
Re: The Roman Conquest
So, some factions should have better diplomacy? Can't that be represented via diplomat's traits? Have some trigger more often for some factions, or give a diplomatic faction it's own diplomat trait. The same could be done for factions that have good leaders (leader traits), or those that fought better in ambushes, etc. (I suspect the Germans performed more successful ambushes than Greek phalanxes). Roma mod did something like this, I think, with the trait "Roman Marching", though I could see developing it further.
Re: The Roman Conquest
yeah, compared to the Xiphon the gladius was a real giant...
about the legionares EQ. are all teh post in this time period? 300BC to 0??(i say 300 BC cuz i'm not sure about EB's starting date
Re: The Roman Conquest
Stop talking about Sparta as a real power in that era. After the defeat of Leuctra (371 BC), Spartan power was just a (Sweet? Bitter?) memory. From then on, Sparta was just a toy in the political game of Macedon -first- and Rome -after- for the domination of Greece; its military power reduced to almost nothing, and its legendary discipline becoming a tourist attraction of the ancient world.
Sparta allied the Romans as soon as they stepped on Greece, and when Rome stopped needing Spartans, declared war on them and defeated them with ease, forcing Sparta to seek help in the Achaean League -which treated them in a similar way- to finally fall -as the whole of Greece- in Roman hands.
It had been a long long time since the epic times of Leonidas.
Re: The Roman Conquest
jerby, you misunderstand all my words
To the rest of you: I see I was wrong (although not completely in this matter), and so I apologize for my ruthless behaviour.
But it was my reaction for I was insulted twice in that Aymar´s post. First he insulted my historical knowledge sources pretending I only knew what I had read in the stupid RTW descriptions, and second saying I didn´t pay attention when I read his post. Just because we don´t share the same points of view don´t make me stupid, right?
Of course, since this guy has posted a few thousand times, he´d have the sympathies of you, being your colleague, and I´ll sound to you as "the easy angered noob". It´s not like it bothers me, anyway.
Re: The Roman Conquest
Actually, Aymar is one of the EB 'founders', and, curiously enough, the Iberian faction coordinator, so believe me, he's made research enough to talk and talk about Iberian warfare and still asking water for wetting his dry mouth...
Anyway, I can see he had no intention of offending you. He has -as most of us Iberians- a vehement way of expressing himself, but it's just because he loves so much the topic that he can't help argumenting with ardour. Nothing personal, lad.
Re: The Roman Conquest
ok,
so. back on topic. were Roman Legionares superior in weaponry or armor? cuz I' dont get in anymore. one could state that teh gladius was a piece shit made compact, when another says the Shield was their main weapon. I'm to darn confused to right a good post!
wich reminds me. do/will roman legionares have/will get a shieldbash/smite animation?
Re: The Roman Conquest
The Romans copied much of their equipment from their enemies, particularly Gauls and Celtiberians. One of the best examples of this is not just the Gladius, but the short sword in general. Before the battle of Allia, the Roman soldiers were fighting with spears (hastati=spearman)
You had a WALL? You lucky bastard...@ 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
Re: The Roman Conquest
He was surely in a bullfight arena... they have protecting walls around the arena so you can hide behind. Many popular festivities in some villages and towns include releasing bulls in closed streets so they pursue people who wants to be pursued -generally drunken youngsters- to the local bullfight place, where they're tainted, while people jump in and out of the arena. That's what we call an encierro. The ones in Pamplona for the festivities of St. Fermin -July 7th- are known internationally, because of that drunkard of Hemingway, who never understood a word about Spain, but felt very macho about these things.You had a WALL? You lucky bastard...
Of course, the spectacle is shameful, childish, dangerous for both people and animals, and I hate it, so I have a laugh every time an idiot is caught by the bulls. Specially very drunken and go-happy foreigners that act irresponsibly as if bulls were cows or big goats. Then they whine at their embassies, as if they had been forced to take part... go figure.
Last edited by Dux Corvanus; 06-04-2005 at 16:37.
Re: The Roman Conquest
Talking about Alesia, and the Roman defeat of masses of Celtic levied troops, let's remember that Caesar's army also went on to score several impressive victories while outnumbered by Pompey's army. Caesar's legionaries were renowned veterans, and considered savage and ruthless by their own countrymen.
Re: The Roman Conquest
Even the "hoplite-sword" you speak of was about 75cm long (total) not 30cm as you claim, and made for both slashing and thrusting. I've had in my hand left-hand daggers of the 16th century longer than that. However, poorer Hellenic phalangites, especially of later years (namely our time period) were known to carry only very short swords (more like long daggers).
Spartans were elite soldiers, armed with the best of everything. Good quality Linothorax (maybe even bronze for a royal guard or older/richer soldiers), hoplon, bronze helmet and a kopis. In later years, elite, and semi-elite, infantry actually start using this greek version of the falcata.
As for the Roman gladius, it was around 70cm (total), though the Iberian version was longer. BTW, Romans only adopted the gladius *after* the Iberian campaigns against Carthage, before that, they used a similar sword to that of the greeks.
Dux, is right. After Leuctra, Spartan could no longer support large quantities of its elite soldiers and lost hegemony even in its own Pelopponesus. However, during the beginning of our time period, there's a clear revival of the old ways, due to reforms made by a sucession of kings, and they quickly become a small regional power, submiting other polis (Corinth even) in their immediate area. This however attracted the attention of the Macedonian king who promptly invaded and destroyed whatever hopes they had of becoming important in Greece, once again.
Roman legionaries in this time period, have no advantage in equipment, over anyone (except maybe in quantity). The gladius was certainly no piece of shit and much like the medieval or ancient greek warrior, the shield was as much part of their offensive hability as the sword.
Oh and I don't think there's a bashing animation planned so I'll take a chance and say no.
I actually enjoy these types of festivities, espeacially forcados (for those of that don't know what that is, imagine 1 guy face to face with a bull, that waits for it to charge him, so he can grab his head from the front, then 4 guys jump in and try to stop the bull). However, bullfights that end in the bull's death, sicken me.
Last edited by Sarcasm; 06-04-2005 at 17:36.
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars”
-- Oscar Wilde
Re: The Roman Conquest
Give me my legions and I will give you the world.
[War's] glory is all moonshine; even success most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families.
— William Tecumseh Sherman
Re: The Roman Conquest
Yeah. Except for matadores, Spanish don't know how to really bullfight.
Re: The Roman Conquest
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks