Pro's/Con's of Dominate/Foederate Roman - Choices...

[nigelemsen]

Hi,

Working on a 25mm 800pt none competition specific Late Roman and not going for the usual swarm option. With the prefered selections my final lists have come down to:
dominate Roman: Max BGs of Superior Cavalry/LH, Armd, JLS or LSp/SW with min Legions and units of MF,Armd,Average,Lsp/Sw + supporting LF and a frankish ally TC with 12x HF.
OR.
Fod Roman: Max Bg's of Superior Cav, Bow/sw, A unit of 12x Fod Foot to aim at Pikes etc. and units of Prot MF, Lsp/sw.

Does the "all round" options affored by drilled armd bow cav (Fod Roman) out way the ability to have the Armd MF ,Lsp/Sw (Dom Roman) please?

The army lists come both out at 13/14 bgs pending final tweaking of the list.

[timurilenk]

This is interesting - I am looking for an army that can beat the list that Nigel eventually comes up with

[david53]

This is interesting - I am looking for an army that can beat the list that Nigel eventually comes up with

Maybe Early saxon....

[paulburton]

Nigel

I am not convinced about maximising the cavalry in either of these. For the Dominate you want to make the Legions the superior troops as only 50% of BGs can by Superior and these gain the most. The cavalry is nothing special as most of your opponents have horsemen which are just as good. If you want more than the minimum horsemen go for the Alan Allies.

For the sort of army you are looking for I think Feoderate fits the bill beter. The Bow/Sword Equites are very good (Lt Spear/Sword cavalry are not up to much - and you already have the Frankish Impact foot you wanted. Then you get a Hun ally and be Flavius Aetius in the 430s/40s crushing the Burgundians. If you want a cavalry heavy army you want Huns. Then you go for a mix of Bow/Sword cavalry and Light Horse Archers and look to run rings round the enemy.

Most contemporary opponents have protected foot so armoured gives an advantage, but not having it will not put you down on the POA.

[ValentinianVictor]

There are several interesting 'historical' options you could look at- The Clibanarii heavy armies of Constantius II, The 'combined arms' army of Julian during his Sasanid Persian expedition (legiones, Auxilia, Clibanarii, 'Skythian Auxilliaries' (Gothic mercenaries?)), The legione, Auxilia and Clibanarii based army Julian fielded in Gaul. Richomeres army almost totally made up of auxilliary troops that fought the Goths at Ad Salices etc etc etc.

[nigelemsen]

ValentinianVictor: Thank you for the historical input... I always try to theme my armies...

Paul: Points taken, but letting go of Armoured Foot.. This sunday those 5's saved my LRR from testing so many times... I suppose the Roman (average) protected foot would have to be in 8's or 9's to cut back on the amount shooting cmt's from being hit with only a 4. But the barbarian foot can be helped by the armies IC i like to use...

mmm.... ponder ponder...

[nikgaukroger]

There are several interesting 'historical' options you could look at- The Clibanarii heavy armies of Constantius II,

Well he apparantly increaded the numbers of them but we don't have a record of how many he actually had and I doubt there were so many that you'd call his army "clibanarii heavy"

The 'combined arms' army of Julian during his Sasanid Persian expedition (legiones, Auxilia, Clibanarii, 'Skythian Auxilliaries' (Gothic mercenaries?)),

Are Clibanarii mentioned in this campaign on the Roman side? Can't recall either way although it would be surprising if they weren't there - all Roman armies of this period were sort of "combined arms" but the infantry was the most important arm.

The legione, Auxilia and Clibanarii based army Julian fielded in Gaul.

Single catafract unit IIRC.

[nigelemsen]

decided on Principaite Roman, Post 260Ad with Legionaires as Superior, impact, SSw, Protected... @44pts a BG and take my chances on shooty armies...