Roman military reforms

**Trithemius** · 03-05-2006, 00:56

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Did you mean 197 AD? If you did, then does this mean that Septimius Severus changed the military after securing his power to form the BI roman legions?

Um... yes! I guess I got used to typing BC so much that it never clicked. Septimus Severus' changes are indeed the main reason for the list switching to Middle Imperial Roman.

I believe that the BI Roman forces are probably more likely to be Late Imperial Roman since this list would cover 307 AD - 425 AD.

**Ypoknons** · 03-05-2006, 03:42

BI's legions are definately post-Diocletian legions. Severus may have changed the legions to an extent and moral, training and quality could have declined after Marcus Aurelius, but actual reorganization on that scale didn't happen until Diocletian.

**alexrain** · 03-06-2006, 13:00

Hmm...
If Im not wrong Septimius didn't changed the legions itself, he only reorganized the dislocatioon. What he did was a significant increasement in the salaries.... The legions in BI are definitly Diocletian style and also reflect the center army corps formed under Constantinius if im not wrong.

**Trithemius** · 03-06-2006, 13:22

Originally Posted by alexrain

Hmm...
If Im not wrong Septimius didn't changed the legions itself, he only reorganized the dislocatioon. What he did was a significant increasement in the salaries.... The legions in BI are definitly Diocletian style and also reflect the center army corps formed under Constantinius if im not wrong.

Certainly this is the case, the use of the term comitatensis in RTW:BI makes this clear; as well as RTW:BI's start date being sometime in the latter part of the 4th century AD. In DBM terms, the Roman armies of RTW:BI are Late Roman Imperial, verging on Patrician Roman - which is way out of EB's historical range.

Septimus Severus did mess around with things, but it seems like his fiddling was primarily politically motivated, rather than geared towards making the army a more efficient tool (although I suppose this may have been a beneficial side effect. It maye have been that the changes in Roman military techniques at the time were due to factors other than deliberate reform by a specific individual - if this is the case then Septimus Severus seems a reasonable figure to "pin" the date of the changes on.

I believe that the reason that it is Constantine I that marks the break between Middle and Late Roman because Constantine is said to have completed the implementation of Diocletian's reforms on a wide scale.

**Megalos** · 03-11-2006, 15:37

Looked through the thread and didn't see any mention of the triggers (be it temporary or permanent) being intergrated in the new patch.

Are they in yet? (don't want to be the Romans til they are)

**khelvan** · 03-18-2006, 18:33

We may have an optional test script for a separate download, but this patch will only be bug fixes.

**Geoffrey S** · 03-18-2006, 18:43

I like the idea of reforms being linked to expansion: it illustrates the need for better logistics and a more standardised practise when further from Rome.

But could it be argued that Imperial/Augustan legionaries are likely never to be seen by most players in the campaign game and that their unit slots could be better used for other troop types for other factions? Unless those units are aimed more at custom battles, of course, or if reforms after the Polybian one no longer depend on a minimum date. It just strikes me as a waste of slots if the availability of such Imperial units lies outside the timeframe within which many players will complete the campaign.

**cunctator** · 03-18-2006, 19:45

Don't worry the final marian and augustan reforms will happen when the EB roman empire is approx. in the some condition as the real romans when their army begun to change. Probably they will still have a minimum year requirement, since the units also represent some technical progress, but things can still be vastly accelerated compared to real history.