Vegetius Book I: Basically outlines how rome2 should treat each faction.

[Destraex]

I was reading Vegetius as you do.
The first book of De Re Militari - which incidentally was considered necessary reading for medieval generals and through to todays modern military.

He was not a soldier but rather a man trying to convince Roman leaders to go back to the old legions. Thus he tells us about Roman warfare in detail.

The start of the first book actually outlines how Rome2 should treat each faction at least from a Roman point of view. Have a look at this:

Victory in war does not depend entirely opon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will ensure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training, exact observance of discipline in their camps and unwearied cultivation of the other arts of wr. Without these, what cahnce would the inconsiderable numbers of the Roman armies have had against the multitudes of the Gauls? Or what success would their small size have been opposed to the prodigious stature of the Germans? The Spaniards surpassed us not only in numbers, but in physical strength. We were always inferior to the Africans in wealth and unequal to them in deception and strategem. And in the Greeks, indisputably, were far superior to un in skill in arts and all kinds of knowledge.
But to all these advantages the Romans opposed unusual care in the choice of their levies and in their military training. they thorougly understood the importance of hardening them by continual practice and of training them in every maneuver that might happen in the line and in action. Nor were they less strict in punishing idleness and sloth. the courage of a sldier is heightened by his knowledge of his profession, and he only wants an opportunity to execute what he is convinced he has been perfectly taught. A handful of men, inured to war, proceed to certain victory, while on the contrary numerous armies of raw and undisciplined troops are but multitudes of men dragged to slaughter.

Anyone else think this is an apt way that Rome should treat the factions mentioned. The only one that is sort of out of place is the Greeks. Vegetius really does not say much about the way Romans considered them in combat.

Gauls = Swarm - These guys should have a numerical advantage almost all the time.
Germans = Big Hard Brutes. The largest men in game on average.
Spaniads = Strong and numerous. Not sure what to say here. Slightly bigger than the Romans and more numerous? Remember this is before the Muslim Crusades.
Africans (north African carthaginians of phonecian stock?) = Wealthy and Cunning. They buy mercenaries and swindle bargains.
Greeks = Cultured, Artistic and knowledgeable. Something to look up to as a centre of accomplished learning.
Romans = Well trained and organised. Lose this as they did in the late Eastern Empire and you are going down.

The opinion of the above factions that Vegetius has seems to indicate that without organisation the natural god given traits of the other factions would have wiped the Romans out. I certainly know that before the Legions Romans were scared out of their wits by Gauls especially.

This also brings to question what a Legionary on his own would be like as a match for a lone Barbarian warrior.

I would like a mechanism based on this that actually allows legions to be run down if upkeep and training are not kept with replacements. If Roman senator decide they cannot be bothered and dilute the Legions weapons and organisation\culture. How cool would it be actually having to be carefull not to let your legionary institution be eroded by the more peacefull christian elements of the empire, or the greedy business men of the senate.

[HappyGoodVibes]

An interesting idea, but generalizing the factions too much by making one of them "swarm" or "brute" I don't agree with. True differences in the way people fought start to become apparent in the east with horse-based armies. The Gallic people didn't have "loads of soldiers," compared to Rome, the Romans just made it seem like they did because the victory would mean that much more once news got back to the capitol. Base the factions on historical information, not on generalizations that an ancient historian wrote down a long time ago, when half of what he was writing about he probably didn't have accurate information to base it off of.

[Evalation]

Agreed with the statement above.

History is full of generals who have one a battle and said they were greatly outnumbered but courage won the day. Who would be there to challenge that statement? His soldiers wouldnt i believe scince it makes them look good also not just the commander of the army. Julius Ceaser took half of Gaul before Vercingetorix rebelled and julius took them just by going from village to village destroying and plundering. I dont think those individual villages posed a threat the his legions. When Vercingetorix rebelled some say 70,000 Gauls joined him and some say 100,000, will we ever know for sure? No. Because Julius Ceaser won the battle and sent Vercingetorix back to Rome for execution so he had no one to say "Nuh uhhh" when he gave the story about how the battle took place.

[Petroniu]

The generalizing idea was used in the original Rome where you had factions developed based on their culture - barbarian, roman, greek, etc. Nowadays, TW games, CA and its fans have gone a long way from that, so a close attention to each major faction and its unique aspects should be given. This time each faction needs to be created from its perspective, not from the roman perspective - remember, that was already done in the original Rome.

[JOZI]

Wait, do you mean? Do you mean how they treat the units, unit statistics, or the faction characteristics? Not to mention nobody checked for accuracy in the ancient world and, just like now everybody loves a good comeback story. There could have been one 6ft tall German guy and 5 extra Gauls(lol don't take that seriously) but since their people didn't keep records we'll never truly know what the exact armies, tactics and people they were made up of. lol but you probably already knew that

anyway good idea though always love extra knowledge

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I was reading Vegetius as you do.
The first book of De Re Militari - which incidentally was considered necessary reading for medieval generals and through to todays modern military.

He was not a soldier but rather a man trying to convince Roman leaders to go back to the old legions. Thus he tells us about Roman warfare in detail.

The start of the first book actually outlines how Rome2 should treat each faction at least from a Roman point of view. Have a look at this:

Victory in war does not depend entirely opon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will ensure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training, exact observance of discipline in their camps and unwearied cultivation of the other arts of wr. Without these, what cahnce would the inconsiderable numbers of the Roman armies have had against the multitudes of the Gauls? Or what success would their small size have been opposed to the prodigious stature of the Germans? The Spaniards surpassed us not only in numbers, but in physical strength. We were always inferior to the Africans in wealth and unequal to them in deception and strategem. And in the Greeks, indisputably, were far superior to un in skill in arts and all kinds of knowledge.
But to all these advantages the Romans opposed unusual care in the choice of their levies and in their military training. they thorougly understood the importance of hardening them by continual practice and of training them in every maneuver that might happen in the line and in action. Nor were they less strict in punishing idleness and sloth. the courage of a sldier is heightened by his knowledge of his profession, and he only wants an opportunity to execute what he is convinced he has been perfectly taught. A handful of men, inured to war, proceed to certain victory, while on the contrary numerous armies of raw and undisciplined troops are but multitudes of men dragged to slaughter.

Anyone else think this is an apt way that Rome should treat the factions mentioned. The only one that is sort of out of place is the Greeks. Vegetius really does not say much about the way Romans considered them in combat.

Gauls = Swarm - These guys should have a numerical advantage almost all the time.
Germans = Big Hard Brutes. The largest men in game on average.
Spaniads = Strong and numerous. Not sure what to say here. Slightly bigger than the Romans and more numerous? Remember this is before the Muslim Crusades.
Africans (north African carthaginians of phonecian stock?) = Wealthy and Cunning. They buy mercenaries and swindle bargains.
Greeks = Cultured, Artistic and knowledgeable. Something to look up to as a centre of accomplished learning.
Romans = Well trained and organised. Lose this as they did in the late Eastern Empire and you are going down.

The opinion of the above factions that Vegetius has seems to indicate that without organisation the natural god given traits of the other factions would have wiped the Romans out. I certainly know that before the Legions Romans were scared out of their wits by Gauls especially.

This also brings to question what a Legionary on his own would be like as a match for a lone Barbarian warrior.

I would like a mechanism based on this that actually allows legions to be run down if upkeep and training are not kept with replacements. If Roman senator decide they cannot be bothered and dilute the Legions weapons and organisation\culture. How cool would it be actually having to be carefull not to let your legionary institution be eroded by the more peacefull christian elements of the empire, or the greedy business men of the senate.

Vegetius writes from a late era when most of the roman army was usually made by germans lacking discipline and favouring their local chieftain .

And he is using Hyperbolic description to force his Idea into the minds of the readers , and enemies strenghts are usually accentuated and exagerated to show a better propaganda ...

Like when Caesar describes his enemies beeing formidabble and bla bla ...

The average roman wasn't that shorter of an average gaul ... Germans where not that tall actually compared to gauls or romans and is proved by archeological findings .
when the levy was extended to other population , there had been the need to lower the minimum required for entering the army orders. the Praetorian legion ( that was formed of all Italians ) was made of men usually in average taller than the common legionaire .. lets not forget also that ,studies on the german tombs of the roman period have uncovered remains of people of lower stature and you can see this also in the german museums as well in other books talking of ancient german tribes . Just "some" tribe warriors where of higher height and usually facing in frontline to scare enemy ... Let's also not forget that in 1914 the average german soldier height was 168 cm,and 167 the Italian one...

[Petroniu]

Yeah well, believe me, germans are damn tall these days. I was living in Germany for 6 months this year and I am 172 cm and almost all dudes at the college had around 6 to 8 cm above me. They're big dudes, really!

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Yeah well, believe me, germans are damn tall these days. I was living in Germany for 6 months this year and I am 172 cm and almost all dudes at the college had around 6 to 8 cm above me. They're big dudes, really!

Well depends on points of view , I am 1.82 and Italian , I can't say I am tall , most young folks are taller even than me ...

[Jester]

wow...... that all makes totally sense....... not


one could wonder how they were even able to rule the known world for centuries when they were all weakly midgets and terribly outnumbered by hordes of powerful giants all around them......



let me take a wild guess.....

[PROMETHEUS ts]

wow...... that all makes totally sense....... not


one could wonder how they were even able to rule the known world for centuries when they were all weakly midgets and terribly outnumbered by hordes of powerful giants all around them......



let me take a wild guess.....

HAHAHAHAHAH

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Vegetius is an extremely unreliable source. He even claims Roman soldiers of his time had stopped wearing armour because it was too heavy. We know from their success in battle that the Roman army in the century leading up to his writing were the best Roman army that existed.

[Slipz]

Vegetius is an extremely unreliable source. He even claims Roman soldiers of his time had stopped wearing armour because it was too heavy. We know from their success in battle that the Roman army in the century leading up to his writing were the best Roman army that existed.

Probably not the best but it was still dam good but slowly becoming weak dropping into decadence losing glory ect.

By 390 A.D the legions are shadows of their former selfs according to the sources we have, They were still strong ofcource but alot weaker than the previous centuries.

[Condottiere 40K]

On average, the Dutch are supposed to be the tallest; that is, natives, not immigrants.

[Destraex]

On average, the Dutch are supposed to be the tallest; that is, natives, not immigrants.

Would you believe the Scottish were actually the tallest on average before ww1? After ww1 they were not as tall... true story actually.

[Condottiere 40K]

Would you believe the Scottish were actually the tallest on average before ww1? After ww1 they were not as tall... true story actually.

Maybe, though I understand the Dutch were the tallest until their country was hit by famine, when the Americans took over. Apparently, they now have a richer diet.

[Ichon]

Height is coming more and more to be a function of diet as much as genetics. Witness the generational shifts upward in height of Asians eating a different diet. Remains of skeletons seem to back that up as well where within one genetically similar population those exposed to a richer diet are taller on average though genetics still play a role it seems more at the outliers than on the averages.


Though as already pointed out, Vegetius is a very unreliable source and is more apt to tell you the popular myths of his day than the actual truth that occurred. Simply by the differences in agriculture and population density (all those threads about how Rome had a manpower advantage have some merit) it is likely that Rome had more population to bring to bear in any single war than any competitors. Overall still less population than everyone the conquered but per campaign unless fighting on multiple fronts it was easier for Rome to devote more soldiers to each battle. Being able to win battles when outnumbered helped a huge amount as both Scipio and Caesar(Rome's generals who conquered the largest land area) were often fighting with only a small portion of Rome's available strength. Similarly the frequent reports of Roman's being shorter is as likely due to lower consumption of animal protein and more grains compared to Celts and Germans or other ancient 'large' peoples. Richer Romans and those with access to more animal protein would be just as tall on average as barbarian nobles who also ate a rich diet. Major difference was Roman society was much more socially biased than most 'barbarian' societies which while still unequal had less disparity between the richest and the poorest so on average more 'barbarians' had access to a richer diet and correspondingly achieved slightly more height than average Romans.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

As it is allready written. Vegetius as Source is not that good. To the high of Warriors in general it is to say that there is a reason why nobles are mostly taler than the normal folk, they had simply better food and specially Noble Warriors were training while other people were working. My family for example has to do with horses since generations and we all are very small (around 170) and have riderlegs but it made great Jockeys and Cavalleryman in the past. I am not that good in genetics but it is quit interesting that you find this similaryties in the most families with a job tradition.

To the "germanic" warriors in the later empire. I don't know if they lack disciplin, but there must be a reason why the romans prefer them instead of their old legions. My personal Opinion is that they had better equipment and technolgy than the old legions. I think the old decadent theory isn't the reason, its more a mix between the less population after epidemics and the civilwars and the bad loyality of the Legions.

[Destraex]

As it is allready written. Vegetius as Source is not that good. To the high of Warriors in general it is to say that there is a reason why nobles are mostly taler than the normal folk, they had simply better food and specially Noble Warriors were training while other people were working. My family for example has to do with horses since generations and we all are very small (around 170) and have riderlegs but it made great Jockeys and Cavalleryman in the past. I am not that good in genetics but it is quit interesting that you find this similaryties in the most families with a job tradition.

To the "germanic" warriors in the later empire. I don't know if they lack disciplin, but there must be a reason why the romans prefer them instead of their old legions. My personal Opinion is that they had better equipment and technolgy than the old legions. I think the old decadent theory isn't the reason, its more a mix between the less population after epidemics and the civilwars and the bad loyality of the Legions.

Good food takes you to you "genetic potential" if that is in your genetic make up. As generations pass it seems that short and tall genetic make ups are getting taller at the same rate. Leaving the short shorter than the tall still.
Somebody who does "nature vs nurture" for a living may correct me.
In fact it is not unusual for simple country folk to be larger on average than city folk.

This also means that tall warriors with reasonable sustinance would have been huge. There is no reason to think that the Germans and Gauls would not have had sustinance enough.

This proof of a couple of burial sites "in the roman empire" showing tiny Germans seems like a poor sample to me.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Rome didnt lose cohesion and discipline in the late Empire. They kept it up until the final end in Constantinople.

[Destraex]

Rome didnt lose cohesion and discipline in the late Empire. They kept it up until the final end in Constantinople.

I am talking about Rome and the Western empire here. I realise that the Eastern empire lasted much longer, but its army was also vastly different because of the schism.