Roman Legions seem too weak

[Starforge]

Actually, the quality of Roman arms and armor was often lower than their opponents. Their weapons/armor was cheap and produced in mass.

Their weapons and armor (chainmail, and later the famous 2nd century CE iron band armor) were made of carburized iron of varying quality. Roman metallurgical skills were actually quite poor compared to other civilizations at the time and they never developed steel.

Just out of curiosity - how much did the consistency of the metalworking vary from province to province (say Iberia to Italy to Anatolia) given a particular time period? Just wondering how much local raw materials and the availability of local craftsmen played with the quality of Roman armor.

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. Though even those cultures did confront them in them, and to the contrary of what it says in that post, they did won plenty of battles.

Thanks for being a bit more detailed. Simply saying "bullshit" and moving on makes it easy for one to draw possible misconceptions regarding your motives and prejudices :).

As stated in my on-topic comment, I don't believe that they should be supermen. I also firmly believe that there's a lot more than quality of troops involved in determining who wins a battle (something that you can't really portray in R:TW all too accurately.) Set battles and those mostly garnered from Roman sources are (I'm going out on a limb here) what we have to go on. Argueing that guerilla warfare happened and would skew the numbers since many cultures couldn't fight a set battle might very well be true - but simply not important to the discussion here on a TW forum wherein there is no real guerilla fighting going on in game (and in many cases likely a bit of speculation going on.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just out of curiosity - how much did the consistency of the metalworking vary from province to province (say Iberia to Italy to Anatolia) given a particular time period? Just wondering how much local raw materials and the availability of local craftsmen played with the quality of Roman armor.

Well, I saw a comparisn of Roman swords found in Britain, only one was properly quenched and one (The "Tiberius" Gladius) had had it's edges so ground down that the carbonising on the outside of the blade was completely gone and the smith had worked through to soft iron underneath.

On the other hand Caesar's side-arm in Gaul was probably Iberian Steel.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The ore found in Syria and in Northern Iberia was of such exceptional properties that swords from those regions became widely renown for their quality. It required a good deal of expertise though, but if done properly you would have steel with an edge that lasts for centuries to come -- and the armour you could get was simply impenetrable for arrows. (Because the tips of the arrows would bend on the surface of the armour instead of piercing it.)


On the other hand: in Rome itself you would (especially so in the early days) favour imported gear (the muscle cuirass for instance) from Greek cities to the south.

[Sarcasm]

As stated in my on-topic comment, I don't believe that they should be supermen. I also firmly believe that there's a lot more than quality of troops involved in determining who wins a battle (something that you can't really portray in R:TW all too accurately.) Set battles and those mostly garnered from Roman sources are (I'm going out on a limb here) what we have to go on. Argueing that guerilla warfare happened and would skew the numbers since many cultures couldn't fight a set battle might very well be true - but simply not important to the discussion here on a TW forum wherein there is no real guerilla fighting going on in game (and in many cases likely a bit of speculation going on.)

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 IMO - the late legionaries are just about the best bang for your buck in the mod.

Dogged determination and willingness to adapt is also what made Rome triumph when other powers would have simply give up. Iberia being a prime example - they saw their Vietnam to the end even if it implied mass-murder, genocide, pillaging and mass deportations to do it.

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.

[Starforge]

Well, I saw a comparisn of Roman swords found in Britain, only one was properly quenched and one (The "Tiberius" Gladius) had had it's edges so ground down that the carbonising on the outside of the blade was completely gone and the smith had worked through to soft iron underneath.

On the other hand Caesar's side-arm in Gaul was probably Iberian Steel.

Ah, as I suspected then. We get used to thinking of "mass produced" in modern terms where one BMW is pretty much identical to the next BMW. Must play some hell drawing any real conclusions beyond what the local metals and craftsmen were like (presuming the poor sod wasn't a transfer :p)

Thanks :)

[Sakkura]

the late legionaries are just about the best bang for your buck in the mod.

Actually, it can be argued that the Polybian principes give more value for money than Cohors Reformata/Imperatoria. But the latter is preferable since they can be recruited all over the place.

[blank]

Actually, it can be argued that the Polybian principes give more value for money than Cohors Reformata/Imperatoria. But the latter is preferable since they can be recruited all over the place.

The principes would be experienced soldiers, whereas the reformed legionaries might not be

[HopliteElite]

This has all been very informative. Knowing that history seems to back up some of the weaknesses I mentioned, I am actually enjoying losing less experienced legionaries only to replace them using some sort of sick mass production of men, while I see my enemies slowly dwindling. I am however noticing that my older legionaries that are becoming more experienced are truly becoming fearsome veterans. I still use very little cavalry or archers but I am just more content to throw men at my enemies, only to bring up reserves if things get too hairy, since this, according to this thread, seems to be how the Romans worked. Thanks for all the information, its made my Roman campaign much more fun to know that it all truly is authentic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, as I suspected then. We get used to thinking of "mass produced" in modern terms where one BMW is pretty much identical to the next BMW. Must play some hell drawing any real conclusions beyond what the local metals and craftsmen were like (presuming the poor sod wasn't a transfer :p)

Thanks :)

Yup, pila look pretty much the same wherever they come from but while Italians ones bend Gallic and Iberian ones don't.

[Geoffrey S]

Thanks for being a bit more detailed. Simply saying "bullshit" and moving on makes it easy for one to draw possible misconceptions regarding your motives and prejudices :).

It's a tempting reaction nonetheless. Try reading the Celtic/Sweboz overpowered/underpowered topics and you'll find a topic the smiley was made for.

[Starforge]

It's a tempting reaction nonetheless. Try reading the Celtic/Sweboz overpowered/underpowered topics and you'll find a topic the smiley was made for.

I've followed those over the months. Alot of interesting info buried in those even if some / much of it is opinion. As a layman - and someone who gets most of his opinion from the web / History channel it seems quite evident that nearly all observations about events 2000 plus years ago fall into either general or speculative categories and all too often tainted by a bit of ancestral pride (far too often IMO in the BBC produced ones regarding the Celts.)

Being German / Spainish I guess I should be anti-Roman as well

Sadly, on many levels, I'd just like to get some undiluted facts which is probably impossible until / unless someone invents a time machine and you can actually be there.

[zonks32]

I've followed those over the months. Alot of interesting info buried in those even if some / much of it is opinion. As a layman - and someone who gets most of his opinion from the web / History channel it seems quite evident that nearly all observations about events 2000 plus years ago fall into either general or speculative categories and all too often tainted by a bit of ancestral pride (far too often IMO in the BBC produced ones regarding the Celts.)

Being German / Spainish I guess I should be anti-Roman as well

Sadly, on many levels, I'd just like to get some undiluted facts which is probably impossible until / unless someone invents a time machine and you can actually be there.

Exactly, I listen to a many of these "historians" and "scientists" talk about this and that as fact, in reality its mostly theory, they become so convinced that they close their mind off to any other possibilities and so become ignorant.
If all we know the T-rex could have been pink, even modern history is suspect, take the Iraq war as an example, in 50 years will it go down in history as the Iraq version (invaded by the USA for oil) or the USA (trying to bring democracy to Iraq) who knows ?.
I find many arguments on this forum amusing because every one's argument is based on something some one else has told them or read some where, yet they will claim it is fact.

[Raphia]

I always thought the main reason why there army was reformed was because the farm system that the Roman army was recruited from being destroyed.

[Zaknafien]

Nah, that hypothesis is way overblown and no credible evidence supports it, really. The whole idea of the population crisis has been called into question by modern scholars, actually.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well there was an agrarian problem but it seems to be more on the order of people not wanting to go on service lest a senator grab their land while they were away, rather than an actual lack of farmers.

[Dayve]

Well, later in the empire you can understand... Who the hell would want to don heavy armour and fight against mounted Huns!? I certainly wouldn't.

I'd be the first to chop off my middle finger.

[Zaknafien]

indeed. Popular wars were, well, popular, with no shortage of volunteers to recruit. If the prospect of booty or slaves was high, plenty of farmers would enlist. IF the war was unpopular or the prospect of riches poor, there would be a dearth of military-age men to recruit.

[Sakkura]

Well there was an agrarian problem but it seems to be more on the order of people not wanting to go on service lest a senator grab their land while they were away, rather than an actual lack of farmers.

Yeah. Part of the social unrest from the late second century BC and on was even caused by such problems, so a reform of recruitment and/or the agrarian system was called for. The Gracchus-brothers didn't succeed with their agrarian reforms, so instead it ended being Marius and his recruitment reform that went ahead.

[Zaknafien]

not really. Marius wasnt the first to recruit from the proletariat, and even after him standard class armies were still recruited. "Marian reform" is just a handy name placed on the epoch by some people. It was really the Social War that normalized the recruitement of capite censi soldiers.

[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".

[Intranetusa]

Ah, as I suspected then. We get used to thinking of "mass produced" in modern terms where one BMW is pretty much identical to the next BMW. Must play some hell drawing any real conclusions beyond what the local metals and craftsmen were like (presuming the poor sod wasn't a transfer :p)

Thanks :)

Still, Roman arms/armor varied greatly in quality - and they never had steel.
This basically invalidates half the crap the history channel does on the lorica segementa... (I saw once they said the lorica segementa that tested <which for some reason they used modern high quality steel> could stop a scorpion/ballista bolt....which is really bullsh*t

[Intranetusa]

Exactly, I listen to a many of these "historians" and "scientists" talk about this and that as fact, in reality its mostly theory, they become so convinced that they close their mind off to any other possibilities and so become ignorant.
If all we know the T-rex could have been pink, even modern history is suspect, take the Iraq war as an example, in 50 years will it go down in history as the Iraq version (invaded by the USA for oil) or the USA (trying to bring democracy to Iraq) who knows ?.
I find many arguments on this forum amusing because every one's argument is based on something some one else has told them or read some where, yet they will claim it is fact.

Hmmm, zonk, in scientific terms, theory is used differently from everyday terms. In science, a theory is used to explain a fact. That is why gravity is called a "theory" - theory of relativity and theory of universal gravitation.

As for the T-Rex being pink, if it was pink, all its prey would spot it from 10 miles away, and all the pink dinosaurs would've died out before any significant population developed... >.<

[Bava]

Still, Roman arms/armor varied greatly in quality - and they never had steel.
This basically invalidates half the crap the history channel does on the lorica segementa... (I saw once they said the lorica segementa that tested <which for some reason they used modern high quality steel> could stop a scorpion/ballista bolt....which is really bullsh*t

IIRC, the "excuse" for using modern steel was that´s comparable with ferrum noricum. I dont think romans used it for (mass-) producing armor, though.

[Starforge]

Still, Roman arms/armor varied greatly in quality - and they never had steel.
This basically invalidates half the crap the history channel does on the lorica segementa... (I saw once they said the lorica segementa that tested <which for some reason they used modern high quality steel> could stop a scorpion/ballista bolt....which is really bullsh*t

Hehe - some of their representations leave much to be desired scientifically. I suppose they're aimed at a bunch of eager young minds in classrooms but even then I find it suspect at best.

One episode they showed the difference between the recurve nomadic bow and the western longbow. The replicas were both approximately (gotta love that) half the draw of what they think they were from the time period (anyone else see how once those 2 disclaimers are made - watching the rest is like reading a fantasy book?) Then, since the recurve had a bit more velocity on the arrow (no mention, btw, if the arrows in question were appropriate to the period and culture) hence the recurve was the better bow.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but I'm pretty sure I didn't learn much from that demonstration.

[Starforge]

Hmmm, zonk, in scientific terms, theory is used differently from everyday terms. In science, a theory is used to explain a fact. That is why gravity is called a "theory" - theory of relativity and theory of universal gravitation.

As for the T-Rex being pink, if it was pink, all its prey would spot it from 10 miles away, and all the pink dinosaurs would've died out before any significant population developed... >.<

Maybe that explains why we see things in color....the original dinosaurs were color blind and seeing the pink became a survival trait!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmmm, zonk, in scientific terms, theory is used differently from everyday terms. In science, a theory is used to explain a fact. That is why gravity is called a "theory" - theory of relativity and theory of universal gravitation.

As for the T-Rex being pink, if it was pink, all its prey would spot it from 10 miles away, and all the pink dinosaurs would've died out before any significant population developed... >.<

Two things.

First: Law & Theory are not the same. Law is about (proven) fact; Theory is about explaining things which arise. Theory doesn't mean fact - in fact it's one of the very few words in the science vocabulary to retain its everyday meaning. Evolution? Theory. Proven? No, not yet.
1+1=2? Law. Proven? Yes. This has been theory for thousands of years!

Second: does aforementioned prey have the ability to see in colour? .... Because if they don't then being pink is much the same as being blue, or being yellow. An optional extra.

[Zaknafien]

actually evolution is proven many times over.. Theory is used in science as the best possibile explanation for something, such as the "Theory" of gravity. or the "theory" of relativity. Same thing with the "Theory" of evolution.

[Sakkura]

Two things.

First: Law & Theory are not the same. Law is about (proven) fact; Theory is about explaining things which arise. Theory doesn't mean fact - in fact it's one of the very few words in the science vocabulary to retain its everyday meaning. Evolution? Theory. Proven? No, not yet.
1+1=2? Law. Proven? Yes. This has been theory for thousands of years!

Second: does aforementioned prey have the ability to see in colour? .... Because if they don't then being pink is much the same as being blue, or being yellow. An optional extra.

There are no natural laws, they are all theories. Hence it is more correct to refer to the theory of gravity than the law of gravity.

The mathematic example you refer to is outside (natural) science, so that's under a different system.

[Sakkura]

actually evolution is proven many times over.. Theory is used in science as the best possibile explanation for something, such as the "Theory" of gravity. or the "theory" of relativity. Same thing with the "Theory" of evolution.

Yeah, theory is the next best thing to fact in science. A theory is something that there is very strong evidence in favor of. Newer ideas which are unproven or less rigorously tested are referred to as hypotheses.

The colloquial term "theory" corresponds better with the scientific term "hypothesis" than the scientific term "theory".

[Starforge]

actually evolution is proven many times over.. Theory is used in science as the best possibile explanation for something, such as the "Theory" of gravity. or the "theory" of relativity. Same thing with the "Theory" of evolution.

Depends probably on how you use it. Proving how certain attributes have "evolved" as a response to environmental conditions on certain species can likely be done. Proving that human beings evolved from primates still requires some leaps of faith since we seem to be missing those smoking guns that positively lead us from primate to modern man.

I'm not argueing creationism - merely stating that while the "theory" of evolution (in the manner in which it is usually referred to) might make much sense it's hardly fact.