Is Roman heavy infantry advantages baseless?

[Dusty242]

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.

In my opinion the Roman infantry by the end of the third Macedonian war in 168 BC were likely the best infantry in the Mediterranean due to experience, training, commanders and the money & resources necessary for building an amazing war machine they definitely deserve the bonuses they get if the Devs are looking at the historical outcomes to base their bonuses on.

 

[Denkt]

In my opinion the Roman infantry by the end of the third Macedonian war in 168 BC were likely the best infantry in the Mediterranean due to experience, training, commanders and the money & resources necessary for building an amazing war machine they definitely deserve the bonuses they get if the Devs are looking at the historical outcomes to base their bonuses on.

The main argument I can see why you would give anyone bonuses to specific units is that you want that nations armies to be made up of that unit. Like if you want to see Rome and Macedonia use large amounts of heavy infantry a good way is to give them bonuses. Obviously with only 28 traditions there are limitations what you can give a nation.

Basically as far as I can see the whole point behind the tradition tree is not anything to do about realism but about steering the military of different nations towards different direction such as light infantry armies of barbarian nations, strong navy for Carthage and heavy infantry and cavalry for Seleucid.

 

[hkrommel]

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.

I was pointing out a bad argument. Not commenting on the battle itself.

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.

Doubtful. The rock of his armies were his phalangites and hoplites. The peltasts and light infantry would be too few in number to cope with a Roman legion's infantry contingent, and the others would simply be outflanked and/or have their formation destroyed by pila. Remember we're controlling for only infantry here, as stated in my post.

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.

It was also filled with crap commanders. You can't generalize over this length of time. Any attempt to do so undermines your credibility as someone who takes history seriously.

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.

Imitation legionaries were exceedingly rare, and in many cases were simply Romans who deserted or became mercenaries. Legionary tactics were non-existent outside of Rome. As to your other points, you seem to have the timeline backwards regarding the barbarians. The Romans adapted from them.

 

[Dusty242]

Doubtful. The rock of his armies were his phalangites and hoplites. The peltasts and light infantry would be too few in number to cope with a Roman legion's infantry contingent, and the others would simply be outflanked and/or have their formation destroyed by pila. Remember we're controlling for only infantry here, as stated in my post.

You way overrate the mobility of the the Roman Infantry seriously, I would happily debate this with you if we set up a specific scenario but simply treating this like a total war game where its simple to outflank an opponent is wrong. I stated earlier even that during the battle of Gaugamela Permenion's force on the left flank had been encircled by the persians yet they failed to break them even though almost all of the Macedonian cavalry was being used by Alexander. Macedonian infantry was the definition of combined arms as well given that only a third of Alexanders heavy infantry forces were Phalangites, he used far more Hoplites and Hypaspists along with light infantry than pikes, from the beginning his Peltasts and light infantry actually outnumbered his Phalangite force.

It was also filled with crap commanders. You can't generalize over this length of time. Any attempt to do so undermines your credibility as someone who takes history seriously.

True enough I concede that point.

Imitation legionaries were exceedingly rare, and in many cases were simply Romans who deserted or became mercenaries. Legionary tactics were non-existent outside of Rome. As to your other points, you seem to have the timeline backwards regarding the barbarians. The Romans adapted from them.

I did not have my timeline backward when it comes to Gaul, Iberian tribes and the nearer Celtic tribes are what the Roman armies of the Republican era are mostly based on equipment wise with influence from the Samnites as well as other Italic tribes and city states for their tactics. I spoke of late era BCE Iberia and Gual, the first of which morphed under a number of Roman commanders and rebels to use more Roman Tactics where as the original equipment was the same or similar. Gaul on the other hand at the time of Caeser's invasions was a prime area that had little to no Roman influence its tactics were notably different though the equipment was similar, however late into the conquest the Gauls began adapting Roman tactics in battle though against an opponent such as Caeser they were still unable to match his mind and his mostly professional armies.

As for imitation legionaries they were not excedingly rare by any real margin in the Pontic army under Mithridates VI given that a majority of his force was made up by these Pontic legions. The Greeks however had their own independly created unit similar to Roman Legionares that being the Thorakitai who copied the Galatians it is odd that the Greeks never used more than a few thousand of these units though.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I'm fairly certain that thorakitai and imitation legionaries are both mentioned in later battles. It's bit mysterious how they were distinct since the former already seem at least superficially similar to a legionary.

 

[Dusty242]

I'm fairly certain that thorakitai and imitation legionaries are both mentioned in later battles. It's bit mysterious how they were distinct since the former already seem at least superficially similar to a legionary.

Thorakitai are not based on legionaries but the Galatians that had invaded in 270 BC, they were created independently and were like the similar Thurophorai very effective but oddly enough never gained much traction. It could be that because the Diadochi spent most of their money on training pikemen they were simply too set in their ways to make use of them.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Thorakitai are not based on legionaries but the Galatians that had invaded in 270 BC, they were created independently and were like the similar Thurophorai very effective but oddly enough never gained much traction. It could be that because the Diadochi spent most of their money on training pikemen they were simply too set in their ways to make use of them.

I don't think we actually know whether the thyreos was adopted from the Celts or the Italians. The Greeks were engaged with both in the exact same timeframe, and Pyrrhos' Italian allies seem to have already deployed in maniples which he found useful complement to his phalanx.

In any case, my point was that both thorakitai and imitation legionaries seem to have existed side by side in some late Hellenistic armies.

 

[A_Dane]

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.

This is completely different from your initial post/responses so far.

I actually said as much quite early on: I'm all for a discussion about how many bonuses they should get. This is something you can debate. But to debate whether the Romans had very good heavy infantry is, in my opinion, not something that really should be up for debate.

@Dusty242 I'm sorry I presented Zama as a simple brawl, I'm fully aware that it was a much more intricate affair (as to be expected from a clash between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal). I intentionally left out the entire manevouring with elephants/counter manevours from Scipio, since it would just muddle the discussion even further. The point I was trying to make was simply, that the Roman heavy infantry was the core of their army, and was mostly equal or superior to the enemies they met. (Again: simplification. The diadochi had excellent heavy infantry as well, but from what I've read, they were usually fewer in number).

I think you misunderstood me in regards to the commanders: I know they conquerored when led by competent commanders, but they still managed to survive when they repeatedly lost vast armies when led by incompetent ones. That, given the time period, is an achievement in itself. I mostly brought it up to show, that it went beyond simply giving them army-bonuses. They could lose entire armies, and still raise functional heavy infantry from green recruits. (But I concede it was not the most well made point, and probably less to do with their heavy infantry being good, and more to do with roman stubbornness).

 

[Mike6979]

And that may be the other important point to make about Rome, they, with Zhong Guo, created the first state in a modern sense and thus could create a national army.

 

[Dusty242]

@Dusty242 I'm sorry I presented Zama as a simple brawl, I'm fully aware that it was a much more intricate affair (as to be expected from a clash between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal). I intentionally left out the entire manevouring with elephants/counter manevours from Scipio, since it would just muddle the discussion even further. The point I was trying to make was simply, that the Roman heavy infantry was the core of their army, and was mostly equal or superior to the enemies they met. (Again: simplification. The diadochi had excellent heavy infantry as well, but from what I've read, they were usually fewer in number).

You are correct, I overreacted for some reason or another, for that I apologize though my point was that infantry wise Rome wasn't quite dominate because of equipment but on average tactics and that they wouldn't be infantry dominant until a good bit later around the time of Caeser.

I think you misunderstood me in regards to the commanders: I know they conquerored when led by competent commanders, but they still managed to survive when they repeatedly lost vast armies when led by incompetent ones. That, given the time period, is an achievement in itself. I mostly brought it up to show, that it went beyond simply giving them army-bonuses. They could lose entire armies, and still raise functional heavy infantry from green recruits. (But I concede it was not the most well made point, and probably less to do with their heavy infantry being good, and more to do with roman stubbornness).

I think the big reason Rome could take those losses was that Roman stubbornness but also the population of Italy their home territory was at the time one of the most populous and fertile lands in the world and would continue to be for a long time.

And that may be the other important point to make about Rome, they, with Zhong Guo, created the first state in a modern sense and thus could create a national army

They were definitely the basis for a modern state, however a national army isn't that impressive. Assyria 2200 years prior created one as well. But this is a huge derail I would recommend posting a new post in this sub or the history sub if it exists.

 

[A_Dane]

You are correct, I overreacted for some reason or another, for that I apologize though my point was that infantry wise Rome wasn't quite dominate because of equipment but on average tactics and that they wouldn't be infantry dominant until a good bit later around the time of Caeser.

No need to apologize, you pointed out a valid observation and I'd probably push it back a bit to around Marius/Sulla, but yeah, they weren't dominant. They did have some of the best infantry on average up until that point though, which was my only point - and for them not having access to any heavy infantry bonuses would be a tad weird

I think the big reason Rome could take those losses was that Roman stubbornness but also the population of Italy their home territory was at the time one of the most populous and fertile lands in the world and would continue to be for a long time.

agreed - it was probably more a mentality thing (and how they organised their manpower), than their infantry as such. Point conceeded!

 

[Holmes]

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..

Yes the ore Rome had access to was not as good as others, Spain for instance. When in the Punic wars vastly more manpower was used, it had to produce quantities it had not had to find, so a case for inferior quality can be made. During the unification of Italy and the 1st Punic war, Roman side arm changed from greek style sword to that used by Celtiberians in cathages employ, and body armour changed to give more protection for the hastati. In 2nd Punic war, Velites changed from next to no use and no equipment worth referencing, so being able to both shape the battlefield and prevent ambushes of armys on the march by being aware of what was where the battle space. When scipio captured new carthage he made state slaves of the 2000 master smiths of carthage, who now turned out arms/armour for rome, with superior spainish ore.

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.

Cannae was where more men were in the field, their training was relative to the Romans doing there 6 years in the legions, in that they had already done it and where again called up to serve. Relative also to HB army who campaigned all year every year and had been doing so for a decade or more. Discipline at Cannae certainly failled, as we know nearly all the military Tribunes and centurions and senators with the army went down, and 000s of rankers fled only to surrender later, but a double envelopment and pursuit by mounted would have had that effect on any military system.

You have a point or two, but your expressing it oddly. Try using some numbers to illustrate your point, form instance if Roman legions were so effective, then why is legionary losses so high in the punic wars, and then compare to another period, say caesers gallic wars