What allied units will we have?

[Dayve]

As the Romans, i mean... I know you have announced the allied cavalry, but what about infantry? I know you say they fought identically to like hastati and principes etc. but does that mean we are to use just units of hastati in our front lines instead of some allied units on the flanks?

[orwell]

I thought the samnites covered part of this?

[Dayve]

Did the Samnites fight with Rome? I thought they hated Rome...

[sithlord85]

Did the Samnites fight with Rome? I thought they hated Rome...

Thats exactly what I thought.

The First Samnite War (343 to 341 BC)
The Second Samnite War (326 to 304 BC)
The Third Samnite War (298 to 290 BC)

These dates are correct aren't they?
______________________________________
"I don't fear the dark side as you do Obi wan"
http://www.myspace.com/darklord86

[GMT]

Thats exactly what I thought.

The First Samnite War (343 to 341 BC)
The Second Samnite War (326 to 304 BC)
The Third Samnite War (298 to 290 BC)

These dates are correct aren't they?

Yes they are. Notice that the game's start date is 272 BC so the Samnites were mostly subdued by then.

[Cozur]

Maybe we should have them named "Italic socii"
or something like that
Historicaly it wasn't just the samnites
it was all of the italic nations
and they rarely send more men than to fill a cohort
but if u put all those cohorts together
u have a legion

[Mithradates]

Wasnt there a Legion made soley of Samnian men. They wore something like a pectoral that was simmilar to their old armour not sure about it though.

[Equilibrium]

These ones will be in the next version 0.8:

Camillan:
- Equites Sociorum
- Pedites Extraordinarii
- Equites Extraordinarii

Polybian:
- Equites Sociorum
- Pedites Extraordinarii
- Equites Extraordinarii

Marian:
- Germanic cavalry auxilia
- Iberian cavalry auxilia
- Gallic cavalry auxilia
- Thracian cavalry auxilia

Augustan:
- Heavy auxiliary cohort(eastern+western versions)
- Archer Auxilia
- Horse Archer Ala

I hope I've got all allied/auxilia troops listed, but cunctator knows better so maybe pm him and he'll answer you.

[sithlord85]

Yes they are. Notice that the game's start date is 272 BC so the Samnites were mostly subdued by then.

Oh sorry
_____________________________________
"I don't fear the dark side as you do Obi wan"

[econ21]

While we are on the subject of Roman auxiliaries, one thing I was wondering about was how these should best be modelled. Aside from the missile and cavalry units, Roman auxilaries in RTW games often they fill the role of spearmen, which Romans lack in the game. These means the player may use them to bolster the battle line in a defensive role and particularly to counter cavalry charges.

But from what I have read, even spear-armed auxiliaires tended to be used more as light infantry - for chasing lightly armoured barbarians. Emphasing their role as light infantry by giving them the "fast" property of velites etc may be more appropriate than emphasing their spears. I suspect it would be the legions that the Romans would rely on for defence and countering a cavalry charge.

Apologies if EB already does this - I've never got to the Augustus reforms and fear I never will.

[cunctator]

Imperial Auxiliary infantry fought in both roles, as heavy's in a more defensive role in the main battle line, for example at Indistaviso where they defended the archers against the germanic infatry at the flanks, or at Mons Graupius where all fighting with the enemy infatry was done by auxilia, and as mobile light infantry. The roman historian distingiush in campaign description between the cohors leves armatura, the light armed cohorts, and ordinary auxiliary infantry. They don't have necessarly always be different soldiers, the units could just fight as needed.

Only in greater campigns and battles legionaries were avaible to fight with the auxilia. In most border skirmishes and smaller operations the auxiliary cohorts had to fight without the legion's support and needed their own heavy infantry.

Finally we will also have a light auxiliary infantry unit, the heavy cohorts could just be finished earlier.

[econ21]

Thanks, Cunctator - what you say makes perfect sense. To some extent, I suspect a soldier is a soldier and could fulfill various roles (e.g. I've read about some legionnaires having slings). But for RTW, we need more specialised units and what you suggest EB is doing sounds reasonable.

[paullus]

Good point econ 21, that reminds of something I had been wanting to ask EB about. Do you think the Romans could develop a legionary reform after fighting horse archers, you know, like the cataphract thing, but the result is being able to train legionaries with slings instead of pila (I suppose you couldn't have both), and maybe only in some eastern regions. Or would that be a waste of a unit when there are slinger auxiliaries available?

[Angadil]

Good point econ 21, that reminds of something I had been wanting to ask EB about. Do you think the Romans could develop a legionary reform after fighting horse archers, you know, like the cataphract thing, but the result is being able to train legionaries with slings instead of pila (I suppose you couldn't have both), and maybe only in some eastern regions. Or would that be a waste of a unit when there are slinger auxiliaries available?

I'd say the last... I'm no expert in Roman military, but I believe there is evidence that what you suggest (increased recruitment of auxiliary slingers) was what actually happened. IIRC, the army Caesar was arranging to attack Parthia when he was murdered was to include lots of slingers and other missile troops. Additionally, I seem to recall that the army Mark Anthony actually brought to his Parthian campaign was similarly abundant in missile infantry. In both cases those troops were auxiliaries coming from their usual sources, not legionaries switching/expanding their roles. Some of the real Roman experts should be able to confirm (or deny) my recollections, though.

[Dayve]

I want one of you experts to finally clear this up for me. In the early legions, when 3 lines of infantry were used as the main bulk, the hastati, principes and triarii, were any allied units used on the flanks, or was it just hastati in the first line, principes in the second and triarii in the third? I know you keep saying that allied units fought identially to Roman units, but by this do you mean that, they were identical to hastati? So the front line would be made purely of hastati with nothing on the flanks?

Every website i have looked at that shows diagrams always shows hastati on the front line and nothing else. No mention of allied units or spearmen on the flanks.

[Dayve]

I want one of you experts to finally clear this up for me. In the early legions, when 3 lines of infantry were used as the main bulk, the hastati, principes and triarii, were any allied units used on the flanks, or was it just hastati in the first line, principes in the second and triarii in the third? I know you keep saying that allied units fought identially to Roman units, but by this do you mean that, they were identical to hastati? So the front line would be made purely of hastati with nothing on the flanks?

Every website i have looked at that shows diagrams always shows hastati on the front line and nothing else. No mention of allied units or spearmen on the flanks.

Bumpity bump post count +1

[Trithemius]

Allied units performed a variety of roles; it really depended on what the allies were.

Auxiliaries roles were similarly varied although, as others have noted, they were required to serve in the stead of the legions on some frontiers in later eras.

[econ21]

I'm pretty sure Goldsworthy's book on Roman military leadership has a diagram of a Roman army with 2 legions in the centre and an alae on each flank[1]. That's how I deploy in RTR anyway. In EB, I guess initially you'd just use all Romans as apparently the early Italian allies were very similarly equipped. Later on you could use other allied/auxiliary units on the flanks. I would like to see an "allied hastati" type unit though - maybe same equipment but a bit worse quality stats - Candelarius has just produced one for RTR Platinum.

[1]I seem to remember one battle where the Romans surprised their enemies by reversing that deployment, allowing their better Roman troops to envelope the enemy.

[Geoffrey S]

Yeah, Scipio reversed alae and Roman legions at Ilipa.

[cunctator]

Good point econ 21, that reminds of something I had been wanting to ask EB about. Do you think the Romans could develop a legionary reform after fighting horse archers, you know, like the cataphract thing, but the result is being able to train legionaries with slings instead of pila (I suppose you couldn't have both), and maybe only in some eastern regions. Or would that be a waste of a unit when there are slinger auxiliaries available?

Slingers were used by the roman army since earliest times, mostly in sieges, and not only to counter HAs. I would make no sense to have a special reform for this and also we unfortunatly don't have the model space for every used armament combination. Player can recruit more slinger when he fights eastern HA factions, as romans did, but the unit will not be triggered by this. Actually almost all evidently roman sling bullets have been found in europe and north africa. This is most probably only caused by the better archaelogical research of roman military installations there, but still demonstrate their universal use.

The only changes that can probably directly credited to the confrontation with eastern armies at this time is the introduction of their own HAs to the roman army and generally the vastly increased importance of archery in the imperial army since the early principate, compared to the republic. (and a century later of course the introduction of contarii, cataphracts etc.)

[nic]

Will Umbrian and Numidian auxillia cavalry be included?

[Geoffrey S]

What exactly are the advantages of slings against cavalry? Is it because cavalry archers would generally be lightly armoured and susceptible themselves to projectiles, or would it scare the mount?

[Dayve]

I think it's more along the lines of slings having greater range than bows, so slingers could engage horse archersin very loose formations and even get in the first shot.

[Angadil]

What exactly are the advantages of slings against cavalry? Is it because cavalry archers would generally be lightly armoured and susceptible themselves to projectiles, or would it scare the mount?

I don't think slingers have specific, slinger-only advantages againgst HAs. Rahter, the usual ones for all foot missile troops apply as well. One would be that foot missile, even slingers, can typically operate in denser formations than HAs. You get more prejectiles in the air from the same frontage. There are others: all other things being equal foot missile could be expected to outrange HAs, too.

It's not that the Romans recruited more slingers when they were expecting to face HAs because the slingers were better than bowmen against them. They just took those foot missile troops they had at hand.