massive garrison forces

[lemondude]

i want all seige to be challenging, not rome to be defended by like 3 units and i just position my units on the other side and easily win.


The army recruited should be attacking armies not defending. I don't think rome would send all legions on one campaign and leave nobody home.

Besides at that time civilian and solider can mean the same thing most times.

[boxleitnerb]

If the tv series "Rome" is any accurate, the following points are to consider:

1. Every soldier who crosses into Italy becomes a citizen
2. The Senate was very uneasy with legions in Italy -> Gaius Julius Caesar
3. Italy is homeland, there were no standing defence legions
4. It takes time to raise a legion
5. Ordinary citizens are not trained soldiers. A levy cannot hope to defend against a professional army or a band of experience warriors

[Ichon]

If the tv series "Rome" is any accurate, the following points are to consider:

1. Every soldier who crosses into Italy becomes a citizen
2. The Senate was very uneasy with legions in Italy -> Gaius Julius Caesar
3. Italy is homeland, there were no standing defence legions
4. It takes time to raise a legion
5. Ordinary citizens are not trained soldiers. A levy cannot hope to defend against a professional army or a band of experience warriors

Any state that has a large citizen militia that has military experience and owns private weapons is much more difficult to conquer. Maybe no standing legions but if even 10% of the citizens in the Republic had militia training in legion or auxillaries and some military experience that is a huge manpower pool. Its not like modern era where most of the time 1% or less of the population is in the military in most states- even in places that did not have ready militias a larger portion of the population would have military experience or skills. Roman legions weren't fully professional before Imperial era although after Marian reforms around 100 BC many legions basically became professionals through long campaigns and making military a career, not just a stepping stone in politics or filling time for the family.

I hope we see large garrisons able to defend provincial capitols at least though perhaps if invaders captures all the regions of a province other than the capitol it might halve the garrison so there is some benefit and it also makes sense if the outlaying regions are under the invaders men can't travel to the capitol nor supplies to feed a large army.

[boxleitnerb]

Question is, was there a militia?

Wikipedia says:

Policing

For the most part, Roman cities had a civil guard used for maintaining the peace. Due to fears over rebellions and other uprisings, they were forbidden to be armed up to militia levels. Policing was split between the civil guard for low-level affairs and the Roman legions and auxilia for suppressing higher-level rioting and rebellion. This created a limited strategic reserve, one that fared poorly in actual warfare.

I believe in the Republic there was no standing army or force but rather it was recruited when needed for campaigns against other peoples. If you declare war against Rome, it takes time to march your armies to Italy so the Republic would have time to raise legions. Near the border and in troublesome provinces there were legions anyway.

[Rorarii]

During it's regal period, when Rome fought as a Phalanx, Rome had Senior legions and junior legions, the former was for home defence, the younger for foreign conquests.

Once they conscripted foreigners into the legion, i suspect they went off world while home-grown stayed at home just in case.

R

[Ichon]

Question is, was there a militia?

Wikipedia says:

I believe in the Republic there was no standing army or force but rather it was recruited when needed for campaigns against other peoples. If you declare war against Rome, it takes time to march your armies to Italy so the Republic would have time to raise legions. Near the border and in troublesome provinces there were legions anyway.

All states had some method of raising men when invaded- the main difference between levy and militia is simply the amount of training and state supplied equipment. Especially in the Roman Republic a large part of the male citizens would have some military experience, as time passed first Rome used more Italians and not citizens until the Social War (where Italians demanded citizenship) and then a bit later when auxillaries and foreigners came to dominate the legions you can see fairly easily the difference between professional troops and militias where most cities did not even bother to resist much with levies anymore.

[CrayonVonCaesar]

In the principate there were Urban Cohorts, used as a heavy duty policing force (riots,etc), in Rome and in a couple of other major cities. In addition, there was the vigiles who were a paramilitary police/fire brigade. So for the late period of the game these could spawn in addition topresent forces in case of attack on a major roman city.

[West3634]

a large force however, mostly made up of militia would be ideal IMO. maybe for a fortified settlement there could be more experience/Armour available for better units.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Got curious so I did a bit of digging and during the 2nd Punic War Hannibal garrisoned an Italian city with only 700 men. This is according to Livy.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy23.html

[23.20]The town of Casilinum was given back to the Campanians, and a garrison of 700 men from Hannibal's army was placed in it in case the Romans should attack it after Hannibal's departure.

The link doesnt go straight to the quote but you can find it by searching. Livy talks a lot about garrisons, who garrisoned what but never specifics like how many garrisoned.

I couldnt really find anything about garrison numbers nor any list of cities that fell besides sieges which generally had over 8000 defenders or as much as 20,000... which I wouldnt think is a typical garrison size.

I would wager garrison sizes are around a 1000 men and Italian cities fielded their own militias. However, the game has unit size limts so obviously 1000 has to be proportioned.

[Redcoat69]

haha remember Caesar entered a very empty and deserted rome? its quite possible to take over a city with no resistance. I really wouldnt expect there to be a garrison force already implemented into the city, ESPECIALLY if you take over a "barbarian" city...I mean, who the hell would want to fight off a liberating force trying to reclaim their city?

[Petroniu]

haha remember Caesar entered a very empty and deserted rome? its quite possible to take over a city with no resistance. I really wouldnt expect there to be a garrison force already implemented into the city, ESPECIALLY if you take over a "barbarian" city...I mean, who the hell would want to fight off a liberating force trying to reclaim their city?

Great points you've showed here. It really raises the question of the need for garrison in Rome 2. There are many examples in the ancient era where great conquerors just walked right in instead of besieging. Although some cities should have a proper standing garrison at all times, like Sparta. Remember, they didn't had walls because they relied on a strong garrison even when they were away campaigning. Also, Carthage had a garrison to say so, they withstood roman siege for 3 years with a small militia force and that the entire city participated in it - so I guess they should make some strong garrison for Carthage to make the AI reluctant to siege and conquer it. On that matter Carthage should be more likely to submit to disadvantageous peace treaties as they always did.
For what is worth, under what form should garrison be in Rome 2 is a subject to debate.

[The Juggernaut]

I would rather have cities have very few auto-spawn units, so that unless there's a large army defending it, cities are relatively easy to take unless designed as fortress. But cities should be difficult to get to, with large field armies in the way.

[Shea O'Gorath]

There was no standing army in/around Rome unless it was raised there or was called back to defend Rome itself. To return under any other circumstances i.e cross the rubicon was to declare war on the senate and be declared a public enemy.

Also in the early days Rome's army was basicaly a milita of land owners fighting to defend and expand their land. The army excelled however due to superior tactics, supplies, equipment and training. Thats not to say the citizens couldnt take up arms as they did during the 2nd punic war when hanibal marched on rome to draw the roman army away from captua

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Maybe you can choose to increase the garrison in cities, just like you would recruit an army you'd recruit a garrison. Except that it only will appear when the city is attacked, and then the garrison will have to replenish itself over time (just like armies would).
And ofcourse the more units you have in the garrison, the more you'll have to pay for it. And only "low-quality" militia, homeguard are allowed to be recruited into the garrison.

And ontop of that you can also put an army in the city.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Guys Caesar didnt just walk in. Pompey pulled out and withdrew south. He could of stayed and defended the city against a very small advance force. But he choose to withdraw. Its one of those times in history when something happens that just wouldnt work in a game. Caesar was expect to leave his legion up north and come down south alone or with a small detatchment. He ended up coming south with his men as a conquerer but faster than the Senate anticipated.

Rome had a city militia at the time and it could of rallied to close the city to Caesar but it didnt. Partly because the Senate left as well. And those who remained choose to allow Caesar access. Its basically like how spies can open the gates. But in this case the city govt surrendered.

[AlexCouceiro]

i want all seige to be challenging, not rome to be defended by like 3 units and i just position my units on the other side and easily win.


The army recruited should be attacking armies not defending. I don't think rome would send all legions on one campaign and leave nobody home.

Besides at that time civilian and solider can mean the same thing most times.

If the AI will still act stupid and carelessly, then I want strong garrison scripts everywhere, for the human player and for the AI. It is deadly boring taking 9 out of 10 cities completely unguarded.

[Ichon]

The only times I can think of when a city was undefended against a conquer in history is either unconditional surrender when most other armies/cities already defeated like with Mongols occasionally, marriage/regency inheritance, and most of the time as in the case of Caesar and Rome where the defenders withdrew to await reinforcements and regroup. Cities militarily can be poor strategic positions, quite weak as seen as at Alesia where if the Gauls had stayed out in the field they might have had a better chance to use their superior numbers but trying to wait for reinforcements led to massive defeat. Any soldiers Pompey left in Rome would have been a lost cause, either switched sides to Caesar or been killed. Pompey was better of withdrawing to gather more men and try to get more experienced men, also civil wars are usually either extremely bloody or nearly bloodless.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Garrison scripts just create siege fests. I thought people complain that too many regions = siege fests well garrison scripts create siege fests.

[Ichon]

Garrison scripts just create siege fests. I thought people complain that too many regions = siege fests well garrison scripts create siege fests.

If the ratio of walled settlements that require sieges to field battle regions is something like 4-1 then its still much less a siege fest.

If you want historical accuracy, have it so that you're able to be the dominant military power in the city of Rome with a single unit of peasants.

Soldiers were not allowed to set foot in the city of Rome (you might have heard of the Campus Martius) and the Senate was uneasy about letting them into Italy.

Rome would be defended if attacked... there were men within the walls capable of military action I see no logic in forcing Rome to have no defenders... that makes no sense.

[MathiasOfAthens]

If the ratio of walled settlements that require sieges to field battle regions is something like 4-1 then its still much less a siege fest.

Well I think there should be many regions. In Italy for example you should have a little bit more than the number of regions shown in RTR7. Basically your have the major cities like Tarentum, Grumentum, Asculum, Roma, Capua etc but your also have tons of minor cities and towns spread out. Each conquerable.

So if there is a garrison script. Only make it for the large and important cities like the ones I mentioned above. So all the minor towns would just get conquered or left alone. So the only major siege battles are over the major cities. So say you had 20 cities in Italy. Only 6-9 would be major cities and you may only need to siege 4 of them.

Ichon your link mentions some good information like a garrison force of 5000 men in Tarentum - Romans. And around 2000 Carthagians garrisoning Malta. Three sources, Livy, polybius and Appian.

I would say Roman Garrisons ranged from a little less than 400 men in the most minor of towns to 2000 and around 5000 or more in the important cities like Tarentum and Capua. CA could make garrisons proportioned to population.