[UNITS] The Roman Republic

[Spadde]

when do you think these units will be realesed to the public? I cant wait!

[Himster]

Forgive my ignorance but did hastati (or maybe they're socii) have xiphos instead of gladius at that point in time?
I can understand why they would, especially if they were originally from Magna Gracia.

[Petellius]

Forgive my ignorance but did hastati (or maybe they're socii) have xiphos instead of gladius at that point in time?
I can understand why they would, especially if they were originally from Magna Gracia.

They did indeed, until the end of the Second Punic War once they got into contact with the Iberians and fashioned the Gladius in copyment of their weaponry.

[ABH2]

To expound on that a little, the truth is no one really knows exactly when the true gladius was adopted, but most place it sometime during (late into) or after the Second Punic War as the Romans campaigned in Spain. Yet, the references to the Romans in combat place them as fighting with swords. The xiphos depicted here isn't ideal to me as CA's is too long for an actual xiphos (at least to my eyes). Unfortunately, we do not have pictorial depictions of the Romans in the third century to support the written accounts. But since the Roman infantry are referenced as fighting with javelins and swords as early as the Samnite Wars and into the Pyrrhic Wars (not spears), that is how they are depicted here. By the Pyrrhic Wars we get multiple references while the earlier comes only from Livy who was writing later.

I will most likely add another layer of Italian units to the reform process for the start of the Rome 2 campaign in which they will use spears instead of swords. It's tough to say how the Socii equipment and organization evolved in the third century, when they all adopted scutums etc. We are kind of in the dark there, but even in terms of the Samnites archaeological evidence has turned up few swords and they supposedly gave the maniple and basic scutum design to the Romans, per Livy. I've seen suggestions the lack of swords in burials stems from iron being rare and not wanting to bury the goods, but I'm skeptical most of the Italian tribes could have outfitted themselves with swords in the first part of the third century, though it does seem as though they may have used looser spacings than the Greeks.

A lot of this is admittedly guesswork, but I spent a lot of time coming up with a way that made sense and fit the evidence we do have to include the written, archaeological (what I can get my hands on), and secondary source literature.

[Himster]

They did indeed, until the end of the Second Punic War once they got into contact with the Iberians and fashioned the Gladius in copyment of their weaponry.

Of course. I knew there was an Iberian connection somewhere.
So my next question: Falcatta/kopis?
I can't tell the difference, but I've been told by reputable sources that they evolved quite independently in Greek world and the Iberian world, I think it's very fair to assume that Rome's link with Greece through Etruria and Magna Gracia through the centuries lands it quite firmly in the Greek camp concerning the source of their use of that sword shape. But what about the Carthaginians? They left Phoenicia before the kopis was developed (I think) and they had long links with the Iberians before trying their invasions, but I suppose their expansion into Sicily was before that so....

[Maetharin]

Hey guys!
I really love the idea behind this mod, but i have a few historical issues to raise!

First of all the Polybian Hastati and Principes were differenciated only by campaigns they have served,
a recruit capable of getting a chainmail would have started in the same unit as someone only able to afford a chest protector.
Of course, the longer you served the higher the chance of either looting a chainmail from an enemy or booty.
Also the less protected were less likely to survive.

Therefore the ratio of chainmail to heart protector should IMO be 1/3 for Hastati and 2/3 for Principes.

For late republican pre marian units it should be around 2/3 and full respectively, as during that time chainmail had become a lot cheaper due to the subjugation of many celtic tribes and the occupation of cisalpine gaul. The romans were able to put a lot of money behind celtic expertise.

The second issue would be the socii.
Even as late as the social war, the socii as independent nations had to equip their own alae and provide them for rome´s wars.
Therefore regional differences consisted, the marsi for example were known for their heavy roman style infantry.
Whilst the samnites, due to their rather mountainous terrrain, were known for their lighter infantry, equipped much like the pre-polybian hastati.

I hope this doesn´t come as too critical, I just see the potential this mod has and would like it to be as good as possible.

Best regards!

[ABH2]

There's no offense taken. I enjoy historical discussion, anyway.

Therefore the ratio of chainmail to heart protector should IMO be 1/3 for Hastati and 2/3 for Principes.

We are already at these ratios for those units, depending on the stage. There are 3 versions of the Hastati and Principes. The third version is meant for use in Attila and generally represents things roughly as they were in the 2nd century. Principes have 2/3rd mail armor which is the same as the Principes. We have mail armor being phased in around the Second Punic War time frame and then increasing in usage.

For late republican pre marian units it should be around 2/3 and full respectively, as during that time chainmail had become a lot cheaper due to the subjugation of many celtic tribes and the occupation of cisalpine gaul. The romans were able to put a lot of money behind celtic expertise.

I had originally planned on more reforms and variations of these units to depict things in the 2nd century, but at a certain point it becomes unworkable with the current game mechanics related to recruitment. That said, the state of things in the late 2nd century is far from clear, as I see it. The Romans had a tougher time finding 'smaller' landowners to fill their ranks and the state was paying for more of their equipment by around the 120's. It's hard to say what that entailed, exactly. We don't get many depictions of the Republican legions, and the ones we do have are from earlier in the century. Even likely earlier, the extended campaigns and large numbers of men the Romans were fielding during the Second Punic War likely meant that the state was supplying more equipment than I think most people admit. We have references to large numbers of soldiers being supplied by the state at that point. Polybius himself mentions that Roman soldiers could pay for 'arms' while with the army from their pay along with buying extra food and corn. So, some Roman soldiers were buying at least some of their arms directly from the state by the time of Polybius, and later legislation mandated the state equip soldiers prior to the Marian 'reform.'

Suffice to say, we have three variations of these units with mail armor becoming increasingly common in the 2nd and 3rd stages. But I reject simple narratives on any of this.

The second issue would be the socii.

This part I have a larger break from what you are suggesting. I have done a few custom Socii units with different equipments, and will most likely add an earlier stage in the process where they are still fighting in more of a native fashion and spears. But we actually don't have any references to how the Socii were equipped and there is a lot of debate over how they were organized before the Social War. No one can answer that definitively.

Polybius makes no mention of different equipment for the allies writing in the mid-2nd century BC. Nor are there special references to them fighting differently than the Romans that have come down to us. They were close enough to the Romans that by the time of Marius he was able to say he couldn't tell the difference in battle. It is a vague and oft repeated quote, but it is about all we have to go on.

Livy makes references to 'cohorts' of allied units serving in tribal contingents, but he was writing after the Social War and some historians do question the legitimacy of those references. You can read secondary literature on this subject all day and you won't find any consensus, and the ancient sources that we have are no less clear. Physical depictions of the Romans in the 2nd century don't shed any light, either. The typical Roman shown on the monuments (as few as we have) show mail armored, scutum carrying soldiers. There's no Socii or Roman differentiation.

Polybius describes the Socii recruitment as such:

The rest of the soldiers of the legion, advancing one by one, swear also that they will perform what the first has sworn. About the same time, likewise, the consuls send notice to the magistrates of the allied cities of Italy, from which they design to draw any forces, what number of troops are wanted, and cities, having raised their levies in the same manner that has now been mentioned, and administered to them the same oath, send them away attended by a paymaster and a general.

So, this suggests they are deployed in maniples of the same size as the Roman as Polybius had just gotten done describing the formation of the legions themselves. He then goes on into equipment.

Reading Polybius, you are only left with the impression that there is little to no difference in the Socii and Romans in terms of equipment or organization. Except he tells us that the bravest and fittest of the Socii (1/5th of the infantry, 1/3rd of the cavalry) are organized into bodies of 'extraordiniarii').

Who or what were the extraordinarii is still vague. There is no difference in equipment described. Since 1/5th of the infantry is the same proportion as the Triarii, I have made the two equivalent.

There is no right way to represent the Socii, but the evidence to me clearly indicates that they were fairly Romanized by the time Polybius wrote. Which makes particular sense when you factor into it that the Latin colonists served among the allies themselves. We have no references to them fighting in unique ways. Or being outfitted differently. And it makes complete sense that over time there would be natural sort of standardization in arms and equipment if they are all fighting in the same fashion.

Final note - there were way more allies than Romans. And they were forced to supply men by treaty. It makes sense that for the allies, there was an even larger rotation of men who campaign seasonally compared to the Romans. Did they still have Principes/Hastati/Triarii designations can't be answered for sure, so I've gone with a simple allied infantry unit and an extraordarinii unit. It's sensible that the Romans would want a uniform back line of spear armed men, but this is just my own interpretation.

I can always be persuaded that another view is correct, but I'm emphasizing here that there is no definitive way to portray the allies. The ancient sources aren't clear, and the secondary literature is hardly uniform in its interpretation even when it moves beyond the vague and tries to get specific on the question.

[Maetharin]

Now that´s what I call an argument!
I never knew that the Latin citizens served in the Italian contingents,
i always thought since they got back their roman citizenship upon returning to rome they served their campaigns in the legions.

When talking about the artistic depictions, you have to remind yourself that these were propaganda,
so "valorous" soldiers on them were most likely romans.
The senate wouldn´t have bothered with propaganda in the allied nations since they were their own nations.

I think economical strength plays a great part too, since the allies were domestically independent nations and therefore had to equip and train their armies accordingly.
The samnites f.e. were populous, but they were living in mountainous areas,
where you wouldn´t be able to cultivate as much as f.e. the latin flats.
Also don´t forget, the best land in italy was the ager publicus, therefore roman.
Furthermore the spatial proximity towards gallia cisalpina determines the prices of chainmail and weapons.

And I always enjoy a logical or verbal spat, so don´t hesitate to completely obliterate my line of thoughts^^

Best regards

[ABH2]

i always thought since they got back their roman citizenship upon returning to rome they served their campaigns in the legions.

Yes, it's a little odd to me, as well, but makes sense when you think about their purpose (keeping the 'allies' in check).

When talking about the artistic depictions, you have to remind yourself that these were propaganda,
so "valorous" soldiers on them were most likely romans.

The main point there was only that, it's really the only sort of kit we have shown to us in the 2nd century. It's unfortunate more didn't survive from the Republic.

Furthermore the spatial proximity towards gallia cisalpina determines the prices of chainmail and weapons.

Currently, what we want to depict is a 'Romanization' process in the Italian allies. In terms of the acquisition of chainmail, it does end up worked into their units and our late Roman allied units are something of a mixture of more experienced and rawer recruits. So, slightly better than our Hastati. Conversely, the earlier versions are more diverse based on region.

I do know the Vae Victis mod made a lot more specific Socii units than we did, but I don't know or believe they have the reforms we do.

As a practical matter, our team has about 5 members, and this is a large project. I could create 16 different variations of the Roman socii, and then further variation to reflect the smaller reforms we have. I'm not sure we would be able to create meaningful variation in all of those units, and given the recruitment system in Rome 2 with no real manpower system to speak of, it would just be minor aesthetic variation with little campaign impact. Especially once we are talking them having the same basic kit - scutums, a cuirass, one of a few helmet varieties, and gladii/pila. The cuirass and shield design would be what we are talking about, and that would be guesswork. I personally have little doubt they used the scutum and same basic kit. It's just what sort of variation within it they had.

Without something more solid to go on, I think there's better uses of our resources than making endless Socii variation that would have only a tenuous relation to the historical evidence.

I'm not criticizing your position, just saying that there is no definitive take.

The samnites f.e. were populous, but they were living in mountainous areas,

If Livy is to be believed, the Samnites in their heyday were rather fabulously equipped. Grave finds have turned up more spears and few/if any swords, though, which contradicts what he tells us. Visual depictions do show them as rather ornate.

And while Rome may have often taken some of the best land, it was still only a fraction given to colonists who still ended up within the ranks of the Socii. By the 2nd century, the land had already begun to be concentrated into fewer hands, as well, so I'm not sure how much of a wealth disparity there would have been between local elites and Romans.

The player will have about 160 turns with the early Socii units (variations in cavalry and infantry equipment) in our Rome 2 version, and I rather like the idea that the player consolidates the Socii and builds them up until they are eventually granted Roman citizenship.

[Maetharin]

If it´s hard to implement that many units (what do I know, I´m no modder^^) maybe you could make a parallel to the roman units, but call them not Hastati and Principes, but rather something like Ala Sociorum Iuniorum/Agiliorum and Ala Sociorum Seniorum/Graviliorum and the Extraordinarii like the DeI counterpart Pedites/Equites Extraordinarii

BTW: I´d forego a differentiation between late republican units into Hastati and Principes, as they were trained and equipped completely similar, I´d just simply call them Legionarii.
The "reforms" of Marius rather concentrated on their recruitment and retirement (of course on their marching order too, but these were implemented by marius himself rather than constitutionalised).
Do you know when the romans stopped equipping the Triarii with Hastae?

[ABH2]

Do you know when the romans stopped equipping the Triarii with Hastae?

I have wondered about this myself in the past, and the only/best answer is with Marius. We just don't have that info, but it would make sense that he was the one who standardized it.

BTW: I´d forego a differentiation between late republican units into Hastati and Principes, as they were trained and equipped completely similar, I´d just simply call them Legionarii.

Something else I had toyed around with, but I feel like we are already pretty close to that. What we have or would like to have is a sort of streamlining process where you gradually get up to the Marian reforms. But I don't know about getting away from the designations as the little evidence we have is not so clear on that.

Polybius was also writing in the middle of the 2nd century. The Marian reforms are dated at the end of the century. So, there's about 100 turns there.

There's also evidence that while laws were passed related to equipping the troops prior to Marius, that they may not have always been followed or were ignored. So, it all becomes very speculative. But the actually doing away with of the three classes of heavy infantry is still usually attributed to Marius even in the secondary literature.

Marius may not have been the first to introduce some of the ideas attributed to him, but he may have been the first to make sure they were stridently carried out and then to demonstrate their effectiveness to make sure they were widely followed.

[SpardaSon21]

All of this talk of the various reforms has left me wondering exactly how you will implement them. I believe you've already mentioned scripting is out, so the DeI reforms aren't going to happen, but what does that leave, technologies?

[ABH2]

Scripting isn't off the table, per se, but I would prefer not to turn to it in Attila. For the Rome 2 submod, we will work within the confines of DeI's brilliant work. I haven't actually been able to play it since about .8 and I know they've updated quite a bit since then. On the Rome 2 side, we will initially use DeI's units and go from there. We will see how our work fits in before implementing with regards to units.

DeI had various reasons for implementing their reform script. With our concept, I'm hoping it will be better balanced through the tech tree with the micro reforms, but we will see when we get to that point in the campaign creation. Scripts aren't off the table, just not my preference at the moment.

[Maetharin]

I have wondered about this myself in the past, and the only/best answer is with Marius. We just don't have that info, but it would make sense that he was the one who standardized it.

There's also evidence that while laws were passed related to equipping the troops prior to Marius, that they may not have always been followed or were ignored. So, it all becomes very speculative. But the actually doing away with of the three classes of heavy infantry is still usually attributed to Marius even in the secondary literature.

I think the use of Hastae bearing troops might have been under personal preference of the general,
don´t forget that in the field a generals Imperium was abolute, so his word was law.

AFAIK we don´t really know how Ha. Pr. Tr. were designated to their troop types,
wether it was automatically through campaign history/age or somehow else.

(the following is highly speculative on my part and i claim no accuracy in any way)

But it was the general who recruited, so it was up to him what and how much of it he recruited.
Maybe the Triarii as in "elite" troops fell out of use and were replaced simply by as "Triarii" designated troops in armies of "modern" generals, whereas traditional minded generals might have recruited "true" Triarii.

A true Triarius would have been able to afford an ox cart, whereas a Hastatus or Princeps would either have a Mule or rent space on an ox cart or mule.
Because of this, a Triarius is slower on the march than a hastatus or Princeps. So the decision would be either march hard without "elite" troops and take away time for an enemy to prepare, or march slower but have such "elites" with you, who most likely won´t have to fight anyway (triarii were the last in line, so a battle which saw their use was pretty desperate anyway)

Over the years, the advantage of arriving faster would become obvious, so less and less battles were fought with "true" Triarii in the ranks

What are your thoughts on this little theory?

Best regards