Thureophoroi and Roman Auxilia - HF or HF/MF

[nikgaukroger]

A quick poll for a question that may have an impact as to how v2 lists may proceed should there be any as part of the FoG:AM v2 process.

Some troops in the v1 lists, primarily Greek thureophoroi and Roman Auxilia, were given the option be be HF or MF (but must all be the same) primarily for reasons of backward compatibility of basing as opposed to historical interpretation - i.e. we really think they should be HF but nearly everyone has them based as FoG MF.

Any v2 lists would give us the option to change this and just go with our view on what is most historical, so I want to poll the players to find out what they would think of this. Remember that the rules allow for "non-standard basing" and it is perfectly OK to use troops based as MF as HF.

Troops where we feel there are valid historical options would not be affected, of course.

Comments welcome as well as poll votes.

Poll will run for 10 dayes.

[philqw78]

This ignores the view point of some people that there is no real distinction between HF and MF in a lot of cases. Most foot could move into more open or closer formations as necessary.

[jonphilp]

With regard to Roman Auxilia, I believe you should have the option to have both HF & MI Auxilia battle groups on the field of battle and not be restricted to HF or MF. Especially as in the early years of the Principate they initially appear in a lot of contemporary literature reflecting their national fighting styles. Forcing Auxilia to be HF only reflects badly on their training. Were not Auxilia and Thureophoroi prized for their flexibility on the battlefield. We are not even discussing how the legion's operated in Spain etc . I suppose it was only in the C18th that professional armies discovered "open order".

[nikgaukroger]

If I may digress from the topic in question a touch.

With regard to Roman Auxilia, I believe you should have the option to have both HF & MI Auxilia battle groups on the field of battle and not be restricted to HF or MF. Especially as in the early years of the Principate they initially appear in a lot of contemporary literature reflecting their national fighting styles.

Could I trouble you to expand on this in the Player Designed Lists forum - perhaps with some quotes or references? It is possible that the early principate auxilia should be different, however, IMO by the Flavian period we are well into the auxilia as "legionarii-lite". Help always appreciated.

Were not Auxilia and Thureophoroi prized for their flexibility on the battlefield.

I don't believe so - at least in the way most wargamers mean. However, again the PDL forum is available to convince us otherwise, and now is the time to do it.

We are not even discussing how the legion's operated in Spain etc .

Again, good material for the PDL forum

[Mehrunes]

This ignores the view point of some people that there is no real distinction between HF and MF in a lot of cases. Most foot could move into more open or closer formations as necessary.

Yep, the question leads to the assumption that the artificial distinction between HF and MF will be kept in FoG v2, which would be a very sad thing.
This bothers me more than the above question.

[hazelbark]

I think this isolated change has a lot of effects if adopted. Particulary slidingthe scale in favor of mounted armies.

I think in particular to uneven terrain.
If you shove a lot of MF into the HF category, even if historically reasoned, then I think you need to remove the reduction in speed from HF. Leave the disordering effects.

This would have other positive byproducts by the way.

[olivier]

Yep, the question leads to the assumption that the artificial distinction between HF and MF will be kept in FoG v2, which would be a very sad thing. Sad

I agree with this, too many troops can change between formation in battle, or just before ( cf hypaspist; mongol etc....)

[timmy1]

Nik

While not anywhere near as well read on Romans as your esteemed self, it is what I have read most about in period. To me Late Republican and especially Early Principate Auxilla (don't really know much after about 123 AD) do seem to have fought in formations loser than I think of than for most HF. I certainly don't see them as a Phalanx like shieldwall as I read Legionaries to be. I think that the evidence for the HF ONLY interp has to be very solid for you to change this. I agree either you believe the all HF or the all MF theory but certainly my reading of Batavians in 69AD is that they are MF NOT HF. Hence how I voted. (When I read my Christmas pressie - Goldsworthy's tCRA I might change my mind...)

Regards
Tim

[nikgaukroger]

(When I read my Christmas pressie - Goldsworthy's tCRA I might change my mind...)

back around the time I was editor of Slingshot I talked to Adrian Goldsworthy about this and his view was quite clear - that Auxilia were just a cheap form of legionarii and pretty much fought the same way. There may even have been something in Slingshot about it

[Skanvak]

I tend to think that for those troops (and Roman Hastati should be too) this is their use that make them Heavy or Medium. If the general want them in close order they are Heavy, if they want them in somewhat looser formation to go faster they are medium.

Beside making them all HF, they will be the same as the other troops. I believe they should be able to change at will when they are not in contact.

[Mehrunes]

If the general want them in close order they are Heavy, if they want them in somewhat looser formation to go faster they are medium.

That's the point. The artificial distinction between MF and HF does not depict reality well.
That said, either there should be a new troop type in FoG v2 between both or it should be allowed for some troops to switch between HF and MF status, just like hypaspists can during deployment or even during game. Same problem with Cavalry and Light Horse which is solved in the beginning by giving cavalry evade rules while in particular formation.

Some think that thureophoroi could have been equipped with javelins instead of spear when they were needed as lighter troops.
This would result in grading them as HF, Offensive spear with the possibility to regrade them to MF, LS, Sw or something like that.

Until then I would agree on the claim that auxiliaries are just cheaper legionaries and thureophoroi are just cheaper hoplites => HF.

[ValentinianVictor]

(When I read my Christmas pressie - Goldsworthy's tCRA I might change my mind...)

back around the time I was editor of Slingshot I talked to Adrian Goldsworthy about this and his view was quite clear - that Auxilia were just a cheap form of legionarii and pretty much fought the same way. There may even have been something in Slingshot about it

Except when they were 'light armed' as auxilia expediti (mind you, the same ancient author has 'legionarii expediti' and even 'velites expediti'!)

[nikgaukroger]

(When I read my Christmas pressie - Goldsworthy's tCRA I might change my mind...)

back around the time I was editor of Slingshot I talked to Adrian Goldsworthy about this and his view was quite clear - that Auxilia were just a cheap form of legionarii and pretty much fought the same way. There may even have been something in Slingshot about it

Except when they were 'light armed' as auxilia expediti (mind you, the same ancient author has 'legionarii expediti' and even 'velites expediti'!)

Except that "expediti" is generally taken as meaning that they were marching without the usual impedimentia (i.e. baggage) rather than having left their war kit behind - which would make sense of velites being so described.

Tacitus, IIRC, has a couple of reference to "leves armaturae auxilia" ( or something close to that but in proper Latin <g>) which, given the usual use of leves armaturae, would be likely to be auxilia acting a light infantry skirmishers.

[stecal]

If the general want them in close order they are Heavy, if they want them in somewhat looser formation to go faster they are medium.

That's the point. The artificial distinction between MF and HF does not depict reality well.
That said, either there should be a new troop type in FoG v2 between both or it should be allowed for some troops to switch between HF and MF status, just like hypaspists can during deployment or even during game. Same problem with Cavalry and Light Horse which is solved in the beginning by giving cavalry evade rules while in particular formation.
.

Perhaps HF in a single rank would not suffer disorder in terrain and have no move reduction then?

[ethan]

Troops that have a clear fighting style should use what makes them work most appropriately int he rules. Just because it was different in other rules sets is IMO irrelevant.

[Niceas]

If the general want them in close order they are Heavy, if they want them in somewhat looser formation to go faster they are medium.

That's the point. The artificial distinction between MF and HF does not depict reality well.
That said, either there should be a new troop type in FoG v2 between both or it should be allowed for some troops to switch between HF and MF status, just like hypaspists can during deployment or even during game. Same problem with Cavalry and Light Horse which is solved in the beginning by giving cavalry evade rules while in particular formation.
.

Perhaps HF in a single rank would not suffer disorder in terrain and have no move reduction then?

ooo...Interesting idea. You might even let them skirmish--armored skirmishers, now there's a thought

But if you're looking for opinions, yeah, auxilia as HF.

I'll even assert that the "national fighting style" types of Augustan auxiliaries should in fact, be allied Germans. (They're still helping out, right?)

In addition to Goldsworthy's opinion, which I think he first wrote up on his "Roman Army at War, 100BC-AD200", there's another very interesting little clue in Cheesman's book about the Roman Auxilia, and that is the Cohorts of Roman citizen volunteers. (Cohortes Voluntariorum Civium Romanorum and Cohortes Ingenuoruum Civium Romanorum).

Cheeseman states that Augustus left these guys a donative in his will equal to that paid to legionairies, and that they were raised in response to the Pannonian revolt of AD6-9 and in the aftermath of the Varian disaster.
Cohorts XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXX, and XXXII V.C.R. are attested to in Germania Superior, Others in Pannonia and Dalmatia.

Varus lost 30 cohorts, so I'll bet those guys were actually their replacements--In all, if the numbering was in sequence, 6 of I.C.R and 32 of V.C.R. (basically 4 legions)-roughly 1 to Pannonia and 3 to Germany.

Their commanders were Tribunes, not Praefects. It all makes them sound like extra legionary cohorts.

I even would like the option of getting impact foot POA for auxilia.

[rpayne]

If the general want them in close order they are Heavy, if they want them in somewhat looser formation to go faster they are medium.

That's the point. The artificial distinction between MF and HF does not depict reality well.
That said, either there should be a new troop type in FoG v2 between both or it should be allowed for some troops to switch between HF and MF status, just like hypaspists can during deployment or even during game. Same problem with Cavalry and Light Horse which is solved in the beginning by giving cavalry evade rules while in particular formation.

Some think that thureophoroi could have been equipped with javelins instead of spear when they were needed as lighter troops.
This would result in grading them as HF, Offensive spear with the possibility to regrade them to MF, LS, Sw or something like that.

Until then I would agree on the claim that auxiliaries are just cheaper legionaries and thureophoroi are just cheaper hoplites => HF.

One possibility, although CRRRAAAAZY, would be to force the units to be 1/2 HF 1/2 MF, with everything else the same.

This would somewhat achieve the effect of the unit adopting tighter/looser formations as needed for terrain. They would essentially fight as HF in open, and in rough going lose less dice, although their movement would still be reduced.

[lawrenceg]

One of the issues with Roman Auxilia is that the meaning of the term probably changed over time.

In the Republican period it means non-citizen troops, in effect mercenaries or colonial levies, who fought in their native style and may not even be infantry.

Augustus supposedly regularised them, but was this merely an uplifit in social status and discipline, an issue of "official" equipment, or did it involve a change in fighting methods too? IIRC auxilia from particular regions occasionally get a mention as being skilled at some particular thing during the early principate, but this might be only a few units, not all.

Agricola used auxilia and cavalry to fight the Caledonians at Mons Graupius, without using the legions at all.

By the time we get to Vegetius, he says that men want to enlist in the Auxilia rather than the Legions as the legionary equipment is heavier (so should Auxilia all be protected at this period?). At Strasburg, Auxilia are sent ahead to clear the woods of a suspected German ambush, but as the whole front line seems to have been mainly auxilia, it might just be that they happened to be nearest at the time.

Also IIRC Auxilia tend to be grouped together in the battle line separately from legions, they are not all mixed up randomly, which suggests they were not regarded as identical troops.

WE also have auxilia apparently recruited en-masse from Goths, Attecotti etc. Initally was this a case of "Put this tunic on, paint your sheild like this, now you are an auxilia" with a switch to Roman fighting methods only occurring later?


Depending on how much FOG 2.0 narrows the difference between HF and MF, this issue may become much less important. Also, if drilled MF in 4's were not seen as supertroops, would it be an issue at all?

FWIW I think it makes sense to classify troops as what you think they were historically, and not allow another interpretation purely for backward compatibility. However, previous rules presumably had a reason for classifying them in the way they did, so you ought to have a clear idea what that reason was and why it no longer applies.

[ValentinianVictor]

back around the time I was editor of Slingshot I talked to Adrian Goldsworthy about this and his view was quite clear - that Auxilia were just a cheap form of legionarii and pretty much fought the same way. There may even have been something in Slingshot about it

Except when they were 'light armed' as auxilia expediti (mind you, the same ancient author has 'legionarii expediti' and even 'velites expediti'!)

Except that "expediti" is generally taken as meaning that they were marching without the usual impedimentia (i.e. baggage) rather than having left their war kit behind - which would make sense of velites being so described.

Tacitus, IIRC, has a couple of reference to "leves armaturae auxilia" ( or something close to that but in proper Latin <g>) which, given the usual use of leves armaturae, would be likely to be auxilia acting a light infantry skirmishers.

I thought the current thinking is that 'expediti' is akin to 'special forces' troops, going on special missions such as river crossings or ambushes, There is even a reference to 'equites expediti' where several units of cavalry/light horse are sent to protect narrow passes and to act as ambushers.

[nikgaukroger]

I thought the current thinking is that 'expediti' is akin to 'special forces' troops, going on special missions such as river crossings or ambushes, There is even a reference to 'equites expediti' where several units of cavalry/light horse are sent to protect narrow passes and to act as ambushers.

"Special forces" is a terrible term to use as it just brings up images of the SAS or similar. Troops detached on "special duty" may be a better term - Caesar once had expediti leading the normal column of march for example.