Mercenaries

[dvk901]

You and I do not often 'radically' disagree, Cherry, but in this case I think so. I emphatically doubt that the Romans would ever deploy a hoplite unit of any kind, or the Parthians, or Barbarians. I hear what you're saying about leaving military intact, and using local resources to bulster your own, but there's a real problem with Phalangites and Hoplite style units.

First, the Romans dumped this form of warfare because they got their butts royally kicked using it, and Rome was sacked and burned as a result. Our start date would be very near two centuries after that happened, and I doubt any General in his right mind would espouse using a tactic that was militarily bankrupt in their eyes.

Secondly, the use of this type of warfare was a Greek\Successor military art, requiring sharp Generals who knew how to command and use it. A horse based nation like Parthia would laugh one of their Generals right to the firing squad if he suggested using a type of warefare they could just sit back and pick apart with arrows and outflanking manuvers. Likewise, what Barbarian General would be schooled in such an art, or see the value of something his ancestors tore to pieces:

http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/macedonia/macedonia4.html

"....The next years were chaotic. Lysimachus of Thrace and king Pyrrhus of Epirus tried to intervene, an adventurer named Ptolemy Keraunos was able to seize power, but was defeated when the Galatians -a Celtic tribe- invaded Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece. In the end, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, seized power in Macedonia and founded a new dynasty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia

"Galatia, an ancient region of Asia Minor, was named for the immigrant Gauls from Thrace (cf. Tylis), who settled here and became its ruling caste in the 3rd century BC. It has been called the "Gallia" of the East, Roman writers calling its inhabitants Galli.
Seeing something of a Hellenized savage in the Galatians, Francis Bacon and other Renaissance writers inaccurately called them "Gallo-Graeci," and the country "Gallo-Graecia".
The Galatians were in their origin a part of the great Celtic migration which invaded Macedon, led by the 'second' Brennus, a word for chief. The original Celts who settled in Galatia came through tThrace under the leadership of Leotarios and Leonnorios circa 270 BC. Three tribes comprised these Celts, the Tectosages, the Trocmii, and the Tolistobogii.
Brennus invaded Greece in 281 BC with a huge war band and was turned back in the nick of time from plundering the temple of Apollo at Delphi. At the same time, another Gaulish group of men, women, and children were migrating through Thrace. They had split off from Brennus' people in 279 BC, and had migrated into Thrace under their leaders Leonnorius and Lutarius. These invaders appeared in Asia Minor in 278–277 BC; others invaded Macedonia, killed the Ptolemaic Ptolemy Ceraunus but were eventually ousted by Antigonus Gonatas, the grandson of the defeated Diadoch Antigonus the One-Eyed.
As so often happens in cases of invasion, the invaders came at the express invitation of Nicomedes I of Bithynia, who required help in a dynastic struggle against his brother. Three tribes crossed over from Thrace to Asia Minor. They numbered about 10,000 fighting men and about the same number of women and children, divided into three tribes, Trocmi, Tolistobogii and Tectosages. They were eventually defeated by the Seleucid king Antiochus I, in a battle where the Seleucid war elephants shocked the Celts. While breaking the momentum of the invasion, the Galatians were by no means exterminated.
Instead, the migration led to the establishment of a long-lived Celtic territory in central Anatolia, which included the eastern part of ancient Phrygia, a territory that became known as Galatia. There they ultimately settled, and being strengthened by fresh accessions of the same clan from Europe, they overran Bithynia and supported themselves by plundering neighbouring countries."

I read elsewhere that one Barbarian General's 'tactics' were to have several lines of men 'throw javelins, then crouch while the next line threw them, and so on until they had thrown all their javelins and driven the enemy into total disarray, and then all stand up and make a mad rush into the enemy lines'........the Romans kicked their kicked back to Scandia!

[cherryfunk]

First, the Romans dumped this form of warfare because they got their butts royally kicked using it, and Rome was sacked and burned as a result. Our start date would be very near two centuries after that happened, and I doubt any General in his right mind would espouse using a tactic that was militarily bankrupt in their eyes.

As someone once said, you go to war with the army you have. Given a choice between using allies in their own formations, or re-equpping them (at great cost) and then quickly training them in new -- and significantly more complicated -- tactical formations, which would you do? If a thousand Tarentines show up to help me in a battle, I'm hardly going to ask them to quickly learn a new way of warfare, am I?

A horse based nation like Parthia would laugh one of their Generals right to the firing squad if he suggested using a type of warefare they could just sit back and pick apart with arrows and outflanking manuvers.

dvk, if all the Parthians ever had to do was sit back and shoot arrows to win every battle, we'd be speaking Parthian. A horse archer army isn't go to do much good in the mountains of Armenia or the city streets of Byzantium, and the Parthians would know this as well as anyone. We have to get off the idea that they only used horse archers, that's simply ridiculous. The terrain, to a great extent, dictates what forces must be used for success. If the Lydians and the Persians used hoplites, so would the Parthians, when it suited them.

Likewise, what Barbarian General would be schooled in such an art, or see the value of something his ancestors tore to pieces

First, hoplite tactics were quite successful against 'barbarians'. I hope you've read the Anabasis; every time the hoplites charge the 'barbarians' they cut right through them. So don't dismiss what was the most effective tactical formation for centuries.

Second, the 'warband' formation used by the Celts and Germans was similar to the hoplite phalanx, if less disciplined. Getting a bunch of guys with shields to line up and protect each other was a very common tactic, because it worked. Pretty much all heavy infantry did it. I think you're seeing distinctions that didn't really exist. Now, whether any Greeks would fight for a Celtic overlord, that might be a valid question. But I little no doubt that any warlord would take whatever allies he could get, however they fought and with whatever weapons.

[pseudocaesar]

I agree with Cherry, the whole point of the mercenary system is to recruit the native troops as they are, if you want Roman troops you build the barracks and train them. You can use the argument that Rome wouldnt deploy Hoplites or whatever, Rome relied heavily on allied contingents, half the armies in republican times were allied soldiers.

[dvk901]

You make a good point...while forgetting perhaps what makes up a good hoplite or phalanx army. You have a long impenetrable front, with flanks guarded by cavalry and perhaps skirmishers. Sure, so a hoplite unit or two from Tarentum shows up to help a barbarian General.....here they are with their long double pointed spears poking all over the place...he orders his army to charge, and they slowly move forward as a unit 'charging' as best a phalanx unit can charge. By the time they get there, the battle's over.

So what's a general to do? Drop that stupid spear or break it in half, and when I say charge I mean RUN!

Everything you say above about making use of men is true, but making use of a totally alien style of warfare, IMHO, is not. But also, when I talk about 'reasonable' use of allied troops or mercenaries, I'm also talking about reasonable 'cultural' use. We've talked about the Barbarian style of occupation, and you yourself likened it to robbing and pillaging. No happiness bonuses, because people aren't going to like you. Allies like you. Robbing and pillaging and looting don't get you many allies, unless they're doing the same thing. I don't see a Greek culture region supporting this kind of thing, or Roman, or Egyptian. Barbarians at this time were KNOWN for this. They looted temples in Greece, sacked Rome, raided Roman and Greek settlements. Can you see any City Hoplite unit willing to serve such masters after they pillaged their city? Killed your kids and raped your wife? 600 years latter, they were still doing the same thing.

This is why I think, if anything, a barbarian 'allied' unit should be a 'civilized' low-life who's out to gain riches from others. Not a City Hoplite with the emblem of his god on it.

As for the Parthians...your right, they probably would use them. And given their style of governing, wouldn't piss everyone off.

[cherryfunk]

You make a good point...while forgetting perhaps what makes up a good hoplite or phalanx army. You have a long impenetrable front, with flanks guarded by cavalry and perhaps skirmishers. Sure, so a hoplite unit or two from Tarentum shows up to help a barbarian General.....here they are with their long double pointed spears poking all over the place...he orders his army to charge, and they slowly move forward as a unit 'charging' as best a phalanx unit can charge. By the time they get there, the battle's over.

I think you're misunderstanding the phalanx and how it operated. They did charge at a run towards the enemy; particularly the hoplite phalanx, and I believe the sarissa as well. There isn't that much difference between how Athenian hoplites and Arverni heavy infantry fought. And hoplites most certainly did rush the enemy. Don't confuse the silly poke-along gait of the RTW sarissa phalanx for the real thing.

But also, when I talk about 'reasonable' use of allied troops or mercenaries, I'm also talking about reasonable 'cultural' use. We've talked about the Barbarian style of occupation, and you yourself likened it to robbing and pillaging.

Right, although again this is oversimplifying. For example, mercenaries would often work for pretty much anyone. Would Greek mercs work for Celts invading Greece? Maybe not. Would they work for Celts invading Thrace? Quite possibly. The relationship would vary tremendously from culture to culture and from situation to situation. So we have to find some sort of solution that works within the limits of the game engine.

This is why I think, if anything, a barbarian 'allied' unit should be a 'civilized' low-life who's out to gain riches from others. Not a City Hoplite with the emblem of his god on it.

True, so any merc hoplites should not be city-specific. We should have mercenary Greek units that are unallied, representing the large numbers of Greeks who sold themselves to the highest bidder.