Slitherine

Polybius III-22-26

The youngest soldiers or velites are ordered to carry a sword, javelins, and a target (parma). 2The target is strongly made and sufficiently large to afford protection, being circular and measuring three feet in diameter. They also wear a plain helmet, and sometimes cover it with a wolf's skin

The next in seniority called hastati are ordered to wear a complete panoply. The Roman panoply consists firstly of a shield (scutum)...Besides the shield they also carry a sword, hanging on the right thigh and called a Spanish sword. This is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm. In addition they have two pila, a brass helmet, and greaves...The common soldiers wear in addition a breastplate of brass a span square, which they place in front of the heart and call the heart-protector (pectorale), this completing their accoutrements; but those who are rated above ten thousand drachmas wear instead of this a coat of chain-mail (lorica). The principes and triarii are armed in the same manner except that instead of the pila the triarii carry long spears (hastae)

The cavalry are now armed like that of Greece, but in old times they had no cuirasses but fought in light undergarments...Their lances too were unserviceable in two respects. In the first place they made them so slender and pliant that it was impossible to take a steady aim, and before they could fix the head in anything, the shaking due to the mere motion of the horse caused most of them to break. Next, as they did not fit the butt-ends with spikes, they could only deliver the first stroke with the point and after this if they broke they were of no further service. Their buckler was made of ox-hide, somewhat similar in shape to the round bosse cakes used at sacrifices. They were not of any use for attacking, as they were not firm enough; and when the leather covering peeled off and rotted owing to the rain, unserviceable as they were before, they now became entirely...
The Romans, when they noticed this, soon learnt to copy the Greek arms
The allies...their organization and command are undertaken by the officers appointed by the consuls known as praefecti sociorum and twelve in number. They first of all select for the consuls for the whole force of allies assembled the horsemen and footmen most fitted for actual service, these being known as extraordinarii, that is "select." The total number of allied infantry is usually equal to that of the Romans, while the cavalry are three times as many. Of these they assign about a third of the cavalry and a fifth of the infantry to the picked corps; the rest they divide into two bodies, one known as the right wing and the other as the left.
Regarding the Velites, Livius (26,4) says that they were incorporated to the Roman army after the siege of Capua in 211 BC.
They were supposed to close with enemy skirmishers and drive them back, for example in 197 fighting macedonian skirmishers Livius (31. 35). But not only that, they were capable of close with line infantry, in the campaign against the Galatians, Livius (38. 21)
Following those soureces, my suggestion for the Roman Legion in the game
1) Velites: Superior morale, sword as secondary weapon. Before 211 BC, Iaculatores/Rorarii with poor morale and no swords.
2) Hastati and Principes: Protected, not armoured
3) Triarii: they present the problem of numbers. There were only 600 in a legion, for 1200 Hastati and another 1200 principes, ideally there should be 5 BGs, 2xHastati 2xPrincipes and 1xTriarii, 600 strong each, as to not misrepresent forces.
4) Cavalry: Protected, not Armoured, until after the 2nd Punic War.
5) Allies: double number of cavalry than Romans

I'd suggest that the historical performance of the legions would make (in most cases) velites, hastati and principes Average rather than Superior, though I can see an argument for the principes to be Superior. It's also possible that enough of the Principes would wear chain that they might qualify as armoured.

Gosh I feel like I stepped into a time machine, many of these same arguments were voiced on the TT forums when the rules first came out. Back then the Romans were the unbeatable terrors of the game and many thought they were overrated. To each their own I guess. Romans can be defeated but it is no easy task to say the least in the PC or on the TT

I think the problem arises from the fact that the Roman troops were thought better than those of their allies. But their allies weren't poor (in general). So the natural assumption is to make the Romans all Superior and their allies Average. In fact, I'd say Average is a broad enough category to include both and classifying the earlier Republican allies as medium (say) makes them a bit more vulnerable.

The same kind of reasoning afflicts the Macedonian phalanx. It's generally held that the Alexandrian phalanx was of higher quality than that of the Successors (on very shaky evidence, while the phalanx tended to do well under Philip, under Alexander it performed adequately at the Granicus, quite poorly at Issus and opened a huge and potentially disastrous gap at Gaugamela. In India it performed reasonably well, if somewhat mutinously. Its poor performaces can be partly explained by the terrain, but generally it was terrain that was the undoing of the later phalanx also). So the Alexandrian phalanx is often touted as Superior, on the (shaky) grounds that it was better than what came after.

In fact, the rules are pretty clear the the overwhelming majority of troops are average. I'd see superior troops as being limited to veteran legions/cohorts/maniples (and not all of those) for Rome and the hypaspists and hetairoi for Philip's and Alexander's Macedon. Otherwise 'grade creep' gets out of hand and one ends up with entire armies of Superior and Elite troops.

deadtorius wrote:Gosh I feel like I stepped into a time machine, many of these same arguments were voiced on the TT forums when the rules first came out. Back then the Romans were the unbeatable terrors of the game and many thought they were overrated. To each their own I guess. Romans can be defeated but it is no easy task to say the least in the PC or on the TT

In order not to get into arguments for the sake of it I provided the main historical sources on which our knowledge of the Mid Republican Roman army is based.

I think that Polybius was describing the perfect scenario... how often have 'paper armies' translated into reality? He is a very good primary source, for sure, but should we assume that he is describing the actuality of the sandals-on-the-ground legionary? Velites were the youngest and therefore most inexperienced soldiers in the legion. I don't think that they warrant Superior status in the game. Principes/Triarii have a good case for being Superior, with Elite being justifiable in some cases. All IMHO obviously

Cheers,

Keyth

keyth wrote:I think that Polybius was describing the perfect scenario... how often have 'paper armies' translated into reality? He is a very good primary source, for sure, but should we assume that he is describing the actuality of the sandals-on-the-ground legionary? Velites were the youngest and therefore most inexperienced soldiers in the legion. I don't think that they warrant Superior status in the game. Principes/Triarii have a good case for being Superior, with Elite being justifiable in some cases. All IMHO obviously

Cheers,

Keyth

Polybius is probably not too far removed from the sandals on the ground legionary given the company in that he personally knew Romans who had commanded troops in combat. And in the text quoted from him he doesn't say all that much about how Roman troops would be graded, just how they should generally be equipped and that they are better in general than the Italian allied troops. I don't have any issue with the current TT army lists where the base grading of Velites, Hastati and Principes is average and the Triarii are superior. Options are allowed to down grade newly raised legions to poor and to upgrade a limited number of veteran legions to Average (velites), Superior (Hastati/Principes) and Elite (Triarii).

Chris

This may not be exactly related to the first post, but since this thread seems to have evolved into a discussion of the Polybian Roman army, I will write my question: why are triarii elite offensive spearmen in FoG?

I guess the elite status comes from triarii being the oldest men, but doesn't that also mean that they were the ones in the worst physical condition? (The principes, however, seem more suitable for a superior or elite status: they have some experience and are young enough to take advantage of it).

And for the offensive role, I thought that the main use of triarii was to form a "last defence line". I know that Scipio used them more offensively, but are there more examples of this battlefield role? (Another related question is: which units are classified as defensive spearmen in FoG?)

keyth wrote:Velites were the youngest and therefore most inexperienced soldiers in the legion. I don't think that they warrant Superior status in the game.

My rationale for rating Velites as superior is Livius testimony that they were ex omnibus legionibus electi sunt iuuenes maxime uigore ac leuitate corporum ueloces (26,4) From among all the legions are selected those youngsters with the greatest strength and speed (my translation)

Personally I don't think that physical prowess equates to morale. It is a factor in a unit's morale, no doubt, but the general performace of the Velites does not suggest, to me, that they were superior troops in the game's terms.

There is a doubt in my mind as to whether the triarii were in fact aged, or simply those most experienced in war. The term 'young soldiers' in modern parlance, for instance, does not mean young in years, but an inexperienced unit (of course often young troops are raw, but there's no reason to suppose every 30 year old is a veteran, nor that every 21 year old is inecperienced).

Also, wealth was a factor, originally the triarii were simply the wealthiest of the foot soldiers.

Paisley wrote:Personally I don't think that physical prowess equates to morale. It is a factor in a unit's morale, no doubt, but the general performace of the Velites does not suggest, to me, that they were superior troops in the game's terms.

I don´t agree, Livius in particular describe them, as I wrote in the first post, as superior to Macedonian skirmishers the velites after discharging their javelins came to close quarters with their swords...his infantry, trained to skirmish in loose order and unprotected by armour, were at the mercy of the velites who with their swords and shields were equally prepared for defence and attack. (Livius 31,35)
Furthermore, they could beat the fearsome Galatian warriors those who got to close quarters the velites slew with their swords. These soldiers carry a shield three feet long, javelins in their right hand for use at a distance and a Spanish sword in their belts. When they have to fight at close quarters they transfer the javelins to their left hands and draw their swords. Few of the Gauls now survived, and when they found themselves worsted by the light infantry and the legions coming on, they fled in disorder back to their camp (Livius 38,21)
I think it is plainly justified, from 211 BC onwards, to make Velites Superior and to provide them with a sword, not a javelin, as a secondary weapon.

I'd be all for giving them a sword in te later era, I think though that would be enough to give them a suitable in-game advantage.

Being protected lt spear makes them better at melee than most other LF as it is, much to their demise as they won't evade from nearly anyhting.

Deeter