Is Roman heavy infantry advantages baseless?

[Voigt]

I mean the best way would be to have a fully dynamic system. Since you are rich enough and supply is good enough in Italy, that you can use Heavy Infantry, you use them for some times. After 100 years you get a Military Tradition, since you used them for so long so well. But if you would a different Unit Type often and well, you would instead get a Military Tradtion for this Unit.

But I wouldn't trust a dynamic system as much, and it is probably to much work, especially now, to implement such a system in the game.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

To be a heavy infantryman, you had to be a citizen.

Roman citizenship was only ever a requirement for being a legionary heavy infantryman. There was plenty of allied heavy infantry, particularly the latins and the socii who were supposedly equipped similarily to the Romans (and as such may have made up most of "Roman" heavy infantry in many battles).

 

[Denkt]

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

As far as I know Hannibal Always had more cavalry than the Romans expect at Zama in which the Romans had the stronger cavalry, so I don't think that indicates that Rome had inferior cavalry. Also Zama as far as I understand was only lost after the cavalry encircled the infantry and consider that Hannibal's infantry was probably more green than Scipio's don't seems to indicate that the Roman infantry was superior. As I said about Auxilia above, in game terms they would be normal units just like units that would be considered to have citizenship.

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

As I understand, Roman political system was why they took over so much, because a consul only had one year in his Life to prove himself it lead both to great conquest as well as disasters such as Cannae. The triumph was the pinnacle of a political career and could only be achieved by great military conquest.

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.

But this should mean that for example a "barbarian nation" who reform, become a republic, have as high civilization value and technology as Rome should be able to develop similar Heavy infantry as Rome. But this is impossible as you would be stuck with barbarian traditions and that never change no matter how many times you fought Rome and their Heavy infantry.

 

[hkrommel]

As I understand, Roman political system was why they took over so much, because a consul only had one year in his Life to prove himself it lead both to great conquest as well as disasters such as Cannae. The triumph was the pinnacle of a political career and could only be achieved by great military conquest.

This is a bad take.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

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.

I've also heard this point rephrased as "Rome didn't know when they were supposed to surrender". In a couple of years leading up to Cannae Rome lost 20% of its adult male population. They were supposed to come to terms at that point and pay some tribute for a next 20 years or so. Instead they just failed to register that they had lost, kept on fighting, and eventually wore the other chap down.

 

[Denkt]

I've also heard this point rephrased as "Rome didn't know when they were supposed to surrender". In a couple of years leading up to Cannae Rome lost 20% of its adult male population. They were supposed to come to terms at that point and pay some tribute for a next 20 years or so. Instead they just failed to register that they had lost, kept on fighting, and eventually wore the other chap down.

Rome's worst defeat must have been at Claudine Forks. Without any fighting the consular armies surrendered and Rome was forced to a 5 year long truce in a war they was winning. After that defeat Rome changed from phalanx to manipular system and eventually won.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

I think you just answered your own OP?

Question:

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.

Answer:

Rome's worst defeat must have been at Claudine Forks. Without any fighting the consular armies surrendered and Rome was forced to a 5 year long truce in a war they was winning. After that defeat Rome changed from phalanx to manipular system and eventually won.

I am very confused by this thread.

 

[A_Dane]

As far as I know Hannibal Always had more cavalry than the Romans expect at Zama in which the Romans had the stronger cavalry, so I don't think that indicates that Rome had inferior cavalry. Also Zama as far as I understand was only lost after the cavalry encircled the infantry and consider that Hannibal's infantry was probably more green than Scipio's don't seems to indicate that the Roman infantry was superior. As I said about Auxilia above, in game terms they would be normal units just like units that would be considered to have citizenship.


As I understand, Roman political system was why they took over so much, because a consul only had one year in his Life to prove himself it lead both to great conquest as well as disasters such as Cannae. The triumph was the pinnacle of a political career and could only be achieved by great military conquest.


But this should mean that for example a "barbarian nation" who reform, become a republic, have as high civilization value and technology as Rome should be able to develop similar Heavy infantry as Rome. But this is impossible as you would be stuck with barbarian traditions and that never change no matter how many times you fought Rome and their Heavy infantry.

You disprove your own initial point here: Hannibal had more cavalry yes, which was one of the main reasons he won - why? Because the Roman infantry was quite simply superior to his own. (Not withstanding his superior use of battlefield tactics) - Hannibal had retreated with the core of his very experienced army from Italy...

Furthermore, when they did defeat Hannibal they had more cavalry, yes, but it was not Roman, it was Numidian cavalry. Proper Roman cavalry was simply not that spectacular. Hannibal lost his most important edge, if not the only one, against the Romans, because his infantry simply were no match for the Roman ones.

In terms of their political system: they had many more inferior generals than they had good ones. For every Scipio africanus, Sulla/Marius or caesar they had a handful of servilius capios' - and they still managed to succeed.

On the last point: yes the system is a bit deterministic perhaps, but by 300 BC. The foundations for the Roman republics successful heavy infantry armies had already been established.

I really don't get why you are so anti-roman heavy infantry? It was the core of their army whether you want it or not. - I can understand if you think they get too many/too high bonuses compared to others, but not that they shouldn't get a bonus to heavy infantry at all, which is how you started this thread. Who is it exactly that you think is getting left out? The diadochi? Because that just isn't true. The phalanx was powerful, yes, but only truly in conjunction with cavalry - on it's own it was quite vulnerable. The diadochi did have some specialist troops which were probably better than the average Roman soldier, but they were way, way fewer in number...

 

[hkrommel]

Who is it exactly that you think is getting left out? The diadochi? Because that just isn't true. The phalanx was powerful, yes, but only truly in conjunction with cavalry - on it's own it was quite vulnerable. The diadochi did have some specialist troops which were probably better than the average Roman soldier, but they were way, way fewer in number...

I think this is the key point. Alexander was nothing without his cavalry, that was what won battles. The anvil is nothing without the hammer. Phalanx sans cavalry will be easily flanked and destroyed.

 

[Dusty242]

Furthermore, when they did defeat Hannibal they had more cavalry, yes, but it was not Roman, it was Numidian cavalry. Proper Roman cavalry was simply not that spectacular. Hannibal lost his most important edge, if not the only one, against the Romans, because his infantry simply were no match for the Roman ones.

The battle of Zama is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Hannibal and Scipios first and last confrontations were bloody. The Carthaginian cavalry was out matched so it pulled the Roman cavalry off the field in hopes that it wouldn't attack the Carthaginian infantries rear.

This worked for a time so during the melee Carthaginian Mercenaries and citizens fought the Roman Hastati, Principe and Triarii. However even though he Romans are said to have this innate superiority they didn't crush Hannibals mixed green and veteran troops instead until the Numidan cavalry came back to attack Hannibal rear it was a stalemate.

In terms of their political system: they had many more inferior generals than they had good ones. For every Scipio africanus, Sulla/Marius or caesar they had a handful of servilius capios' - and they still managed to succeed.

Every single major Roman conquest was done by a successful generals, those that were mediocre managed to win or lose a few battles or wars yet the major conquests such as Iberia, Africa, Egypt, Gaul, Greece, Syria and more were made by successful generals.

You simply can not make a military system that is so good mediocre generals can beat better ones. The Romans for their part were able to create a series of tactics and a military system that didn't require a genius to use however their actual success came from skilled and experienced generals that most states did not have. A comparable point in history would be Alexander's Empire filled with competent and experienced generals however unlike Rome they had no reason to be loyal to the state even as a few tried to hold it together.

I think this is the key point. Alexander was nothing without his cavalry, that was what won battles. The anvil is nothing without the hammer. Phalanx sans cavalry will be easily flanked and destroyed.

The idea that the Macedonian army consisted of just a phalanx needs to die in a fire. Macedon under Phillip and later Alexander created the first all professional combined arms army. They had a small core of Phalangites that made up the center line, a large number of Hoplites that would protect the flanks and peltasts for skirmishing before battle and able to join in the melee during the fighting. They had various types of cavalry such as the Thessalians able to both skirmish with javelin and charge somewhat effectively they were likely the most famous Greek cavalry until Alexander's Hetairoi companions. There were also the various light cavalry contingents such as the Prodromoi scouts meant for exactly that scouting before battle and protecting the right flank or the 2,000 strong cavalry contingent supplied by the Peononans and Thracians. Alexander even had a regiment of Sogdian (or Scythian I cant remember at the moment) horse archers which famously caused disorder in the Indian ranks during the battle of Hydaspes with sustained volley fire.

For example at Guagamela the most famous of Alexander's battles his 47,000 strong army had a whooping 9,000 Phalangites in an army that had 31,000 heavy infantry that's quite a bit but only a third of the heavy infantry in the army the rest being Hoplites or Hypaspists. Mind you this is the same battle where the Persians encircled the Macedonian left flank and were attacking it from all sides yet failed to break Permenion's men before Alexander arrived after knocking Darius off the field.

So much for simply flank the phalanx.

 

[Denkt]

You disprove your own initial point here: Hannibal had more cavalry yes, which was one of the main reasons he won - why? Because the Roman infantry was quite simply superior to his own. (Not withstanding his superior use of battlefield tactics) - Hannibal had retreated with the core of his very experienced army from Italy...

As far as I understand neither side was clearly winning at Zama Before the Roman cavalry encircled Hannibals line so I don't think it is that clear that Roman infantry was superior to what Carthage had.

Furthermore, when they did defeat Hannibal they had more cavalry, yes, but it was not Roman, it was Numidian cavalry. Proper Roman cavalry was simply not that spectacular. Hannibal lost his most important edge, if not the only one, against the Romans, because his infantry simply were no match for the Roman ones.

From what I have heard, the Roman cavalry from Italy was similar equipped as the Companion cavalry Alexander the great had as well being very well trained and disciplined with often being able to defeat enemy cavalry while outnumbered. Yes Rome usage of cavalry may have been different from Alexander's but that don't make it less important and cavalry had very important jobs outside of the battlefield to make sure the army actually could function.

In terms of their political system: they had many more inferior generals than they had good ones. For every Scipio africanus, Sulla/Marius or caesar they had a handful of servilius capios' - and they still managed to succeed.

From what I have heard that is a myth, Roman commanders tended to have significant amount of experience as military service was often a part of advancing in their political system. Yes Rome did have some spectacular failures but these was rare.

On the last point: yes the system is a bit deterministic perhaps, but by 300 BC. The foundations for the Roman republics successful heavy infantry armies had already been established.

But that don't mean like the reformed tribe I was talking about above could not have developed similar infantry as Rome?

I really don't get why you are so anti-roman heavy infantry? It was the core of their army whether you want it or not. - I can understand if you think they get too many/too high bonuses compared to others, but not that they shouldn't get a bonus to heavy infantry at all, which is how you started this thread.

Alot of traditions give bonuses to Heavy infantry but the Italin one is completely stacked with Heavy infantry bonuses, most in a single path as well making it easy to get them all if you want to.

 

[hkrommel]

As far as I understand neither side was clearly winning at Zama Before the Roman cavalry encircled Hannibals line so I don't think it is that clear that Roman infantry was superior to what Carthage had.

This is a non-sequitur. Just because one factor happened to end the battle (assuming what you said is actually true) doesn't mean something else wasn't decisive.

From what I have heard, the Roman cavalry from Italy was similar equipped as the Companion cavalry

They were, but again mostly they weren't Roman. Even in the early period most cavalry came from allied city-states and regions, such as Campania.

Yes Rome usage of cavalry may have been different from Alexander's but that don't make it less important and cavalry had very important jobs outside of the battlefield to make sure the army actually could function.

Nobody said anything about it being unimportant. Combined arms was crucial to the period. I will say it was probably less important than for Alexander because if you hold all other things equal and pit Alexander-style infantry against Roman-style infantry, the Romans would most likely come out on top. Thus, Alexander relied more on his cavalry to be a decisive factor.

From what I have heard that is a myth, Roman commanders tended to have significant amount of experience as military service was often a part of advancing in their political system. Yes Rome did have some spectacular failures but these was rare.

Then you need to "hear" different things. As with all things in history, it depends on the time period and individuals involved. You really can't make such broad generalizations over this timespan.

But that don't mean like the reformed tribe I was talking about above could not have developed similar infantry as Rome?

I'm of the opinion that the devs should develop historical paths first and foremost, then provide for ways things could develop differently. Aside from that, Rome was placed rather uniquely in terms of geography and culture, and was well-situated to take advantage of the various military traditions surrounding it. Further than that, the fact that various tribes never did adopt similar infantry, in spite of being in near-constant contact with Rome well after the game's period ends, should be some indication. Rome became more like them, not the other way around.

Alot of traditions give bonuses to Heavy infantry but the Italin one is completely stacked with Heavy infantry bonuses, most in a single path as well making it easy to get them all if you want to.

...and?

 

[Mike6979]

I would say that Roman infantry were the best overall soldiers the world has ever seen.

 

[Dusty242]

I would say that Roman infantry were the best overall soldiers the world has ever seen.

But why, the Romans weren't the most disciplined or the best trained ever. They might be the best trained soldiers in antiquity though I think a few Chinese dynasties had better troops.

 

[hkrommel]

I would say that Roman infantry were the best overall soldiers the world has ever seen.

Data is insufficient for this argument

But why, the Romans weren't the most disciplined or the best trained ever. They might be the best trained soldiers in antiquity though I think a few Chinese dynasties had better troops.

Data is insufficient for this argument

 

[Mike6979]

Seriously? The Romans built a fortified camp every night after out marching every other army except the Mongols, they beat every type of army at one point or another, they invented the idea of a NCO, and Chinese troops?? No, no Chinese dynasty ever had troops near to Roman legions.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

I wasn't really sure whether or not the original post was a troll post.
It has now devolved into multi-reply-post arguments about minutiae that weren't even present in the OP. So I guess even if it wasn't a troll post, it has achieved the same thing.

 

[Mike6979]

Why would you assume the first post was a troll post? It seems to me you are just trying to find something to be angry about.
I took the first post as a legitimate question, many people hear about Carhae or Canae before they hear about Vespasian taking Celtic fortified towns with close to zero casualties.

 

[Dusty242]

This is a non-sequitur. Just because one factor happened to end the battle (assuming what you said is actually true) doesn't mean something else wasn't decisive

Something else wasn't decisive, the return of Scipios Numidan cavalry and its attack on Hannibals rear was the event that ended the battle.
As they were nearly equal in numbers as well as in spirit and bravery, and were equally well armed, the contest was for long doubtful, the men falling where they stood out of determination, 7 and Massanissa and Laelius, returning from the pursuit of the cavalry, arrived providentially at the proper moment. 8 When they fell on Hannibal's army from the rear, most of the men were cut down in their ranks, while of those who took to flight only quite a few escaped, as the cavalry were close on them and the country was level. 9 More than fifteen hundred Romans fell, the Carthaginian loss amounting to twenty thousand killed and nearly the same number of prisoners. - Polybius Book XV oage 497.

Now mind you during this battle the Carthaginian first line made up of haphazardly put together citizens and mercenaries were basically destroyed by Scipios more experienced and better armed Roman troops, it was Hannibals italic infantry that held up and stalemated the Romans.

Nobody said anything about it being unimportant. Combined arms was crucial to the period. I will say it was probably less important than for Alexander because if you hold all other things equal and pit Alexander-style infantry against Roman-style infantry, the Romans would most likely come out on top. Thus, Alexander relied more on his cavalry to be a decisive factor.

I wouldn't say that the Romans would come out on top even most of the time, Alexandrian style troops were quite different infantry wise from the Diadochi of Rome's time. The Alexandrian infantry had a better put together army with a various light infantry and heavy infantry types other than the Phalangites though they were the holding arm of the infantry. It would all depend on terrain and who was leading both forces after all.

Then you need to "hear" different things. As with all things in history, it depends on the time period and individuals involved. You really can't make such broad generalizations over this timespan.

But this timespan was filled with both skilled and experienced commander from the Punic war, Macedonian wars and more it was a time where Rome spent nearly a century in a constant state of war and that created a large force of experienced commanders especially given you need to be in your 30s to command a Roman Legion thus young inexperienced commanders rarely took the fore.

I'm of the opinion that the devs should develop historical paths first and foremost, then provide for ways things could develop differently. Aside from that, Rome was placed rather uniquely in terms of geography and culture, and was well-situated to take advantage of the various military traditions surrounding it. Further than that, the fact that various tribes never did adopt similar infantry, in spite of being in near-constant contact with Rome well after the game's period ends, should be some indication. Rome became more like them, not the other way around.

Various tribes did adopt Roman dress the Gauls did it constantly throughout Caeser's invasion during this timeframe, even earlier the Pontic armies changed from the pike heavy force Diadochi states used towards a more sword based design likely taking influence from the Celtic Galatians that inhabited the Anatolian peninsula thus they were often called imitation legionaries by the Roman troops just as well the Iberian tribes also were similarly equipped to Romans Hastati of the time though they reportedly used an all iron javelin to devastating effect and were too poor to armor themselves in en-mass with maile.

Seriously? The Romans built a fortified camp every night after out marching every other army except the Mongols, they beat every type of army at one point or another, they invented the idea of a NCO, and Chinese troops?? No, no Chinese dynasty ever had troops near to Roman legions.

They lost to Parthians, Persians, Gauls, Germanics, Huns, Iberians, Greeks, Africans and more, while the marching camps they built were certainly impressive it doesn't classify them as the best. They did not invent the idea of an NCO even in Europe the Macedonians had that idea first with the commander of a Locho or 16 men lead by a Lochagos or Captain in Koine Greek. Tang troops which were arguably the best troops prior to the armies of Ming and later Qing were quite a match for the Roman army man for man even during Rome's peak in 200AD.

 

[Denkt]

If you read around on the internet, watch videos on youtube and so on you will probably find that people can have very different opinion around the roman military. Some basically say it is the greatest military ever created while others hold what to say, not necessarily such great opinion about the roman military.

Yes I can agree about I did write the first post poorly and maybe continued on in a wrong way, what I wanted to do is to ask the question about if Roman heavy infantry should be as good as it is shown in the game based on real life counterpart.

I don't agree that Rome should have poor cavalry or archers because they are auxilia because the game don't differentiate between citizen soldiers and auxilia.