grahambriggs 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.
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.
Just a precision : the stabbing from under the shield in melee is with the Gladius, so it refer to hastati/princeps and marianic legion. I guess like you that the phlanx type would fight like greek (even the triarii).
I agree with your analysis, but I am not sure that losing to the barbarian should involve a loss to the CT. I feel like it should be translated by a bonus to the POA if the and only if the CT is lost.
I'd like to thanks ValentinianVictor for its contributive participation.
I have question thought, according to what info I have found recently, the later legion seem to have fought like barbarian (round shield, long sword, so they would seem to qualify for being IF/SM). So late Imperial legion would not be pertinent for the discution if it is confirmed.
Nick, about the SSw for roman, the slack marianic legion, the princeps and Hastati are Sw and average like Gauls, only the marianic legionaires and Veteran are SSW. So the SSw seems to refer to superior training or experience, which does not seem to be pertinent as Gauls were quite good sword fighters.
