Dacian List - Legions Triumphant

[cothyso]

Ok, it seems we need to define terms in here: Afghanistan never had a real field army. All the wars fought in there were actually won in a matter of days. The guerilla fights fought against occupations army on the other hand were lasting forever. Trying to propose an analogy between two totally different kind of warfare is actually the thing being a little hypocritical, don't you think?

I agree with arab being the most developed countries during the dark ages, but I don't know from where you got the barbarian feeling about those armies. Also, arab armies never relied on heavy infantry head on pitched battles. Not that they couldn't, but it wasn't fit with their perception and way of waging war. Same as for persians for example.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Dacians but you are obvioulsy an expert on the Afghan wars and the Arab Conquest. Best I shut up, or best you start reading up because there is obviously no reason or research in the above arguments so why should I believe there to be in any of your others.

I was not claiming to be an expert on the Afghan wars or Arab Conquest, I just have fair enough knowledge about those to can distinguish between a real battles and guerrilla warfare. You was the one bringing them into discussions, even it was obvious that any implied analogy between those and dacians were false.

johnphilp - exactly, Dacia was considered an empire under Burebistas, and a unified kingdom under Decebal, possessing of an organised army. Thing is, only a large army wouldn't need that kind of invasion force, even if a fast victory was needed and pursued. Romans fought during Gaul and Britain conquest against horde armies, vastly outnumbered and still won crushing victories. Trajan was no fool, actually is considered the best roman emperor, and would not mass that vast army (which needed an enormous amount of resources and supplies), leaving the frontiers of empire almost defenceless, if it wouldn't think the dacian army an opponent worthy of that attention.

nikgaukroger what kind evidence would be needed? As I've said, there are no known written ancient primary sources saying a word regarding the composition of dacian army. This actually means that even the present dacian list is a completely arbitrary one, based only on some weapons displayed on column/discovered and common sense of circumstantial archeological evidence. Why wouldn't that be extended to all weapons displayed on the column: falx (which is already in), sica, battle axes, spears, composite bows, Gastraphetes, heavy and light armor, helmets, heavy and light cavalry, and so on?

[philqw78]

I was not claiming to be an expert on the Afghan wars or Arab Conquest, I just have fair enough knowledge about those to can distinguish between a real battles and guerrilla warfare. You was the one bringing them into discussions, even it was obvious that any implied analogy between those and dacians were false.

So the pitched battles between British Empire armies and Afghan armies on the plains and those between Russain armoured divisions and tens of thousands of Mujahedeen in the mountains were bad analogies? You still appear to think that there have been no pitched battles in Afghanistan. Just a rumbling little guerilla war. More respect to the Afghans for being able to do both.

AND you can distinguish between REAL battles and guerilla warfare. Well done. Only 1.5 million deaths

As an addition now I have found it Panjshir V. Soviet Operation order of battle included
103rd Guards Airborne Division, 66th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade, one regiment from the 108th Division, one regiment from 201st Division, the 345th Parachute regiment, elements of the 866th and 181st Separate Motorized Rifle Regiments. There were also significant DRA forces, four infantry regiments, and parts of the 37th Commando Brigade. Add Log support and ground attack where necessary.
Put together at the start line for a 1 month Op.

And about 20ish battles in the second Afghan war. 1878

[jonphilp]

Hi Cothyso,


I am of the opinion that Ceaser often outnumbered the Gauls , in his commentaries it was better propoganda to defeat massive enemy forces. When the Romas faced large tribal confederations such as at Wattling Street the numbers were inflated by the warriors families The Roman legions did not have a large logistics tail .

[cothyso]

I was not claiming to be an expert on the Afghan wars or Arab Conquest, I just have fair enough knowledge about those to can distinguish between a real battles and guerrilla warfare. You was the one bringing them into discussions, even it was obvious that any implied analogy between those and dacians were false.

So the pitched battles between British Empire armies and Afghan armies on the plains and those between Russain armoured divisions and tens of thousands of Mujahedeen in the mountains were bad analogies? You still appear to think that there have been no pitched battles in Afghanistan. Just a rumbling little guerilla war. More respect to the Afghans for being able to do both.

AND you can distinguish between REAL battles and guerilla warfare. Well done. Only 1.5 million deaths

As an addition now I have found it Panjshir V. Soviet Operation order of battle included
103rd Guards Airborne Division, 66th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade, one regiment from the 108th Division, one regiment from 201st Division, the 345th Parachute regiment, elements of the 866th and 181st Separate Motorized Rifle Regiments. There were also significant DRA forces, four infantry regiments, and parts of the 37th Commando Brigade. Add Log support and ground attack where necessary.
Put together at the start line for a 1 month Op.

And about 20ish battles in the second Afghan war. 1878

The casualties list doesn't have anything to do with that, is not a proof of anything.

And don't tell me, the russian brought their entire tank armies in there, to fight the thousands of mujahedins.. And more, the fact that they were brave and desperate enough to fight a pitched battle against tanks, won't mean it was a battle, but a slaughter. And you don't need 10 slaughters to make them understand it is pointless. The polish did only one cavalry charge against tanks, then the few alive remained got the point.

Re-read the reasoning above, and maybe you will understand more.

jonphilp - Yes, Caesar and in general victors greatly inflated the numbers of the losers (see Herodotus 1.000k people persian invasion), yet there are modern estimations which bring those numbers down (again, using reasoning and common sense), and still they would greatly outnumber the romans. For example, regarding the Watling Street battle you're mentioning in here, Tacitus claimed 100k, Dio Cassius claimed 250k and the modern estimates are around 50k against 10k romans. That still means the romans were outnumbered with a 5:1 ratio, which still looks massive to me.

I don't understand the point of the "small" logistic roman tail, a statement which is actually wrong (read Roth's "The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC- AD 235)" and "The Logistics of The Roman Army in The Jewish War" to understand the magnitude of the roman logistics machinery).

[philqw78]

The casualties list doesn't have anything to do with that, is not a proof of anything.

Other than a lot of people died.

And don't tell me, the russian brought their entire tank armies in there, to fight the thousands of mujahedins.. And more, the fact that they were brave and desperate enough to fight a pitched battle against tanks, won't mean it was a battle, but a slaughter.

You mean the slaughter of the Russians and DRA in the Panjsher Valley I assume?

Or we could look at Mujahedeen offensives, Bagram airbase. A couple of thousand killed there, and 25 russian bombers destroyed on the ground/gunships destroyed in the air. The Russians were a bit flaky on what exactly, but 25 aircraft at their largest military airbase in country.

And you don't need 10 slaughters to make them understand it is pointless.

Probably why the Russians left.

I think you should take the original analogy, especially since you are ignoring the two British Afghan wars.

[nikgaukroger]

With my moderator hat on

Gentlemen, please cease the modern Afghan stuff - if you feel the need please take it off forum.

[nikgaukroger]

nikgaukroger what kind evidence would be needed? As I've said, there are no known written ancient primary sources saying a word regarding the composition of dacian army.

Indeed - which makes me wonder why you can be so certain that the current list is fundamentally wrong.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Cothyso, here are my two cents

Regardless of how much effort the Romans took to subjigating the Dacians nothing is indicative that massed field battles were fought Thus trying to convince TT’s to include heavy infanty and or cavalry in that list is a waste of time. You need to provide evidence that those troop types were used in sufficaint quanties to justify changing the list.

As far as I am aware there were no ‘classic’ pitched field battle during these wars which were charactorized by sieges and layng waste the land, the little wars of ambush and raids… grueling , high cost/ low reward type fighting that took a long time and doudtless needed large #’s of troops to accomplish in such a large area of wilderness to population level ratio.

Circumstancialy, what if I suggest that the legion (not the auxilia ect ) but the home grown named legions were , at this junction in Roman history were not considered premier field troops at all but really had a more specialized role? That role would be combat engineer. , the kind of role that requires discipline (after all, soldiers w a more warrior type mentaliy certainly wouldn’t have liked to be digging and sapping all day long)
Look at the Triumph built and look at all the motifs. What roles are the Legions primarly doing??: They are digging , manning war engines, sapping walls.. In very few are they actually depicted fighting (and when they are it appears to be defending the siege works from sallies by the Dacians)
All the heavy fighting, village raiding , foraging ASSAULTING appears to be primarly the role of the Auxilia, who were armed and equiped diferently…

Look at the Legionairy armour and helmet during this period. It emphasises neck and shoulder protection which is exacttly what you need when attacked from above ie primarily when reducing fortifications etc

The heavier armour that the legions appear to have used in this campaign does not seem vey practical for field battles but DOES seem quite usable when digging or sapping walls where your undivided attention cant be devoted to dodging missle etc.

The point is the vast # of Legions involved , to me , indicates they were needed for the very specialised skills and mindset needed to perform a campaign of sieges and boring protracted warefare, not that they were needed to manever against Dacian heavy foot like some kind of 2nd Century Cannae

I offer no proof of how the Dacians fought but it doesn’t matter if they COULD have fielded heavy infantry/cavalry for open filed battles, the point is no pitched open field battle were fought….thus no practical need for heavy infantry/cavalry fight in tight formations.

[cothyso]

nikgaukroger what kind evidence would be needed? As I've said, there are no known written ancient primary sources saying a word regarding the composition of dacian army.

Indeed - which makes me wonder why you can be so certain that the current list is fundamentally wrong.

Exactly the same argument can be used to ask based on what sources the dacian lists is as it is? The conclusion being that is a totally arbitrary list, not based on written ancient primary sources.

[nikgaukroger]

The heavier armour that the legions appear to have used in this campaign does not seem vey practical for field battles but DOES seem quite usable when digging or sapping walls where your undivided attention cant be devoted to dodging missle etc.

I've seen this idea presented before and I find it very unconvincing. The legionary equipment in question was developed in a period where the army was mainly engaged in field battles not siege works and, IMO, makes sense when the majority of the incoming blows will be coming in over the top of your shield (and before segmentata hamata had shoulder doubling FWIW).

It also rather ignores the Adamklissi evidence which is likely to be more accurate than Trajan's column anyway

[nikgaukroger]

nikgaukroger what kind evidence would be needed? As I've said, there are no known written ancient primary sources saying a word regarding the composition of dacian army.

Indeed - which makes me wonder why you can be so certain that the current list is fundamentally wrong.

Exactly the same argument can be used to ask based on what sources the dacian lists is as it is? The conclusion being that is a totally arbitrary list, not based on written ancient primary sources.

Indeed it is fairly arbitrary - or at least based on previous lists arbitrary decisions

However, your own admission of this it does mean your initial statement of "Main problem is that, at this point, the dacian list is presented as a sort of barbarian tribes army, when in fact the situation was entirely different." is without substance.

[cothyso]

Hey Cothyso, here are my two cents..

The roman legionary armor had reinforced helmets, shields (maybe shoulders, but is the first time when i'm hearing this) and added manica and greaves as counters against the grievous wounds caused by the two-handed dacian falx (a variant of thracian romphaia) during Trajan's first Dacian War 101-102 AD. The falx was used as a two-handed weapon, swung in a large overhead arc downward at the legionary from the battleline (hence the need to reinforce the helmets and the upper shields' trimm), at the sword arm trying to trust from behind the shield (hence the added manica) or at the forward left foot (hence the greave).

There is indeed a debate regarding why the battles are mostly depicting the auxiliares fighting rather than the heavy infantry legionnaires, and there are many possible explanations for not having them depicted in battles on column (there's an entire list of possible explanations, I won't mention them all in here; the main two of them being that the column is a highly stylized representation of the actual truth by artists not well-knowing or roman military realities (specially as the roman equipment and troops are not accurately depicted on it), or that the frescoes are only representing the beginning phases of those battles, with the auxiliares opening the advance).

There were at least 7 known pitched battles fought during the Dacian Wars (with at least 3 of them, if not 5, being big (4+ legions) battles of which 1 is a huge(9+ legions) battle), I'll put them all in here:
- 85 AD Novae (Lower Moesia) (roman side 1+ legion): Oppius Sabinus leading I Italica (and vexillations from V Macedonica) killed and the legion destroyed (yet remade after that)
- 87 AD 1st Battle of Tapae (roman side 6 legions): Cornelius Fuscus, general and commander of the Pretorian Guard, lead 6 legions into Dacia, which were badly beaten, with Fuscus killed and the V Alaudae being destroyed and losing it's eagle and most of the standards (including the standard of the Praetorian Guard)
- 88 AD 2nd Battle of Tapae (roman side more than 4 legions): Tettius Iulianus lead more than 4 legions on the same route as Fuscus in the previous year, roman victory
- 92 AD Another roman legion (XXI Rapax) was destroyed in Moesia inferior
- 101 AD 3rd Battle of Tapae (roman side 9-13 legions) - during Trajan's first Dacian War 101-102, roman victory (the 9-13 roman legions, kinda makes it bigger than Cannae, isn't it?)
- 101-102 near Nicopole: undecisive, followed by Adamclisi battle
- 101-102 Adamclisi (Novae): roman victory with tremendous roman casualties (Trajan emperor had to provide the whole imperial gardrobe to be transformed into bandages)

Indeed it is fairly arbitrary - or at least based on previous lists arbitrary decisions

However, your own admission of this it does mean your initial statement of "Main problem is that, at this point, the dacian list is presented as a sort of barbarian tribes army, when in fact the situation was entirely different." is without substance.

No, but at least you admit is is arbitrary. Why then not keep it arbitrary, as there's no other way anyway, but try to reason with all the other evidence appeared,debated and accepted in the mean time?

Also, the lack of composition evidence doesn't change the fact that there is evidence for the dacian army not to be a barbarian army, but a fairly typical hellenistic combined arms army: the use of standards/battle signals, roman military trainers, the combined infantry/cavalry battles, the field artillery usage, the weaponry, the battles themselves, the huge amount of roman troops needed for these battles and so on.

I think at least an open discussion regarding a re-arrangement of the dacian list after all these years is pertinent, if not even necessary.

[Mehrunes]

@cothyso

I'm not aggressive respectively it was not intended that you should feel so. My apologies in this case.
I'm only asking you some very precise questions which you can't or don't want to answer until now.

You complain about Dacians using Roman artillery and Sarmatian or Bastarnae allies and it sounded like they can't in FoG. Then I take a look on the list and I see all these things and I wonder what's wrong.

If you have precise proposals of what the Dacians should have then please tell us.
And then, if you have evidence for that, please provide them.
Without that, I fear you won't convince the lists authors.

We even failed to convince them discussing the Early Germans and in relation to the Dacians we have loads of ancients sources backing it up.
I'm only telling you that you won't achieve anything with your current approach "they must have had a superior HF army because of the iron working centre and because the Romans had problems with them".
Some analogies were mentioned already and I don't mean the Afghanistan one.

[jonphilp]

Hi Cothyso,

By logistics tail I meant that the Romans support was organic to the legions and that they would take the field and fight if required compared to the tribal support of the family unit that often moved with the tribal warriors when they went to war. The family unit would not enhance the fighting skills of the warriors but inflated the numbers given by the Romans when calculating the dead and captured after a battle.

[nikgaukroger]

If you have precise proposals of what the Dacians should have then please tell us.
And then, if you have evidence for that, please provide them.

Yup - about time to provide some evidence I think. So far lots of opinion and less substance than a Wikipedia entry. Some quotes and evidence for these assertions needed now - put up or shut up time.

[gozerius]

Only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it; only a part that was remembered was recorded; only a part of what was recorded has survived; only a part of what has survived has come to the historian's attention; only a part of what has their attention is credible; only a part of what is credible has been grasped; and only a part of what has been grasped can be expounded or narrated by the historian.

Louis Gotschalk
Understanding History

And then the game designers get a hold of it...

[cothyso]

I will prepare a list as soon as time will permit it and post it in here.

[nikgaukroger]

If you could post it in the Player Designed Lists forum please, as it is less likely to be missed there. Thanks.

[dave_r]

If you have precise proposals of what the Dacians should have then please tell us.
And then, if you have evidence for that, please provide them.

Yup - about time to provide some evidence I think. So far lots of opinion and less substance than a Wikipedia entry. Some quotes and evidence for these assertions needed now - put up or shut up time.

Hoy. At this point that's an insult to Wikipedia

[madaxeman]

The real problem with the Dacian list is that in game terms, the Falxmen units are simply not that much different in performance - and hence not appreciably more scary - to the Romans than the bog standard warriors.