Rise and Fall of House Julii

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

guardian, i think in close combat phalanx units let the spears fall and took swords or daggers for close combat above und arround the shield.....spear is useless in close combat, and mauricius advices infantry not to throw away spears that are longer than 2.5 m (many feet in their terms).

 

[The Guardian]

Woah, how did I miss this? I'm a sucker for Rome scenarios

Looks great, so far. It looks like you're really doing your homework.

Thanks WildWeazel, yes a great deal of research has/is/will go into this mod.

 

[The Guardian]

guardian, i think in close combat phalanx units let the spears fall and took swords or daggers for close combat above und arround the shield.....spear is useless in close combat, and mauricius advices infantry not to throw away spears that are longer than 2.5 m (many feet in their terms).

Yes they carried a short sword called a xiphos. Also the rear of the sarisa (spear) or dory was a was a spike called sauroter ('lizard-killer') which was used to finish off wounded enemy soldiers as the phalanx moved over them. It was also became a handy weapon in the event the spear was broken.

The main problem with the phalanx was that each individual hoplite carried his shield on the left arm, protecting not only himself but the soldier to the left. This meant that the men at the extreme right of the phalanx were only half-protected. In battle, opposing phalanxes would exploit this weakness by attempting to overlap the enemy's right flank. It also meant that, in battle, a phalanx would tend to drift to the right (as hoplites sought to remain behind the shield of their neighbour). The most experienced hoplites were often placed on the right side of the phalanx, to avoid these problems.

The defeat of the greek phalanx is inextricably linked with the rise of Rome and the Roman legion,

 

[Kyriakos]

Hey Guardian, not sure if you already saw it but i made an ancient Greek colony which could also be used as a roman fort:

 

[The Guardian]

Hey Guardian, not sure if you already saw it but i made an ancient Greek colony which could also be used as a roman fort:

Yes Kyriakos, I did see that and was thinking of using that. I was wondering if you could recolor the fort to this sandstone color?

The Roman legions were very adept at engineering. They were the builders of most of the roman roads as well as all their forts. As and example, the famous Hadrian Wall, which stretches 73 miles or 120 kilometer across the entire wide of northern England, was complete in a mere 6 years. It was said of the legions that they could move mountains and in two circumstances, that I can recall . . . they actually did.

Roman Castra or forts were of three types ( marching, temporary and permanent) as I discussed previously in this thread. Marching castra were no more than tent cities with basic defensive structures, temporary forts were more substantial Like the fortification built by Ceasar at Alesia and examples of permanent fortifications, usually built with either cut stone or sandstone can be seen in the previous link, were similar to the one picture above and provided by Kyriakos. The interior of the castra had a very specific layout for both strategic and tactical reasons.

Question, is there a way to make a terrain building exclusively available to only one civ?

 

[Kyriakos]

You can limit a specific era of fort to one civ if and only if you disable trading of techs & have basically each civ evolve in either two or one or three eras only.

As for recoloring it, sorry but i tried sandstone in my original and i did not like how it looked

I could provide some roman tents though as a fort as well, and you could use this as the barricade.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

an answer to the guardian. greek phalanx lost before macedonian phalanx....only later came the romans...

 

[The Guardian]

You can limit a specific era of fort to one civ if and only if you disable trading of techs & have basically each civ evolve in either two or one or three eras only.

Thanks Kyriakos, I knew that . Guess I was too tired to remember that. Duh

As for recoloring it, sorry but i tried sandstone in my original and i did not like how it looked

I was thinking of using this, but I like design better if it can be recolored to look like this.
View attachment Image1.pcx

I could provide some roman tents though as a fort as well, and you could use this as the barricade.

Thanks but don't need tents. that would only be for marching fortifications which were basically overnite camp.

 

[The Guardian]

an answer to the guardian. greek phalanx lost before macedonian phalanx....only later came the romans...

The Romans first met the Macedonians in battle at the First Battle of Lamia as an ally of Aetolia.
Philip V was defeated 198 and again in 197
The Spartans were defeated in 194 and
in 191 BC - Battle of Thermopylae - Romans under Manius Acilius Glabrio defeat Antiochus III the Great and force him to evacuate Greece.

In 146 Battle of Corinth - Romans under Lucius Mummius defeat the Achaean League forces of Critolaus, who is killed. Corinth is destroyed and Greece comes under direct Roman rule.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

yeah man, i know i finished plutarh's parellel lifes 2 months ago....but what i wanted to say is that there was a diference between macedonian phalanx and greek phalanx....

 

[The Guardian]

yeah man, i know i finished plutarh's parellel lifes 2 months ago....but what i wanted to say is that there was a diference between macedonian phalanx and greek phalanx....

LOL yes one was Macedonian and the other was Greek. Just kidding. Seriously tho, the phalanx was generally used to describe a massed formation of infantry, as well as a specific formation. archialogical finds seem to indict that the phalanx formation was first used by the Sumarians around 2500BC - 2400BC. The ancient Egyptions also used similar formationsThe term phalanx first appears in Homers Illiad where he refers to a phalanx of greek hoplites. The Macedonians were the first ( that we know of) to use a longer spear called a sarissa, that was heavier and required two hands to hold it. There are basicly two theories regarding the development of the phalanx. That it was a greek invention started in Argos around 650BC or was an evolutive process stemming from the idea that some of the basic aspects of the phalanx were present in earlier times yet were not fully developed due to the lack of appropriate technology culminating with its perfection by the Greeks and its demise once the Romans introduced the Legions.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

not the legion is the enemy of the phalanx, legion is a smaller army, but the manipula....

 

[The Guardian]

not the legion is the enemy of the phalanx, legion is a smaller army, but the manipula....

A.K.A. manipula or polybian. Manipula is derived from the Samnite levy system and was adopted by Polybius the Greek historian to describe the Roman Legions. This system was used during the Early and Republic eras until the Late Republican era when the Marian Reforms were instituted By Marius. Prior to the reforms the Legion numbered approximately 5500 with allies providing an equal number of troops. The Marian reforms, among other things, established a standing army of volunteers wherein each Legion was comprised of 6000 men, 4800 of which were mostly heavy infantry and the remaining 1200 were classified as non combatants. Roman allies were still required to supply an equal amount troops.

Auxillary units included cavalry, slingers, and archers.

The Roman Greco wars took place between 215 and 146 BC. The Marian reforms took place in 107 BC.

Technically The roman army at the time of the Greco - Roman wars consisted of Legions(manipals/polybians), auxiliaries, allies, and mercenaries. I believe there were only three instances where the Romans lost a battle to the Greeks and in two of those instances they were under the command of an allied general.

Correction, the Romans never lost to the Greeks, it was the Macedonians.

This is a great discussion Jerry'sGoldfish. Between us we have given all those not familiar with the time period some good info.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

LONG LIFE WIKIPEDIA THE SAVIOUR OF ALL WOUDBEE'S ON THE FORUMS...here is what i found

The Manipular system was adopted at around 315 BC, during the Second Samnite War.[1] The rugged terrain of Samnium where the war was fought highlighted the lack of manoeuvrability inherent in the phalanx formation which the Romans had inherited from the Etruscans.


edit: oh yeah, magna grecia, sicilia what about those conflicts - greeks vs romans........uhhhhhhhhhhh ... sounds interesting.....

 

[The Guardian]

LONG LIFE WIKIPEDIA THE SAVIOUR OF ALL WOUDBEE'S ON THE FORUMS...here is what i found

The Manipular system was adopted at around 315 BC, during the Second Samnite War.[1] The rugged terrain of Samnium where the war was fought highlighted the lack of manoeuvrability inherent in the phalanx formation which the Romans had inherited from the Etruscans.

Yes I think it was Davis that wrote that during the period any mass formation was referred to as a phalanx. Almost every civilization from the Sumarians (2500 BC) right up to today has used a type of phalanx. Even today a formation of police with shields is referred to as a phalanx. There is even a phalanx missile system. This said, I believe, phalanx was perfected by the Macedonians under Phillip II and used by his son Alexander. As you mention above, one of the weaknesses of the phalanx is its lack of manoeverability on rough terrain. The other is its vulnerability to flanking movements by more monoeuverable infantry and cavalry.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

correct, take for example chaeronea 338 bc...typical example....also kynoskephaleae an oposite example of failure....actually the phalanx was used even later...massed formations of infantry (napoleonic times) used the trick that a horse will not ron into a dense formation of men...so that is way the marched so densily packed, because of fear of horses.....am i right??

 

[The Guardian]

correct, take for example chaeronea 338 bc...typical example....also kynoskephaleae an oposite example of failure....actually the phalanx was used even later...massed formations of infantry (napoleonic times) used the trick that a horse will not ron into a dense formation of men...so that is way the marched so densily packed, because of fear of horses.....am i right??

I believe that may be correct. Also the british squares were used for the same effect.

The romans also used the phalanx and triarii as their rear guard when on the march for two very good reason.

1. pursuit was generally accomplished by cavalry.
2. rear guards were usually performed by elite veteran troops.

 

[nick0515]

Re limiting a terrain building to one civ, if you only want Rome to be able to build them it's simple. Give them a tech only they can research (requires era none tech that they start with) that allowes the construction of forts. As Kyriakos said it should be a non-tradable tech. If you want other civs to build forts too it would be more complicated as Kyriakos outlined. Different civs restricted to different eras so that their forts use a different graphic.

I've often thought of doing that but can anyone confirm that it works? That is, does a fortress apear as the graphic for the era of the civ that builds it? If four civilizations are each in a different era will the human player see their fortresses as four different graphics? And what happens if it is built in another civs territory or captured by another civ?

 

[The Guardian]

Re limiting a terrain building to one civ, if you only want Rome to be able to build them it's simple. Give them a tech only they can research (requires era none tech that they start with) that allowes the construction of forts. As Kyriakos said it should be a non-tradable tech. If you want other civs to build forts too it would be more complicated as Kyriakos outlined. Different civs restricted to different eras so that their forts use a different graphic.

This I already knew.

I've often thought of doing that but can anyone confirm that it works? That is, does a fortress apear as the graphic for the era of the civ that builds it? If four civilizations are each in a different era will the human player see their fortresses as four different graphics? And what happens if it is built in another civs territory or captured by another civ?

This is exactly the question I was asking, but yours is much more explanatory. Thanks for clarifying it Nick.

 

[Ares de Borg]

The fortifications will always have the appearance that is fitting the era the PLAYER is in - a fact that makes me mad in epic games, too (Knights in WW1 forts, etc).