Dailami & Foederati

[hcaille]

Hi

Considering this two differents troops types :

Dailami : MF Superior, Armoured, Drilled, Impact foot, Swordsmen
Foederati : HF Average, Protected, Drilled, Impact foot, Swordsmen

It appears that Dailami are far better troop than fierce barbarians under roman service.
I just want to know for my personnal knowledge what is the historical justification for this ?

Thanks
Hervé

[rbodleyscott]

Hi

Considering this two differents troops types :

Dailami : MF Superior, Armoured, Drilled, Impact foot, Swordsmen
Foederati : HF Average, Protected, Drilled, Impact foot, Swordsmen

It appears that Dailami are far better troop than fierce barbarians under roman service.
I just want to know for my personnal knowledge what is the historical justification for this ?

Thanks
Hervé

Direct comparisons like this between troops of different periods are not particularly useful. Troops in FoG are classified within their historical context.

Nevertheless, Dailami were the most sought-after infantry of their day, with an excellent reputation. Note that the Dailami in non-Dailami armies were "elite" bodies in the armies using them. The Dailami Dynasties list allows them to be downgraded to Average on the assumption that the larger the force the less likely it would be to be especially effective.

Foederati were used because they were available and because it was better to have them fighting for you than against you. There is no reason to suppose that they were more fierce or effective than other "warband" types we grade as Average, Impact Foot, Swordsmen.

[daveallen]

At a slight tangent - my impression of Roman Auxilliaries is that they were used as the first line against barbarian foot because they were less likely than legionaries to be shattered in the initial charge (hence no quick kill in DBM) but in FoG the legionaries are much better against Gauls/Germans/Britons/Dacians.

Why is this?

[nikgaukroger]

At a slight tangent - my impression of Roman Auxilliaries is that they were used as the first line against barbarian foot because they were less likely than legionaries to be shattered in the initial charge (hence no quick kill in DBM) but in FoG the legionaries are much better against Gauls/Germans/Britons/Dacians.

Why is this?

Because that theory is a load of bollocks quite frankly - more or less invented by Phil to justify the DBM mechanism

[clivevaughan]

Don't be so circumspect Nik - say what you mean!

[neilhammond]

Because that theory is a load of bollocks quite frankly - more or less invented by Phil to justify the DBM mechanism

Evidence that it's a load of bollocks?

[nikgaukroger]

History basically

[nikgaukroger]

OK, finally getting around to a more substantial answer to Neil's question than my flippant initial reply.

If we look at the history of Romans fighting barbarian foot we see that in the couple of centuries before the creation of the regular auxilia the Romans were, on the whole, successful against the barbarians beating them quite comfortably with the legiones. It was really only poorly led and poorly trained/motivated armies that were beaten - although the barbarians would always put up a good fight. In these wars there is no indication that the Romans ever looked to using other troops to fight the barbarians because of any perceived weakness of the legiones against them.

So I would suggest that there is no motivation for the Romans to create a troop type to fight the barbarian infantry as they already had a suitable one - the legiones.

Secondly I would suggest that the regular auxilia themselves were just another form of heavy infantry - although at their creation they were very much second class compared to the legiones. I would recommen readingd the short Slingshot piece from earlier this year (IIRC) where I asked Adrian Goldsworthy a number of questions about the auxilia.

I would also point out that after the creation of the regular auxilia it was by no means universal to employ them as a first line against barbarian infantry. For example Germannicus led with the legiones in at least one battle and in the final battle against Boudicca the auxilia were on the flanks of the legiones.

[rbodleyscott]

I would also point out that after the creation of the regular auxilia it was by no means universal to employ them as a first line against barbarian infantry. For example Germannicus led with the legiones in at least one battle and in the final battle against Boudicca the auxilia were on the flanks of the legiones.

And in those battles where they did form the front line, it is probably because they were more expendable than the legionaries and the full force of the legions was not thought to be required for victory.

As Nik says, the previous "theory" was less a theory than a post-hoc justification of the DBM troop type interactions.

[neilhammond]

So I would suggest that there is no motivation for the Romans to create a troop type to fight the barbarian infantry as they already had a suitable one - the legiones.

I can accept this assumption. My reading of the late republic period is that the best assult/combat troops were the legionaries.

Secondly I would suggest that the regular auxilia themselves were just another form of heavy infantry - although at their creation they were very much second class compared to the legiones. I would recommen readingd the short Slingshot piece from earlier this year (IIRC) where I asked Adrian Goldsworthy a number of questions about the auxilia.

I've read the Slingshot articles, and admit I'm less well read on the later period, but...

I'm less convinced that the auxilia were just more heavy infantry - not initially. I'd accept that they may have evolved into the better heavy infantry in the late empire, perhaps with poor class auxilia still classed as MI to represent their lower discipline/solidarity, esp against mounted.

My view is that the auxila were created in the first place because they were 1) cheaper than the legionaries to raise and maintain; 2) were, in many situations, esp in guerilla/punitive/policiing operations more effective than legionaries; and 3) against a more determined opponent they could prove cost effective (i.e. cheap and they probably were equal in effectiveness to most infantry they opposed).

[nikgaukroger]

I've read the Slingshot articles, and admit I'm less well read on the later period, but...

Well Adrian's comments were mainly about the whole period to be honest and the early empire is more of his area thatn the later one.

I'm less convinced that the auxilia were just more heavy infantry - not initially. I'd accept that they may have evolved into the better heavy infantry in the late empire, perhaps with poor class auxilia still classed as MI to represent their lower discipline/solidarity, esp against mounted.

Ah, well we're getting into the area of whether infantry of the sort represented by F0G MF really existed which is a complex issue carrying a lot of wargames baggage.

[neilhammond]

Ah, well we're getting into the area of whether infantry of the sort represented by F0G MF really existed which is a complex issue carrying a lot of wargames baggage.

True. Probably safest not to go there. Otherwise we'll spend the rest of our lives at the keyboard arguing the toss rather than playing games.

[hazelbark]

My view is that the auxila were created in the first place because they were 1) cheaper than the legionaries to raise and maintain; 2) were, in many situations, esp in guerilla/punitive/policiing operations more effective than legionaries; and 3) against a more determined opponent they could prove cost effective (i.e. cheap and they probably were equal in effectiveness to most infantry they opposed).

I think the economics of providing them are not to be overlooked you are correct.

Also recently reading a number of accounts, I get the feeling (not explicitly stated by different authors) that the Roman generals in the later period seemed perfectly willing to dull the opponents blades by expending the Auxlia types in the front line.

Whereas in the earlier period the Roman generals were very conscious to put the green/weaker tropps out of the way and have the experienced veterans do the job right from the beginning. But somewhere around 200 AD the accounts start to feel like, let those new boys prove themselves and then we can step in an finish the job.

[bayankhan]

I believe the reason for creating the auxilia lay in the POLITICS and POLICIES of the Principate, not in relative merits of the troops themselves. Augustus inherited (according to Parker and others) 60-80 legions or fragments thereof. In order to limit the abilities of his governors/legates to have the means to create civil war, Augustus decided to demobilize all but 25-30 (authorities have various numbers here, and interpretations). But the policing of several hundred miles of land border and enforcing of Prinipate policy and extermination of pirates while maintaining strong armies (Exerciti) opposite Germany and Parthia and Numidia made a strong force of auxiliaries necessary. Sometime between Augustus and Tiberius the numbers of auxiliary infantry expanded until they roughly equaled the legiones. The benefit of these troops were that they were generally conscripted rather than volunteers, immediately available at the will of the Emperor or one of his legates without increasing the number of legiones (who in theory were citizens), and adequate for most duties BUT not capable of the same military engineering and siege operations as the legiones (see Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire for a rather good and plain discussion of this 'escalation dominance').

The use of auxiliaries as the front line (as done by Agricola) may have had as much to do with the undesirability of reporting loss of citizen soldiers and the peculiar recruiting now thought to occur for legions (see the series of books by Stephen Dando-Collins which argue for recruitment at 16/20 year intervals, with troop strengths allowed to run down between without replacement). A governor had considerable authority to call up auxilia but would have been, in the Dando-Collins model, in an impossible situation if a legion took a serious beating in the middle of a major campaign

In FOG, I believe (and have argued unsuccessfully before in other contexts) that legiones should have the option to deploy as MF (loose order) at game start as clearly they must have to deal with fighting in forests and other broken ground against the Germans (under Germanicus in AD15 for example) and equally Auxilia types who normally would be MI should be able to 'close up' to fight as HI when appropriate. This isn't very helpful in points-based games where MF and HF have different point values, so it probably will remain an interesting idea.

I've also argued that the reason the Romans maintained distinct 'regimental' identities for auxilia is that some (besides sagittarii) maintained unique weapons/fighting styles and/or dress. We have indents for clothing for units deployed in Pannonia being sent to Spain, for example. Which would argue for some units still being sdman/impact foot while others are OfSp

Bottom line, the difference between Principate auxilia and legiones is probably something that has very little to do with their tabletop performance.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

In general the order troops are in is dependent on training. There are plenty of historical examples (C17-18th onwards) of drilled troops being trained to operate in different fashions (e.g. loose/close order) although usually with the same weapon system (pace Alexander's phalangites).

Regards

[Quintus]

Interesting thread.

For myself I have long thought that regular auxiliaries were heavy infantry similar if not identical to the legions themselves. They were armed similarly having armour, large shields, drill, throwing spears and good swords.

Their use helped save the loss of Roman blood (as expressly stated by Tacitus in the Agricola IIRC. I don't recall any mention that regular auxilia brought special skills to the Roman Army in addition to the Legions.

In the Later Empire I aspect that the appellations Legiones and Auxilia were mere traditional distinctions just as the modern British Army has Fusiliers, Light Infantry and Highlanders.

[hammy]

The FOG lists do allow Roman auxilia to be fielded as heavy foot at the owning layers choice (when the list is created, not at deployment) depending on their interpretation.

Auxilia never get to be impact foot but then not all legionaries are as the empire progreses.

[shall]

Most barbarian roman battles were a long fought slog led by the legionaries. While there is some logic for quick kill with knights, I couldn't see any evidence of quick kills being real for barbarian masses. Many battles of the era were won by long slogs in the centre lasting long enough for flank troops to return.

If Hannibal had played with "quick kills" I don't think he would be so famous today. His Gauls held many a long slog. Played in DBM gauls vs legionaries is over in a jiffy one way or another and we are convinced this is wrong.

Si

[trev]

The death of the barbarian quick kill nonsense in a major commercial rule set is certainly a welcome development. The best evidence I could find for it was a comment by an 18thC British officer about Prestonpans. Hardly what you'd call solid evidence. Thankfully I can now stop boring everyone stupid banging on about it. My club mates and I have only managed to get halfway through one game so far but the barbarian vs Roman interaction seems to be working well. Finger's crossed.

As for Auxilia, Roman troops could certainly abandon their formations and move rapidly when needed. There are accounts of this tactic being used against Pontic archers for example. However, Nik is right about the whole MF issue being dodgy and it really needed to be discussed when the core rules were written. Of course, maybe it was and if so I'd be interested to hear the justification for MF. However as MF are part of the rules and aren't going to go away, allowing Roman players to choose to field their Auxilia as HF or MF is probably the best solution. Personally I would prefer that such decisions be allowed at deployment, and likewise for MF/LF archers, as this better models the options available to the commander but I suppose simplicity won out.

Trev

PS Re Agricola we might consider that his Auxilia were long service veterans and may have taken the frontal position because they were his best troops.

[shall]

It is not forgotten and one of the possible sitting in the cupboard for another day. We mulled over a Flexible Foot (FF) concept. Apart from getting the mechanics right for them we would need to be careful with the points system. The rules were very well balanced at that time so we kept the issue for the future rather than risk messing the balance up.

Si