Roman Legion and Warbands

[Skanvak]

Because I hardly think it is true to reality and I don't care a penny for balance (cost for Romans will increase period).

My main point is that Roman must have a different weapon system as the Barbarian. Being drilled and better armour is not a difference true to reality. They should behave differently in the rules. Saying that roman are too strong as a refrusal for change is sterile. May be The Gauls need a different system than swordmen (though I don't think) or give their better troops Swordmen+. May be romans should have light weapons + shieldwall instead of swordmen (gladius are short sword that are not effecient). I am open to proposition. I just want them base on facts and not system/balance only argument.

I hope to debate with people with historical insight and interested in the realism of the simulation.

[dave_r]

Because I hardly think it is true to reality and I don't care a penny for balance.

Nice.

My main point is that Roman must have a different weapon system as the Barbarian. Being drilled and better armour is not a difference true to reality.

Isn't it? why not?

They should behave differently in the rules. Saying that roman are too strong as a refrusal for change is sterile. May be The Gauls need a different system than swordmen (though I don't think) or give their better troops Swordmen+. May be romans should have light weapons + shieldwall instead of swordmen (gladius are short sword that are not effecient). I am open to proposition. I just want them base on facts and not system/balance only argument.

The Roman pilum might be a reason why they are classed as impact foot as this was considered an advantage during the charge?

I hope to debate with people with historical insight and interested in the realism of the simulation.

Sounds like you want to debate with somebody who agrees with you...

[philqw78]

Because I hardly think it is true to reality and I don't care a penny for balance (cost for Romans will increase period).

My main point is that Roman must have a different weapon system as the Barbarian. Being drilled and better armour is not a difference true to reality. They should behave differently in the rules. Saying that roman are too strong as a refrusal for change is sterile. May be The Gauls need a different system than swordmen (though I don't think) or give their better troops Swordmen+. May be romans should have light weapons + shieldwall instead of swordmen (gladius are short sword that are not effecient). I am open to proposition. I just want them base on facts and not system/balance only argument.

I hope to debate with people with historical insight and interested in the realism of the simulation.

You are just going to complicate the rules and end with the same interaction. Whats the point?

[Mehrunes]

Sounds like you want to debate with somebody who agrees with you...

As I'm not one of those, I'll give up. Just re-read Nik's answer in post 2.

[Polkovnik]

Or even better, maybe he can provide historic examples to illustrate why the interactions don't work as they should between Roman legionaries and some other troop types.

My historical knowledge is limited.....

What you don't seem to understand is that the important thing is the outcome, not the detail of how the fighting took place.
If you are going to argue that something is wrong with the rules, then it should be based on one of three things :
A) They do not give the correct historical outcome, in which case you need to give historical examples to back it up
B) There are problems with gameplay
C) Balance, i.e points values

Your example seems to be type A, but you haven't explained what outcome does not match what we would expect from our knowledge of history. Look at some of the other threads on here, for example the one on ancient cavalry, to see the sort of historical examples that are used to illustrate arguments. Saying "I saw it on the History Channel" isn't going to hold much sway I'm afraid.
I'm not trying to be elitist or snobby here - my historical knowledge is also limited compared to many other posters on here, so I tend to contribute more on the B and C type issues on this forum.

[grahambriggs]

The Roman form a shield wall (that is a continuous line of shields touching each other a bit like a greek phalanx), of which they put themself totally behind. Think like they put the shield over there head in order to offer no weak point.

Once contact is made the Romans soldier will try to maintain the shield wall and strikes from under the shield so as to never expose their head.

The main conclusion I have from this report on roman tactics are the following :
_ Cohesion is an avantage against warband. The Legion would be put on equal footing only once the shield wall is broken. So corelatively, there should be a loss to the roman legion POA when they lose cohesion.
_ Roman Legion should be nearly imprevious to Pike as it is reported in most battle as the Pike won't pass the Shield wall (though they will be push back ultimatly with very to no losses as they cannot close to the phalanx either to push with their shield) Right now The phalanx have advantage in melee which I find somewhat wrong.
_ Roman Qualify as impact foot to represent their pilum use before closing in, so I guess they should remain Impact foot.


Big shield used in formation (like Greek Phalank or Roman legion or Early Frank) have a bigger impact on tactical combat than armour (even very heavy). That why I think that it should be an item by itself. Once disorganized, the Shield Wall lose its effect.

Greek phlanx would be : Spear, Shield Wall, When Disorganized they become spear.
Roman Legion would be : Swordmen, Shield Wall, when disorganized they will just fight as swordmen which they are (that would explin why they defeat Pike in rough terrain). To even thing out, I beleive the Roman superior and elite legion should not be made swordmen plus as the gladius is not a long weapons and therefore not that much good for duel.

I think that this "bonus" should not stack with Impact foot and should only play while receiving a charge (when charging the shild wall cannot really be maitain) if this bonus is used in Impact at all (I beleive it should be used in impact though).

It's a shame that the evidence that you have is an historian's interpretation of other sources rather than a quote from an ancient source. Historian interpretation of the past changes with time. Not sure if Nik can recall any sources that would support this? Certainly roman shield shapes changed over time and some (the big rectangular ones for example) would lend themselves to this style.

It sounds like the capability you are looking for in melee is "spears". If steady, these stop the enemy sword POA. Spears are not as good as Impact foot in the impact phase though - so they would be a POA down to Gauls. Not a bad reflection of that interaction IMHO (probably better than the current one).

However, it would mess up the legion vs Pike interaction. Spear are weak against Pike. It would also, IMHO, make legions too good vs cataphracts. So if we have to have one classification, the current one is better generally.

Of course, we could have a "legion" troop type. Counts as IF/Sw against all but enemy IF, in which case they count as Offentsive Spearmen. That would require a change to one or two army lists though.

[Skanvak]

It's a shame that the evidence that you have is an historian's interpretation of other sources rather than a quote from an ancient source.

I agree. I was expecting people with more historical evidence would step in to back or denied this. My initial Post in the PC forum was a "Why" question. I was asked to move it here.

For quote viewtopic.php?p=193598#193598 Dsellers gave some and is looking at the same problem as I do.

It sounds like the capability you are looking for in melee is "spears".

"Spears" seems to include both Shield wall effect and Spear effect. So yes, I am trying to get an effect similar to spear (shieldwall) but not the spear (reach weapon) effect for the Roman Legion. That why I though of the shield wall as a separate weapon type, but your suggestion might be good too.

[nikgaukroger]

It's a shame that the evidence that you have is an historian's interpretation of other sources rather than a quote from an ancient source. Historian interpretation of the past changes with time. Not sure if Nik can recall any sources that would support this? Certainly roman shield shapes changed over time and some (the big rectangular ones for example) would lend themselves to this style.

IMO there is next to bugger all useful actual detail on the mechanics of Roman fighting drill in the sources and all reconstructions of their fighting methods are speculative at best - and sometimes re-enactors come up with some very odd stuff an example would be the strange should height spear use favoured by some late Roman re-enactors.

[ValentinianVictor]

There are some historians who feel the Late Romans in particular fought more as a 'phalanx' and that their weaponry reflected this.

Its very difficult to determine from even a descriptive author such as Ammianus how the Romans fought, as in some battles we definately have the Romans throwing their heavy weapon/spear (and during the joint reigns of Valentinian I and Valens there are two mentions of troops throwing 'pilis'), yet at Adrianopolis he states that the infantry retained their spears for so long that '...they became shattered through repeated blows'

And the Spatha was a longer sword than the gladius, and more effective.

Evidence from the Parthian and Sasanid campaigns suggests that the Romans developed successful tactics to use against Cataphracts, beyond that of just arming legionaries with two-handed clubs!

[Skanvak]

I am making research on the net, and I welcome reference on books. Valentinian do you have reference on this historians?

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/tactics.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-roman-army-a247067

I don't really know in which sense this goes. They seems to imply that the avantage what due more to switching of soldier every 15 minutes than everything else. The problem of these is that except the wiki they don't really compare to Gauls.
They did imply that Roman used phalanx tactics before 300 BC. So there shields was used as a shild wall until the barbarization but the wiki seem to imply that Gauls did use similar tactics though less trained. Superior training is seen as an advantage in the battle but is it cohesion or simply experience?

[ValentinianVictor]

I am making research on the net, and I welcome reference on books. Valentinian do you have reference on this historians?

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/tactics.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-roman-army-a247067

I don't really know in which sense this goes. They seems to imply that the avantage what due more to switching of soldier every 15 minutes than everything else. The problem of these is that except the wiki they don't really compare to Gauls.
They did imply that Roman used phalanx tactics before 300 BC. So there shields was used as a shild wall until the barbarization but the wiki seem to imply that Gauls did use similar tactics though less trained. Superior training is seen as an advantage in the battle but is it cohesion or simply experience?

My main interest is the Roman Empire from 300AD to 400AD.
I can recommend these books-

Martijn Nicasie (1998)- ‘Twilight of Empire: The Roman army from the reign of Diocletian until the battle of Adrianople’
Hugh Elton (2004)- ‘Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425’
Richard Cromwell (1998)- ‘The Rise and Decline of the Late Roman Field Army’
Phil Barker (1981)- ‘The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome’
John Peddie (1997)- ‘The Roman War Machine’
Pat Southern & Karen R. Dixon (2000)- ‘The Late Roman Army’
Benjamin Isaac (2004)- 'The Limits of Empire- The Roman Army in the East'
A. D. Lee (2007) 'War in Late Antiquity: A Social History'
Adrian Goldsworthy (2004) 'The Complete Roman Army'
Adrian Goldsworthy (2007) 'Roman Warfare'
Michael Whitby 'Rome at War AD 293-696'
N.P. Milner 'Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science'
Stephen Williams 'Diocletian and the Roman Recovery'

Although from an earlier period, this is also a very good book-

Rose Mary Sheldon 'Rome's Wars in Parthia: Blood in the Sand']

Whilst very expensive, I can also recommend the below

The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare 2 Volume Hardback Set (2 Volume Set) [Hardcover]
Philip Sabin (Editor), Hans van Wees (Editor), Michael Whitby (Editor)

That lot should keep you amused for a few months!

[Polkovnik]

The Roman form a shield wall (that is a continuous line of shields touching each other a bit like a greek phalanx), of which they put themself totally behind.

Isn't it generally accepted that Roman Legionaries fought on a slightly wider frontage per man than the phalanx, with gaps between each man ? I think the sources give two possible frontages per man, 3 feet or 6 feet. Even at the smaller of these, 3 feet per man, this still leaves a gap of approximately 8 inches between each shield. So the shields are not touching or overlapping. The legionary shield is designed to be used offensively, and space is required to do this.
So even if there was a shieldwall type rule, representing bodies of men with overlapping or touching shields, this wouldn't apply to Roman legions anyway.

[ValentinianVictor]

The Roman form a shield wall (that is a continuous line of shields touching each other a bit like a greek phalanx), of which they put themself totally behind.

Isn't it generally accepted that Roman Legionaries fought on a slightly wider frontage per man than the phalanx, with gaps between each man ? I think the sources give two possible frontages per man, 3 feet or 6 feet. Even at the smaller of these, 3 feet per man, this still leaves a gap of approximately 8 inches between each shield. So the shields are not touching or overlapping. The legionary shield is designed to be used offensively, and space is required to do this.
So even if there was a shieldwall type rule, representing bodies of men with overlapping or touching shields, this wouldn't apply to Roman legions anyway.

This question is complicated due to the fact that we cannot generalised how the Romans operated due to the fact that their battlefield tactics, arms and armor evolved over the centuries. The Late Roman oval and round shields (yes, it appears from monumental evidence that at least guard infantry used large round shields) appear large enough to overlap at the smaller frontage (I believe its Vegetius that gives these frontages).

[grahambriggs]

Skanvak, I think the summary then is:

- we don't really know how the legion fought in detail
- it probably changed a bit over time, as the shields and weapons changed, and the opponents.
- so probably best not to try and guess the detail

So the main thing may be to get the right overall result, which seems to be:

- weak or poorly led legions can be swept away by the initial charge
- if the legion holds the initial warband charge they should win after a hard fight

hence the suggestion of -2 CT modifier for losing vs undrilled IF. And the concern that Roamns chop through the barbarians too quickly in melee.

[Skanvak]

I am surely influenced by the fact that other rules have blades and warband that represent what you say.

You think that Legion should not be impact foot? or at least lose a POA over Impact foot?

- weak or poorly led legions can be swept away by the initial charge

That dynamic make me think that Romans should be punished for losing cohesion to swordmen. That was one of the effect I wanted, but may be it should be stronger in the melee phase that follow the impact.

the concern that Romans chop through the barbarians too quickly in melee.

Well I think that is heavuly system related. On PC we have loose every combat phase which will eventually lead to auto rout. The POA/cohesion hit system that determine both who win and loose in a way that cannot make difference between low casuality tactics thet rely more on protection and attrition/fatigue of the enemy and more brutal exchanges.

Unless you go to the like that saying that the Roman weapon system will be less than swordmen but take very few casuality when steady. This means a change to the death roll and cohesion test to help roman hold. May be a way to transfer loses to rear rank can do that too.

Pity I don't have time to read before February. I really think that Roman Legion of republic and Marianic Period (not the later which might has well be swordmen) is something between the spear and swordmen in effect.

May be we should restart the debate in a more methodic way.

[grahambriggs]

I am surely influenced by the fact that other rules have blades and warband that represent what you say.

You think that Legion should not be impact foot? or at least lose a POA over Impact foot?

I think they should be scared of the barbarian charge. Stopping them being impact foot vs undrilled impact foot would do that but is a clumsy mechanism (in the tabletop game clumsy mechanisms are a problem as they confuse players). I quite like the authors' proposed -2 test if you lose impact to undrilled IF. It means Romans can't take risks at impact.

I should have explained more about the Impact foot issue. Your suggestion seemed to be impact foot at impact, then get sword in melee plus the warband doesn't count it's sword. The problem is it makes legions even better vs barbarians and they already chop them up too quickly.

[Skanvak]

Graham, that was only a suggestion. May main intuition is that Legion and Warband behave differently in battle. After that, the exact tweaking depend on the historical result we want to mimics and I am very open to that.

If history tell that Romans are weaker on impact why not. Thought rather than make then suffer on their CT (Cohesion Test?) I would rather punish them for being disrupted after Impact as it seems that Romans Legions can withstand a hard shock if they can maintain order. I think this will be less clumsy than adding cohesion test malus?

[Skanvak]

One thought on the subject : Does Drill, impact foot, swordmen can apply to other troops than roman legion in history? If yes, does this troops should suffer the same problem as the roman? If no, then We should opt for a different weapon system for roman, if yes then tweaking this weapon system set can solve the issue.

[philqw78]

One thought on the subject : Does Drill, impact foot, swordmen can apply to other troops than roman legion in history? If yes, does this troops should suffer the same problem as the roman? If no, then We should opt for a different weapon system for roman, if yes then tweaking this weapon system set can solve the issue.

Lots of troops can be drilled impact foot. But only Romans can be Heavy Foot, Superior, Armoured, drilled, Impact Foot, skilled swordsmen

[Skanvak]

Superior and skilled swordmen are only here to represent the difference of training between legion, so this is not pertinent. Hastati and Princeps have different armour so it is not relevant either.

But if only Roman can be Heavy foot, drilled, Impact foot, swordmen(swordmen+) then may be we have something. Can you confirm that? If not which other troops are the same?

It might not look like, but I welcome your answer and insight.