Roman Legions seem too weak

[Starforge]

Bullshit list.

/boggle

Gotta love how people want to say someone is wrong but don't even try and post opposing facts. I realise that some folks have some prejudice culturally towards the Romans but - since every culture / race in this time period are nothing more than bands of street thugs willing to slit their neighbors throats for a few bits of gold - can we dispense with the prejudice? Let's try and leave modern morality and law out of a place where it really doesn't fit or apply.

Maybe he's wrong - but until I see people actually citing different numbers with actual sources I'll reserve judgement.

On topic - I find the Romans to be represented well enough in the game - decent but not great units and cheap enough that you can afford to lose a few or a stack.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well that's what you get when you cite:

195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0

Because a) (Minor point) It's not like there was one grand plan of conquering Iberia or sth.

More (Not compeltely 100%) like tribe x defies Romans rule, by god we shall send an army forthwith. Tribe x anihilates Romans and forces the retreating consul to accept the independence - by god we're the laugh of the whole of civilised world! Oh dear: they did it again!

Tribe x = Numantines, forcing the Romans in republic era to acknowledge their skill.

And there were others, who could do that job just as well too.

Because b) In front of people who actually worked to accurately represent such things as the Roman Legions, the Iberian tribes etc. etc.
Because c) You post a list which is worthless as source material because it gives you no sort of 'window' to refer to. The list doesn't contain casualties, army make up, terrain advantage for either side, etc. etc. And if history teaches us anything about military efforts, than it is that those tell us a lot more about succes or failure than the amount of battles you won or lost. And for the record: the campaign of Hannibal was one grand failure: IIRC about 50% of his troops were either gone or seriously ill before he even could begin with accomplishing any sort of objectives he had in mind. (Those 50% fell to: 1) Iberians who didn't like the Carhties crossing the borders; 2) Gauls who didn't enjoy it either; 3) Winter.)
Because d) You create the impression the Iberians can be brushed asid fairly easy: just look at Wikipedia - that'll prove me right and you wrong. And mind you as far as the Romans go Wikipedia even managed to get the duration of military service wrong. Ask Philip about that. -- Or look up the last debate on this Romans were the Best topic (Spears are very unbalanced thread).

EDIT3: As far as the seriousness and the ferociousness of the Iberians is concerned. Augustus (Octavius Caesar) boasts of being the first to competely have subjugated Iberia! And that's when...you ask? Well in his Res Gestae which is written towards the end of his rule as Princeps, so we talk 20 AD-ish. Also it's worth nothing that Iberia is explicitly depicted on the Augustus of Prima Porta (famous for the decorations on the cuirass, famous for being the Roman copy of the Greek Doryphoros, famous for being the arche-type of all (later) Emperor statues) alongside with Gaul, and Parthia. (Gaul and Iberia are mourning their loss, the Parthian king humbly returns the Roman standards taken from the previous Roman generals who attempted to conquer him.)

[Charge]

...

[Tellos Athenaios]

I updated the post, if it concerns my reply. Webbrowser went nuts.

[abou]

Well, to be fair it wasn't a copy of the Doryphoros. It just took the pose, which was famous and well attested already and looked good.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, to be fair it wasn't a copy of the Doryphoros. It just took the pose, which was famous and well attested already and looked good.

Granted: a naked midget wouldn't have looked as .... impressive?
The whole thing about the Doryphoros which makes it *the* Doryphoros, is the detail to both realistic and ideal proportions and pose.

[Sarcasm]

/boggle

Gotta love how people want to say someone is wrong but don't even try and post opposing facts. I realise that some folks have some prejudice culturally towards the Romans but - since every culture / race in this time period are nothing more than bands of street thugs willing to slit their neighbors throats for a few bits of gold - can we dispense with the prejudice? Let's try and leave modern morality and law out of a place where it really doesn't fit or apply.

Maybe he's wrong - but until I see people actually citing different numbers with actual sources I'll reserve judgement.

On topic - I find the Romans to be represented well enough in the game - decent but not great units and cheap enough that you can afford to lose a few or a stack.

Heh...So a completely random list supported by a wikipedia article that's awfully biased *for* the romans you believe? Fine. Good for you.

My opinion that the list was bullshit was not because I'm prejudiced towards the Romans - thank you very much for passing judgement without really knowing a thing about me. To portray them as something that they were not is to do them a disservice really. They won, indeed, and their victory is even more impressive the more due credit you give to their opponents and realize that they were not super-men. Think about it.

That list, not only is largely arbitrary, it ignores that an extremely large number of the casualties the Romans suffered were not in set piece battles, and is basically prejudiced (now there's a good use for the word) towards those cultures that chose not to resort to field battles as their main way to stop them. But even those cultures did confront them on occasion in mass, and contrary of what it says in that post, they did win plenty of battles. Just not the wars.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I used to question EB madly because of this, but now I have one less issue with this mod. Legionaries, the Cohors Reformata especially, are still by far the BEST infantry on the world.

They're not elite, but they're cost-effective, and that's their key word. With 12 attack (0.13 lethality) they are by far the most skilled swordsmen in the whole game; in Medium, they'll defeat toe vs. toe most rank and file infantry on the game, stand cavalry charges, trash opponents except for their very elites. They come in great numbers for a low cost, so if any pesky enemy elites get in your way, you could just throw not one, but two, more and more legionaries to overwhelm these elites with your numbers.

The key, of course, is to keep your guys in formation and get as many of them per unit as possible fighting. That includes using 3 to 4 rank deep formations, and setting them to fire at will also helps.

The point with Roman infantry is that it is excellent heavy infantry, and cheap. The war winning solution that put thousands of nations under the Roman yoke wasn't a chosen group of elites, it was a mass of well-trained, well equipped core troops. When only 10% of the enemy army is superior to you, it's just plainly easy to overwhelm them with these rock solid infantrymen.

Reminds me of WWII, and how american soldiers complained about the quality of American guns vs. German guns. The point is, they won because they could put a lot of competent troops on the field, not because they prioritized individual elites and very high quality weapons that didn't work (either due to bad projects or chronical lack of ammo) like the Germans did.

Are you playing on Medium?

--------


I'm still not satisfied with the uber phalanxes, the weak pila, and the stat increases for Hellenistic units in general, however. So I still think it arosed because of "pro-hellenism" instead of historical accuracy on the first place.

Edit - And what about the worthless Cohors Imperatoria, worthless Evocati, and worthless Cohors Praetoria? I still think the Romani deserve an uber unit in the game, at least to make the Praetorians worth their costs.

[Chris1959]

After a very polite request to post in the forum, I'll stick my head into this lion's mouth.

I think one thing that is forgotten in arguements about how good/bad the legions were we tend to forget how good they were off the battlefield. The Romans were overall some of the best military emngineers going.

That means they usually turned up for battle well equipped, well fed and well armed. On the whole I get the impression that they suffered relatively low attrition rates and one of the hardest things a commander faces is getting troops to battle in a good condition to fight.

And also the Romans turned siege warfare into an art form that few could match. I've climbed Masada and seen the Roman ramp, an army that could take that fortress could take anything.

Also things we overlook bridging rivers etc, remember Ceasar bridging the Rhine in six days. The trade mark roads, marching camps etc.

These are things that do not show to well in the campaign game but are what set the Romans apart from enemies who in many ways were "better".

[Frostwulf]

@ Frostwulf: Have you found some numbers concerning the minor battles/guerilla in Spain?

Not knowing the facts, I'd guess the Romans had a real hard time at trying to pacify it and lost most of their troops after the conquest of Spain. Well, this reminds me a bit of a modern-day situation: the second US-Iraqi War and its aftermath.

Yours, T.

From my understanding the Romans had a real tough time with Spain, especially in the 150's. The ones I listed in the 190's goes a little in the detail on some of these but not much. I have listed the 3 main battles at the bottom of this post.

The Roman army was never exceptional in our period, but it's standardisation and it's homogenisation meant it lack serious weaknesses in it's core element. The infantry. Having said that, the chronic problems on missile troops and cavalry were only solved at the end of our period.

The Infantry is who I was mainly referring to considering the good cavalry and missile troops tended to be mercenaries(for the most part). The infantry I do think was exceptional(by Caesars time for sure), not the greatest but they were certainly good not just "they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals."

Roman success had two causes; brute force through superior numbers, and ALWAYS maintaining a reserve force.

I know for the battles with the Celts the Romans in general were outnumbered. As far as against the Samnites,Greeks etc. I'm not sure I agree with you, I haven't read enough of the battles yet to make that conclusion. The reserve did play a big part but so did the Roman discipline and triplex acies.

Frostwulf, go home. If you want to ignore something like three or four discussions in recent history on the topic then be my guest. I don't want to see this collapse into the same miasma of suck that you turned the German and Celtic threads into.

I don't recall any of this discussion before except one that dealt with Roman culture, not the soldiers or army. As far as the German(which I started) and Celtic threads how is it that "I" turned them into a "miasma of suck"?

Well that's what you get when you cite:

195 (Spanish Wars) Roman wins 3/ losses 0

I posted this part:

The above list is basic and it didn't go into some of the minor battles/skirmishes, yet in others it did. It certainly gives you a good idea of who won or lost most of the battles. I don't have time to continue but it is along the same lines.

Because c) You post a list which is worthless as source material because it gives you no sort of 'window' to refer to. The list doesn't contain casualties, army make up, terrain advantage for either side, etc. etc. And if history teaches us anything about military efforts, than it is that those tell us a lot more about succes or failure than the amount of battles you won or lost. And for the record: the campaign of Hannibal was one grand failure: IIRC about 50% of his troops were either gone or seriously ill before he even could begin with accomplishing any sort of objectives he had in mind. (Those 50% fell to: 1) Iberians who didn't like the Carhties crossing the borders; 2) Gauls who didn't enjoy it either; 3) Winter.)

My list as said above was basic and made just to show the following post as wrong:

The Marian reforms were made because the Romans kept loosing battles and were on the brink of being destroyed....hence the use of the word reforms, not improvement, not cpd, not anything else which indicates building on something thats almost perfect already.

The Romans did win more battles then they lost.


@Sarcasm-I'm not ignoring your post, I just feel that I answered you from my above reply.
For your second post:

Roman troops were, as far as I can tell of good quality, though certainly nothing extraordinary in the early period. They were brave, possessing a mentality that I sort of see expressed in later Italian armies made up of essentially high quality militias (much like the hoplites a couple centuries earlier). Certain periods of the early legion produced abnormally good quality legionaries during great wars (namely the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, along with the Makedonian Wars). Later, professionalizing the army made a great impact on the quality of the individual soldier and that *is* shown

I concur completely with you on this, I believe I have said something along the same lines as this in the Celtic overpowered thread, I believe I said they were militia/conscript army.

On the sources, there's plenty of Greek and Roman documents that check just how many defeats the Romans suffered during some periods. Meaning, that list is basically bogus. Again resorting to the Iberian scenario, the period of the Celtiberian and the Lusitanian Wars are prime examples with various praetorian and consular armies being defeated several times.

I stated my list was basic and didn't get into those much. Here is what is written during the Spanish Wars of the 190's.
Turda(195)-Spanish Wars
During the Second Punic War the Spanish tribes fought for one side or the other(or both in turn). Soon after the cessation of hostilities they began to fight for themselves-against the Romans. In 197 the Romans divided the administration of the conquered part into two praetorian provinces, Hispania Citerior (Hither Spain) in the east and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain ) in the south. In the same year there was an insurrection in Hither Spain in which a Roman army was routed at an unknown place and the praetor Tuditanus died of his wounds. After this, the Spaniards appeared to simmer down until, two years later, the praetor Minucius routed two Spanish commanders in a pitched battle near Turda (probably Turba), inflicting 12,000 casualties and capturing one of the commanders. It is unsaid but may be presumed that the Spaniards started the fight. Livy, 33:44(4-5) pg.197

Iliturgi(195)-Spanish Wars
Marcus Helvius was retiring from Further Spain with 6,000men at the end of his tour of duty. A large force of Celtiberians, estimated at around 20,000 in number, fell upon him in the vicinity of Ilitugi [near Cabanes]. About 12,000 of the Celtiberians were said to be killed. The town was seized and all the adults were put to death. Livy, 34:10(1-2) pg. 197

Emporiae(195)-Spanish Wars
The senate decided that the escalation of the war in Spain necessitated a commander of consular rank instead of praetor. The province of Hither Spain was assigned to Marcus Porcius Cato, wo landed at Emporiae[Ampurias] just south of the Pyrenees and encamped nearby. While he was there, representatives of the Ilegetes, who were allies of Rome, came to complain that they were being continually attacked by hostile tribesmen and they asked for help. Cato was in a dilemma. He was unwilling to refuse aid to his allies but thought it equally unwise to weaken his modest force. He solved the problem by ordering the embarkation of a third of his force n full view of the delegates. When the latter had departed to report the 'facts', which were also certain to reach the enemy ears, he ordered the disembarkation of the troops. After a period of intensive training, he took his men out one night and led them past the enemy position. At daybreak he drew his men up in battle order and sent thee cohorts up to the ramparts. When the enemy saw them, Cato recalled them as if in flight. The ploy succeeded in enticing the enemy out of their defenses, where upon Cato ordered the cavalry to attack them on both flanks while they were still in disorder. Even with this advantage, the fighting was indecisive. The cavalry on the right were driven back, causing some panic, and so the consul sent two cohorts to outflank the enemy on that wing and attack them in the rear. This redressed the balance. When his men became exhausted, the consul put in fresh reserves who made a vigorous charge in wedge formation. This force the enemy back and then put them to flight back to their camp. When Cato saw this, he ordered the second legion to advance at full speed and attack the camp. The fighting was still robust and the camp was vigorously defended until the consul noticed that the left gate was only thinly manned. He directed the principes and hastati to the weak point, where they burst inside the camp. After that, it became a massacre as the Romans cut down the enemy who jostled and scrummed at the approaches to the gates. The enemy losses were 'heavy'. In consequence of the battle the Spaniards in that area surrendered, as did many other towns along the consul's route until the whole country north of the Ebro had been subdued. Livy, 34: 11-16920; Appian, Spanish Wars,40 pg.197

These came from :Battles of the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Chronological Compendium of 667 Battles to 31Bc, from the Historians of the Ancient World by John Drogo Montagu.

Here is a list from another forum, though I don't know how exact it is.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=15563