Some things I need in EB

[Watchman]

Feel free to kick me in the balls if there's an answer here already, but how long were the spears the triarii use?

As an educated guess I'd give anything up to 2.5 meters. Or at least all I've read says that's pretty much the longest soldiers can be expected to manage one-handed.

And I must also day I don't quite get what's the supposed difference between "phalanx" and "shieldwall" either (not counting the game-mechanical difference in BI). Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[Cheexsta]

Something that has always confused me is EB's choice to give Camillan Triarii the RTW Phalanx formation. Specifically, if the Triarii faught in a way comparable to classical Hoplites, and if it has frequently been said that Hoplites traditionally used what is closer to a shieldwall than RTW's Phalanx formation (ie a Macedonian-style phalanx), then shouldn't the Triarii fight without the Phalanx formation?

It strikes me as being a little inconsistent - is there a reason for choosing the Phalanx formation over a formation more like that of a traditional Hoplite, or the Hypaspistai secondary attack?

Or have I missed something entirely?

[Kralizec]

I've wondered about that as well. The old hoplite phalanx from vanilla has been used to represent the Ippikrathian fighting style for the Koinon Hellenon. It seems a bit odd that the Romans have a unit capable of doing the same thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Currently the phalanx is used to represent a range of close order fighting styles. It is mainly a game limitation. The Triarii fight in the same manner as the Corinthian Hoplite, not that of the Successor's pike phalanx.

[khelvan]

Lord Condormanius, we are still waiting for the sources you have to support your statements.

Until such time as you present them it is hard to take you seriously.

[Lord Condormanius]

I didn't show you my sources? Oh that's right, I just remembered: I don't give a crap.

This whole thing started as an observation until Wiggy and some other EB geniuses got offended. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to pour over every source (there aren't that many to begin with) for he sake of proving a point that I obviously don't care as much about as some people do.

You can make your mod however the hell you want. I just thought I would offer a friendly observation. If I had known that you guys were so perfect and unable to be criticized, I would not have bothered. It's hard for you to take me seriously? That's just something you're going to have to live with.

[Birka Viking]

I didn't show you my sources? Oh that's right, I just remembered: I don't give a crap.

This whole thing started as an observation until Wiggy and some other EB geniuses got offended. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to pour over every source (there aren't that many to begin with) for he sake of proving a point that I obviously don't care as much about as some people do.

You can make your mod however the hell you want. I just thought I would offer a friendly observation. If I had known that you guys were so perfect and unable to be criticized, I would not have bothered. It's hard for you to take me seriously? That's just something you're going to have to live with.

One question for u man...If u dont bother to find your sources for your statement...Why write something in the first place?????

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Something that has always confused me is EB's choice to give Camillan Triarii the RTW Phalanx formation. Specifically, if the Triarii faught in a way comparable to classical Hoplites, and if it has frequently been said that Hoplites traditionally used what is closer to a shieldwall than RTW's Phalanx formation (ie a Macedonian-style phalanx), then shouldn't the Triarii fight without the Phalanx formation?

It strikes me as being a little inconsistent - is there a reason for choosing the Phalanx formation over a formation more like that of a traditional Hoplite, or the Hypaspistai secondary attack?

Or have I missed something entirely?

This is mainly due to the problems of implementing the classical solid but flexible hoplite phalanx correctly in RTW. Some of our units have already an implementation to sort this out and the early Triarii will benefit from this.

[Kralizec]

I haven't read any in-depth literature about Roman military organisation, but I was suddenly reminded about this.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

The divisions were now of ten maniples. The figures are a bit unclear, but what is known is that the hastati maniple consisted of 120 men.

Subdivisions of all three ranks (hastati, principes, triarii) was one of ten maniples. A maniple is defined as consisting of 160 men. (Although the hastati are supposedly had 120 per maniple. The figures are confusing. I assume that the maniple was brought its full numbers by the addition of velites. i.e. 120 hastati + 40 velites = 160 men = 1 maniple)

It emerges that now it was the velites who were the more mobile troops who operated in the front of the army, stinging the enemy with their javelins, before retiring through the ranks of the hastati and principes

I don't know how much work the author of this site put into research, so I won't vouch for him. But if it's true it would explain the confusion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've read basically the same thing elsewhere. Its like a lot of things, reading just one source is a good way to get it wrong. Another thing to say is that the Legion did have cohorts early on, composed of all three lines and velites.

Regardless, he's talking pre-Polybius.

[fallen851]

Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

You don't need to be so offended when someone decides to question something.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

You don't need to be so offended when someone decides to question something.

Ten academics, from different parts of the world differing diciplines and different sources have all come to the same conclusion about our Triarii. If number eleven wants to argue he will need sources, he has provided none.

End of.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

You don't need to be so offended when someone decides to question something.

And you needn't bear grudges and interject such grudges in the midst of a discussion about which you've got nothing else to add. The title of the post is mildly irritating to people who work like the dickens to make the mod in the first place, that's what WI was referring to and he clearly said it. You've raised another issue in another thread here today and there's no problem with doing so. Is the reply sufficiently to your liking and approval?

[Lord Condormanius]

Ahh, another person tries to argue with the EB team, only to be told he is being "offensive" simply because he questions the one of the EB Gods team members who are of course, never wrong.

I know I'm new here, but that seems to sum it up.