[Vanilla] Did Firaxis represents Roman Legionary correctly?

[aieeegrunt]

I would probably add in modern mechanized infantry at the end, but I would agree with that kind of infantry layout. One question that I'm not very sure about is whether the medieval era represents something distinctly in advance of the classical one, or if that's just an artifact of Eurocentrism. Like were knights and men-at-arms really improvements over say cataphracts and legions?

One thing I thought was very neat was the evolution of ranged units from archers into field artillery. That was a smart decision.

I guess there's also the question of whether there should be heavy and light cav units as well too...

This isn’t the place to post a doctoral thesis but there is a LOT of evidence and recent scholarship arguing that our perception of the Roman Legion as a heavy infantry melee focused force is one hundred and ten percent incorrect, and the primary weapon of the Legion was not that hilarious nub of a sword but the pilum and other thrown weapons

 

[nzcamel]

I guess there's also the question of whether there should be heavy and light cav units as well too...

I might even combine Lancers and Cavalry. Mounted units went through a weird adjustment where they first adapted firearms, and then reverted to lances. It might be simplest to represent all post-knight cavalry as a single unit type.

Absolutely keep the two branches of cavalry, just as we have ranged and siege in terms of projectile weapons. It gives the player far more flexibility in terms of how they want to approach warfare. And that should stay till the end of the game. I don't see the point of helicopters and armour being seperate to the cav lines as they fulfill similar roles.

2) Why didn't new sword formations emerge to counter late Medieval pike formations?

Guns.

 

[Evie]

This isn’t the place to post a doctoral thesis but there is a LOT of evidence and recent scholarship arguing that our perception of the Roman Legion as a heavy infantry melee focused force is one hundred and ten percent incorrect, and the primary weapon of the Legion was not that hilarious nub of a sword but the pilum and other thrown weapons

I have seen a description of the legions somewhere that seems in line with this idea: understanding the Roman Legions as something more akin to super-heavy skirmishers.

Which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but is an interesting way to describe them.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I have seen a description of the legions somewhere that seems in line with this idea: understanding the Roman Legions as something more akin to super-heavy skirmishers.

Which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but is an interesting way to describe them.

That is an excellent way to describe ir

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I have seen a description of the legions somewhere that seems in line with this idea: understanding the Roman Legions as something more akin to super-heavy skirmishers.

Which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but is an interesting way to describe them.

Only in certain circumstances. Like Alexander's phalanx, the Romans could form up in an Open Order with almost 6 feet of frontage per man, a much looser formation than typical of spear or pike-armed units. This gave plenty of room for each swordsman to use his sword and shield. BUT they also could form up in a Close Order of about half that frontage, in which their shields were a nearly solid wall. And of course, they had a specialized even closer Order, the Testudo, in which shields were overlapped and rear ranks held their shields overhead, a moving Fort usually used when approaching a wall to ward off missiles from above.

Given that each Republican and Imperial Legion had almost as many troops accompanying it as Auxiliaries most of whom were lightly armed and armored skirmishers, missile troops, cavalry or spearmen, it would make no sense for the Legion itself to act like 'skirmishers' when all the Auxiliaries were there for that work.

As for thinking that the Legionary's primary weapon was a heavy throwing spear, Dr. Victor Hansen would like a word with you. He has written several books on the thesis that the Greek and Roman Way of War was built around and based on the constant desire to close with the enemy and kill him at close quarters. And both the Hoplite and the sword-wielding Legionary were trained and equipped for close combat with heavy shield, armor, and close-range weapon: the Hoplite's heavy thrusting spear and the Legionary's short sword - which had the advantage that it could be wielded at close range where longer swords would get in the way: in both Spain and Gaul warriors trying to swing long swords were badly beaten by Legions who charged in close with their short swords, which could either thrust or cut.

They based their swordfighting on the old Greek admonition: when a young man complained that his spear was too short, a Spartan told him to add to it "One step closer to the enemy"

Finally, note that a pre-contact throwing weapon in addition to sword or spear was not exclusively Roman: similar combinations were used by Greek and Thracian peltasts (spear and javelins) Gaulic and Iberian warriors (swords and javelins) and the later Franks (swords and throwing axes). It's always a good idea to disrupt the enemy with a missile before you try to close with him: a solid shield wall bristling with spear or sword points is a daunting prospect no matter how good you think you are.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Why didn't new sword formations emerge to counter late Medieval pike formations?

Guns.

Actually that's when distinctions between Melee and Anticavalry ends. To be honest by 15th Century, handgunners (arquebusiers and musketeers) were added into the same pike square of the previous century, supplanted (And eventually replaced) halberdiers, swordsmen (rodeleros) and archers of any kind in the same pike square. such combined arrangements were a duo of dominations in the Renaissance Era. No swordsmen nor Men At Arms and not 'Slayer' style troops could rush a pike square so easy (Against Swiss Pikemen, charging their pike square with slayers like that was already difficult without initial bombardments by either archers, crossbowmen, bolt throwers, or field guns (culverin or light bombard of similiar kind--they were protected with halberdiers and shock troops with swing melee weapons added to the square itself) before getting one or two volleys, unless these fellas wear good armor that could stop musket balls like that AND THESE ARMOR SUITS MUST STOP BULLETS! I'm not sure if these armors can stop such bullets.
Cavalry themselves too were gradually switched to firearms--by then light cavalry with arquebuses did appears and shoot on horseback, heavy knights finally dropped their fancy lances and pick up magnum pistols instead. eventually they became.. pistoliers, and cuirassiers

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Only in certain circumstances. Like Alexander's phalanx, the Romans could form up in an Open Order with almost 6 feet of frontage per man, a much looser formation than typical of spear or pike-armed units. This gave plenty of room for each swordsman to use his sword and shield. BUT they also could form up in a Close Order of about half that frontage, in which their shields were a nearly solid wall. And of course, they had a specialized even closer Order, the Testudo, in which shields were overlapped and rear ranks held their shields overhead, a moving Fort usually used when approaching a wall to ward off missiles from above.

Given that each Republican and Imperial Legion had almost as many troops accompanying it as Auxiliaries most of whom were lightly armed and armored skirmishers, missile troops, cavalry or spearmen, it would make no sense for the Legion itself to act like 'skirmishers' when all the Auxiliaries were there for that work.

As for thinking that the Legionary's primary weapon was a heavy throwing spear, Dr. Victor Hansen would like a word with you. He has written several books on the thesis that the Greek and Roman Way of War was built around and based on the constant desire to close with the enemy and kill him at close quarters. And both the Hoplite and the sword-wielding Legionary were trained and equipped for close combat with heavy shield, armor, and close-range weapon: the Hoplite's heavy thrusting spear and the Legionary's short sword - which had the advantage that it could be wielded at close range where longer swords would get in the way: in both Spain and Gaul warriors trying to swing long swords were badly beaten by Legions who charged in close with their short swords, which could either thrust or cut.

They based their swordfighting on the old Greek admonition: when a young man complained that his spear was too short, a Spartan told him to add to it "One step closer to the enemy"

Finally, note that a pre-contact throwing weapon in addition to sword or spear was not exclusively Roman: similar combinations were used by Greek and Thracian peltasts (spear and javelins) Gaulic and Iberian warriors (swords and javelins) and the later Franks (swords and throwing axes). It's always a good idea to disrupt the enemy with a missile before you try to close with him: a solid shield wall bristling with spear or sword points is a daunting prospect no matter how good you think you are.

So Legion as Swordsmen proxy is 'as good as they're'. and in gameplay. spearmen are generic auxilia (and deployed by flanks of each legion platoon?)

 

[Evie]

The distinction between infantry and anti-cav doesn't end with gunpowder, it just never really existed.

 

[nzcamel]

In part this is a Civilization problem. Or even more specifically, a 1UPT problem. Whatever one thinks of stacks, they could make for more realistic balances of armies, with anti-cav units etc increasing and decreasing as part of the mix in response to the task at hand. You had far larger armies pre 1UPT, as units were cheaper. The mindset was different - as combined arms ruled everything.

1UPT certainly makes for more interesting tactical choices in combat, but can give the obvious false impression that different units in armies were only ever in close formation with others of the same training and equipment, when that is simply not the case.

Likewise hindsight will always kill reality. Paper-sissors-rock or not, the players foresight from the start of the game over the unit advances the game offers and how they are superior to older units or different classes of units makes representing how armies were formed realistically, to a large degree, null and void.

 

[Shadowstrike]

Interesting to learn that pike and shot emerged as an anti-pike solution in and of itself.

Absolutely keep the two branches of cavalry, just as we have ranged and siege in terms of projectile weapons. It gives the player far more flexibility in terms of how they want to approach warfare. And that should stay till the end of the game. I don't see the point of helicopters and armour being seperate to the cav lines as they fulfill similar roles.

So my issue here is that Civ doesn't really represent supply lines, encirclement, pursuit or even the tank-on-tank combat that really differentiates heavy and light cav roles. Your cavalry units basically raid, and pick off loose units, until they get so much stronger than you use them to storm fortifications (which incidentally, the game should do more to discourage - I shouldn't be pushing tanks into city streets). There isn't really enough of a distinction in the gameplay to really use those in different roles, in a way that ranged versus siege units have.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The distinction between infantry and anti-cav doesn't end with gunpowder, it just never really existed.

IRL there never actually were dedicated swordsmen as shock troops that works especially well against spear phalances but utterly helpless against horsemen (maybe?) nor spearmen that deals better damage against horsemen and cataphracts than against swordsmen. again. this is where F'xis class system is utterly wrong. It might work well in pre-gunpowder to represent how Roman Legion eventually beat Greek Hoplites. but when it comes to Renaissance Era, same rule doesn't apply. by then No musketeers operated as a group comprising of themselves nor pike square without musketeers in the mix.
IMAO Musketeers AREN't melee troops. acutally it is f'xis engine's lack of counterbattery combat features to represent how musketeers actually fight each other (and 'musketeers' in Renaissance sense and not Line Infantry stands in as in Civ2-3 (andmaybe 4)) nor the actually Artillery VS Artillery combat. in other games that uses similiar tactical hex engines, such feature did somehow exists.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Only in certain circumstances. Like Alexander's phalanx, the Romans could form up in an Open Order with almost 6 feet of frontage per man, a much looser formation than typical of spear or pike-armed units. This gave plenty of room for each swordsman to use his sword and shield. BUT they also could form up in a Close Order of about half that frontage, in which their shields were a nearly solid wall. And of course, they had a specialized even closer Order, the Testudo, in which shields were overlapped and rear ranks held their shields overhead, a moving Fort usually used when approaching a wall to ward off missiles from above.

Given that each Republican and Imperial Legion had almost as many troops accompanying it as Auxiliaries most of whom were lightly armed and armored skirmishers, missile troops, cavalry or spearmen, it would make no sense for the Legion itself to act like 'skirmishers' when all the Auxiliaries were there for that work.
.

So Since Marian Reforms onwards, Spearmen were Auxiliary rather than the full members of Legion itself?
And as of the final April 2021 Patch where Man At Arms is added as Melee choice. what's proper upgrading paths of Legion?
- Pikeman
- Man at arms

Since the Marian Reforms Legionairy came from Peasant caste but trained like members of Ksatriya caste.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

With this. should Legion shares BOTH Melee and Anticavalry benefits and belongs to a hybrid class that will 'theoretically' materialize as 'infantry' class once the proliferations of firearms came in place one and a half millenia later ?

By no means an expert on this, but as far as my knowledge of infantry warfare goes up until the invention of muskets, pikes or spears have historically been the dominant weapon type on the battlefield, where swords were often mostly a side arm.
The sword also being a more expensive weapon with lower range and requiring a lot more training than spears in formation.
I think this is kind of a shame in the civ series, because spear type units are by far the least common ones to be used by both humans and players alike, and as far as I know, the opposite was the case historically.
Even some of the most historically iconic sword wielders like Samurai (again, to my knowledge), used the bow and spear far more than they used their katana swords.

 

[aieeegrunt]

By no means an expert on this, but as far as my knowledge of infantry warfare goes up until the invention of muskets, pikes or spears have historically been the dominant weapon type on the battlefield, where swords were often mostly a side arm.
The sword also being a more expensive weapon with lower range and requiring a lot more training than spears in formation.
I think this is kind of a shame in the civ series, because spear type units are by far the least common ones to be used by both humans and players alike, and as far as I know, the opposite was the case historically.
Even some of the most historically iconic sword wielders like Samurai (again, to my knowledge), used the bow and spear far more than they used their katana swords.

There is a theory with quite a lot of weight to it suggesting that the classic Roman Legion relied a lot more on missiles than on their swords, and that a charge to engage in melee only happened after the enemy was disrupted by missiles (or if some other opportunity happened)

A suspicious number of military awards revolved around things like exposing yourself to danger to collect missiles from the battlefied (spears, rocks). A lot of legionary equipment, especially the scutum suddenly makes a lot more sense if you assume a legionary might spend hours exchanging missile fire with an enemy before closing with them.

The infamous self destructing pilum makes a lot of sense in this context too; it both fouls any shield it hits thus depriving the enemy of cover and cannot be collected and thrown back. Both qualities don’t really matter if all the Romans did was huck them and Leroy Jenkins at the enemy.

In most cultures swords were basically sidearms and/or status symbols, kind of like pistols today. The Romans would be a hell of an exception if they relied primarily on the sword

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There is a theory with quite a lot of weight to it suggesting that the classic Roman Legion relied a lot more on missiles than on their swords, and that a charge to engage in melee only happened after the enemy was disrupted by missiles (or if some other opportunity happened)

A suspicious number of military awards revolved around things like exposing yourself to danger to collect missiles from the battlefied (spears, rocks). A lot of legionary equipment, especially the scutum suddenly makes a lot more sense if you assume a legionary might spend hours exchanging missile fire with an enemy before closing with them.

The infamous self destructing pilum makes a lot of sense in this context too; it both fouls any shield it hits thus depriving the enemy of cover and cannot be collected and thrown back. Both qualities don’t really matter if all the Romans did was huck them and Leroy Jenkins at the enemy.

In most cultures swords were basically sidearms and/or status symbols, kind of like pistols today. The Romans would be a hell of an exception if they relied primarily on the sword

As always with the Legion, you have to specify When as well as What. The Legion started out as a simple decimal Phalanx of spearmen: there's historical and literary evidence that the original 'century' was 10 ranks deep and 10 files wide with about 80 of them armed with heavy spears, and the poorest 20% of the population unarmored and throwing javelins to disrupt the enemy before the spearmen 'got stuck in' and finished them off.
The first big change in this tactical method was to arm some of the spearmen with swords. This was, apparently, in imitation of their primary enemies, the Sabines, who had found that swords were more useful in rough country where the tight formation that made the spearmen so effective could not be maintained - and central Italy has a lot of rough country! However, the Hastatii that carried the swords were in front of the Principes - the 'primary' tactical force, who were still spearmen. By the time of the Punic Wars the Legion, then, consisted of Velites - light infantry, no armor, javelins, Hastatii, heavily armored men with the Scutarii big shield and a short sword adapted from the Spanish, the Principes, now also with swords, armor and a big heavy shield, and the Triarii - the 'third rank' in the rear, the most veteran of the troops and the 'last ditch' whenever things went completely wrong. They were still armed with Spears.
The Pilum, a heavy short-ranged javelin, may have been adopted from the Sabines, or from the Celtiberian (Spanish) heavy infantry, both of whom used a similar heavy javelin that could encumber shields or penetrate link mail armor if the target had already lost his shield. There is no evidence that it was ever carried by Roman spearmen. It was always associated with swordsmen, either the Hastatii, or Principes, or the Post-Marian Reform Legion in which all the heavy (armored) infantry in the Legion carried Sword and Pilum.
Early in the Imperial 1st century CE the 'classic' Legion of professional swordsmen started adding 'lanciarii' - spearmen - back into the ranks, because they were fighting a distressingly large number of cavalry, including Sarmatian Cataphractii who were armored men on armored horses with both long swords and lances.
By the 3rd - 4th centuries CE the mobile parts of the Legions - the professionals who were the Field Army, while the bulk of the Legion were now stationary garrison troops - were still carrying a big heavy shield and a long sword, but also a long heavy spear. And they were trained to use both spear and sword as needed. These troops combined all the advantages of the spear against cavalry and the sword in rough country against infantry and they were retained by the early post-Western Roman Empire Byzantine infantry of the 6th and 7th century.

The Legion was never primarily a 'missile' force. If it had been, the Imperial Roman Imperiium would not have hired so many auxiliary archers, slingers, javelin-throwers, horse archers, etc. who comprised the majority of the auxiliary forces for most of the Imperial era.

What made the Roman use of swordsmen possible was the wealth of the Roman state, which allowed them to maintain a long term, professional army - swordsmen have to practice a lot with their weapons to become and stay proficient with them, and that means they have to have someone else working to keep them paid and fed: the Roman Empire with (lowest estimate) 50,000,000 or more people used most of the Imperial taxes to pay for an army of about 500,000 men at most: 1% of the population, and after the plagues of the 3rd - 4th centuries that may have wiped out up to a third of the population, they couldn't even afford 1% any more.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

... Velites - light infantry, no armor, javelins, ....

Mod potential: Should this be the name of Scout Upgrade in Classical era instead of Peltast?

 

[Rg339]

What made the Roman use of swordsmen possible was the wealth of the Roman state, which allowed them to maintain a long term, professional army - swordsmen have to practice a lot with their weapons to become and stay proficient with them, and that means they have to have someone else working to keep them paid and fed

Was it paying to establish and keep efficiency with equipment that made the legion effective, or could it be said that paying to keep morale high was a comparatively larger factor?

You demonstrate a considerable command of history in one post. From my readings, I intuitively get the sense that in the loud, frightening environment of a melee involving thousands of men, a willingness to stick around 15 minutes longer than the other team often decides who is routed and who is not.

 

[Linklite]

A suspicious number of military awards revolved around things like exposing yourself to danger to collect missiles from the battlefied (spears, rocks). A lot of legionary equipment, especially the scutum suddenly makes a lot more sense if you assume a legionary might spend hours exchanging missile fire with an enemy before closing with them.

I'm finding this hard to grasp. Let's say that a given legionary can throw a missile once per minute (once you take into account that this has to be indefinitely sustainable, so you need breaks, time to find ammo, still be able to fight at the end of it, etc) still fairly conservative in their abilities, over hours that's still 120 per legionary at a minimum. That's an awful lot of missiles to be carting around.

I could see them using missiles as a standard tactic. Launch a few before charging to disrupt lines just before charging to break their formation a little or confuse them or at the very least kill a few of them, or do the same against an enemy that is about to charge. That was a tactic used even in the 19th century. But I'm finding it hard to grasp that they'd have enough to be lobbing then at each other for more than a few exchanges, let alone for hours. The logistics on that would be massive.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Was it paying to establish and keep efficiency with equipment that made the legion effective, or could it be said that paying to keep morale high was a comparatively larger factor?

The primary effect was that the men did not have to spend time earning a living by farming, crafting, or other 'civilian' work and could spend all their time training and practicing their military skills. The effect on keeping morale high was that this also gave them confidence in their skills and weapons, and in their leaders from Centurions to Tribunes who supervised them in the training.

You demonstrate a considerable command of history in one post. From my readings, I intuitively get the sense that in the loud, frightening environment of a melee involving thousands of men, a willingness to stick around 15 minutes longer than the other team often decides who is routed and who is not.

Morale is the most ephemeral and changeable of military concepts, and it can change in minutes or seconds both in positive and negative ways. The 'willingness to stick around', if left to natural instincts, could be disastrous. As Frederick the Great put it (a man who knew what he was talking about when it came to battles and soldiers) "A rational army would run away . . ." Managing morale is as much an Art Form as a Science, and one of the primary attributes of any Great General is the ability to do it well.

I'm finding this hard to grasp. Let's say that a given legionary can throw a missile once per minute (once you take into account that this has to be indefinitely sustainable, so you need breaks, time to find ammo, still be able to fight at the end of it, etc) still fairly conservative in their abilities, over hours that's still 120 per legionary at a minimum. That's an awful lot of missiles to be carting around.

I could see them using missiles as a standard tactic. Launch a few before charging to disrupt lines just before charging to break their formation a little or confuse them or at the very least kill a few of them, or do the same against an enemy that is about to charge. That was a tactic used even in the 19th century. But I'm finding it hard to grasp that they'd have enough to be lobbing then at each other for more than a few exchanges, let alone for hours. The logistics on that would be massive.

From various Greek and Roman accounts, even the 'professional' javelin-throwers like the Velites or Thracian and Greek Peltasts, carried no more than 2 - 3 javelins, and once they had thrown those, their battle was Over. The Roman Legionary carried at most 2 Pilum, and since they were designed to deform once they had lodged in a (hopefully, enemy) shield, they could not be reliably recovered and thrown again.

Anybody who went into a battle expecting to shoot at the enemy with anything was always at the mercy of ammunition supply, whether it was slingshot rocks, javelins, arrows, small arms bullets and cartridges, Javelin antitank missiles, etc. Quite a few famous battles hinged on the supply or lack of supply of ammunition: Isandhlwana in 1879, Camerone in 1863, Carrhae in 53 CE - the first two largely decided by one side running out of ammunition, the third by one side ensuring that they had plenty of ammunition (arrows for their horse-archers)

To give an idea of even the ancient 'ammunition supply problem', at Carrhae the Parthian General Surena used 1000 camels to carry extra bundles of arrows for 10,000 horse-archers, and that was a Unique Event in ancient/classical history - at least, no one mentions any such 'ammunition supply provision' in any other battle.