Constantine: Rise of Christianity - Future Plans, Previews and Historical Discussions

Right, there wasn't any official division of sword and spearman, but I disagree on the idea of the spear mainly being a weapon for dealing with cavalry. It's questionable to me why the spear would remain the preeminent weapon for infantry of the line throughout history if it was such a poor choice for facing off against another corps of infantry. With cavalry it's as much the wall of shields and noise as it is the bristling ranks of spear. Furthermore, in the increasing use of a dense pseudo-phalanx formation for legionaries of this period a spear is far more useful than the spatha - I'm sure it can still thrust as well as cut, but the spear remains the consistent primary arm of organized (not more heroic/individualistic barbarian fighting) close order infantry - the only exception in the Western world being the Romans of the republic through to early/mid empire. At least with Ammanius you have accounts referencing the spear as distinct from a javelin, and used in close quarters.

The historical consensus I've gathered for the late empire is the spear's increased importance - not replacing the sword, but clearly returning in a way not known since before Marius. Problem being there wasn't a rigid division of spearman and swordsman, but rather it's usually argued the front rankers would keep their lancea while those further behind would throw it. Sometimes the front rankers could throw theirs, too. And the very fluidity you mention is a problem we face in trying to represent it with the rigidity of video games/wargaming. Hell, Praetorians trained to use the bow back in the 1st century Ad I believe, and used it during a riot. And in this period you had men who could go from light infantry to heavy depending on the mission or happily go from a footsoldier to a cavalryman. We can somewhat do the latter (but I am not about to remove any kind of heavy infantry for Barbarians because I doubt the AI is smart enough to dismount their cavalrymen)

So there is really no means to offer a perfect representation of past warfare. The only one I could be reasonably okay with is the cosmetic feature of spears being used when in a shield wall or similar formation (if that's even possible), and only affording the anti-cavalry bonus in said formation. I'm not a fan of it being only used against cavalry because again, from the historical evidence I've encountered I get a strong impression that spears were used extensively as a primary arm alongside the Spatha, not a specialty item for only fighting cavalry. Long, sharp stick that can reach out and gut an Alamanni makes a lot more sense in a tight shield-wall scrummage like Strasbourg than trying to swing a Spatha around.

But there's so much that I have to work on that there's no way I'm going to be able to wade into the field of animations I'm largely unfamiliar with. If someone wants to make a mini-mod of this, all the power to them and maybe we'll integrate it into the mod, but it's just out of my capacity right now.

maybe ask the DEI team for help, it seems they created an animation that allows the foot units to use both spear and sword.

What I do in the IB-SAI mod is to make a distinction between front and rear troops. For example, front troops are armed with either throwing weapon and thrusting spear, or thrusting spear and sword. Rear ranks can be armed with throwing weapon and sword. This allows for the inflexibility of the RTW engine in the use of multiple weapons. In the end it is a personal choice, though I try to go for variation.

As to the use of the thrusting spear, the Romans during the 3rd C started to change their fighting style, either because of the enemies they were fighting or because of the quality of troops they had. Remember there was a huge drain on resources due to the amount of wars Rome as fighting during the mid to late 3rd Century. I would assume it takes longer to train a man in sword fighting, than it does in fielding a spear. As the 4th Century progressed, the spear became much more dominant than the sword as the primary melee weapon but did not replace it. Coupled with this is the increasing use of the shield wall which a spear would be more suitable for than a sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ahiga

Right, there wasn't any official division of sword and spearman, but I disagree on the idea of the spear mainly being a weapon for dealing with cavalry. It's questionable to me why the spear would remain the preeminent weapon for infantry of the line throughout history if it was such a poor choice for facing off against another corps of infantry. With cavalry it's as much the wall of shields and noise as it is the bristling ranks of spear. Furthermore, in the increasing use of a dense pseudo-phalanx formation for legionaries of this period a spear is far more useful than the spatha - I'm sure it can still thrust as well as cut, but the spear remains the consistent primary arm of organized (not more heroic/individualistic barbarian fighting) close order infantry - the only exception in the Western world being the Romans of the republic through to early/mid empire. At least with Ammanius you have accounts referencing the spear as distinct from a javelin, and used in close quarters.

The historical consensus I've gathered for the late empire is the spear's increased importance - not replacing the sword, but clearly returning in a way not known since before Marius. Problem being there wasn't a rigid division of spearman and swordsman, but rather it's usually argued the front rankers would keep their lancea while those further behind would throw it. Sometimes the front rankers could throw theirs, too. And the very fluidity you mention is a problem we face in trying to represent it with the rigidity of video games/wargaming. Hell, Praetorians trained to use the bow back in the 1st century Ad I believe, and used it during a riot. And in this period you had men who could go from light infantry to heavy depending on the mission or happily go from a footsoldier to a cavalryman. We can somewhat do the latter (but I am not about to remove any kind of heavy infantry for Barbarians because I doubt the AI is smart enough to dismount their cavalrymen)

So there is really no means to offer a perfect representation of past warfare. The only one I could be reasonably okay with is the cosmetic feature of spears being used when in a shield wall or similar formation (if that's even possible), and only affording the anti-cavalry bonus in said formation. I'm not a fan of it being only used against cavalry because again, from the historical evidence I've encountered I get a strong impression that spears were used extensively as a primary arm alongside the Spatha, not a specialty item for only fighting cavalry. Long, sharp stick that can reach out and gut an Alamanni makes a lot more sense in a tight shield-wall scrummage like Strasbourg than trying to swing a Spatha around.

But there's so much that I have to work on that there's no way I'm going to be able to wade into the field of animations I'm largely unfamiliar with. If someone wants to make a mini-mod of this, all the power to them and maybe we'll integrate it into the mod, but it's just out of my capacity right now.

---

The sword indeed didn't replace the spear. Not at all. The sword has always remained the constant. It's the spear that changed. From javelin types (pila) to heavier spears that allowed better thrusting but could also be thrown if needed. This process seems to have started from the late second century onwards.
Remember that the pilum in the later republic and earlier empire was also used in formations to repel cavalry (besides its main function of javelin). It wouldn't be suitable for thrusting really, but just pointing it outwards would have been enough for repelling cavalry.

Also spear shafts can (and did) break (or can be cut into pieces) in which case soldiers had to use their sword (or sometimes axe or club) as melee weapon.

Roman warfare discussion is as good as waiting for this mod :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor

The sword indeed didn't replace the spear. Not at all. The sword has always remained the constant. It's the spear that changed. From javelin types (pila) to heavier spears that allowed better thrusting but could also be thrown if needed. This process seems to have started from the late second century onwards.
Remember that the pilum in the later republic and earlier empire was also used in formations to repel cavalry (besides its main function of javelin). It wouldn't be suitable for thrusting really, but just pointing it outwards would have been enough for repelling cavalry.

Also spear shafts can (and did) break (or can be cut into pieces) in which case soldiers had to use their sword (or sometimes axe or club) as melee weapon.

---

I don't think I disagree with you - I'm just applying it within ingame limitations differently. The last part is my general view on the spear: that it was typically (exceptions for 'civilized' armies with a degree of organization being the Romans) the primary arm of a soldier. When it broke or was thrown then the sword or sidearm would be utilized. But given the difficulties of depicting that ingame, I'm more partial to the system Julianus mentions IB using: separating them into a spear unit and sword unit. While I cannot say when it's a choice of gameplay vs realism I will always choose gameplay, I do admit a 60-40 perspective on it. One clear area where I'll sacrifice the latter for the former is in the presence of

I've certainly grown more amenable to the idea of having, if at all possible, spears used when in shield wall or a similar formation (conferring the anti-cav bonus only to that formation, rather than in a general sense for roman sword-spear-guys) but swords used in general. But I am not sure if that is possible nor do I have the time to try and get it to work.

Foederati Spearmen. Work in progress.

http://i.imgur.com/hmExTG1l.jpg

Question: Does rome 2 have an armor upgrade System like Medieval 2?, if so would it be possible to giver armor to this foederati when you upgrade them? I say this because i think the fabricae of the empire provided armor for the foederati.

It does not. You will be able to recruit something like these for Foederati:

Slinger, Javelineer, Archer Foederati, all unarmored and the expected quality of such levy types
Rank and file Foederati Spear, who you see there.
Middling Freemen and warriors with swords, shields, good number of helmets but not all. Not armored.
Middling Freemen and warrior cavalry, same deal with javelins. Not armored.
Comitatus-grade warriors on foot and on horseback, both mostly armored with sword/shield (spear instead on horseback for mounted ones).

And also not Foederati per se because blah blah blah they weren't recruited as foederati but rather part of the roman military system blah blah blah: Moorish Foot and Moorish Horse, Eastern Indigenae Foot archers and horse archers.

Later on will look into how/in what way you can get Sarmatians, Arabs, and so forth.

How you recruit Foederati isn't decided on yet but probably two methods: Direct recruitment in any germanic territory across the Rhine and Danube along with Gaul, North Italy and Illyria (Laeti and proximity/eagerness of Germans to settle there) and as mercenaries.

Barbarians won't get anything done this release but later on there will be a reflection of being poorer trans rhine/danube barbarians and the ability to improve once you unlock tech and/or conquer and recruit in Roman territory to reflect possession of the Fabricae. Pre-reform armies would look more or less like the above with a bit more options (spear-bearing Comitatus footmen, spear-bearing Middling freemen, Sarmatianized germanic lancers for applicable German factions, I doubt the Franks will get Fransisca throwers because unless it'll auto-spin an axe it'd look silly). Post reform will draw inspiration no later than the early to mid 5th century for the most part. Mod may be based in the 4th century but I have to draw conclusions on what might have been if you had the barbarian succession of Rome a century earlier. Will entail a general professionalization of your army: less flightly and vulnerable to moral shocks, greater possession of armor among the elites and middling warriors, ect.

You can always use the "replace" option of workshop's upgrades.
Just like from a point workshop for greek states replace thyreophory javelinmen with light ones you can have that option to "upgrade" troops in regions with better workshops.
For example: If we use your example with Foederati spearmen you can have them originaly unarmored but after an workshop upgrade (shield and armor one) they can be repleced by "armored foederati".
The issue with Foederati is that they were "allied" troops.
That means they can be all kind of troops kinds and levels (from peseants to high armored nobles).
I found a recently writen article about Heracleius war and the Sassanid army (and unit names) of his era. It would be helpfull.
I will make a short list and post it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ahiga

Right, there wasn't any official division of sword and spearman, but I disagree on the idea of the spear mainly being a weapon for dealing with cavalry. It's questionable to me why the spear would remain the preeminent weapon for infantry of the line throughout history if it was such a poor choice for facing off against another corps of infantry. With cavalry it's as much the wall of shields and noise as it is the bristling ranks of spear. Furthermore, in the increasing use of a dense pseudo-phalanx formation for legionaries of this period a spear is far more useful than the spatha - I'm sure it can still thrust as well as cut, but the spear remains the consistent primary arm of organized (not more heroic/individualistic barbarian fighting) close order infantry - the only exception in the Western world being the Romans of the republic through to early/mid empire. At least with Ammanius you have accounts referencing the spear as distinct from a javelin, and used in close quarters.

The historical consensus I've gathered for the late empire is the spear's increased importance - not replacing the sword, but clearly returning in a way not known since before Marius. Problem being there wasn't a rigid division of spearman and swordsman, but rather it's usually argued the front rankers would keep their lancea while those further behind would throw it. Sometimes the front rankers could throw theirs, too. And the very fluidity you mention is a problem we face in trying to represent it with the rigidity of video games/wargaming. Hell, Praetorians trained to use the bow back in the 1st century Ad I believe, and used it during a riot. And in this period you had men who could go from light infantry to heavy depending on the mission or happily go from a footsoldier to a cavalryman. We can somewhat do the latter (but I am not about to remove any kind of heavy infantry for Barbarians because I doubt the AI is smart enough to dismount their cavalrymen)

So there is really no means to offer a perfect representation of past warfare. The only one I could be reasonably okay with is the cosmetic feature of spears being used when in a shield wall or similar formation (if that's even possible), and only affording the anti-cavalry bonus in said formation. I'm not a fan of it being only used against cavalry because again, from the historical evidence I've encountered I get a strong impression that spears were used extensively as a primary arm alongside the Spatha, not a specialty item for only fighting cavalry. Long, sharp stick that can reach out and gut an Alamanni makes a lot more sense in a tight shield-wall scrummage like Strasbourg than trying to swing a Spatha around.

But there's so much that I have to work on that there's no way I'm going to be able to wade into the field of animations I'm largely unfamiliar with. If someone wants to make a mini-mod of this, all the power to them and maybe we'll integrate it into the mod, but it's just out of my capacity right now.

---

you could do like now is in vanilla Pikemen but with one hand Spears instead of pikes. You press the "pike phalanx" button and they take Spears, you press again the button and they go back to swords. So you have a unit covering both roles as it should be, according situations.
Second small advice: since now the so called Fulcum is totally useless and ugly to see from a graphical point of view (they go back to normal formation as soon as enemies approach and there is a big gap between first and second line of shields) could you fix it? Firstly you could make second row of shields a bit lower so that there is no Gap and looks like a real fulcum. Secondly you could make soldiers keep that formation for a while, as they were supposed to do. Purpose of Fulcum (in the form of shield wall) was not only to make a barrier against cavalry but even against barbarian infantry assaulting. Surely it could not hold intact so much, but it did resist first charge usually. So my idea is that soldiers should keep Fulcum ability for a while, let's say 30 sec (or more for better units who could resist more) to give an idea. In that time barbarians could not attack them or better they could not cause them real damage. Visually you could see your Roman soldiers in fulcum immobile and barbarians in front attacking (slashing with axes against Shields for example) with no result for those 30 sec. In that 5ime barbarians would be vulnerable to arrows and javelins thrown from behind. And maybe cavalry could take some time to flank them. This is how it worked more or less the tactic of late romans. They used fewer infantry since their role was only to keep enemies busy while cavalry (light or heavy, or horse archers) flanked. Cavalry had most important job. I do not know if it is possible but would be epic to see this.
Anyway even only to see a real Fulcum would be enough to me.

As for the strategical map, I would suggest to divide army into Limitanei and Comitatenses legions and auxilia. Then the high level Palatinae legions. Limitanei would be simply the low level cheap Garrison of the provinces along the Limes. You should be able to keep a good amount of them but they would be ineffective in land battles. Like very low attack status, while barbarian attackers should have high attack stats. It is known that Limitanei were the worst men sent by land owners as taxes for emperor who asked a number of men... land owners surely sent worst men. So they should look small and weak and a bit ragged in appearence. For the foederati, that is mainly a matter of late 4th century and beginning of 5th century, anyway it existed already in 4th century. On my opinion the player should be able to decide if renting them as mercenaries (not super expensive like vanilla mercenaries though) or to give them lands and provinces in your territories. When given lands, maybe they should act like "satrapies" in vanilla, in the sense they will be on your side and attack who attacks you eventually. But you will not be able to control them directly. While when payed as mercenaries they would travel freely in your lands (causing civil unrest in those provinces) and again make war to your enemies. But both as land owners and as mercenaries they could rebel to your power (for example if you stop paying them or they could ask more lands and you will not give) since they would have low level of trust and become an enemy on the inside. So you would be supposed to make a decision: to use foederati or not to use them, with all problems connected in every case.
As for physical appearance, in that age any big difference between Roman and barbarians was lost. They had more or less same armors same weapons. They were no more the Stonehenge guys met in Teutoburg, with no armors and wooden clubs. Centuries of economical and cultural exchanges had changed them. Goths (the first tribe when I think to foederati) for example were farmers and traders too. So they should have some well equipped units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrew881thebest

As for the strategical map, I would suggest to divide army into Limitanei and Comitatenses legions and auxilia. Then the high level Palatinae legions. Limitanei would be simply the low level cheap Garrison of the provinces along the Limes. You should be able to keep a good amount of them but they would be ineffective in land battles. Like very low attack status, while barbarian attackers should have high attack stats. It is known that Limitanei were the worst men sent by land owners as taxes for emperor who asked a number of men... land owners surely sent worst men. So they should look small and weak and a bit ragged in appearence. For the foederati, that is mainly a matter of late 4th century and beginning of 5th century, anyway it existed already in 4th century. On my opinion the player should be able to decide if renting them as mercenaries (not super expensive like vanilla mercenaries though) or to give them lands and provinces in your territories. When given lands, maybe they should act like "satrapies" in vanilla, in the sense they will be on your side and attack who attacks you eventually. But you will not be able to control them directly. While when payed as mercenaries they would travel freely in your lands (causing civil unrest in those provinces) and again make war to your enemies. But both as land owners and as mercenaries they could rebel to your power (for example if you stop paying them or they could ask more lands and you will not give) since they would have low level of trust and become an enemy on the inside. So you would be supposed to make a decision: to use foederati or not to use them, with all problems connected in every case.
As for physical appearance, in that age any big difference between Roman and barbarians was lost. They had more or less same armors same weapons. They were no more the Stonehenge guys met in Teutoburg, with no armors and wooden clubs. Centuries of economical and cultural exchanges had changed them. Goths (the first tribe when I think to foederati) for example were farmers and traders too. So they should have some well equipped units.

---

Actually I would NOT divide the army into limitanei and comitatenses and palatine legions and auxilia. Why? Because it would create quite a bunch of unnecessary double/triple units. And you'd get comitatenses and palatini units in weird locations where they shouldn't be. Limitanei stationed inland, palatini and comitatenses guarding frontier etc. Instead focus on unit types and let the player decide for himself what status the armies have. This whole limitanei and comitatenses and palatini division didn't really exist as such. Only later in the 4th century is the limitanei and ripenses IIRC mentioned in the documents differentiated from comitatenses. But that should be read as a description rather than a prescription of the military situation. Limitanei units stationed at the borders used to be thought off as poor militiamen, but today's opinion is that were actually still very capable units; they were still the legions that guarded the borders, sometimes for centuries. And they also took part in campaigns. Also remember that the to-be comitatenses (or let's say comitatus/campanions) were units that were drawn from border legions, that became separate units of their own.
I'd say let the player decide whether units are limitanei or comitatenses or palatini by filling in their role himself by stationing them at the borders or inland or as elite corps of the emperor etc. If the player wants to put emphasis on border legions, then this whole limitanei, comitatenses and palatini division would be moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor

Actually I would NOT divide the army into limitanei and comitatenses and palatine legions and auxilia. Why? Because it would create quite a bunch of unnecessary double/triple units. And you'd get comitatenses and palatini units in weird locations where they shouldn't be. Limitanei stationed inland, palatini and comitatenses guarding frontier etc. Instead focus on unit types and let the player decide for himself what status the armies have. This whole limitanei and comitatenses and palatini division didn't really exist as such. Only later in the 4th century is the limitanei and ripenses IIRC mentioned in the documents differentiated from comitatenses. But that should be read as a description rather than a prescription of the military situation. Limitanei units stationed at the borders used to be thought off as poor militiamen, but today's opinion is that were actually still very capable units; they were still the legions that guarded the borders, sometimes for centuries. And they also took part in campaigns. Also remember that the to-be comitatenses (or let's say comitatus/campanions) were units that were drawn from border legions, that became separate units of their own.
I'd say let the player decide whether units are limitanei or comitatenses or palatini by filling in their role himself by stationing them at the borders or inland or as elite corps of the emperor etc. If the player wants to put emphasis on border legions, then this whole limitanei, comitatenses and palatini division would be moot.

---

ok but how do you want to replicate the system of the Limes, the set of forts and walls along the Danube and Rhine river? you cannot simply put soldiers in the towns in the border provinces. I would suggest to set a system of forts of default. The player at the beginning of campaign will have lots of small armies (of limitanei) in these forts that will be in key points so that invading armies will have to attack these forts to go inside your territories. So you will get the idea of having a Limes along the border even if you only have some few forts. Is that possible?
About the thing you said, I agree, player should be able to decide which kind of units use, but he should be advised to use Limitanei for borders, maybe making them cheaper. I think that even not being historical this mod should give some late empire feeling you know. And this cannot be achieved without the Limes and forts and Limitanei guarding the borders.
So the player can decide to leave borders uncovered taking away all soldiers there to make some massive campaign (such as happened with Valens in his campaign against goths which lead to defeat of Adrianople) against some tribe (and this will be a bet, sinc3 if campaign is to long or ends in defeat he will leave borders uncovered) or to be defensive keeping a lot of men guarding the borders, but thus implying he will have fewer to do offensive campaign.
Then there should be the problem of raising taxation to keep this expensive military machine operative, but that is obvious.
You can decide if having garrisons along the Limes or armies in the middle of empire ready to go where trespass occurs or both.
I would then set as events at certain point of the campaign massive invasions, such as that of gauls, or later the huns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrew881thebest

ok but how do you want to replicate the system of the Limes, the set of forts and walls along the Danube and Rhine river? you cannot simply put soldiers in the towns in the border provinces. I would suggest to set a system of forts of default. The player at the beginning of campaign will have lots of small armies (of limitanei) in these forts that will be in key points so that invading armies will have to attack these forts to go inside your territories. So you will get the idea of having a Limes along the border even if you only have some few forts. Is that possible?
About the thing you said, I agree, player should be able to decide which kind of units use, but he should be advised to use Limitanei for borders, maybe making them cheaper. I think that even not being historical this mod should give some late empire feeling you know. And this cannot be achieved without the Limes and forts and Limitanei guarding the borders.
So the player can decide to leave borders uncovered taking away all soldiers there to make some massive campaign (such as happened with Valens in his campaign against goths which lead to defeat of Adrianople) against some tribe (and this will be a bet, sinc3 if campaign is to long or ends in defeat he will leave borders uncovered) or to be defensive keeping a lot of men guarding the borders, but thus implying he will have fewer to do offensive campaign.
Then there should be the problem of raising taxation to keep this expensive military machine operative, but that is obvious.
You can decide if having garrisons along the Limes or armies in the middle of empire ready to go where trespass occurs or both.
I would then set as events at certain point of the campaign massive invasions, such as that of gauls, or later the huns.

---

I don't know if it's possible in Rome 2. For my own mod for M2TW I'm undecided. I could leave the river crossings open and put a watchtower in there, or I could actually place a series of forts at the river crossings at the limes and station a number of troops in there. Of course it's possible to put troops in the cities themselves and recruit troops from there and not make it too weird. You could consider those cities to function as an HQ/home base for the units that are to be stationed at the limes.

About the limitanei-thing, what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be any unit called 'limitanei' (or 'comitatenses' or even 'palatina' for that matter) that 'should' be stationed at the border. You should look at it the other way around. The player simply recruits units and he can place them along the borders to function as limitanei if he wants or if the situation requires. That's what I tried to explain with the difference between descriptive (units stationed at the border are called 'limitenei') and prescriptive (these units are called 'limitanei', so they should be stationed at the border). In the latter case you could wind up having limitanei units in places where they would no longer function as limitanei, and also have comitatenses or palatina units stationed at the borders where they shouldn't be either. Not using the words 'limitanei', 'comitatenses' or 'palatina' in the unit names would prevent this problem altogether.

I'm opting to avoid the terms of Limitanei and Palatina because at least the sources I've found suggest they were not in existence prior to well into Constantine I's reign and while people attribute a nascent kind of Comitatenses to Diocletian (or even earlier, Galerius or whatever his name is), they seem to consider the firm division of frontier vs interior mobile army to occur after Constantine I wins control of the empire. Plus what you describe above.

Can you recommend a different name for Comitatenses? The way it is right now you've got your Cohors (who I've chosen to have half armored, half unarmored for gameplay purposes.), your Legions, then what I wanted to represent more modern established legions who represent the proto-comitatenses: Herculiani, Ioviani, Parthica II, whatever legions Constantine I had that eventually became his Auxilia Palatina, and then Praetorians for guard infantry.

Comitatus Legions, maybe? Rather than the official Comitatenses, simply being the Comitatus - of the court of the emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ahiga

I'm opting to avoid the terms of Limitanei and Palatina because at least the sources I've found suggest they were not in existence prior to well into Constantine I's reign and while people attribute a nascent kind of Comitatenses to Diocletian (or even earlier, Galerius or whatever his name is), they seem to consider the firm division of frontier vs interior mobile army to occur after Constantine I wins control of the empire. Plus what you describe above.

Can you recommend a different name for Comitatenses? The way it is right now you've got your Cohors (who I've chosen to have half armored, half unarmored for gameplay purposes.), your Legions, then what I wanted to represent more modern established legions who represent the proto-comitatenses: Herculiani, Ioviani, Parthica II, whatever legions Constantine I had that eventually became his Auxilia Palatina, and then Praetorians for guard infantry.

Comitatus Legions, maybe? Rather than the official Comitatenses, simply being the Comitatus - of the court of the emperor.

---

I agree with what you say. Also, I would make Auxilia units only available to Constantine at first as he and his father are believed to have raised these types of troops. And yes, there should be no limitanei or comitatensis units as such at this time.

I do not agree. OK the choice of leaving the player ability to put "comitatenses" in the Borders, but leave their name, please. Same with Limitanei. I do not know if it is historically correct but everyone when talking about late Roman army has this main division in mind. It is maybe that very first thing going to my mind.
Anyway they are simply names, most important is how units look like and game play.

I am even wondering if it is possible to set a real long wall with some fortifications along the Borders both in the tactical and strategical map or only in the tactical map. they should be walls who can be attacked and climbed or destroyed. I am thinking to the small wooden forts and long wooden walls we saw in battle of Alesia in Rome 2. Something like that but along all river Rhine and Danube. Imagine how cool would be night battles with barbarians attacking walls and overcoming small garrisons... like it really happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ahiga

I'm opting to avoid the terms of Limitanei and Palatina because at least the sources I've found suggest they were not in existence prior to well into Constantine I's reign and while people attribute a nascent kind of Comitatenses to Diocletian (or even earlier, Galerius or whatever his name is), they seem to consider the firm division of frontier vs interior mobile army to occur after Constantine I wins control of the empire. Plus what you describe above.

Can you recommend a different name for Comitatenses? The way it is right now you've got your Cohors (who I've chosen to have half armored, half unarmored for gameplay purposes.), your Legions, then what I wanted to represent more modern established legions who represent the proto-comitatenses: Herculiani, Ioviani, Parthica II, whatever legions Constantine I had that eventually became his Auxilia Palatina, and then Praetorians for guard infantry.

Comitatus Legions, maybe? Rather than the official Comitatenses, simply being the Comitatus - of the court of the emperor.

---

You'd need the Cohors and the Cohors Miliaria to form the old Legions. Some extra info: around the time of Diocletian the old legions at the limes were half their original size (around 3000 men).
The so-called new legions of the comitatenses were around 1000 men and can be considered similar to a Cohors Miliaria (ar may have been formed around a Cohors Miliaria retracted from the border or formed around a Cohors and then doubled in size).

The elite legions of the Joviani and Herculiani were at full strength (around 6000). But the make-up is that of the ordinary legion so, (usually)1 Cohors Miliaria and 9 ordinary Cohors units. Here the same applies to what I said about the limitanei. You don't have to have a specific Legio Comitatanses/Comitatus unit. Any ordinary legion could have been used to function as a comitatus.
Of course you can use specific legion names as elite legions such as Ioviani, Herculiani, Martenses, Solenses for specific factions in specific regions. It's something I'm thinking of implementing myself in my own M2TW mod eventually.

Also, the Praetorian cohorts were called 'Cohors Palatina' under the Tetrarchs and were all double cohorts (1000 men each). The problem that arises is that each of the Tetrarchs also had a contingent of Praetorians with them as bodyguards (either full cohorts or just a number). Maxentius is credited for raising the number of Praetorians in Rome to their original number IIRC but uncertain is if this was the number of men in the cohorts or the number of cohorts. It has been suggested that certain (elite) units like the Armigeri have been created out of the contingents of Praetorians that accompanied the Tetrarchs (in the case of the Armigeri I believe it was the praetorians under Constantine). The Tetrarchs had to perform a balancing act and had their own favorite/elite legions to rely on, but they also had to deal with the old and decadent institution of the Praetorians, a traditional burden which they inherited.
My suggestion would be to simply have the Praetorian units, the Cohortes Palatinae, available in Rome under Maxentius and have certain elite legions like the Ioviani, Herculiani, etc. available to the other Tetrarchs.

The Auxilia are different from legions. They enjoyed a higher status among both the limitanei and the comitatenses. There is some confusion because of a text in which the Ioviani and Herculiani were called Auxilia, but by most historians this is regarded as an 'error'. (which is also the easiest way out of this). Because Auxilia units were also present among the limitanei and comitatenses it wouldbe best to drop the word 'palatina' and let the player decide which Auxilia units are limitanei and which are comitatenses/palatini units.

In short:

Cohors (old legion)
Cohors Miliaria (old legion)
Legio (new legion)
Cohors (Ioviani) (or whatever name of the elite legion)
Cohors Miliaria (Ioviani) (or whatever name of the elite legion)
Cohors Palatina (the old Praetorian cohort)
Auxilium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrew881thebest

I do not agree. OK the choice of leaving the player ability to put "comitatenses" in the Borders, but leave their name, please. Same with Limitanei. I do not know if it is historically correct but everyone when talking about late Roman army has this main division in mind. It is maybe that very first thing going to my mind.
Anyway they are simply names, most important is how units look like and game play.

---

Units aren't limitanei or comitatenses (or ripenses for that matter) because their name contains words like 'limitanei' or 'comitatenses', but because units have been given a certain role and status within the Roman army. The division can still be there, but only if the player chooses so. The player can do away with the whole strategy and only have troops stationed at the frontiers (like in the early imperial period) and all troops would basically be limitanei and there would be no comitatenses to begin with. Having separate limitanei and comitatenses units would then have no point, and besides that there was indeed no such formalised division at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by julianus heraclius

I agree with what you say. Also, I would make Auxilia units only available to Constantine at first as he and his father are believed to have raised these types of troops. And yes, there should be no limitanei or comitatensis units as such at this time.

---

Oh yeah, the Auxilia Palatina would either replace the Praetorians (It's not really clear what kind of guard infantry Constantine I had prior to his ultimate victory.), or augment them. But no other Emperors would get them - maybe tech unlocked.


Razor: What's confusing me is that I took the use of "cohors" to simply mean Auxilia. I know the legionaries were also organized into Cohortes, but from what I read I got the impression when it said Cohors it meant Auxilia. Which is complicated by the Auxilia Palatina, but I mean the Cohors = Auxilia = OLD school auxilia, the inferior corps of troops to legionaries.

That being said, I know Auxilia and Legionaries ceased to have any real difference at this point. So I am totally fine with just having a single, unpartisan name which allows for the assumption of being Auxilia (old school) and/or Legionaries.

Now the problem I've got is I don't want to name a specific legionary unit since it'd be weird if all of a sudden you had 3 armies chock full of Ioviani legionaries. I also am still being a bit of a rebel from what you guys are telling me :P and have 2 emblems within a single unit (Ioviani/herculiani, the Cornuti and some corps they usually brigaded with). So I need an unpartisan name that isn't weird to see many times over.

So let's say it's:

Cohors for the Lower end half-armored half-unarmored guys.
Legio for the rank and file standard all-armored infantry.

"Elite Legionaries" They need a name. Something that suggests a superior status, a more veteraned status. It needs to be non-partisan so that there's not the oddity of "I have 2 stacks full of Ioviani" (Yes, you'll just have 2 stacks full of legionaries all with Ioviani and Herculiani shields. But I'm being picky here). In the sake of work load given how much I have to do it is not an option to have a dozen or more different separate units of particular regiments.