Slitherine

Skanvak wrote:From wiki

Until the 4th century BC the massive Greek phalanx was the mode of battle. Roman soldiers would have thus looked much like Greek hoplites. Tactics were no different from those of the early Greeks and battles were joined on a plain. Spearmen would deploy themselves in tightly packed rows to form a shield wall with their spears pointing forwards. They charged the enemy supported by javelin throwers and slingers; the cavalry pursued the enemy, sometimes dismounting to support infantry in dire situations. The phalanx was a cumbersome military unit to manoeuvre and was easily defeated by mountain tribes such as the Volsci or Samnites in rough terrain.

Time to apologize, Dave.

Possibly not based on your (effective) assertion that it was defeats to the Gauls that forced a change on the Romans.

Dave is correct to question whether the Romans always lost to the Gauls - they didn't, and I recommend that you read Livy (even allowing for his bias) on this as he is readily available on line. However, it is also clear that psychologically the Gauls had a major effect of the Roman psyche and they were not keen on fighting them for some time.

However, in terms of changes to the Roman military system is possible that the changes were made around the time of the 1st Samnite War which is second half of the C4th.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Skanvak wrote:From wiki

Until the 4th century BC the massive Greek phalanx was the mode of battle. Roman soldiers would have thus looked much like Greek hoplites. Tactics were no different from those of the early Greeks and battles were joined on a plain. Spearmen would deploy themselves in tightly packed rows to form a shield wall with their spears pointing forwards. They charged the enemy supported by javelin throwers and slingers; the cavalry pursued the enemy, sometimes dismounting to support infantry in dire situations. The phalanx was a cumbersome military unit to manoeuvre and was easily defeated by mountain tribes such as the Volsci or Samnites in rough terrain.

Time to apologize, Dave.

Possibly not based on your (effective) assertion that it was defeats to the Gauls that forced a change on the Romans.

Dave is correct to question whether the Romans always lost to the Gauls - they didn't, and I recommend that you read Livy (even allowing for his bias) on this as he is readily available on line. However, it is also clear that psychologically the Gauls had a major effect of the Roman psyche and they were not keen on fighting them for some time.

However, in terms of changes to the Roman military system is possible that the changes were made around the time of the 1st Samnite War which is second half of the C4th.

Gauls under Brennus sacked Rome circa 390 BC.

and Gauls were allied to the samnite. Though, it is likely the change was around this time. Well I translate "mountanous clan (and other term)" by "Gauls" with I reckon to be incorrect as it refer to both the samnite and other italian tribe and the gauls of northern Italy.

The Romans were not dominating at this time, they only begin to rise with the new legion type, which have only the triarii as phalanx (OS) and later abandonned it totally though they were fighting other OS during this time (Cartago, Greek city) or Pike (Macedonian successors). Which prove that the Marianic legion shoudl have been superior to the OS (well at least the roman thought so).

My own uneducated guess is that the pilum was developed as a way of stopping the impetuous charge of the Gauls, the legion (in terms of lighter troop density , articulation/subformations) to deal with the mobile tactics of the Samnites in their rugged hills... In any event im sure it was a long slow process.

Perhaps we need "defensive" impact weapons(legion types) and "offensive" impact weapons(Gauls etc) (99% kidding there.. or am I?)

I mostly play the PC game and really enjoy the interaction between pike and legion as is (which except for the bases) likly plays out just as the TT.

BTW, if you see hordes of PC FOG folk posting in here you can blame Iain Mcneil as he advsied us to go here because , as he stated, any changes for FOG 2 will make there way into FOG PC, and unlike the TT, you cant ignore /alter new rules you dont like as they are enforced by the program.....

That explains a lot.

TheGrayMouser wrote:BTW, if you see hordes of PC FOG folk posting in here you can blame Iain Mcneil as he advsied us to go here because , as he stated, any changes for FOG 2 will make there way into FOG PC, and unlike the TT, you cant ignore /alter new rules you dont like as they are enforced by the program.....

I am sure it will be easier to hack the code and change interactions within the PC game than it will to change the written rules.

Skanvak wrote:
From wiki


Until the 4th century BC the massive Greek phalanx was the mode of battle. Roman soldiers would have thus looked much like Greek hoplites. Tactics were no different from those of the early Greeks and battles were joined on a plain. Spearmen would deploy themselves in tightly packed rows to form a shield wall with their spears pointing forwards. They charged the enemy supported by javelin throwers and slingers; the cavalry pursued the enemy, sometimes dismounting to support infantry in dire situations. The phalanx was a cumbersome military unit to manoeuvre and was easily defeated by mountain tribes such as the Volsci or Samnites in rough terrain.

Again you are using your own arguments to destroy your argument. They Romans dropped the shiled wall phalanx. But you want to give them a shield wall POA. Think things through a bit and try and get a bit more first hand evidence. One needs to wash ones hands after reading Wikipedia its so contaminated.

philqw78 wrote:One needs to wash ones hands after reading Wikipedia its so contaminated.

Have you been wiping your arse with the dictionary again? Or are the elocution lessons working?

dave_r wrote:Have you been wiping your arse with the dictionary again? Or are the elocution lessons working?

I am told the elocution therapy worked. But the drugs wear off occassionally.

If you really wanted a Roman line replacement rule something like this might work, although it is probably a lot of rules for only a couple of armies...

Hastati/Princeps don't need a rule, that is assumed in the BG level interactions.

So the one that is needed is Triarii. So something like:

In MRR (and ERR) armies that can no longer field a full double ranked line, Triarrii elements can make a complex move to replace one element wide frontage of a legionary unit, the single legionary unit is place behind other elements in the same BG. This does not count as impact and the Triarii fight as they normally would in melee.

philqw78 wrote:

Skanvak wrote:
From wiki


Until the 4th century BC the massive Greek phalanx was the mode of battle. Roman soldiers would have thus looked much like Greek hoplites. Tactics were no different from those of the early Greeks and battles were joined on a plain. Spearmen would deploy themselves in tightly packed rows to form a shield wall with their spears pointing forwards. They charged the enemy supported by javelin throwers and slingers; the cavalry pursued the enemy, sometimes dismounting to support infantry in dire situations. The phalanx was a cumbersome military unit to manoeuvre and was easily defeated by mountain tribes such as the Volsci or Samnites in rough terrain.

Again you are using your own arguments to destroy your argument. They Romans dropped the shiled wall phalanx. But you want to give them a shield wall POA. Think things through a bit and try and get a bit more first hand evidence. One needs to wash ones hands after reading Wikipedia its so contaminated.

You are specious. They drop the Greek style shield wall to replace it with spear and overlapping shield to repalce it with a shield wall with gladius and touching shield, which allow for switching from shieldwall fighting in plain to skirmishing in rough terrain.

That is what the text means. You seems so desesperate to prove your point without giving me any evidence that you resort to faulty logic and rethory fraud.

Try what Nick is doing you might have better success (I will surely read Livy when I have time again).

Perhaps we need "defensive" impact weapons(legion types) and "offensive" impact weapons(Gauls etc) Shocked (99% kidding there.. or am I?)

That look fine, Gray mouser.

I like Ethan proposal too.

Skanvak wrote:From wiki

Until the 4th century BC the massive Greek phalanx was the mode of battle. Roman soldiers would have thus looked much like Greek hoplites. Tactics were no different from those of the early Greeks and battles were joined on a plain. Spearmen would deploy themselves in tightly packed rows to form a shield wall with their spears pointing forwards. They charged the enemy supported by javelin throwers and slingers; the cavalry pursued the enemy, sometimes dismounting to support infantry in dire situations. The phalanx was a cumbersome military unit to manoeuvre and was easily defeated by mountain tribes such as the Volsci or Samnites in rough terrain.

Time to apologize, Dave.

It certainly seems the case that the Roman armies started out as hoplites and that the army developed through many iterations - often as a result of losses against different enemies. The Roman army of this period is, I believe, covered in the "Lost Scrolls" army list and are offensive spearmen. I'm not sure if the PC game covers that period.

HF Off Spear certainly aren't at their best in rough terrain and can be overrun by Gauls in the impact phase (Gauls are a POA up), although armoured off spear tend to hang on, recover and then slaughter the gauls which is not the best simulation - still the -2 for losing to hairies in V2 might sort that out.

I think if the interaction with warbands were the only issue then "offensive spear" Romans would be as a good a representation of the later interaction as having the Romans as Impact Foot. Unfortunately, other interactions (vs Pike, cataphracts) would be harmed by that.

One aspect of the early hoplite style of roman warfare that you do somewhat gloss over is that there is no evidence at that time (that I know of at least) that the Romans possessed a side arm that would be used in the melee to stab at the legs of an opponent. Instead they would surely have used the traditional hoplite approach of using the spear.

I'm going to make a post based on my knowledge of Roman vs 'Barbarian' armies during the Late Roman period, rather than a sweeping generalisation based on the entire Roman period.

From descriptions of battles against the Franks and Allemanni we know that ambushes were a favoured tactic by both sides. For example, The Battle of Strasburg had part of the Allemanni right wing hiding in a marsh.

The battles appeared to almost proceed to a set format. Both sides would form up, the Romans in at least two lines of infantry with the mounted generally on the wings. Both sides then moved towards each other and stopped at approximately javelin range. Missiles and insults/battle cries were then exchanged for awhile until the signal for the general engagement was given by one side or often both (even the 'barbarians' had musical signals for the general advance).

The barbarians were characterised as either charging wildly as a mob, or moving steadily forward in 'dense columns'.

As long as the Romans could withstand the initial barbarian assault they would then generally gain the upper hand unless something else happened which may tip the balance in the barbarians favour, such as the nobles breaking through the first line at Strasburg or the Gothic horse suddenly appearing at Adrianopolis.

Even if the Romans did 'beat' the barbarians, it was often a bloody affair, such as the Battle of Ad Salices indicates.

Very few casualties were caused by missile fire, and the vast majority of casualties were caused when one army broke and the pursuers then literally mowing the routers down.

Most battles would last a number of hours, in the majority of cases until it became dark enough for one side to make a break for it hoping that the darkness would allow them to escape their pursuers.

From the descriptions it appears the barbarians tended to be in very deep formations, relying on constant movement and pressure and sheer weight of numbers to try and overwhelm their Roman counter-parts.

How you successfully model this with a set of wargame rules I leave to those who design such rules to figure out!

Pretty good assessment of the match-up throughout the period from the Mid Republic to the Late Empire - although the earlier period has more Roman reverses than the later.

ValentinianVictor wrote:I'm going to make a post based on my knowledge of Roman vs 'Barbarian' armies during the Late Roman period, rather than a sweeping generalisation based on the entire Roman period.

From descriptions of battles against the Franks and Allemanni we know that ambushes were a favoured tactic by both sides. For example, The Battle of Strasburg had part of the Allemanni right wing hiding in a marsh.

The battles appeared to almost proceed to a set format. Both sides would form up, the Romans in at least two lines of infantry with the mounted generally on the wings. Both sides then moved towards each other and stopped at approximately javelin range. Missiles and insults/battle cries were then exchanged for awhile unit the signal for the general engagement was given by one side or often both (even the 'barbarians' had musical signals for the general advance).

The barbarians were characterised as either charging wildly as a mob, or moving steadily forward in 'dense columns'.

As long as the Romans could withstand the initial barbarian assault they would then generally gain the upper hand unless something else happened which may tip the balance in the barbarians favour, such as the nobles breaking through the first line at Strasburg or the Gothic horse suddenly appearing at Adrianopolis.

Even if the Romans did 'beat' the barbarians, it was often a bloody affair, such as the Battle of Ad Salices indicates.

Very few casualties were caused by missile fire, and the vast majority of casualties were caused when one army broke and the pursuers then literally mowing the routers down.

Most battles would last a number of hours, in the majority of cases until it became dark enough for one side to make a break for it hoping that the darkness would allow them to escape their pursuers.

From the descriptions it appears the barbarians tended to be in very deep formations, relying on constant movement and pressure and sheer weight of numbers to try and overwhelm their Roman counter-parts.

How you successfully model this with a set of wargame rules I leave to those who design such rules to figure out!

I share your view and that is how I would describe battles also for earlier periods. That is what I had in mind when I made my propositions of changes a while ago. I hope I am not too repetitive but from your description it comes to my mind that
1) Barbarians should have an advantage at impact
2) Cuneus formation (a very deep wedge) could be put into play with real gains in combat
3) If they did not disrupt the Romans, the Barbarians were in real trouble. That is why I think removing the skilled swordsmen capability is not the answer (maybe restricting it when the Romans are steady?).

I can't see a case for creating a rule of shield wall as I see the main differences at impact, but I agree that Barbarians and Romans fought in such a different way that they should be classified differently. Now Romans are drilled Gauls sometimes with better armour and that does not feel right.

Strategos69 wrote: 3) If they did not disrupt the Romans, the Barbarians were in real trouble. That is why I think removing the skilled swordsmen capability is not the answer (maybe restricting it when the Romans are steady?).

The effect of SSw is that those Romans who get it are effectively a net 2.5 PoAs up on barbarians (their quality being an effective 0.5 PoA), without it they are a net 1.5 PoAs up. Do you think that (a) a 2.5 PoA advantage is needed and, (b) whether a 2.5 PoA advantage leads to fights that bear a resemblance to the model Adrian posted above with which you have just agreed? (I would draw your attention to the points about a bloody fight and lasting a number of hours)

Skanvak wrote:You are specious. They drop the Greek style shield wall to replace it with spear and overlapping shield to repalce it with a shield wall with gladius and touching shield, which allow for switching from shieldwall fighting in plain to skirmishing in rough terrain.

That is what the text means. You seems so desesperate to prove your point without giving me any evidence that you resort to faulty logic and rethory fraud.

Try what Nick is doing you might have better success (I will surely read Livy when I have time again).

Specious, nice, Rethory Fraud, no idea. Theory Fraud?

I do think the logic of wanting a shieldwall POA is wrong when the Romans moved away from shieldwalls. Call it something else, like "+POA for being Roman". It will then be a bit like plus one for being British in many Napoleonic rules.

I am not trying to prove anything. I was waiting for you to prove something to me.

I think another problem is that people tend to presume that all 'barbarian' infantry fought the same. This is not true, even at the same time period, the Franks and Allemanni appear to have fought the Romans a bit differently than the Goth's did, and it's my opinion that the Goth's were by far the most dangerous barbarian foe the Romans ever faced.

philqw78 wrote: I do think the logic of wanting a shieldwall POA is wrong when the Romans moved away from shieldwalls. Call it something else, like "+POA for being Roman". It will then be a bit like plus one for being British in many Napoleonic rules.

Only in Napoleonic rules by British authors.

ValentinianVictor wrote:I think another problem is that people tend to presume that all 'barbarian' infantry fought the same. This is not true, even at the same time period, the Franks and Allemanni appear to have fought the Romans a bit differently than the Goth's did,

In what way?

lawrenceg wrote:

philqw78 wrote: I do think the logic of wanting a shieldwall POA is wrong when the Romans moved away from shieldwalls. Call it something else, like "+POA for being Roman". It will then be a bit like plus one for being British in many Napoleonic rules.

Only in Napoleonic rules by British authors.

Why do you think the Ancient Brits get elites in these rules?