sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
The 1st or the 2nd time, or was the 2nd time against the Saxons? I kinda forgot my European history. Did they use mercs with promises of land or better troops?
standing armies and conscription
- Thread starter TGNLPp
- Start date
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
After the Romans left Britain, the celtic warlord Vortigern hired Saxons to ward off seabourne attacks and settle strategic locations.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
Taken from Britannica
The reforms of Diocletian ended the chaos of the 3rd century and ushered in the late imperial period. Britain, however, for a short time became a separate empire through the rebellion (286/287) of Carausius. This man had been in command against the Saxon pirates in the Channel and by his naval power was able to maintain his independence. His main achievement was to complete the new system of Saxon Shore forts around the southeastern coasts. At first he sought recognition as coemperor, but this was refused. In 293 the fall of Boulogne to Roman forces led to his murder and the accession of Allectus, who, however, fell in his turn when Constantius I invaded Britain in 296. Allectus had withdrawn troops from the north to oppose the landing, and Hadrian's Wall seems to have been attacked, for Constantius had to restore the frontier as well as reform the administration. He divided Britain into four provinces, and in the same period the civil power was separated from the military. Late Roman sources show three separate commands respectively under the dux Britanniarum (commander of the Britains), the comes litoris Saxonici (count of the Saxon Shore), and the comes Britanniarum, though the dates of their establishment are unknown and may not have been identical.
Power fell gradually into the hands of tyrants. Chief of these was Vortigern (c. 425), who, unlike earlier usurpers, made no attempt to become Roman emperor but was content with power in Britain. Independence was producing separate interests. By this date Christianity had made considerable headway in the island, but the leaders followed the heretical teaching of Pelagius, himself a Briton, who had emphasized the importance of the human will over divine grace in the achievement of salvation. It has been held that the self-reliance shown in the maintenance of national independence was inspired by this philosophy. Yet there was also a powerful Roman Catholic party anxious to reforge the links with Rome, in support of whom St. Germanus of Auxerre visited Britain in 429. It may have been partly to thwart the plans of this party that Vortigern made the mistake (c. 430; the date given by the Anglo-Saxon Benedictine scholar Bede [d. 735] is between 446 and 454) of inviting Saxons to settle and garrison strategic areas of the east coast, though he certainly also had in mind the need to ward off seaborne raids by Picts, which at this time were troublesome. Planned settlement of this sort is the best explanation for the earliest Saxon settlements found around the mouths of the east-coast estuaries and also in the central southeast region around Oxford. For a time the system worked successfully, but, when in 442 these Saxon foederati (allies) rebelled and called in others of their race to help them, it was found that they had been given a stranglehold on Britain. A long period of warfare and chaos was inaugurated, which was economically disastrous. It was probably this period that saw the disintegration of the majority of the villa estates; with the breakdown of markets and the escape of slaves, villas ceased to be viable and must have gradually fallen into ruin, though the land itself did not cease to be cultivated. A few villas met a violent end. The towns, under the protection of their strong defenses, at first provided refuge at any rate for the rich who could leave their lands; but by degrees decay set in as trade declined and finally even the supply of food was threatened. In about 446 the British made a vain appeal for help to the Roman general Aetius (the Groans of the Britons mentioned in the De excidio et conquestu Britanniae of the British writer Gildas). For several decades they suffered reverses; many emigrated to Brittany. In the second half of the 5th century Ambrosius Aurelianus and the shadowy figure of Arthur began to turn the tide by the use of cavalry against the ill-armed Saxon infantry. A great victory was won at Mons Badonicus (a site not identifiable) toward 500: now it was Saxons who emigrated, and the British lived in peace all through the first half of the 6th century, as Gildas records. But in the second half the situation slowly worsened.
The reforms of Diocletian ended the chaos of the 3rd century and ushered in the late imperial period. Britain, however, for a short time became a separate empire through the rebellion (286/287) of Carausius. This man had been in command against the Saxon pirates in the Channel and by his naval power was able to maintain his independence. His main achievement was to complete the new system of Saxon Shore forts around the southeastern coasts. At first he sought recognition as coemperor, but this was refused. In 293 the fall of Boulogne to Roman forces led to his murder and the accession of Allectus, who, however, fell in his turn when Constantius I invaded Britain in 296. Allectus had withdrawn troops from the north to oppose the landing, and Hadrian's Wall seems to have been attacked, for Constantius had to restore the frontier as well as reform the administration. He divided Britain into four provinces, and in the same period the civil power was separated from the military. Late Roman sources show three separate commands respectively under the dux Britanniarum (commander of the Britains), the comes litoris Saxonici (count of the Saxon Shore), and the comes Britanniarum, though the dates of their establishment are unknown and may not have been identical.
Power fell gradually into the hands of tyrants. Chief of these was Vortigern (c. 425), who, unlike earlier usurpers, made no attempt to become Roman emperor but was content with power in Britain. Independence was producing separate interests. By this date Christianity had made considerable headway in the island, but the leaders followed the heretical teaching of Pelagius, himself a Briton, who had emphasized the importance of the human will over divine grace in the achievement of salvation. It has been held that the self-reliance shown in the maintenance of national independence was inspired by this philosophy. Yet there was also a powerful Roman Catholic party anxious to reforge the links with Rome, in support of whom St. Germanus of Auxerre visited Britain in 429. It may have been partly to thwart the plans of this party that Vortigern made the mistake (c. 430; the date given by the Anglo-Saxon Benedictine scholar Bede [d. 735] is between 446 and 454) of inviting Saxons to settle and garrison strategic areas of the east coast, though he certainly also had in mind the need to ward off seaborne raids by Picts, which at this time were troublesome. Planned settlement of this sort is the best explanation for the earliest Saxon settlements found around the mouths of the east-coast estuaries and also in the central southeast region around Oxford. For a time the system worked successfully, but, when in 442 these Saxon foederati (allies) rebelled and called in others of their race to help them, it was found that they had been given a stranglehold on Britain. A long period of warfare and chaos was inaugurated, which was economically disastrous. It was probably this period that saw the disintegration of the majority of the villa estates; with the breakdown of markets and the escape of slaves, villas ceased to be viable and must have gradually fallen into ruin, though the land itself did not cease to be cultivated. A few villas met a violent end. The towns, under the protection of their strong defenses, at first provided refuge at any rate for the rich who could leave their lands; but by degrees decay set in as trade declined and finally even the supply of food was threatened. In about 446 the British made a vain appeal for help to the Roman general Aetius (the Groans of the Britons mentioned in the De excidio et conquestu Britanniae of the British writer Gildas). For several decades they suffered reverses; many emigrated to Brittany. In the second half of the 5th century Ambrosius Aurelianus and the shadowy figure of Arthur began to turn the tide by the use of cavalry against the ill-armed Saxon infantry. A great victory was won at Mons Badonicus (a site not identifiable) toward 500: now it was Saxons who emigrated, and the British lived in peace all through the first half of the 6th century, as Gildas records. But in the second half the situation slowly worsened.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Thank you for the history lesson, Chukchi_Husky. What was ironic about Saxons invading England is that roughly 500 years later, in 1066, Normans hired the help of Britons to retake their homeland.
Disloyal and greedy mercs would be a good addition to the merc system, the same way that training Germanic tribemen to be garrisons in northern Europe eventually opened the gates of Rome to the northerners. Now I'm not 100% sure if I'm right here, so any corrections are well appreciated.
Disloyal and greedy mercs would be a good addition to the merc system, the same way that training Germanic tribemen to be garrisons in northern Europe eventually opened the gates of Rome to the northerners. Now I'm not 100% sure if I'm right here, so any corrections are well appreciated.
crimson238 said:
Excellent, Really, Thank you.
Before i begin, I'll note, i think i agree more with sir schwick than he agrees with me, i definetly like what he said in response.
I understand your fear of mirroring history, and that it would reduce the fun of the game, rewritteability. My goal is to mirror the catalysts, hopefully in a way that creates new, unique situations but with a familiar feel, if that makes sense.
What i enjoy most about history, and these games, is seeing the individual elements that contributed to a situation, where each on its own was largerly insignificant. The game right now,i feel, lacks these catalysts, id like to see them introduced, and if that is something you dislike, then i fully appreciate we will disagree. But While I want familiar events, i want them to combine in new ways to create new dynamic situations.
Let me give an example to try and be more clear.
if i ally with any 2 nations in the game, i can garauntee within 20 turns they will declare war on eachother and put me in the middle, its like its hard coded. the reasoning, apparantly, is without a fear of me, they see an opertunity to hit eachother. thats it. And its empty and pointless and unfufilling.
Now once, just once, it was magnificent. I allied with 2 empires, and there were 11 left in the game. 2 insignificant empires declared war on eachother over some resource, and those 2 enacted treaties, who enacted treaties, and on and on, until finally myself and my 2 allies found ourselves being drug into opposite sides of a nasty World War. It was a beautiful display of dominoes falling.
I could see where you might say that mirrors history,it was a rather like the situation that started world war 1, but so much else was different, and it came about naturally, on its own, that i did not at all find this stale, or a simple recreation. That was one of my favorite times playing civ 3. Thats what i seek to recreate, not the situation, but the way the situation came about.
I don't want it to happen every time, and definetly not everytime in the same way, but as i said, right now, things almost always happen the same way, i get 2 allies, and they declare war on eachother for no real reason, putting me in the middle
To put that in perspective of this idea, whenever one empire gets large enough in this game, that empire becomes unstoppable, unbeatable. It'd be the equivelant of us all being persian, or romans, or us all being spanish, or us all being brittish.
But thats not the case, in each situation these great powers were defeated, atleast in part because the strains of a large empire are such that a smaller empire is not completely outmatched. the greeks kept the persians at bay, Barbarians crushed the romans, the brittish defeated the spanish and the colonies succussfully rebelled, with aide ofcourse.
I totally concede the micromanagement required to draft from each individual city whenever war or the threat of war arises, would probably be unacceptable and unfun, Some solution is definetly needed
What sir schwick states about handling mercenaries works i think. Perhaps allowing you to draft/conscript from an advisors screen, where a list of cities is displayed with the current food stockpile, hapiness, etc displayed for easier management would do it.
Which brings up a point, I also think part of this is too many cooks in the kitchen. I really like alot of the ideas offered by others, but concede they may not work well together, or require some careful comprimise. Im mostly for troops, professional atleast, which are more expensive to upkeep, not neccessarily more expensive to build, with a main goal of leveling the playing field between massive empires and smaller ones, but that definetly is not the only goal.
so your concern that the smaller empire is at a disadvantage hopefully would not be the case, since he is actually more able to conscript and draft without causing debilitating civil unrest, than that major empire he is fighting. even though the larger empire has more resources to draw on, he is much more limited in how much he can draw on them.
Further more because of the great strain of maintaining the army he has, that he is forced to maintain to hold his dominant role, that big empire is far less able to build new more advanced units.
Exceptional care must be taken to ensure this gives the oppertunity, not the gaurantee, for large empires to be dethroned.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Actually, TGHNLP, I was originally trying to just organize what you said. But I am glad someone at least agrees with me a little. Now that I examine it, drafting from cities on an individual bassis is a PITA(Pain in the Ass). It was kinda a PITA with current conscription, and relying on it for most of your arms would be even worse. Maybe a system where you could just put in a troop demand for a certain square/city(that way you allow for far reaching empires). The computer would try to evenly distribute pop loss, and tell you what the consequence of such a draft would be.
I probably lean more towards the, large empires must be brought down by combined force. This forces large players to sow discord and dependence among players. Maybe their should be a lot more civil resistance for authoritarian governments. This would force them to rely on foreign forces to help maintain power(US Strategy in 80s). Also, you should be able to try and frame other powers for espionage/terrorist actions, like in SMAC.
Only abusive empires, or an upstart one could change the current world order.
I probably lean more towards the, large empires must be brought down by combined force. This forces large players to sow discord and dependence among players. Maybe their should be a lot more civil resistance for authoritarian governments. This would force them to rely on foreign forces to help maintain power(US Strategy in 80s). Also, you should be able to try and frame other powers for espionage/terrorist actions, like in SMAC.
Only abusive empires, or an upstart one could change the current world order.
Similar threads
