Is Roman heavy infantry advantages baseless?

[Denkt]

Between 304 bce and 27 bce (the timeframe of the game) was Roman Heavy infantry so much better that they deserve several bonuses to it. Roman metalworking was as far as I understand not superior and much of the Equipment they used had come from other people.
Military training don't seems superior, such as Cannae Roman army was probably quite poorly trained which was probably a major reason why they lost. Discipline don't seems superior to that shown by the diadochi armies.

 

[hkrommel]

Have you noticed that in a large number of your posts, you make broad conclusions from very small amounts of data? That's what you're doing here. Cannae is not a representative sample of Roman performance, and I honestly don't know where you're getting this conclusion that the Diadochi were somehow more disciplined. Could you maybe make your case with some more broad sources or examples? It's impossible to tell where you're getting this stuff.

 

[Denkt]

Have you noticed that in a large number of your posts, you make broad conclusions from very small amounts of data? That's what you're doing here. Cannae is not a representative sample of Roman performance, and I honestly don't know where you're getting this conclusion that the Diadochi were somehow more disciplined. Could you maybe make your case with some more broad sources or examples? It's impossible to tell where you're getting this stuff.

This of this is a question and Secondly you are not actually trying to answer it at all. You neither say anything in favor of Roman Heavy infantry nor against it.

 

[Palando]

This of this is a question and Secondly you are not actually trying to answer it at all. You neither say anything in favor of Roman Heavy infantry nor against it.

You should probably use more quotation marks ("?"), as otherwise people will have a hard time to see whether or not something is a question.

 

[hkrommel]

This of this is a question and Secondly you are not actually trying to answer it at all. You neither say anything in favor of Roman Heavy infantry nor against it.

You make claims like:
1. Metalworking was not superior
2. Training was poor
3. Discipline was not superior

All in support of a “question” which challenges the status quo by essentially claiming Rome doesn’t deserve heavy infantry bonuses.

That’s an argument.

Now, I brought up the points I did because that’s a method of argumentation called “attacking the premises.” I directly attacked your premise that Cannae was in any way representative of Roman training during this period. I asked for evidence of your claim that Diadochi armies and Roman armies were of similar discipline. I didn’t comment on the metalworking since I don’t have enough knowledge in that area.

To the overall point I’ll add that Rome won using heavy infantry based armies, often when outnumbered and even outmaneuvered, often against superior cavalry forces, so something they did must have been right. Nearly all historians chalk that up to superior heavy infantry armament, training, discipline, and tactics. Since the paradigm in Europe didn’t even begin to shift to a cavalry focus until Adrianople (long after this game ends) this seems like a reasonable conclusion. As the conclusion of many historians, this has some weight and someone (you) who wishes to challenge it should give reasons for doing so. I’m not asking for a book, just some reasoning as to why you think the Diadochi had similar discipline thorough this period, for example.

 

[A_Dane]

The reason the Romans lost at Cannae probably had very little to do with the training/armament/discipline of the average Roman soldier and much more to do with the infighting between, and near-total ineptitude of, the two Roman generals in the face of one of the greatest military minds of human history... It's quite unreasonable to use it as an example of supposed inferior Roman soldiers - especially when you take into account the numerous wars and battles they won during the period while relying mostly on infantry. (Battles against Pyrrhus, Alesia, campaigns in Spain and so forth)

Many of the battles the Romans lost was due to their generals not being very good at their jobs...

Edit: to clarify - while we can discuss to what degree they should get bonuses, to say them having superior heavy infantry is baseless is simply wrong

 

[macd21]

Another factor: while the Romans lost at Cannae, they learnt from their mistakes. They initiated reforms that made their heavy infantry even more effective.

 

[vicbus]

In "In the Name of Rome", Adrian Goldsworthy claims that a big part of republican roman military prowess came from all the experience from the period of almost ceaseless warfare after the Second Punic war. So in game terms a significant part Rome's military boni would come from military traditions, and not all of it from some permanent morale bonus, like EU4's France. I hope that is the direction that the game will follow, weighting more on military experience than some intrinsic national bonus.

 

[Denkt]

You purchase military tradition and the cost go down the better your technology are but the more traditions you purchase the more expensive the next one will be.

 

[vicbus]

You purchase military tradition and the cost go down the better your technology are but the more traditions you purchase the more expensive the next one will be.

When I talk about military traditions I am thinking of EU4, where it is a decaying value that gives you morale boni. I don't actually know if/how that appears in I:R, maybe in unit experience? I find the fact that it is a decaying bonus important, because it means that long periods of peace would reduce your military effectiveness. And I believe that this kind of system should have a significant weight compared to permanent military boni.

 

[Denkt]

There is no military tradition like in EUIV but cohorts gain experience from combat but you need to be very careful as losses will be replaced by green Soldiers.

 

[vicbus]

There is no military tradition like in EUIV but cohorts gain experience from combat but you need to be very careful as losses will be replaced by green Soldiers.

So a defeat like Cannae would overall make you worse militarily because of that, wouldn't it? With EU4's system you get better at warfare by experience, either if you win or you lose. That's something I would like to see in I:R as well.

 

[Bismark776]

I would attribute the strength of Roman heavy infantry primarily to the maniple system which made then significantly more flexible than equivalent heavy infantry from other areas that primarily fought in phalanx formations. They were able to adjust formations and relieve fatigued soldiers mid combat. Additionally their line formations were an offset checkerboard pattern which caused phalanx formations to become disordered an expose their flanks.

 

[Denkt]

Rome did not just use Heavy infantry, they used cavalry who was as good as their opponents as well as skirmishers and light infantry. Roman army was not monotone Heavy infantry army but more diverse with different specialist units.

 

[hkrommel]

Rome did not just use Heavy infantry, they used cavalry who was as good as their opponents as well as skirmishers and light infantry. Roman army was not monotone Heavy infantry army but more diverse with different specialist units.

The Romans relied heavily on allies and auxiliaries for their cavalry and missile troops (some of the most famous examples being Caesar's Vocontii and Ubian cavalry and Cretan archers in Gaul), so they weren't really "Roman." To be a heavy infantryman, you had to be a citizen.

 

[Denkt]

The Romans relied heavily on allies and auxiliaries for their cavalry and missile troops (some of the most famous examples being Caesar's Vocontii and Ubian cavalry and Cretan archers in Gaul), so they weren't really "Roman." To be a heavy infantryman, you had to be a citizen.

But in game terms Auxilia units would be the same as units with roman citizenship.

 

[Ares Enyalios]

Although i dislike the way the OP avoids to argue for his claims i would support the overall idea behind it: The thesis that the roman soldier was not essentially better than the counterparts from diffrent nations.

I myself see a few advantages that were significant. Keep in mind we talk about the republican army.

1. Society and Population

Although Rome was until late in to the 1th century B.C. not the largest city in the mediterranean (i think i saw that in Imperator Rome is the biggest city from the begining), Latium was one of the more dense populated regions in the mediterranean world. That gave them already an advantage in numbers against more mountainous tribes like the Samnites. However a crucial point is society. Rome had probably one of the highest mobilisation rates of antiquity in relation to their population. They had a system that can be basically described as an Conscription system. In constrat to that you have for example warrior-societies like the celts where you have a chieftain, some freeman who are warriors and behind them a mass of unfree man. Only a few man could go to war in this societies because leaving your farm means in a decentralised society that you could come home and have nothing while in rome there was some security that it didn't happend that way. In case of the hellenistic realms or greek polis again you have the problem of classes which definde who can serve as a soldier. Usually citizens and in the hellenistic realms often people of greek/macedonian/thracian origin who were some kind of military settlers. Egypt at some point made an extemption of that.

--> However that means Rome had the possibility to steamroll anyone if they wanted and in the 2. Punic War they did essentially that, despite the massiv losses.

2. Logistics

At some point the Romans adapted, probably from Hannibal, a concept of specialisted units which could act more independently than an entire army. The motto Moltke: "March divided but fight together" comes in mind. The Romans were able to field quite a number of armies and supply them while most of their enemies had a single army. Although huge armies, the hellenistic kings didn't wanted or couldn't have more than one army, traditionally lead by the king. There are of course exceptions but when the Romans faced the Macedonians and the Seleucids they face no more than a Fleet and an Army in a Campaign.

There are many other points and Traditions after the Punic wars is a good point, but i thought those two are two points that often tend to be neglected, especially the one about society.

 

[Voigt]

Where do you get, that Rome gets any special Heavy Infantry Boni either way?
There is the Latin Military Tradition, but this is for the complete Latin Group not Roman in particular.

As far as I know the only special a government in general or here Rome as an example gets are special Laws, which were shown in the last stream, and as far as I remember they gave Manpower Recovery Speed or something along these lines.

As a player you kinda will try to use Heavy Infantry alot, since their drawbacks are their high supply demand and cost, but in Italy you a rather rich and supply per province is plenty.

But there is nothing inherent in the gamemechanic making roman heavy infantry stronger, is there?

 

[Denkt]

Where do you get, that Rome gets any special Heavy Infantry Boni either way?
There is the Latin Military Tradition, but this is for the complete Latin Group not Roman in particular.

Yes that is true, nations with latin traditions can get the same Heavy infantry advantages.

As far as I know the only special a government in general or here Rome as an example gets are special Laws, which were shown in the last stream, and as far as I remember they gave Manpower Recovery Speed or something along these lines.

It was the marian reform law.

As a player you kinda will try to use Heavy Infantry alot, since their drawbacks are their high supply demand and cost, but in Italy you a rather rich and supply per province is plenty.

The main advantage Heavy infantry have over other units is that it is very strong against cavalry.

But there is nothing inherent in the gamemechanic making roman heavy infantry stronger, is there?

However it will be potentially stronger than let say nations with North African traditions.

 

[A_Dane]

Rome did not just use Heavy infantry, they used cavalry who was as good as their opponents as well as skirmishers and light infantry. Roman army was not monotone Heavy infantry army but more diverse with different specialist units.

All right, we need to take a step back here:

No one argued that, but as pointed out: the proper "roman" cavalry wasn't that good, not bad, but nothing special either - so they used axuillaries or allied forces for that. And yes, like all other nations they used spear-throwers/archers/skirmishers/scouts. But they were never the backbone of the roman force. The backbone was always the (heavy) infantry.
The roman cavalry forces were soundly beaten in every single clash against Hannibal, with the exception of Zama, where they had managed to sway the numidian allies of Carthage

B) the romans still managed to take over most of the known world. How?
It was not because their generals were better, they werent.

It's because they adapted to, or appropriated, everything that was better than their style of doing things. When they realised hoplite formations weren't as effective against their enemies, they adapted their fighting style. When they realised that style weren't as effective against Phalanx's, they adapted once more. When they got soundly beaten by Hannibal, they once more adjusted their formations. When they met better equipment, they took on that too. And it goes on and on.

How would you model this? It can not be made on an army to army basis, as this was something that happened across all of them. The average Roman (heavy infantry) soldier wasn't a god, but their equipment was usually of high quality, and their training and tactics were usually a lot more flexible and generally more battle tested than their opponents.

This did not make them invincible however, as has been pointed out, but generally when they were defeated, it was due to their system of generalship being a bit of a gamble, meeting something new (elephants, phalanxes, Hannibal, Cimbris/teutons etc.), or just mere chance.

Whether you want it or not, the backbone of the roman army was their heavy infantry, and it was some of the best in the ancient mediterranean. How to best represent this?: bonuses to their heavy infantry.

Besides, as pointed out by @Voigt - it's in the latin group

I seriously don't get the point of this being brought up for discussion? Military traditions need to give bonuses in some way or the other, and heavy infantry bonuses for the roman/latin armies is the most logical way to go..