Defeated Romans in other armies?

[oudysseos]

'Mercenary' Units of Roman Legionaries would serve several useful purposes in the game, even if they are speculative.

1. Would represent bribed deserters, turncoats and disaffected allies fighting against Rome as a unit. It may be hard to find solid historical evidence that this ever happened, but is not hard to imagine how it might have really happened, and it is easy to imagine it happening in an alternative history mileu such as EB.

2. Would allow non-Roman conquerors of the Italian penisula access to the fighting style of the conquered people. There are many parellels- indeed the Romans themselves picked up things from people they conquered. There is no reason why that particular shoe shouldn't be able to fit another faction's foot, if you follow the metaphor.

3. Would account for the possibility of 'imitation' legionaries. I mean something different than point 2 above- what I have in mind here is Hannibal arming his men with Roman weapons even though he never really conquered the Italian penisula or eliminated Rome as a 'faction'.

4. Would also account for some of the Romans' actual historical recruitment methods. What I have in mind here is the practice, relatively common during the late Republic and into the Civil Wars, of calling retired veterans back to the colours as Evocati. Think of Pompey's boast of stamping his foot. These men were not quite mercenaries, of course, but they are also not easily represented by the normal recruitment process. They were experienced men, paid substantial bounties to return to service immediately. 'Mercenary' units would cover that nicely, I think.

If Rome were to suffer a catastrophic defeat (Hannibal attacks, burns the city, sells all the women into slavery, sows the ground with salt, chops off the hands of all the men he captures), there might very well be large bands of armed men still together with their centurions but who no longer answer to the consuls, as they have been killed. Would they just go home to their farms? Farms are gone. What would they do? Either turn into brigands or hire out.

[Forgus]

It is pure speculation, but...

If any conqueror defeated Rome early, they would be much likely to have rorari and hastaty as ligth infantry, whereas unlikely triarii. If the conqueror is Hellenic or Punic some phalanx type stuff might appear. Principes? Perhaps, though I think principe aged citizens would then fight in Kleruchoi units methinks.

[Watchman]

You can get Samnites in their characteristic "national" getup regardless of date and so on, don't you ? Ditto for about any other area-of-recruitement populace/unit combo like the various Celts and Germanics and steppe nomads. I don't really see why the Romans should be treated much differently. AFAIK the basis of Roman ecology was not so meaningfully different from what was practised in, say, Hellas that Romans properly integrated into a Hellenic empire could not be easily enough enlisted as for example phalangites - the same "doughty farmer" background is there, right ? Conversely the quick-and-dirty govt's for "local flair" troops ought to result in something along the lines of Hastati, Principes and maybe Triarii since they represent an allied/loosely subjugated region whose military traditions are left largely untouched by the new overlords - and the Republican militia system is presumably no markedly more difficult to involve, mutatis mutandis, in such setup as for example the old Persian territories, Greece, Gaul or Carthaginian North Africa.

Although the little detail with the two or three military reforms the Romans get might complicate things a bit...

[Kralizec]

I think most agree that a foreign overlord who conquered Rome would at least have considered the idea of recruiting natives in their own fighting style.
Would they have used Roman military jargon to designate these units? I'd guess not. So it's down to the name.
"Latin infantry" (translated) seems suitably generic for a unit recruitable to factions like Karthadast, Epeiros, etc. But as mentioned many of Rome's non-Latin allies fough in the same manner..."Italian infantry" (again, translated) would be an alternative, but that's too generic IMO.
Maybe something like foederati legionarii, but I feel like I'm stretching here and my latin skilz suck...

[adishee]

The only thing special about pre-marian troops was their elan and discipline. Their equipment was common. If an outside invader was to conquer italy, you would just have Italian troops armed and armored as Romans were (scutum, montefortino helmet, spear, breastplate, etc), but not nearly as usefull.

[Watchman]

Depends. I've read the inherently temporary nature of the Republican reservist armies tended to make them somewhat tactically unsophisticated - critics point out they tended to win their battles more with brute force and sheer stubbornness than clever tactical maneuvers. The longer the soldiers were on the field the better they naturally became at operating and maneuvering as formations, but once the legion was disbanded back to its civilian pursuits the whole process had to be started all over again when the next call to arms came. The Roman idea of warfare was apparently also somewhat excessively focused on linear clash head on, which in turn tended to lead to an over-eagerness to get to grips with the enemy also among the commanders and every now and then got the legions into serious trouble.
Just ask one Hannibal Barca.

'Course, ones having to deal for example with the hit-and-run tactics of mountain tribes such as the Ligureans and many of the Iberians naturally quickly learned to be more versatile and careful.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Lysandros PM'd me about Quintus Labienus. He was the ambassador to the parthians and after Caesar was murdered and Brutus and Cassius defeated (whose side he took) he defected to the Parthians. He then led a sizeable roman-parthian army and took pretty much all of Asia Minor, but was killed a year later by a roman counterattack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Labienus

Does anyone know much about the army composition? Were many of those soldiers romans? I know it's not in italy, but this discussion of romans refusing to serve in other armies might be enlightened with more information on this event.

[Gazius]

"Latin infantry" (translated) seems suitably generic for a unit recruitable to factions like Karthadast, Epeiros, etc. But as mentioned many of Rome's non-Latin allies fough in the same manner..."Italian infantry" (again, translated) would be an alternative, but that's too generic IMO.

Maybe leave it at latin infantry, and just have them available from capua to the northernmost provinces Rome owns at the start of the game, while expanding the samnites to the south? This would make more sense to me, since I doubt until the marian reforms that they truely ever lost what made them samnites. Reformed some, but in general they already do fight like romans. Or at least that's how I use them. Maybe in the north if you didn't want to use romans, then another famous tribe, like the Estrucans?

Also, recruitment by event seems much more fitting than regular recruitment outside of Italy. If one of those historic battle markers forms, maybe that province would have defected Romans in them? Or else, if you fought a large battle with the Romans and won a clear or heroic victory, maybe some units would defect to you?