Are you planning to update the Rome faction?

[Fridericus Rex]

First let me say that I enjoy this mod very much, and would like to congratulate the people who created this mod. I like in particular the graphics, the AOR aspect and other historical inclusions.
However, having said that, there are also improvements necessary to make this mod more historical.

Let's take the Rome faction for instance (a historical area I am quite familiar with):

1. By 300BC, the Samnite wars were pretty much over - to have Samnite, Marsi and Picene units in a game that starts in 280BC is a bit over reaching and it does not add anything to game play as Romans. On the contrary, I find myself cheating by recruiting Piceni spear units to place in front of the hastati; a concept that wins every battle. I suggest, removing these units from the mod.

2. The concept of Italian hastati, Italian princeps, and Italian triarii is without any historic base; they never existed. People drafted from the Italian cities were Roman citizens and became part of the Roman army.
To simulate this , I suggest enabling only four Italian cities (Rome, Capua, Ancona, and may be Paestum) to build Roman legions.
There is no need for the Funditores and Italian Skirmisher; the Velites are sufficient and historically correct.
Livy and later Polybius tell us that the classical Republican army was formed between 264 and 200 BC; with another army reform (more a tactical reform) in 150 BC.
BTW, these added units mess up the troop forming on the battle map. If the troop are being blocked to form the "Republican army", they usually appear incorrect.

3. Enabling all Italian cities (excluding the Gaul and Greek cities) to recruit cheap, low maintenance militia/police units to be utilized in Italy and all Roman conquered cities outside Italy.


Other game changes you may want to consider:

1. Give Bononia back to the Gauls with the units already in there.

2. Increase the units in Arretium and Ariminium - if one sieges these towns, often the AI will just hand over these cities without a fight.

3. The Italian Greek cities are o.K., except for Sicily which is a pushover and needs improvement as stated elsewhere.

These are just a few of my observations and suggestions. Any final changes and final decisions must be made by the team that works on this mode. However, I thought you may like this input.

[Quinn Inuit]

Those gameplay changes all seem reasonable and are on the to-do list. Except for Bononia--that's a rebel city now, which seems reasonable. The Gauls weren't that organized, so a huge multi-region empire doesn't really work. I think I'm pushing it giving them two regions south of the Alps, much less three.

Point 3 we discussed before and agreed was a good idea.

Point 1:
So you're saying that all of the local Italians had traded in their ethnicity cards and become Roman by that point, fighting in only a Roman style? I think not, and can point to the Mamertines as the perfect example of this.

And let's not forget the other tribes to the south, which Rome hadn't even conquered yet. (I know Rome starts with control of most of the peninsula, but that's just because we don't have the space for a central mountains region that would cover the Samnite areas not under Roman control by 280, or another region for the southern areas of the Brutii and such tribes.) We need the AOR units to cover what happens if somebody else conquers those regions.

Point 2:
I agree that the funditores weren't a common unit, and am seriously kicking around getting rid of them. They don't take up a DMB slot, though, so it isn't weighing heavily on my mind.

I'm also aware that the Roman army should probably have its principes running around with spears until the end of the Pyrrhic War or so. I'm hoping to work that out by having a Principes unit with a spear that the Romans start the game with but cannot build.

As for the Italics, all I can say to your point here is that I fear I'm misunderstanding you. Your argument reads like you're trying to tell me that the Italics were enrolled in the same legions as the Romans and armed in the same way, but that's so totally wrong that I fear I'm misreading something. I'm sure you're aware of the Social War...the military impositions without full Roman citizenship were one of the reasons for the war.

Later on in the Republic, more of the Italian troops are referred to as fighting like legionnaries (IIRC Magnesia is an example of this). Earlier on, we've got them as more distinct and local troop types to represent the fact that they haven't been fully integrated into the Republic yet. (The player gets to choose how rapidly to integrate them.)

Part of the problem with the old sources is that the Italics organized themselves by legions, too, (see the Samnite "Linen Legion" for the most famous example) so writers can conveniently refer to them as legions even if they weren't equipped exactly like Roman legions. There's pretty good evidence of how they fought, and I don't think we have any evidence that the Romans were paying for the large-scale re-armament of a bunch of non-citizens.

[Fridericus Rex]

Quinn - let me clarify point 1. and 2. because they are overlapping and concern the early Roman and Italian armies.

During Rome's Archaic Period and well into the 3rd century the Roman citizens army was based on two parts:

One, the suodales ("companions") a group of peoples, later tribes or part of tribes, associated with one of the 30 to 50 aristocratic Roman families (gentes); they fought as warbands, like the German warband. They would fight and raid together for personal profits and wealth. These suodales existed alongside the growing state apparatus and they co-existed with the formal military levy, the legio when it was formed.
The most famous warband, was the gens Fabia, a powerful patrician family. According to Livy (Livy 2.50), the Fabii embarked on a private campaign against the city of Veii with about 300 peoples but were annihilated in an ambush.
In time of a crisis these private armies would unite as a Roman army under two consuls.

Two, the legio, which was formed out the Roman citizenry, including the citizens from Italian cities. Non-citizens from the Italian tribes, suodales, were often included as auxiliary units. This changed later when more and more Italians became citizens and the social-economic bond between patron and client became an important part of of the levy systems. At the time of a crisis the legio would be established and formed the base of the Roman army. Mind you, all citizens had to provide their own armor and weapons based on their property; the state paid only some expenses.

The Italian tribes, often a loose Tribal Confederacy (such as the Samnites) fought as suodales.
At no point in history was there an army with Italian hastati, Italian princeps, or Italian triarii.

After the Samniote's defeat (including Senonian Gauls, Etruscans, Umbrians, and Sabines) at the "Battle of the Nations" in 295BC, the fight with the Italian tribes was practically over, except for occasional raids into Rome's territories. Livy stated the Samnian War were over by 312.

The game starts in 280BC - my question: Is it really worth to have these units in the game?

[HLandin]

Interesting points, Fredericus Rex. But what I think Quinn was trying to get at is that the Italian Hastati, Principes, and Triarii are used to fulfill or simulate the gradual "Romanization" of what was formerly an assortment of Italian cities/communities/tribes allied to Rome. This corresponds with the gradual homogenisation of the forces under arms in support of Rome (see the following article; the author raises some interesting points: http://www.digressus.org/articles/ro...-085-burns.pdf). Judging by the evidence presented, it indicates that the "Romanization" or standardization of military equipment in Rome's forces (Roman AND allied) evolved over a much slower pace than most people comprehend. Individual identity was retained A LOT longer than most people understand, despite these forces being under obligation to Rome. Also, remember that being part of the growing Roman empire DID NOT make them Roman citizens in itself (as Quinn correctly points out, that was the driving cause of the Social War in the 1st century BC). Most tribes, cities, towns, and communities would have received Latin rights (depending on the arrangement, either close to Roman citizenship or limited to marriage and commerce only). In fact, if a Roman moved outside of Rome (going to a new Roman or Latin colony) he could LOSE his Roman citizenship unless the colony was granted Roman citizenship. While the Romans were unique in allowing outsiders to become citizens, they did that only sparingly. They did not extend citizenship freely in Italy until 1st century BC.

Getting back to the point, to see a variety of local troops would be highly expected at this time (280 BC) with native troops fighting in their own manor and capacity for Rome's cause. Standarization would not have become really evident until sometime in the 2nd century BC. However, even in the 2nd century, these troops still would NOT have posessed Roman citizenship and thus the reason for the Italian Hastati, Princeps, and Triarii. See the guide to playing like a true Roman that's included with the mod to see a more detailed description of how this change should occur.

In regards to raid of the Fabii, yes such things did occur; however, they were remanents of the raiding warefare that was common before the rise of the hoplite and the phalanx in Italy. It was indicative of the FORMER individual nature of tribal warfare. Another indication of this changing nature of Roman warfare was the role of a Roman general in combat. In the archaic period, he would be the first to fight, the leader of the charge, because this was the role a general was expected. With the rise of organized warfare such as the phalanx and later the manipular legion, this role would be abandoned as warfare had a need to be controlled and managed by the general (read Adrian Goldsworthy's In the Name of Rome: the Men Who Won the Roman Empire). Thus, while there are accounts of generals plunging into the thick of the fight in desparate situation even during the early-Republic and even the mid-Republic, this practice had fallen out of favor by then (Marcellus being one of the exceptions). For example, Quintus Fabius Maximus and Publius Cornelius Scipio did not engage enemies in individual combat nor lead the charge designed to break the enemy line (as Alexander and Pyrrhus would have done); they would have used subordinates (such as tribunes, etc.) for such glorious but dangerous roles.

[Fridericus Rex]

Mcantu:
"as i understand it, the Samnite, Italic, etc units are there to represent the allied component of a legion. how else would you have it represented?"
A: There is no conclusive evidence that they fought as legions, but rather than as suodales (warbands) Livy ans Polybius. If you want to leave them in for a time period after 280BC, you may have to depict them as such. I have scanned a picture of a Samnite warrior taken from a painting in a tomb near Paestrum (Can somebody tell me how to put it up here, please). When you see this half-naked warrior you will understand my doubts about this warrior fighting in a more or less disciplined Roman legion.
In game, you just could make them available as warband mercenaries until Marius. That would probably be more accurate.

HLandin:
Nobody knows how much time the process of "Romanization" required for all the various peoples that were integrate in the later larger Rome. The proven fact is that the Romans were very generous in handing out citizenship, much more so than the Greeks who required to be born an a polis and of Greek descendant. Roman policy regarding citizenship was one of the important factors for their extraordinary rise and probable later disintegration. I never read in any of the literature, available to me, that they revoke citizenships for people who left Rome.
While the "Romanization" was gradually, I agree, there were from the beginning always people that were "Romans" and others who were not; both were subject to a draft for military service (the two ways I pointed out earlier). The more citizens were available for the draft, other forms of the draft were reduced dramatically and the private armies disappeared altogether, probably at the military reforms around 264 to 200BC.
How I simulate this in my current game? I have only one armory (in Rome), I do not build one for Capua or any other Roman city. I reduced the armor stats in EDU for all Roman units. In order to receive the armor upgrade all units must be retrained in Rome to receive the upgrades. It would be good to have one or two more cities to build these upgradable units - you can image that Rome becomes quite a bottleneck for building new units and the upgrading of Italian units. I do not build any Italian tribal units for historical reasons (280BC) but hire mercenaries when available. When I cheat, I build Picene only.

I hope this brings my post into prospective. But I also enjoy discussing history with you guys.

[mcantu]

as i understand it, the Samnite, Italic, etc units are there to represent the allied component of a legion. how else would you have it represented?

[Pat89]

Didn't Pyrrhus make use of Samnite troops in his Italian campaigns?

(Besides of course their obvious inclusion as allied troops in Roman armies - which got stated before)

[Quinn Inuit]

Mcantu:
"as i understand it, the Samnite, Italic, etc units are there to represent the allied component of a legion. how else would you have it represented?"
A: There is no conclusive evidence that they fought as legions, but rather than as suodales (warbands) Livy ans Polybius. If you want to leave them in for a time period after 280BC, you may have to depict them as such. I have scanned a picture of a Samnite warrior taken from a painting in a tomb near Paestrum (Can somebody tell me how to put it up here, please). When you see this half-naked warrior you will understand my doubts about this warrior fighting in a more or less disciplined Roman legion.
In game, you just could make them available as warband mercenaries until Marius. That would probably be more accurate.

Warbands in the Polybian-era Roman army? I'm sorry, but no. If we were talking about a fifth century B.C. game, that would be a different matter, but we're not. Seriously, we have not-so-great evidence for the existence of suodales in the early days of the Republic, much less the third century B.C. I am _not_ putting suodales in there without serious textual evidence of their existence in our time period.

Samnites were fighting in units referred to as legions during the Samnite Wars. Why would they fight as warbands under Roman command?

I recommend using the "manage attachments" button below the typing window if you use the full/advanced reply window, not just the "fast reply."

HLandin:
Nobody knows how much time the process of "Romanization" required for all the various peoples that were integrate in the later larger Rome. The proven fact is that the Romans were very generous in handing out citizenship, much more so than the Greeks who required to be born an a polis and of Greek descendant. Roman policy regarding citizenship was one of the important factors for their extraordinary rise and probable later disintegration. I never read in any of the literature, available to me, that they revoke citizenships for people who left Rome.

Ok, they were more generous, but that's a pretty low bar. Plus, they probably only gave it out after exceptional military service was completed, at least in the earlier portion of our time period. As far as our units go, we don't really care what they did after their service was over, so I think we need to treat these guys as if they were tribal levies rather than Romanized.

While the "Romanization" was gradually, I agree, there were from the beginning always people that were "Romans" and others who were not; both were subject to a draft for military service (the two ways I pointed out earlier). The more citizens were available for the draft, other forms of the draft were reduced dramatically and the private armies disappeared altogether, probably at the military reforms around 264 to 200BC.

That's not entirely accurate. Latin and Italian allies were on the hook for substantial military levies and an even more substantial cavalry levy, and this continues pretty much through the Marian Reforms. As for the private armies, I think those were pretty much like legions, perhaps with more local troops depending on who's raising them and where.

How I simulate this in my current game? I have only one armory (in Rome), I do not build one for Capua or any other Roman city. I reduced the armor stats in EDU for all Roman units. In order to receive the armor upgrade all units must be retrained in Rome to receive the upgrades. It would be good to have one or two more cities to build these upgradable units - you can image that Rome becomes quite a bottleneck for building new units and the upgrading of Italian units. I do not build any Italian tribal units for historical reasons (280BC) but hire mercenaries when available. When I cheat, I build Picene only.

I hope this brings my post into prospective. But I also enjoy discussing history with you guys.

I'm glad you enjoy it.

I understand what you're doing, but I have no idea why you're doing it. Roman armies really shouldn't have that many mercs in them (unless they're Tarentine, Cretan, or Balearic specialists). If you want to build armies like those raised by ancient Rome, you really should follow the Guide to Conduct Becoming a True Roman in the docs section. Pretty much every Roman army of the period had a substantial Italic component and, as HLandin notes, the Republic was _not_ paying to equip those guys. They were bringing to war what they had. If they were Romanized, they were bringing Roman-style gear, and, if not, whatever they had lying around locally.

For the record, you should consider building the field in Capua, too, even under your rules. That only exists to replicate the substantial Roman infantry training facility in Capua.

Didn't Pyrrhus make use of Samnite troops in his Italian campaigns?

(Besides of course their obvious inclusion as allied troops in Roman armies - which got stated before)

Yes. Furthermore, they fought with Hannibal, too, unless I'm mixing up the different sections of Livy I read last night. So anyone who invades the peninsula needs to be able to recruit them.


Update: I've no argument with anything HB said. That disappearance of the local flavor of the units is the reason we have them change to Italic legion units when you build up to a certain point.

[HamilcarBarca]

1. By 300BC, the Samnite wars were pretty much over - to have Samnite, Marsi and Picene units in a game that starts in 280BC is a bit over reaching and it does not add anything to game play as Romans. On the contrary, I find myself cheating by recruiting Piceni spear units to place in front of the hastati; a concept that wins every battle. I suggest, removing these units from the mod.

Well all those peoples - Samnites, Marsi etc - had been subjugated and forced into subordinate alliances with Rome by 280 BC. The alliance with Rome (Socii) obliged these peoples to provide military forces to Roman armies upon command.

These allied contingents were armed in the local manner and commanded by local officers, who were then subordinated to Roman generals.

There is no need for the Funditores and Italian Skirmisher; the Velites are sufficient and historically correct.

Velites are Roman & Latin skirmishers; the Oscans, Greeks etc. have their own types.

That is why their presence in an early-middle Republican Roman army makes perfect sense.

2. The concept of Italian hastati, Italian princeps, and Italian triarii is without any historic base; they never existed. People drafted from the Italian cities were Roman citizens and became part of the Roman army. To simulate this , I suggest enabling only four Italian cities (Rome, Capua, Ancona, and may be Paestum) to build Roman legions.

Under the influence of Rome, Italy in the third century BC came to be dominated by an increasingly homogenous military panoply.

People drafted from the Italian cities were typically NOT Roman citizens in our period. Citizenship was only widely extended across Italy after the Social War.

This meant that increasingly in the third century BC the contingents sent from allied cities (socii) to support Roman armies came to resemble Roman soldiers, and the regional distinctiveness of Italic units began to disappear.

H.

[HLandin]

Under the influence of Rome, Italy in the third century BC came to be dominated by an increasingly homogenous military panoply.

People drafted from the Italian cities were typically NOT Roman citizens in our period. Citizenship was only widely extended across Italy after the Social War.

This meant that increasingly in the third century BC the contingents sent from allied cities (socii) to support Roman armies came to resemble Roman soldiers, and the regional distinctiveness of Italic units began to disappear.
H.

Agreed. Fridericus, while the Romans did extend citizenship more liberally than Greeks (some see this as one of their strong points), this was mostly on an individual basis. The Romans might grant citizenship to individual communities/towns/cities (think Capua), this was not applied to large areas such as territories/provinces (think Campania) until much later. In regards to colonies, if it was a Roman colony, the colonists would retain their Roman citizenship (including voting rights while in Rome); however, if they became part of a Latin colony (and the Romans created several of each), the colonist would forfeit their citizenship. You might ask, why go to a Latin colony?? Free land. Think the offering of free land in the 18th century to encourage people to settle the mid-West and the West. While forfeiting their citizenship, there was economic opportunity because remember, most of Italy's economy was agrucultural.

In regards to organization, remember, the abandonment of tribal warfare and adoption of the phalanx and manipular tactics was not just Roman. In fact, the Romans inherited a lot of their development from their neighbors. It is believed the Romans adopted the phalanx due to influences from the Etruscans (who it is believed got if from Greek colonists in Italy), and it is believed they later adopted the manipular formation from the Samnites. In the article I posted above, the author noted that tactics are developed based on fighting style. The Samnites that faced the Romans in the Samnite Wars would have displayed a level of tactics that would have probably formed the basis of the later Roman manipular tactics (which leads to the other Roman strength, adopting tactics used against them if proven effective by a foe). Because, as noted above, the process of Romanization and standardization was slow, communities in Eturia would have still probably fielded hoplites in phalanx formation even after their conquest by the Romans; the ONLY difference is they would have been fight for the Romans instead of against them. Same principle with the Samnites. While these troops might not have been as disciplined as their Roman counterparts (and there are several accounts of even Roman troops losing their discipline in some situations), they would have still fought in a manor similar to when they had been independent.

It is now widely believed that in the past, historians tended to have a very Roman-centered or Romanistic viewpoint on the developments in Italy during Rome's early history. It is also believed that this view has lead to the bias that the Romans were the innovators and everyone else in Italy copied them in an attempt to resist their expansion. Really, it was probably more the other way around, with the Romans copying the tactics used against them and maybe refining those tactics for their own use. Looking at Rome's early history, look at the number of defeats, in addition to the number of victories during their expansion in Italy. What was Rome's saving grace was that she could recover from those defeats (being one of the largest communities it Italy), and when needed, would resort to diplomatic solutions if they could not reach military victory.

[Fridericus Rex]

First of all let me say that several accounts from the period of Rome's struggle and expansion beginning in 396 BC (the capture of Veii) exist; Livy is the most important source. More recent investigation, especially by Tim Cornell, have shown that Livy's accounts is altogether well researched and quite precise. Other resources are the Annales of Claudius Quadrigarius, or the Annales of Ennius, just for someone who wants to check on the period.

Quinn:
"Warbands in the Polybian-era Roman army? I'm sorry, but no. If we were talking about a fifth century B.C. game, that would be a different matter, but we're not. Seriously, we have not-so-great evidence for the existence of suodales in the early days of the Republic, much less the third century B.C. I am _not_ putting suodales in there without serious textual evidence of their existence in our time period."

That is exactly my point, there were no more suodales around 280 BC, Rome's socio-economic and political structure had changed since the Early Republic, most of the large style Romano-Italian fighting was over. When the tribes fought as a tribal army they used the warband type of fighting. When the Roman utilized them as tribal recruitment they became auxiliary units and were attached to the Legions. The second way the Romans utilized them, was as manpower pool when they had citizenship and could be included into the Roman legions. There is no evidence that the Samnite tribal units were called or seen as Roman Legions, as was claimed earlier (I would love to see that evidence; probably only semantics with the word legion).

"Ok, they were more generous, but that's a pretty low bar. Plus, they probably only gave it out after exceptional military service was completed, at least in the earlier portion of our time period. As far as our units go, we don't really care what they did after their service was over, so I think we need to treat these guys as if they were tribal levies rather than Romanized."

I do not know what was specifically necessary to be able to receive citizenship in various situations or what they were doing after they left service. Do you have more evidence for these statements?

"As for the private armies, I think those were pretty much like legions, perhaps with more local troops depending on who's raising them and where."

Private armies probably did not exist any longer around 300 BC; they were faced out much earlier. My point was, that the Italian tribes had their own fighting style although the way they fought changed slightly as they adopted style and tactics from their opponents, but there is no evidence from the literature that they changed completely or when. The process of Romanization was probably slow and gradually; all we can do here is speculate. What year you are talking about?

"I understand what you're doing, but I have no idea why you're doing it. Roman armies really shouldn't have that many mercs in them (unless they're Tarentine, Cretan, or Balearic specialists). If you want to build armies like those raised by ancient Rome, you really should follow the Guide to Conduct Becoming a True Roman in the docs section. Pretty much every Roman army of the period had a substantial Italic component and, as HLandin notes, the Republic was _not_ paying to equip those guys. They were bringing to war what they had. If they were Romanized, they were bringing Roman-style gear, and, if not, whatever they had lying around locally."

You talk about "mercs" - I see them more as auxiliary units but for the game they could be mercs; however, at the time the game (280 BC) begins (the beginning of Rome's overseas struggles) only few of the old Italian units were utilized that is why I suggested not to use them in game as recruitable units . IMO, their use makes only sense within the confinement of the tribal Italian situation, perhaps a mod about the Early Republic and the Italian tribes. CA knew why they let the game start at the point they did. "That's why I am doing it".

HLandin:
You make some good points, some I am agreeing with, others I do not.
I had a tough time understanding your post because of the lack of paragraphs - I apologize for not responding with details to some of your statements.

[Quinn Inuit]

First of all let me say that several accounts from the period of Rome's struggle and expansion beginning in 396 BC (the capture of Veii) exist; Livy is the most important source. More recent investigation, especially by Tim Cornell, have shown that Livy's accounts is altogether well researched and quite precise. Other resources are the Annales of Claudius Quadrigarius, or the Annales of Ennius, just for someone who wants to check on the period.

No offense to Livy, but I don't trust him nearly as much as some other writers. Fortunately, this is far enough before our time period that I don't have to get into the weeds.

That is exactly my point, there were no more suodales around 280 BC, Rome's socio-economic and political structure had changed since the Early Republic, most of the large style Romano-Italian fighting was over.

Nobody disagrees with this.

When the tribes fought as a tribal army they used the warband type of fighting. When the Roman utilized them as tribal recruitment they became auxiliary units and were attached to the Legions. The second way the Romans utilized them, was as manpower pool when they had citizenship and could be included into the Roman legions. There is no evidence that the Samnite tribal units were called or seen as Roman Legions, as was claimed earlier (I would love to see that evidence; probably only semantics with the word legion).

??? These aren't a bunch of half-naked cannibals running around in the Baltics. Italy was quite civilized by this time period. It's not semantics with the word "legion." Every author in the period uses "legion" to refer to them. The only time they're not fighting in an organized fashion is when they're taking advantage of the terrain to pwn someone. Did you not read HLandin's post? Everything I've ever read backs that up.

And why on Earth do you think they had citizenship before they fought for the Romans? That's not how it worked. Rome didn't hand out citizenship like candy.

"Ok, they were more generous, but that's a pretty low bar. Plus, they probably only gave it out after exceptional military service was completed, at least in the earlier portion of our time period. As far as our units go, we don't really care what they did after their service was over, so I think we need to treat these guys as if they were tribal levies rather than Romanized."

I do not know what was specifically necessary to be able to receive citizenship in various situations or what they were doing after they left service. Do you have more evidence for these statements?

No. I'm not going to get drawn into a trivia argument on the internet. Would it make you happy if I withdraw that statement? Fine. I withdraw it. It's _irrelevant_ to the point of this argument. They could all have become professional clowns after they served--it wouldn't matter for the unit types.

That leaves us with the null hypothesis, and your obligation to disprove it. I'm simply not interested in going down this road unless you can show me some sources to back up your claims that only Roman citizens fought in Roman armies prior to the Social War.

Edit: Ok, I know the null hypothesis would technically be that nobody at all was in a Roman army, but we know there were Roman armies and we know they had Roman citizens from Rome itself in them. We also know they had some people who weren't Roman citizens from Rome itself. Those are the people we're arguing about here.

Private armies probably did not exist any longer around 300 BC; they were faced out much earlier. My point was, that the Italian tribes had their own fighting style although the way they fought changed slightly as they adopted style and tactics from their opponents, but there is no evidence from the literature that they changed completely or when. The process of Romanization was probably slow and gradually; all we can do here is speculate. What year you are talking about?

I was responding to YOU. Or at least I thought I was. Now you seem to be taking precisely the opposite position you were taking earlier in the thread.

You talk about "mercs" - I see them more as auxiliary units but for the game they could be mercs; however, at the time the game (280 BC) begins (the beginning of Rome's overseas struggles) only few of the old Italian units were utilized that is why I suggested not to use them in game as recruitable units .

That's simply false. The Italians were a major component of the Roman armies, and I think the Social War is all the evidence we need that they weren't substantially Romanized by any stretch of the imagination until late in our time period.

IMO, their use makes only sense within the confinement of the tribal Italian situation, perhaps a mod about the Early Republic and the Italian tribes. CA knew why they let the game start at the point they did. "That's why I am doing it".

They're still trading on tribal identities through the Social War. Why would you think the tribal affiliations weren't active anymore?

FYI, if you're going to commit the argumentum ad vercundiam fallacy, it's probably not a good idea to appeal to the authority of the company that brought us the Gallic head-grenade hurlers.

HLandin:
You make some good points, some I am agreeing with, others I do not.
I had a tough time understanding your post because of the lack of paragraphs - I apologize for not responding with details to some of your statements.

With all due respect, I suggest that you copy his post into a Word/Open Office document, add your own random paragraph breaks, maybe double-space it, and then read it carefully until you understand him clearly. Then do the same with his previous posts. Trust me.

Let's look at this rationally. I won't claim to be an expert, but I've been doing this for awhile and read a surprising amount in this field. Candelarius, who designed the portion of the mod that troubles you, is Roman-obsessed. HLandin is relatively new here, but has made consistently thoughtful and well-sourced posts and posted an interesting article to which you never responded. Hamilcar Barca is one of the chief RTR Team Historians, if not _the_ chief. And we're all saying You Are Wrong.

Does that mean that you are, in fact, completely wrong? No. But I think a reasonable individual would look at that lineup and perhaps double-check their position. Preferably by bringing a number of new references to the conversation.

In other words, I'm perfectly willing to continue this conversation, but I'd like you to clearly state your position (I'm currently unclear what, precisely, you're now arguing), and to support that position with references, preferably hyperlinked. (I want all of my users to be able to judge the merits of the arguments, not just ones with access to university libraries.)

[Carados]

What units are we planning on having for Italy?

Velites, Hastati, Principles and Triarii are a given. There would also be the Italian variants (which brings up an interesting point, we've established we were going to give the roman banners a +3 morale bonus, however this would make the Italian allies just as brave as the Romans in battle, would it perhaps be better just giving any actual Roman units a flat morale bonus across the board?).

What units for the various other Italian people would there be (samnites/etrurian/marsi etc)?

I know we are planning on giving them a JavCav unit for most of Italy along with a more restricted heavy cavalry unit (Etruria, Campania and that other place ). Rome would have equites, albeit ~ size 30 on large scale as opposed to 40.

[Quinn Inuit]

Hmmm...interesting point. I guess the question is, do we want Roman units to have higher morale 'cause they're Romans, or 'cause they're more well-lead?

Here are my notes on Italy:
Italian lineup: Etrurian hoplites, spearmen; Picene heavy/light spearmen (what about swordsmen?); Marsi skirmishers (the current Italian skirmishers) (+ FOE's Oscan Merc HI as Frentani); Samnite light and heavy from FOE; FOE Ligurian skirmishers repurposed as Umbrian (and sundry) skirmishers for N. Italy; Veneti ekdromoi (not hoplites) for Veneti AOR unit
Need two post-Marian units: raw legionnaires and evocati (same model/texture? Can be different textures, given that all you need to do is make the raw legionnaires the merc unit and the evocati the Roman one)
Post Marian AOR non-Roman: Swap Latin infantry (aor italy hastati) for raw legionnaires, add post-Marian equites for cavalry

Not sure about that Post-Marian one. Haven't really thought about it much yet. You're right about the cav, btw. I haven't decided yet about whether to give the Picenes swordsmen. Need to do more research.

[Caligula Caesar]

BTW, it also counts against everything I've ever read. I've read that half of a Roman legion (including the one at Cannae) was made up half of Romans and half of allied units (ie Italians - the Socii). And if the Italians fought for Rome, it would be logical for them to fit into the Roman legions and assume the Roman equiptment and tactics...

The Romans never used mercs until the Iberian Expedition in the Second Punic War, around 212 BC. The mercs are mercs. The auxilia are recruitable in settlements.

And if the Romans had handed out Citizenship so easily and the people had become Romanised so fast, why did the Social War happen? Was not the point of that to free the Italian People from oppression, after Marcus Livius Drusus was assasinated before his reforms, which would give the Italians Citizenship, expired? And though they were defeated, they achieved their goal, in the end...

That's my two cents.

Here are my notes on Italy:
Italian lineup: Etrurian hoplites, spearmen; Picene heavy/light spearmen (what about swordsmen?); Marsi skirmishers (the current Italian skirmishers) (+ FOE's Oscan Merc HI as Frentani); Samnite light and heavy from FOE; FOE Ligurian skirmishers repurposed as Umbrian (and sundry) skirmishers for N. Italy; Veneti ekdromoi (not hoplites) for Veneti AOR unit
Need two post-Marian units: raw legionnaires and evocati (same model/texture? Can be different textures, given that all you need to do is make the raw legionnaires the merc unit and the evocati the Roman one)
Post Marian AOR non-Roman: Swap Latin infantry (aor italy hastati) for raw legionnaires, add post-Marian equites for cavalry

Not sure about that Post-Marian one. Haven't really thought about it much yet. You're right about the cav, btw. I haven't decided yet about whether to give the Picenes swordsmen. Need to do more research.

I am told the Veneti had strong cavalry traditions. Ideally, you'd have some more cavalry troops (Campanian AoRs and perhaps even Etruscans) and some Bruttian Infantrymen in southern Italy.

[Fridericus Rex]

First of all, let me apologize to HLandin for my brief and completely inadequate response to his comment. I was very tired and should not have been posting at all.

Quinn:
In order to eliminate any misconception about my post, allow me to restate my position in regards to the game and the history it suppose to reflect. To eliminate any possible errors on my part, I also discussed the issues at hand with someone who knows more about history than I ever will know.
Here are the final points of my discussions:
My issue with the mod is primarily a timing issue as it relates to various components of the Roman army in comparison to the time of their existence in game. If the mod would start in 300 BC or earlier the setup as presented would may be more historically correct. For the Romans, it is historically incorrect to allow large recruitments of Samnite, Marsi or Pincene units for the time period of 280 BC or beyond. The Roman army certainly utilized ally contingents in their armies as auxiliary units. Mostly cavalry was taken from allied armies, especially during the later part of the Samnite wars. These units were a minor but important part of the Roman legions.
An example is for this is the composition of the Roman army that fought the last major battle against the Samnites at Aquilonia in 293 BC. Most of the infantry were Roman legions drafted from Rome and Rome's provinces and colonies. Rome presented at the battle about 40,000 infantry (all Republican Legions) substituted by 1000 Campanian cavalry and Campanian knights as separate auxiliary units under Roman command (“not a substantial contingent” - is it?). This is a well-known battle; you may want to google for confirmation.
There are other battles at the time with similar army compositions.

We discussed citizenship in connection with the right of the magistrates to levy a draft (dilectus) on ALL citizens. As you know, there were 4 levels of CITIZENSHIP, various levels of citizenship that had different rights but all were subject to levy. And yes, the Romans were more generous with citizenship than any other ancient institution.
Since we are arguing about army compositions , we may want to look at manpower rather the citizenship.
You want a contemporary reference – how about Prof. K. W. Harl's recent lecture notes?:

"There were numerous actions of the sort that came down in Roman
literature. And while they may be stark patriotic examples these are
the sort of examples and expectations that forged the citizen soldier
to that professional level. It also explains the enormous success the
Romans had in mobilizing manpower. That is something that is often
forgotten in the modern age. There is also the tremendous logistics it
took to support these armies. They had to be fed, clothed, transported
overseas, or marched to distant frontiers.

In 225 B.C.. we have our earliest good statistics on the Roman
population. There were well over one million Romans Latins, and
Italian allies—adult males—ready for military service, trained to
fight under Roman commanders. At the height of the Second Punic
Wars, during the war against Hannibal between 218 and 201 B.C, we think,
that at one point, there were 280,000 men under arms. These are
staggering numbers.

Between 270 and 50 B.C., 1/2 to 2/3 of all Roman/Ally males
saw military service. The State could call military service for 20 years, although they were reasonable and never took them
for more than six years at a time. If you failed to show up for
military service you let down the State; you let down your patron.
They could auction your property right there on the spot, or you
would have to offer a substitute meaning your sons or one of your closest
male relative.

After 200 B.C., the Roman army annually kept at least 150,000 man
overseas, as effectively a standing army to defend the far flung
provinces against barbarians. And if there were military expeditions
against powerful opponents, that meant additional forces were needed, they could raise quickly
more. This was a staggering commitment. It is a testimony to Romans
social and political institutions, as well as logistics that the Romans
could keep these sustained armies overseas.
One estimate is, that 17% on average and this without any major wars were drafted—and
the Romans usually fought two, three wars in the middle to late
Republic simultaneously. At any given time about 17% of the adult male population was
under arms."

While these numbers reflect the recruiting situation at around 250 BC, it is still fair to say that the Romans had enough infantry manpower for their legions in 280 BC. I have yet to see references that large contingents of Italian tribesmen fought as infantry next to the Roman legions, unless they were specialized, such as cavalry or knights.

Even so, we are talking about 280 BC – the Romans had enough manpower to cover their infantry needs. All Roman legions received final training in Rome; the auxiliaries did not. They just showed up at the expected battle site. The Romans had few cavalry of their own (horses were primarily owed by the aristocracy); hence, they hired mainly cavalry and some tribal knights early after 300BC. If you leave the Picene spears/swords and similar Italian units in the game to be hired by Rome in large numbers (and I talk Rome only) after 290 BC, I would love to see your historical reference for such a move.

While some small tribes continue to exist well into the 2nd century, they were contractual (socii) obligated to provide land for Roman settlers, annual tribute and primarily manpower for the Roman legions, when requested. Rome otherwise left them alone for the most part. That situation changed completely when Rome finally gave all Italian cities full citizenship after their rebellion in 90 BC, except for the cisalpine Gauls who received their rights from Julius Caesar in 50 BC. They all became full Roman citizens.

In my discussions here, I was told that the army components at the start of the game may be a good reflection of Rome's struggle for supremacy during the third century but not in 280 BC or later; also the army that fought Pyrrhus had different components than the one presented in game.
The situation in game may be completely different when we look at army compositions of the Pyrrhus' and the Catharginian armies.

I suggested to start with the current army as is and allow only for traditional Republican Roman units to be build when the player gets a positive cash balance.
Two things can happen - the player wins the battle against Pyrrhus and can continue to take Croton and Tarentum, or he is defeated and will loose initially one or two provinces to Pyrrhus. He than has to wait until new Roman legions can be build in Rome, Capua and maybe another city. The severity of the struggle can be simulated by increasing or reducing the upkeep cost for the initial army to prolong or shorten recovery from the cash deficit.
The Italian units, such as Italian hastati, etc., I view as historically incorrect and for the game even as redundant, unless you know something I do not know. Initial Roman legions should only be build in a few Roman cities, while the later Imperial legions may be created at their correct historical site. Two different types of hastati, for instance, are difficult to manage in game (they can not be merged while deep into Gaul territory, for instance) and they are not considered unique new units with separate stats.
Unless you have a good reason why these units are needed for the game, I still think they should be removed from the mod or renamed, but this is obviously only my opinion.

That is all I have to say to altering the current Roman setup for the next version.

Your other points, with some of them I strongly disagree, such as the Mid-Italian tribes were highly “civilized”, we may want to discuss in a different context.
As to the university library, be advised I draw primarily on my grandfather's large historical library.
Quinn:
You ask ones “Why I do this?” I do this to see your mod as historical as possible.
That's it for me! It's your mod and you may change any aspects as you see fit.


CC: You are in a different time period. The Roman army that fought at Cannae went through several transitions between 250 and 200 BC.

Edit: CC - I CORRECTED THE MISSPELLING. NO OFFENSE.

[Caligula Caesar]

Firstly, I'm not CA, I'm CC. And secondly, the argument about Cannae was only a small part of my argument. I don't see how you can dismiss the rest. I am aware that the Roman army was reformed slightly during that time period, but the ExRM units also represent the units used then. The only reform is tha Marian one, which shouldn't happen ingame before 200 at least (but unfortunately it does). And I fail to see how you can dismiss even that part of the argument, since why would the Romans stop using Italians only to readopt them 50 years later for no apparent reason? Ironically, you use a battle before our time period for your example, which came before the Romans had (mostly) united the Italian Peninsular and had considerable contact with the Greeks (Epirus).

[HLandin]

To address the situation of Allies, let us start by quoting Polybius:

"At the same time the consuls send out orders to the magistrates of the allied cities in Italy from which they wish to raise troops, stating the numbers required and the day and the place at which the men selected for service must appear. The authorities then choose the men and administer the oath by means of a similar procedure (similar to the previously described Roman troops)." - Book VI, the Roman militiary system, p.319

"At the same time the allies also assemble with the Roman citizens, and the organization and command of their units is supervised by officers appointed by the consuls; these men are twelve in number and are known as prefects of the allies." - Book VI, the Roman military system, p. 324

And now some passages from Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare:

"In addition to the Roman legions, each (consular) army included a similarly sized contingent of allies. About 4-5,000 infantry and 900 cavalry formed an ala...In battle, a consular army formed with the two alae on either side of a center composed of Roman legions, so that they were usually referred to as the 'Left' and 'Right' alae." p.52

Now, from The Romans: From Village to Empire:

"In some colonies, the settlers remained Roman citizens and were enrolled in a tribe (voting block). Such citizen colonies were small...Most colonies were larger, however, with 2,500, 4,000, or 6,000 adult male settlers; colonists in these new communities lost Roman citizenship, but they received instead the privileges enjoyed by the citizens of towns with Latin status...Thus some (communities) were deemed to be fully a part of the Roman politicial order; others shared partially in Roman rights; still others remained ostensibly independent." - Rome and Italy in the Fourth Century, p.82-83

All items in brackets were inserted by me and not part of the quote but serve to paraphrase material omitted.

P.S. While providing a good source, most academics conclude Livy had a strong patriotic (Roman) bias. Some consider Polybuis to be a better historian because, although pro-Roman, he was Greek and that may have given him an outsider's bias. And remember, Polybius is one of Livy's sources. Most writers of ancient history (Livy, Polybius, etc.) wrote about history that had occured before their lifetime and thus provide only second-hand accounts. Finally, a great obstacle to creating an accurate account is that much of the sources that Livy and Polybius drew upon is lost. Even some of Livy and Polybius' material has been lost, leaving holes or a lack of details to create a full picture, forcing academics to flesh out the details either by deduction or archeological evidence.

[Quinn Inuit]

Ok, let me try to break this down to what I think FR's main point of contention is. I think he sees alae units as minor components of the Roman army, and ones that had lost their tribal identities by our time period.

I, on the other hand, have never read anything that casts doubt on the good summary quotations provided by HLandin. Therefore, I reject FR's contention and will continue to develop the mod along the current assumptions, which I will summarize below:
1) The Roman armies of the period contained substantial components of units levied from allied Latin or Italian tribes.
2) These tribes start off the period with their own cultures and weaponry, but gradually Romanize in culture and arms.

For the record, I also like Polybius for our purposes because he was a military man and tended to have better comprehension of WTF his sources were talking about in those matters than Livy.


CC:
The Veneti had a strong cavalry tradition? Interesting. I didn't know that. I'll see if I can fit them in.

My goal with the cavalry is to have skirmisher cav (FOE Italian cav) in the mountainous provinces and the current generic Italian spear/shield cav in the plains provinces to represent Etruscan, Campanian, and Frentani cavalry (with the Frentani as stand-ins for all of the Rome's allies in that neck of the woods). I'm tempted to swap the current Thessalian cavalry in as the Italian spear cavalry (they're actually some Res Gestae Italians that Candel apparently repurposed) and either use the original RTR Thessalians (which were actually quite good, IIRC) or see if I can dig up something else.

I can't really disagree about the Bruttians. I'd really like to get them in there as AOR units for the southern provinces. If I can fit them, I will. The Picene hoplites may need to come out, unless I find evidence that they were used regularly. Of course, I fear I may need to add in the separate Etruscan and Campanian hoplites from FOE, just 'cause they're so good. So many units, so few spaces...

[Caligula Caesar]

The Veneti weren't hugely important, though. It would be a better idea to add a Campanian Cavalry unit, because they were important.