rome doesn't feel 'Roman'

[Darkrenown]

You know where the term "Pyrrhic Victory" comes from? King Pyrrhos of Epiros won many times against roman armies, roman legions suffered crushing defeats at cannae, the trebia, the allia or the trasimenic lakes against comparably numbered enemies, in some cases they outnumbered their enemies and lost nonetheless.

The term comes from the fact that although Pyrrhos wons his battles he took so many losses he lost the war. It's not because Pyrrhos had some great victorys.

 

[unmerged(63589)]

Alexander's army, and that of his successors would be "professional". To the phalangites in Alexander's army, soldiering WAS their job.

Alexander fielded on his trip quite a few mercenaries and other greek allies, and Philip's professional core of the Macedonian army was few in numbers with most of the forces drawn milita for the campaigns, as usual.

22 (and 2 draws) out of 44 is not bad, especially considering the circumstances of the losses (10 of the 20 losses were against one of the best generals in ancient history, Hannibal Barca. 12 out of 20 losses if you count Pyrrhus of Epirus as another of the "greats"). Also, if you look at the first century BCE, you can see that Rome fares much better (even if you don't count Marius' victories at the end of the century with his Marian army)

1st century BC is already after the reforms, which was what I tried to tell you.

During the early Republic, Rome was nothing more special than any other state.

The Roman army WAS highly organized, even before the Marian reforms. They might not have been as well organized as they were after Marius came along, but the Romans certainly had a very well organized force. It was capable of doing rather complex maneuvers (like the ones Scipio pulled off before the battle of Ilipa)

Comparing with any other civilized ancient state, early Roman military was no more organized than the other. Greek had highly organized phalanxes, Egyptians, Carthago.. all had relatively well organized milita-based forces. Rome gained the edge during the late Republic.

 

[unmerged(58575)]

Wasn't the romans greatest advantage their ability to adapt?

Remember this game is not supposed to fare historical after you've started. I haven't played the game yet but I will when I get some time...

I thought one of the greatest things with paradox games is that you change the history?

If paradox makes a RTW and gives the romans supersoldiers from the start that sucks. I can tell from my own opinion that RTW sucks badly, firstly because the AI even at maximum settings was really bad at moving their armies... I won outnumbered several times and could rely on my "skills on the battlefield" instead of having a large amount of soldiers.

Having a dice roll makes war so much more realistic. You say yourself that "22 (and 2 draws) out of 44 is not bad" But if you would loose 22 out of 44 battles in Eu:rome you would be really pissed wouldn't you?

War is so much more than soldiers, equipment, formations and so on. What if half of your squad have eaten some bad shrimps and have stomach pain through the whole battle, sure they would fight but not that effectively. Take that as a "1" dice roll. The day after the people who survived last night have recovered and to prove their worth they fight even harder. Suddenly it says "6" on the dice.

Morale, Tech and generals affect a lot in EU:rome but just because you are better you shouldn't be invincible.

This isn't a history lesson you're playing through, throughout the game the gauls might have made better weapons, better organized infantry etc. than you because they didn't control their nation as it did historically. And Rome might be content with staying as a city state.

This is why I like paradox games, no campaign is like the other...damn EU2 has taken days from my life...not counting the days on these forums...

 

[Battlecry]

this also annoys me. i have 2 legions (=20 cohorts) standing in bononia

Actually an ordinary cohort was circa 500 men, while the First ('Millarian') Cohort of each legion was double-sized - but Millarian Cohorts only came into practice in Imperial Rome, and so really any unit in the game represents around two cohorts. Legions never, in their entire history, approached 10,000 men, rather they vacillated between circa 4500 and 6000 men.

 

[unmerged(87984)]

The term comes from the fact that although Pyrrhos wons his battles he took so many losses he lost the war. It's not because Pyrrhos had some great victorys.

Exactly. While he could't replace his losses, the romans could. And so they won.

 

[unmerged(63589)]

I thought one of the greatest things with paradox games is that you change the history?

Of course, and never did I mean that Rome should be text book accurate.

Also, appologizes to all if some of my posts come out with slightly harsh tone, which was not intended.

My argument was that Rome could have more historical feeling of antiquity, which is clearly different than medieval or renneisance.

I used the National Idea of Professional Armies as an example somewhere else and use it again: If you choose to make your Roman army a professional one, you would have other effects than just discipline bonus. You might be able to field all-year armies and not to worry about harvests, but you also would have smaller manpower pool as you couldn't draw the men straight out of levies but would have to recruit them professionally.

Another aspect would be the harvests: Make food a resource and have harvest seasons fill the granaries. Now, if you muster too many farmers for your army during the season, your crops would be left unharvested and your citizens would starve. That is, unless you come up with alternative food sources like trading.

There are many unique aspects of antic era that are just left out, which is a shame.

 

[crazy canuck]

Tambour already pinned this argument, any others you'd like to list? You'll find changes in Roman military to be one of gradual change, not sudden once Marius becomes Consul. All he did was recruit people and win battles.

He got everything right except the citizenship of Italian allies.

It would really help us if you were to cite a source for your rather innovative view of Roman history.

 

[unmerged(58575)]

actually food or grain as an annual stackable resource would be good.

then every province has a demand and if you can't supply with grain you will suffer consequenses. now it's late and I can't evaluate it but I can do that later

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I used the National Idea of Professional Armies as an example somewhere else and use it again: If you choose to make your Roman army a professional one, you would have other effects than just discipline bonus. You might be able to field all-year armies and not to worry about harvests, but you also would have smaller manpower pool as you couldn't draw the men straight out of levies but would have to recruit them professionally.

In fact, the effect of Marius' reforms suggest that the discipline bonus is completely wrong if we go by history. A manpower bonus would be much more appropriate.

Personally I think this NI should be renamed to something more appropriate for an idea that emphases heavy infantry.

 

[unmerged(63589)]

In fact, the effect of Marius' reforms suggest that the discipline bonus is completely wrong if we go by history. A manpower bonus would be much more appropriate.

You might put it that way if you think Rome exclusively, sure. Mainly because of the strict requirements for joining before the reforms.

But I was thinking rather universally and wouldn't you agree that generally if you muster conscripts/draftees/levies among your population you have larger manpower pool than if you recruit professional soldiers?

 

[Alexander Seil]

Well, firstly it made all-year conflicts possible instead of seasonal campaigns, when the professional soldiers didn't have to return field-working. Secondly, with a standing army it was possible to cover the broad borders of the nation as it grew from a city state.

With a milita-army reaction times were also slower, as generals had to first muster up and train his forces when the sign of trouble got alarming.

Of course, discipline of a milita was something completely different than a trained army, which again led to early fleeing. Some nations trained their milita better, Sparta for example (yes, even Spartan army was a milita one, only better trained), which gave a huge difference when fought against another milita armies. Early Spartan war against Athens lasted for years, when every year Spartans mustered to siege Athens and burn their crops, but the Athenians refused to surrender due to their superior fleet which continued to feed the city. Only after Sparta built their own fleet of power, were they able to blockade the city and defeat Athens.

Food was the most important aspect of ancient warfare.

I think you are wrong about Sparta. They had helots and other enslaved populations to do the work for them, so they could, indeed, dedicate all their time to training. Just what exactly do you mean by a "professional army" in this context, anyway?

 

[unmerged(63589)]

I think you are wrong about Sparta. They had helots and other enslaved populations to do the work for them, so they could, indeed, dedicate all their time to training. Just what exactly do you mean by a "professional army" in this context, anyway?

Professional standing army where soldiers do it for their living. Think of the legions stationed in Gaul guarding a fort till releaved from duty.

The Spartan army was a sort of conscript army where the majority of male population trained in the military from age of 7 to 30. After 30 they transfered into active reserve where they stayed till age of 60. They were highly trained conscripts, citizen-warriors. They reseved no pay in the traditional sense, as Spartans discouraged personal wealth and riches and had no activity in economical life to speak of.

Well, maybe I'm thinking this in a too modern way, as the debate between professional and conscript army is a part of the local political debate.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Most people who serve in the US Army today (which, I think, most people who use terms like "professional army" would recognize as "professional") serve for 2-4 years if they are enlisted. A peasant inducted into the Russian army in the 18th century (beginning with Peter the Great) would have served for 20 years. So, which army is more "professional"? For most people who enlist in the US military, it's not the last thing they're going to do in their lives. For Spartan citizens, however, it definitely was, if they were male.


EDIT: Perhaps we're confusing "standing" armies with "professional" armies? :rofl:

 

[unmerged(63589)]

Most people who serve in the US Army today (which, I think, most people who use terms like "professional army" would recognize as "professional") serve for 2-4 years if they are enlisted. A peasant inducted into the Russian army in the 18th century (beginning with Peter the Great) would have served for 20 years. So, which army is more "professional"? For most people who enlist in the US military, it's not the last thing they're going to do in their lives. For Spartan citizens, however, it definitely was, if they were male.


EDIT: Perhaps we're confusing "standing" armies with "professional" armies? :rofl:

Yeah, perhaps.

Anyhow, the whole Spartan society was such a different thing completely that it's hard to compare with anything before and since. The whole society of free Spartan citizens revolved around the warrior culture so how you make the distinction between what's one's job and what's just his life? For Spartans the state came first and serving the state was the life...

Well, going a bit too far on the terminology. Roman army after the reforms was a standing army of paid professionals who did it for their living expecting to get paid. That!

 

[Alexander Seil]

It's not entirely clear how Sparta was all that different. It's confusing because we call the warrior caste "citizens," but it's not untypical in many societies for the nobility to dominate warfare (as in Mycenaean Greece?) . In most Greek cities, "the citizens" were the same thing we would otherwise call "the nobles." I don't think most of the Greeks had any notion of nobility that was distinct from citizenship until after 300BC, probably because there was some kind of an identifiable "nobility" in Macedonia.

 

[Tai-Pan]

It's not entirely clear how Sparta was all that different.

What springs to mind is the Lycurgan constitution, althought I'm no expert on Sparta.

 

[unmerged(63589)]

It's not entirely clear how Sparta was all that different. It's confusing because we call the warrior caste "citizens," but it's not untypical in many societies for the nobility to dominate warfare (as in Mycenaean Greece?) . In most Greek cities, "the citizens" were the same thing we would otherwise call "the nobles." I don't think most of the Greeks had any notion of nobility that was distinct from citizenship until after 300BC, probably because there was some kind of an identifiable "nobility" in Macedonia.

Sparta was different in that they practised very little any other life than that of state servitude. Spartans had few personal posessions and even the currency was made of iron bars - gold or silver had little value for ordinary citizen. A good life for a Spartan was to excell in his military training and ultimately to give his life for the state.

Athens, in comparsion, had quite common life. Citizenship was given for males who had done their military service at age of eighteen, thus you are correct, but Athenians had very lively cultural, economical and political life outside the military.

 

[Alexander Seil]

It was different, of course, but it was not by any means unique. Looking at it, Sparta wasn't all that different from a Medieval European state, with a closed warrior-caste on top and a lot of peasants on the bottom, although on the whole it was much more organized and severe than any feudal state. But it also wasn't that different from its fellow Greek cities, where citizenship was inherited.

EDIT: Don't forget that Spartans could and did own land at the end of their regular service, so it's not like the warrior-caste was uncompensated for its effort. Besides the benefits derived by them by their collective ownership of slaves/helots.

EDIT2: In particular in Athens, didn't both parents have to be citizens? A large proportion of the population weren't citizens, including a large part of merchants and manufacturers. The only reason I know that is because I seem remembering from somewhere that Pericles had to change the laws so that his own son, whose mother wasn't an Athenian, could gain citizenship.

 

[unmerged(63589)]

It was different, of course, but it was not by any means unique. Looking at it, Sparta wasn't all that different from a Medieval European state, with a closed warrior-caste on top and a lot of peasants on the bottom, although on the whole it was much more organized and severe than any feudal state. But it also wasn't that different from its fellow Greek cities, where citizenship was inherited.

At first I was going to "rofl" at the medieval comparsion, but then I thought it a bit...

Yeah I agree, you could compare the citizenship with medieval nobility and feudalism. They have same characteristics with landowner lords and military servitude in exchange of social class. Yeah, quite right.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

You might put it that way if you think Rome exclusively, sure. Mainly because of the strict requirements for joining before the reforms.

But I was thinking rather universally and wouldn't you agree that generally if you muster conscripts/draftees/levies among your population you have larger manpower pool than if you recruit professional soldiers?

Not quite. The levy model that most ancient and classical civilizations used was based on the idea that everyone drafted into the military would supply his own military gear - which means that a person's function in the military was dictated by his social status and wealth.

This means that heavily armed troops were almost exclusively drafted from the middleclass and above (depending on how affordable these heavy arms were, of course). A professionalisation of the army would open that military function to people of lower status.

What limited the professionalisation of armies was that this was, of course, a horrendously expensive endeavour. Few premodern armies could afford to maintain more than only a small core of professionals in this way.