Palmyra 258-273ad army list changed?

[Dux Limitis]

When I'm going to make a custom battle today.I found the palmyra army list now have many roman units,and use the archers and massed archers to replace the eastern archers and massed eastern archers...this is not been noted in the patch notes,and I don't remember there're roman units fight for queen Zenobia in the 272ad's palmyra war.Is this a bug or an unrecorded operation?Or maybe you should divide the palmyra army list to 258-267ad（Odaenathus）and 268-273ad（Zenobia）?

[rbodleyscott]

When I'm going to make a custom battle today.I found the palmyra army list now have many roman units,and use the archers and massed archers to replace the eastern archers and massed eastern archers...this is not been noted in the patch notes

The list has not changed. It has always had those units. It was a tough choice as to which archer models to use for Palmyra, but Palmyra was Aramaic/Arabic not Iranian, so we did not use the Iranian models.

,and I don't remember there're roman units fight for queen Zenobia in the 272ad's palmyra war.Is this a bug or an unrecorded operation?

It isn't a bug because the list covers Odenathus and Zenobia. If you use troops that were not in Zenobia's army, then you are using Odenathus's army.

Or maybe you should divide the palmyra army list to 258-267ad（Odaenathus）and 268-273ad（Zenobia）?

We could do that. We tried to avoid too much division of lists because otherwise people might complain that we were dividing the lists up just to make the number of lists seem larger.

[Dux Limitis]

Or maybe you should divide the palmyra army list to 258-267ad（Odaenathus）and 268-273ad（Zenobia）?

We could do that. We tried to avoid too much division of lists because otherwise people might complain that we were dividing the lists up just to make the number of lists seem larger.

I think nobody will complain about this,people always wanna see more army list,and Odaenathus have roman units but Zenobia not,at least for this reason you should divide them....If you wanna fight to Zenobia's army but you found you're facing many roman units..well,I think that is inconceivable and ridiculous.....

[julianbarker]

Did Palmyran armies really just have archers and cavalry? Seems very unlikely to me. Zenobia's army would be drawing troops from a large area, much of it urbanised. Even in the early days they would have access to mercenaries. Therefore I would have thought they would have troops at least similar to Roman Auxiliaries (protected medium foot with light spear and sword).

[Dux Limitis]

Did Palmyran armies really just have archers and cavalry? Seems very unlikely to me. Zenobia's army would be drawing troops from a large area, much of it urbanised. Even in the early days they would have access to mercenaries. Therefore I would have thought they would have troops at least similar to Roman Auxiliaries (protected medium foot with light spear and sword).

In game she not only have roman auxiliaries and equites,she have legionaries too(all because of the undivided army list),that is very impossible.And I don't remember I have readed the emperor Aurelian facing the roman units or sub-roman units who served under Zenobia in the battle of Immae and battle of Emesa.

[julianbarker]

What sources have you?

As far as I am aware there are only two historical sources, one says nothing about Palmyran armies and the other - Zosimus makes several references -

An army consisting of "Palmyrenians, Syrians, and Barbarians" when invading Egypt.

Mentions the cataphract armour of the cavalry.

At Emisa Zosimus mentions the many nations fighting for Aurelius including Palestinians. In describing the fighting he says "Palestine brought clubs and staves against coats of mail made of iron and brass". It is unlikely the Palestine troops were cavalry as the cavalry battle is described separately. So more likely he is describing an infantry battle where Palmyra has armoured or protected foot of some sort, not just archers.

It seems likely that Palmyran armies had a variety of foot troops and not just archers.

Do we know what happened to the eastern legions during the rise of Palmyra? I can't see anything in the ancient sources to say they were defeated or redeployed. Most likely, some at least joined Palmyra when central Roman authority collapsed just as they did with the Empire of Gaul.

[Dux Limitis]

Do we know what happened to the eastern legions during the rise of Palmyra? I can't see anything in the ancient sources to say they were defeated or redeployed. Most likely, some at least joined Palmyra when central Roman authority collapsed just as they did with the Empire of Gaul.

Maybe most of them had been destroyed in 269ad,only 3 legions in Syria and 1 in Egypt in the 3rd century,but don't rule out some of them finally join the Zenobia's army,I think they won't be too many and may not join the later Roman-Palmyra war.

[rbodleyscott]

As Julian says, this is all speculation, which is why we did not make separate army lists for Odenathus and Zenobia.

The example of other breakaway "Empires" suggest that the local Roman troops usually did join the army of locally declared Emperors.

It is probably misleading to describe the war as a Roman-Palmyran war. On the ground, at the time, it is quite likely that it would have been seen more as a Roman civil war between the central emperor and a local rival claimant. If so, then there would be nothing strange about the local Roman troops fighting against the central authority. Certainly Zenobia attempted to maintain a veneer of Roman legitimacy. We just don't know whether the local Roman troops bought into the idea.

What we might do is leave the existing list as it is, but add an alternative (Roman-free) list for the later period, so that players can choose which interpretation they want to use when playing against Zenobia's army. (They can already choose their interpretation when playing as Zenobia, by simply not choosing any of the Roman units from the list).

[sIg3b]

What we might do is leave the existing list as it is, but add an alternative (Roman-free) list for the later period, so that players can choose which interpretation they want to use when playing against Zenobia's army. (They can already choose their interpretation when playing as Zenobia, by simply not choosing any of the Roman units from the list).

This would be ideal.

Generally speaking, please always add rather one list too many. I love as many choices as possible among my buiding blocks.

In a similar vein, would you consider to add a few army lists that include an Allied General with troops? Such as "Romans with Pergamene Allies"? This would be the second-greatest feature to add. (The best would be large Unit Cards in the Army Selection Screen.)

[rbodleyscott]

In a similar vein, would you consider to add a few army lists that include an Allied General with troops? Such as "Romans with Pergamene Allies"?

It is something we could consider.

[sIg3b]

In a similar vein, would you consider to add a few army lists that include an Allied General with troops? Such as "Romans with Pergamene Allies"?

It is something we could consider.

[rbodleyscott]

In a similar vein, would you consider to add a few army lists that include an Allied General with troops? Such as "Romans with Pergamene Allies"?

It is something we could consider.

The main concern with this sort of "list with allies" is that once the (Mid-Republican) Romans can have Pergamene allies in Custom MP Battles, you will never see (Mid-Republican) Romans without Pergamene allies, as the army is so obviously better with them than without, as they correct the main deficiency of the Roman army, i.e. lack of decent cavalry.

So if we did this, there would have to be some compensatory penalty (such as extra points cost), so that it wasn't a no-brainer to use them.

[sIg3b]

The main concern with this sort of "list with allies" is that once the (Mid-Republican) Romans can have Pergamene allies in Custom MP Battles, you will never see (Mid-Republican) Romans without Pergamene allies, as the army is so obviously better with them than without, as they correct the main deficiency of the Roman army, i.e. lack of decent cavalry.

So if we did this, there would have to be some compensatory penalty (such as extra points cost), so that it wasn't a no-brainer to use them.

Agree completely; also, in Custom Battles with Region Filter on, above Army should be more limited than Vanilla Romans, only Eastern Mediterranean say.