Less Civilized Factions

[Aemilius Paulus]

But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.

Not at all. No, that was not the point I was making. I despise those sorts of arguments myself. Not at least because the Domináte armies were tailored to deal with entirely other threats. And very well too. But once again, that is entirely not what I wanted or did debate about.

Now, I did mention the fact that Romans had a hard time recruiting soldiers, but I will make no judgment on the overall fighting quality of the army itself. Just the state of the Empire.

All this is evidenced by my previous post:

I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down.

But being an ardent debater myself, I went ahead and argued anyway:

But while we are at it...

[Kikaz]

I don't seem able to play those factions, well I did tried many times. Factions like Aedui, Arverni, Casse, Getai, Lusotannan, Saba, Sweboz and ... (Romani )

I mean it's not I dislike them in a sense they are "barbarians", and I do enjoy nomads factions (for ancient and medieval Chinese they are considered barbarians). I just can't seem to help myself play those factions. All of them, after playing a few turns results to quit. May be it's due to their buildings? Or their units are not consider professional army as a whole?

You may ask why the Romans too? I don't know, they still look less civilized to me during 272BC. But I love the AD Romans, especially helping the struggled WRE.

Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions.

See, I am the opposite. I hate playing as the Hellenes (their phalanxes make things... too easy.)
Those city dwellers with their olive oil bathing and imperial ambitions... THEIR less advanced

anyway, I do like playing as Pontos and Hayasdan though...

[chenkai11]

Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians.

[Cyclops]

Oh the Sweboz are an ace faction to play. Their bodyguards fight like lions* and they need too. There's something about infantry generals, you just can't bug out like the horse boys can and with the lack of armoured line troops for the Sweboz you will find FM's getting bloody all the time.

I play on general-cam and you get a strong sense of putting your guys in harms way, again and again. I love the way the chevrons stack up like honourable scars. You need to plough in with the few heavies you have and savagely claw at the enemies flanks with the rest of your poor guys, but don't let your boys get sucked into a slugfest. Its rip and retreat, ambush and fall back, until the enemy are panting and ready to rout.

When you finally get the celto-German reforms c.190 you will be a practiced infantry warrior, and the next phase of tackling foes head on will be juicy revenge time. Sacking Roma is one of this game's great rewards.

...
I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, ....

No there was one, and it will be summed up in a 2-hour cable TV special consisting of 1 hour 59 minutes of waffling, and some dramatic music.

It can be adduced from a single reference in an obscure source "discovered" by a non-proffessional historian with a bad haircut, and involves fungus on the rye or lead pipes contaminating the water.

Anything more than that is getting needlessly complicated.


*"We do both kinds of combat: hand-to-hand spear and hand-to-hand sword!"

[king of thracia]

As Getai
you have armored falxmen and armored archers with high lethality swords (from the Chersonesos region), and armored lancer/archers. An army that will annihilate cavalry of all kinds. You can roleplay fighting the nomads and the like. And you have pimp cavalry of your own, to dominate infantry.

Thraikian peltasts are almost overpowered, being able to do anything, with Getai being one of only 2 factions able to recruit them without resorting to mercenaries. Getai have other advantages and characteristics, but all factions do, and these are the real reasons I play them.

[Macilrille]

Haha, I'm not much of a history guy so whatever I know I got from movies Though those battles were interesting, they happened a while past EB times didn't they? Whatever

Arausio, greatest Roman defeat ever was inflicted by Cimbri and Teutons in 105 BC. Sort of in the middle of EB timeframe if you keep to historical expansion. Close to the end in a normal game. Hadrianopolis was 378 AD and outside it yes, but let me instead site some other actual battles between Roman armies and German ones within EB Timeframe.

• 112 BC, Noriea, Cimbrii "confederation" vs Res Publica Romani, Cimbrii victory.
• 109 BC, Narbonensis and Burdigala, same. Though it can be argued that ambush and feigned retreat tactics played a role in these battles.
• 105 BC Arausio.
• 102 BC, Aquae Sextiae, Teutons (part of the "confederation") vs Res Publica Romana, Rome's "new army" wins (Marian Reforms, though he did not in fact reform much).
• 101 BC, Battle of Vercellae, Cimbrii vs Res Publica Romana, Roman win.
  
• 60 BC, Magetobriga, Averni and Sequianii with Suebi support/mercenaries under Ariovistus vs Aedui. Aedui loss. Though it is not a Rome-German battle and we do not know how it was fought, the Germans were apparently decisive in it and when they confront Rome two years later it is as an army ready to do battle, not as ambushers.
• 58 BC, Battle of Vosges, Suebi vs Caivs Ivlivs Caesar, Roman win.

If you look just after the EB timeframe, there are numerous actual battles between Arminus' alliance and the Romans as Germanicus attempted to resubjugate the lost province, as well as one between Arminus Cherusci + allies and Marbod's Marcomanni + allies of which Tacitus says that the armies were ordered in the same way as the Roman one...

As for getting knowledge from films I sincerely hope you are jesting, for you might as well get no knowledge; ignorance is better than wrong information. And, I might add, by installing EB you have agreed to read more history.

Seek enlightenment!!!

[Macilrille]

Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians.

No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.

[fleaza]

ummm, wow this argument started because i said i got the feeling they were inferior.

its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.

[Macilrille]

Well... read Tacitus' Annals on the campaign, then read some Sagas and Saxo and you are good to go.

No barbarians are not grand in building cities and infrastructure, nor did they write books...

Barbarians' greatness is in their heroism!!

[athanaric]

As for getting knowledge from films I sincerely hope you are jesting, for you might as well get no knowledge; ignorance is better than wrong information.

Indeed, most films featuring Germanic people(s) are either horrible or totally inaccurate - actually, both.


I imagine that in the hands of a skilled player, the Getai are one of the most fearsome factions. They combine the badassery of the Swêboz with the versatility of the Seleukids.

[chenkai11]

No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.

I don't really meant Germany don't have great warlords. What I meant was, imaging like you used to lived in big cities, like Las Vegas and you love it. Then you transfer to a farm land in Australia. Although both are nice place. Or if you used and love to goto work with a tie, but then you have to wear jeans with your new job. Or more precise example, ahh... hey Ceasar, a Gaul army just surrendered to our side, and we need all your professional Roman soldiers to reinforce the eastern front, so why not try out the new army, they are all yours... well at least they are twice the size of your original army. If you know what I mean.

Its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.

We are on the same boat.

[Bucefalo]

I enjoy all factions, maybe a bit less the steppe factions because i don´t know much about them and i love infantry warfare but hate horse archers.

[Phalanx300]

I don't really meant Germany don't have great warlords. What I meant was, imaging like you used to lived in big cities, like Las Vegas and you love it. Then you transfer to a farm land in Australia. Although both are nice place. Or if you used and love to goto work with a tie, but then you have to wear jeans with your new job. Or more precise example, ahh... hey Ceasar, a Gaul army just surrendered to our side, and we need all your professional Roman soldiers to reinforce the eastern front, so why not try out the new army, they are all yours... well at least they are twice the size of your original army. If you know what I mean.

Actually Ceasar said that the Sweboz force he faced was the most disciplined force he had ever seen, Germanic Tribes most disciplined, and that from a great general with disciplined troops like the legionairries. I think many are underestimating the discipline "barbarians" can have. Its like the Scottish pikemen.

[Cyclops]

Actually Ceasar said that the Sweboz force he faced was the most disciplined force he had ever seen, Germanic Tribes most disciplined, and that from a great general with disciplined troops like the legionairries. I think many are underestimating the discipline "barbarians" can have. Its like the Scottish pikemen.

While I take your general point, that supposedly uncivilised folks can in fact show amazing discipline (eg Zulus disciplined formations vs British, or rather unsophisticated Spartans vs very civilised Persians) I'd take Caesar with a grain of salt. The Gallic wars is an extended self advertisment, designed to make his conquest of Gaul look as impressive as Pompey's conquests in the east. Everyone he fought was the baddest, meanest, tallest, most lime-moustached, most disciplined, most ferocious etc.

I enjoy all factions, maybe a bit less the steppe factions because i don´t know much about them and i love infantry warfare but hate horse archers.

Yes aside from the Romans (who I guess I resent because they won) and the Mako's (who I have played to death) the steppe cultures are my least played option these days.

Is there a decent survey of their culture and military history that might inspire me to try? I must say the way their bulding tree works does baffle me a little, maybe I will give it more of a shot in EB2 when it comes out...

[Dunadd]

can anyone give me a reason to play those factions.

To kill those Roman dogs?

Seriously, if you don't enjoy playing barbarian factions, don't play them - it's not compulsory. I mainly enjoy Carthaginians and Dacians, but in a computer game is pretty much aesthetics that decide who plays what faction. Pretty much all of them (including 'civilised' factions like the Romans and Greeks) were very barbaric, uncivilised and brutal, much like 9/11 and Abu Ghraib more recently, but without even the modern amount of dissenters against atrocities.

[Kikaz]

Indeed, most films featuring Germanic people(s) are either horrible or totally inaccurate - actually, both.


I imagine that in the hands of a skilled player, the Getai are one of the most fearsome factions. They combine the badassery of the Swêboz with the versatility of the Seleukids.

Being defeated by the Getai is essentially the EB equivalent of rape... They had their way with you and there ain't a thing you can do about it.

[Kevin]

Being defeated by the Getai is essentially the EB equivalent of rape... They had their way with you and there ain't a thing you can do about.

It's the Roman's fault for dressing that way.

[DaciaJC]

Being defeated by the Getai is essentially the EB equivalent of rape... They had their way with you and there ain't a thing you can do about.

This is making its way into my sig...

[Kikaz]

This is making its way into my sig...

I had the feeling someone would sig it...

[Kevin]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

[chenkai11]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

I do have a plan for this faction, to eradicate everything in their path. Slaughtering, looting, destroying, leaving nothing behind and move on. Start from homeland traveling west until spain, then down to africa and travel east until India and up to SAKA region then back to homeland. Objective is - a whole map of Eleutheroi, except Sauromatae homeland. Army strategy is - outside homeland region use all mercenaries and regional units in front, keeping every factional units survive the journey as much as the gods wish. Economy strategy is - use all possible resources to upkeep a 3 full stack army without negative income. If necessary will spend sometime in a big city or two before destroying it. Spies and diplomats will play a important role here, as allies and ambushes are necessary for this insane plan.

[Kikaz]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

I haven't played them yet, but they seem to become a "tan-death" quite often and dish out many a nut cracking.

[Jormungand]

Actually, barbarians were simply reckless, not brave. Most were notorious for wavering quickly, after the initial charge did not break the enemy. Romans were definitely not that in the Republican and Principate - they very rarely ran unless the situation was hopeless, and even then, many units would continue to fight while others fled. And Roman legionaries were by no means elite, upper-class troops equal to the "barbarian" bodyguard units, nobles and such. But yet Romans fought better than most of those upper-crust barbarians.

Hannibal trusted his Gauls the least, and he turned them into cannon fodder, putting them in the centre, where they took the brunt of casualties and almost always ran, enticing the Romans to fall into the trap. Even the Spaniards did better. Of course, then came the cunctatio, which denied Hannibal of his tactical brilliance.

At the same times, the Romans did turn into cowards by the late Roman times. I cannot help but recount when Valentian, (frustrated at the decades of having to deal with potential recruits who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, despite the laws forbidding very specifically such form of self-mutilation) simply instituted the penalty of death by slow immolation. Then came Theodosius who repealed that, and instead decreed that landowners must supply another recruit for every mutilated one. That stopped it, but the problem did resurface some time later. That is when the Romans turned to the "barbarians" to almost wholly supply their army with soldiers.

Still, just think the desperation of the Romans - to slice off your thumb just to avoid the army... Your opposable appendage, with one that you are enabled to grasp things. Of course, the streaks of defeats, the innumerable hordes of invading nomads and other tribes, the much lower professionalism of the Roman Army, but still... The Romans were indeed decadent and pampered by then.

Damn well said - but you'd have to be pretty brave to fight naked. GAESATAE!!

[king of thracia]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

Now now,
you really only need the Roxolani riders, and
you start out near the ocean and the greek coasts.

You are close to Rhomphaiaphoroi recruiting grounds; units which can annihilate armored horsemen while standing up to missile fire. You can get by with Drapanai against Hellenic and western armored cavalry. Thureopherontes Toxotai recruited from the Chersonesos region bordering you are armored composite bow infantry archers with high lethality swords. You can recruit the Roxolani riders anywhere you expand, and even if you are driven out of the steppe the coastal cities provide a booming economy anyway.

So you have a dominating cavalry you can recruit anywhere, quality foot archery to mow down all kinds of archer enemies, horse slaughtering infantry, and a booming economy all within close geographical range. My advice is to abandon the steppe and look south.

I don't like the steppe myself. But Sarmatians actually have quite a bit going for them. In fact, I think I will play them next, soon as I'm done promoting civilization ruling from the greatest throne in the world, ARCHE SELEUKEIA

[Raiuga]

Lusotannan are quite fun to play. With the Lusos + Iberians units you will have quite a professional army (maybe because of their mercenary ways). The only downfall is their lack of infrastructure. I currently want to make some building available for them (better roads, schools, maybe mines) to roleplay some influence from celtic and carthagian (if someone can help me with that I would appreciate)

[Apázlinemjó]

Lusotannan are quite fun to play. With the Lusos + Iberians units you will have quite a professional army (maybe because of their mercenary ways). The only downfall is their lack of infrastructure. I currently want to make some building available for them (better roads, schools, maybe mines) to roleplay some influence from celtic and carthagian (if someone can help me with that I would appreciate)

Agreed, those Iberian Lancers are the best cavalry on the west and their heavy infantry is just more than enough to repel anything "civilised" back to the owner. However they have two major faults, the first one is the poor economy, even if you have the whole Iberian peninsula, you can't finance more than two full stacks, the second is the lack of capable missile units.

But my favourite "less civilized" faction is definitely Sweboz. Huge woods, unarmored units, mysterious history, fearsome reputation and Worgozez .

[Aemilius Paulus]

but you'd have to be pretty brave to fight naked. GAESATAE!!

Perhaps, but not quite so. Most troops of the Antiquity never had any funds for armour anyway. And it is not as if simple clothing actually protect you...

[Raiuga]

Agreed, those Iberian Lancers are the best cavalry on the west

Cataphracts of the West

[The General]

Actually, barbarians were simply reckless, not brave. Most were notorious for wavering quickly, after the initial charge did not break the enemy. Romans were definitely not that in the Republican and Principate - they very rarely ran unless the situation was hopeless, and even then, many units would continue to fight while others fled. And Roman legionaries were by no means elite, upper-class troops equal to the "barbarian" bodyguard units, nobles and such. But yet Romans fought better than most of those upper-crust barbarians.

How about Battle of Telamon, where the Insubri, Boii and Taurini fought to death even after seeing their Gaesatae allies perish or retreat from their positions?

It's true, that in general the Celts put much focus on the initial charge, but it's worth noting that the way of Celtic warfare was a lot different from what Rome and other organized states had become used to which were much more organized with clearer and often politically driven motives.

Most of the Celtic warfare were small scale clashes between neighbouring tribes' warrior groups, and just as much focus was put the superiority of invidual over his enemies (which exhibited in the head collecting practises, for example), the battles may have been intended to have been solved quickly - he who won the initial clash, established superiority over the opposing force. In smaller communities/populations, warfare has a more ritualistic nature and it's not unheard of that battles have been fought without a drop of blood being shed, as the value of invidual members of the tribe is greater than in nations whose populations are counted in the millions.

So, when Celtic warriors meet cohensive enemy units whose inviduals do not engage in one-on-one duels but rather push on as one solid mass, bashing with their shields and stabbing with their swords, it's quite possible that the Celts could have been at a loss as to how to defeat such a formation. Seemingly unstoppable, it's no wonder if they would've demoralized a tribal host (at least ones like the Celts' who fought primarily in mêlée and not in skirmisher formations).

[Macilrille]

Most of the Celtic warfare were small scale clashes between neighbouring tribes' warrior groups, and just as much focus was put the superiority of invidual over his enemies (which exhibited in the head collecting practises, for example), the battles may have been intended to have been solved quickly - he who won the initial clash, established superiority over the opposing force. In smaller communities/populations, warfare has a more ritualistic nature and it's not unheard of that battles have been fought without a drop of blood being shed, as the value of invidual members of the tribe is greater than in nations whose populations are counted in the millions.

While you are in general right, this view is couloured by a romanticised view of primitive societies, wrong; and very firmly refuted by Lawrence Keely in,
Keely, Lawrence H.; War before Civilisation, Oxford 1996.

I encourage everybody to read it. It gives great insight in tribal warfare. Warfare that is in effect even more total and horrid than that which socalled civilised peoples fight.