I like your ideas, but Phillip II and his son, Alexander of Macedonia had standing armies. Before them, the Assyrians.
Couldn't have written it better.
Imperator needs to distinguish between Professional Soldiers and Conscripts
- Thread starter Grand Historian
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I like your ideas, but Phillip II and his son, Alexander of Macedonia had standing armies. Before them, the Assyrians.
Couldn't have written it better.
The game starts only 19 years after Alexander's death - I would place that within the same timeframe. Regardless, while my iconography was not altogether too accurate, I made it apparent that wasn't my concern with this post: gameplay was.
In fairness to VDH, he was one of the first Classics scholars I ever actually read, so I do owe him a bit of a debt for setting me on the track to study these things more deeply. But the man has been wrong about nearly everything and his influence has not been positive.
I'm not at all opposed to the idea of distinct manpower pools drawn from different pops- that was exactly how militia or levy armies were really raised. But describing this as a distinction between "professional" and "conscripted" troops is nonsense. You've also recommended other features which may make sense for citizen versus non-citizen soldiers, or for post-Marian full-time soldiers versus the pre-Marian levy, and just mashed them all up together. It's too muddled.
You can’t just dismiss the entire point like that. There is no reason to assume that a more historically accurate system would necessarily detract from gameplay.
Unfortunately gameplay has to come first in a game - beside, while it won't be as pronounced in Imperator as EU4, Imperator will still suffer from the pains of needing to simulate pre-marian and post-marian structures on a universal playing field in the same way that EU4 has to simulate pre and post-Westphalian politics. Muddling is unfortunately inevitable.
If you have improvements you want to suggest, please do. I only want the warfare to be the best it can be.
So why is the non-muddled variant I suggested on the last page inferior? It would still allow a qualitative advantage as the tribesmen heavy barbarians would have proportionally less wealthy manpower to play around, meaning less heavy troops for them until they civilize more. And it's particularly geared to representing Marian reform.
If I’m Carthage and I crush Rome, why the heck would I care about Marian reforms? This is a sandbox historical game, not a route historical simulator.
If you are content using small amounts of heavy citizen troops bolstered by feudatories and mercs, you probably won't and don't need to. But if you want to switch to more Romanesque national army, then there could be issues with your wealthy manpower not being robust enough for your needs. Of course, professionalization of the army wasn't the only solution to this, in Sparta in this period there was a radical land reform instead, in 10th century Byzantium there was a law that invalidated without compensation purchases of land from the theme militia. I think the issues that led to the Marian reform themselves (contraction of the middle class at expense of the ultra-rich) were more universal than Roman Republic, and I wouldn't mind such Carthage that was militarily reliant on middle class militia also having to tackle with them.
Of course my suggestion here didn't try to answer how exactly would a decline in the wealthy manpower be represented. And it does need some kind of decline mechanism, if Rome is to have plentiful manpower at the height of the Punic Wars and then less of it later on, while using substantially same recruitment system. I did make a suggestion about that in the past (a value called "smallholders" measuring wealth of your freemen pops), but that wasn't really compatible with this alternative proposed here and it was rather boring mechanic anyway.
Last edited:
PDS, Make it So!
However I see this as becoming DLC 1 if anything, this close to release, a major rework of a core system is unlikely.
However I see this as becoming DLC 1 if anything, this close to release, a major rework of a core system is unlikely.
Maybe. Speaking of the DLC policy, I hope they take up the stellaris one of major expansion around a gameplay theme instead of EU4's minor crockpot dlcs.
It would very from culture to culture (military system to military system). The Ptolemies recruited their phalanx from Greek settlers, their 'companions' or 'agema' from the Greek nobility, their Galatian swordsman from a small community of Galatian settlers, and bought in specialist mercenaries; cavalry, skirmish infantry and camel mounted arabs.
Different pools for different troops rather than the 'resource based' model.
Yes there should be scope for military reform, but in this era that usually went along with or necessitated social, political and or economic change. Professionalising your army is likely to mean considerable tax reform. Increasing your army may mean giving land in return for military service, or raising the status of a community other than your dominant culture.
Different pools for different troops rather than the 'resource based' model.
Yes there should be scope for military reform, but in this era that usually went along with or necessitated social, political and or economic change. Professionalising your army is likely to mean considerable tax reform. Increasing your army may mean giving land in return for military service, or raising the status of a community other than your dominant culture.
It's in there, but historically dromedaries were limited to the Arabian peninsula in this period and only the Arabs really used them.
I find it amusing that people spend so much time detracting from @Grand Historian 's suggestions rather than actually engaging them with alternatives. This certainly doesn't describe everyone in this thread, but it's amusing nonetheless.
...but only 2 years of land campaigns, the rest after that was all naval and, outside a few major battles (only two of which Rome lost, the Battles of Tunis and the Lipari Islands), largely took the form of commerce raiding. With the whole affair being relatively low stakes compared to overseas land campaigning, and with Rome having to build a navy from scratch, 23 years really isn't as absurd as you make it out to be.
I think you have some misconceptions here. Phyrrus never planned to fight Rome alone, but after Asculum his allies had largely decided to give up the whole affair. This left him without a source of reinforcement in Italy, so any reinforcements had to be taken from Epirus itself. Thus the Romans could quickly and easily reinforce and he could not, but that was due to geography and proximity, not any inherent manpower advantage. Hannibal's problem was similar, he couldn't reinforce his troops, and he didn't have enough for a proper siege, so he was stuck roaming around and raiding.
Regardless, Rome still won a good number of victories when heavily outnumbered and isolated, in enemy territory, in short wars, so there's evidently more to the equation than mere force of numbers and willingness to fight.
...but only 2 years of land campaigns, the rest after that was all naval and, outside a few major battles (only two of which Rome lost, the Battles of Tunis and the Lipari Islands), largely took the form of commerce raiding. With the whole affair being relatively low stakes compared to overseas land campaigning, and with Rome having to build a navy from scratch, 23 years really isn't as absurd as you make it out to be.
I think you have some misconceptions here. Phyrrus never planned to fight Rome alone, but after Asculum his allies had largely decided to give up the whole affair. This left him without a source of reinforcement in Italy, so any reinforcements had to be taken from Epirus itself. Thus the Romans could quickly and easily reinforce and he could not, but that was due to geography and proximity, not any inherent manpower advantage. Hannibal's problem was similar, he couldn't reinforce his troops, and he didn't have enough for a proper siege, so he was stuck roaming around and raiding.
Regardless, Rome still won a good number of victories when heavily outnumbered and isolated, in enemy territory, in short wars, so there's evidently more to the equation than mere force of numbers and willingness to fight.
Last edited:
Phillip funded his army mostly from the mines of Mt. Pangaion (gold). The army was trained and disciplined and grew in size. Was it a permanent 'standing army' or a well trained and disciplined 'levy' called up in campaigning season and those not required for garrison duties dismissed out of season; I don't know, but I'm not making assumptions ?
Under Alexander the army became a standing, or perhaps marching army.
When Hannibal by-passed Rome and 'liberated the Greeks of southern Italy they were at least as interested in dominating each other as in giving support to Hannibal or offering opposition to Rome.
I think Victoria 2 (And to some extend Crusader Kings) has some good lessons for the military system mechainics, specifically the idea of mobilising your citizenry and the idea of differentiating your soldiers based on citizenship as well. While the time periods are of course vastly different, some of what works in V2 would IMO also work as mechanics in R2.
Specifically, I think a system that enables the mobilisation of an army for a campaign, to then demobilise it when either a peace is reached or a specific time is up (Probably a soft cap on time, rather than a date-of-disband), would simulate the examples of citizen armies that I know of - mostly Greek citystates, early Roman campaigns, Carthage some times. Using an army like that obviously has drawbacks, such as a pressure to reach a settlement before the army goes home (Or the penalties for keeping it in the field grows too big). On the other hand, mobilising them and disbanding them are cheap choices, as they provide their own equipment and return to their farms. A mobilisation pool ought mostly come from right-cultured citizens. Unlike V2, you'd be able to recruit units from this pool, such as heavy infantry, cavalry etc., and mobilising is not an on/off switch. I don't envision these units reinforcing; they're not meant for long campaigns where that's needed anyway. The percentage and quality (Perhaps also available unit types) would depend on government type, national ideas and other proxies of martial culture. If there's a soft-cap on campaign time, this could even simulate the destabilising effects that the Roman system had over time, leading to social conflicts, reforms and civil wars.
If you want to occupy a hostile territory, an army that returns after a short campaign is obviously impractical. In that instance, you have to rely on more permanent soldiers. Standing armies and mercenaries are somewhat different, but they share the characteristics of being expensive to hire, maintain and disband. Standing armies come from POP types, but cultures, cores/civilisation level and NI's influence what kinds they are: Numidian tribal soldiers as well as Gallic cavalry and auxilliary troops may be the best you can get as a foreign empire, while you need your core armies from your own "freemen". Balancing the need to use your various pools optimally, you may opt for a system like the Romans, or shift your culture to accept Persian and Egyptian like Alexander did. These troops tend to become loyal to commanders over time. Mercenaries are already loyal to their commanders, of course, but will be demanding of your treasury and not your manpower pools. They will also more readily switch allegiances if you run out of money or military luck.
A tribe may be highly martial, and thus able to raise a lot of experienced armies the second they go to war, but don't have the economy to raise a standing army. Meanwhile, a highly centralised kingdom like Ptolomaic Egypt may not have the right culture to mobilise their Egyptian subjects, so they rely on a combination of Greek and wrong-cultured soldiers as auxilliary. Rome could do with the citizen armies for a century or two, until they have to permanently occupy most of Iberia, Tunis, Greece and parts of Anatolia. Suddenly the drain of keeping citizen armies mobilised and far away, coupled with a few high-profile defeats, saps their entire mobilisation pool. At that point they either have to face defeat or recruit a permanent army that requires land for pensions. Carthage could rely on own citizens for some units, but otherwise recruit from their non-Phoenician subjects in Iberia and Northern Africa. When their armies venture into Gallic territory, they can reinforce with Gallic mercenaries before crossing the Alps.
Are there historical examples that don't fit into such a system? Underdeveloped economies that field standing armies, for example?
Specifically, I think a system that enables the mobilisation of an army for a campaign, to then demobilise it when either a peace is reached or a specific time is up (Probably a soft cap on time, rather than a date-of-disband), would simulate the examples of citizen armies that I know of - mostly Greek citystates, early Roman campaigns, Carthage some times. Using an army like that obviously has drawbacks, such as a pressure to reach a settlement before the army goes home (Or the penalties for keeping it in the field grows too big). On the other hand, mobilising them and disbanding them are cheap choices, as they provide their own equipment and return to their farms. A mobilisation pool ought mostly come from right-cultured citizens. Unlike V2, you'd be able to recruit units from this pool, such as heavy infantry, cavalry etc., and mobilising is not an on/off switch. I don't envision these units reinforcing; they're not meant for long campaigns where that's needed anyway. The percentage and quality (Perhaps also available unit types) would depend on government type, national ideas and other proxies of martial culture. If there's a soft-cap on campaign time, this could even simulate the destabilising effects that the Roman system had over time, leading to social conflicts, reforms and civil wars.
If you want to occupy a hostile territory, an army that returns after a short campaign is obviously impractical. In that instance, you have to rely on more permanent soldiers. Standing armies and mercenaries are somewhat different, but they share the characteristics of being expensive to hire, maintain and disband. Standing armies come from POP types, but cultures, cores/civilisation level and NI's influence what kinds they are: Numidian tribal soldiers as well as Gallic cavalry and auxilliary troops may be the best you can get as a foreign empire, while you need your core armies from your own "freemen". Balancing the need to use your various pools optimally, you may opt for a system like the Romans, or shift your culture to accept Persian and Egyptian like Alexander did. These troops tend to become loyal to commanders over time. Mercenaries are already loyal to their commanders, of course, but will be demanding of your treasury and not your manpower pools. They will also more readily switch allegiances if you run out of money or military luck.
A tribe may be highly martial, and thus able to raise a lot of experienced armies the second they go to war, but don't have the economy to raise a standing army. Meanwhile, a highly centralised kingdom like Ptolomaic Egypt may not have the right culture to mobilise their Egyptian subjects, so they rely on a combination of Greek and wrong-cultured soldiers as auxilliary. Rome could do with the citizen armies for a century or two, until they have to permanently occupy most of Iberia, Tunis, Greece and parts of Anatolia. Suddenly the drain of keeping citizen armies mobilised and far away, coupled with a few high-profile defeats, saps their entire mobilisation pool. At that point they either have to face defeat or recruit a permanent army that requires land for pensions. Carthage could rely on own citizens for some units, but otherwise recruit from their non-Phoenician subjects in Iberia and Northern Africa. When their armies venture into Gallic territory, they can reinforce with Gallic mercenaries before crossing the Alps.
Are there historical examples that don't fit into such a system? Underdeveloped economies that field standing armies, for example?
I think this is key. People tend to conceive of the Roman Legions as fixed formations, when in reality they were raised, disbanded, reformed, destroyed, disbanded again, reformed, etc. multiple times over the course of Roman history. During the wars between the Triumvirs legions were raised whole cloth using cadres of veterans. It wasn't until after the scope of this game that legions began having fixed names and territorial assignments as the rule rather than the exception.
You could also have an interesting dichotomy between established generals and professional soldiers. Historically, time and again professional soldiers defected to generals like Antony over generals like Lepidus because of Antony's reputation among the rank and file. In this way conscripts or raised citizen-soldiers may be more loyal to the player's chosen general since they are less likely to defect to a general they like more.
The division between professional and not means little in the era and people, essentially, wank to the idea of a standing army becaus they imagine a modern military. And they imagine, specifically, the USA. But even in the modern world the distinction between professional and conscript is often minimal. A conscript who serves full time has almost no difference in skills or training than a volunteer, while a part time volunteer is simply going to not be as good as someone who is a full time soldier
In the context of the ancient world, standing armies in the way people equate to modern militaries are vanishingly rare. Imperial Rome did not have one, and this is pre Imperial. A legion garrisoned in its region would commit to... farming and building infrastructure like anyone else in the area.
Even the vaunted Spartans were.... mostly duds who managed to states, wrote poetry, and farmed. Their claim to fame was a ‘mastery’ of the oh so difficult technique of.... marching in formation to music. Something that was beyond most Greeks.
And you have to ask yourself, is there a difference between a person who was conscripted ten years ago and has been fighting with Alexander and someone who ‘volunteered’ for the same period?
In the context of the ancient world, standing armies in the way people equate to modern militaries are vanishingly rare. Imperial Rome did not have one, and this is pre Imperial. A legion garrisoned in its region would commit to... farming and building infrastructure like anyone else in the area.
Even the vaunted Spartans were.... mostly duds who managed to states, wrote poetry, and farmed. Their claim to fame was a ‘mastery’ of the oh so difficult technique of.... marching in formation to music. Something that was beyond most Greeks.
And you have to ask yourself, is there a difference between a person who was conscripted ten years ago and has been fighting with Alexander and someone who ‘volunteered’ for the same period?