Interesting academic article that might interest CA

[ray243]

Although given what we heard about CA so far regarding buying tons of history books and articles to create Rome 2, there is a possibility CA might have read this article.

Nevertheless, I thought it might be interesting to share with the people here, this article.

This is entitled "The Face of Roman Battle" by Philip Sabin, from King's College, London, and the author specialise in military simulations.

The link of the article can be found in JSTOR, so people with college library access can easily read this article.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21101236721881


The author made some interesting view regarding how Roman fights were conducted, such as how the Romans replenish their front ranks, what could result in the routing of an army as well as how much casualties the winning side and losing side suffer in general.

[themoob]

There are countless threads and posts discussing all kinds of stupid, unsourced crap by stupid, amateur internet 'historians', and someone finally posts something interesting from an extremely credible expert and no one replies.

I'll have a read later ray243, and +rep for doing it right.

[myaku]

There are countless threads and posts discussing all kinds of stupid, unsourced crap by stupid, amateur internet 'historians', and someone finally posts something interesting from an extremely credible expert and no one replies.

I'll have a read later ray243, and +rep for doing it right.

The only people who can read this are those who are actively attending a university or otherwise have access to JSTOR (which, I might add, is a f'ing amazing resource)

Also, assuming that mostly average people play Total War (as opposed to hardcore military history enthusiasts), I would suggest that the average person has no interest in reading a 12,000 word academic article (which would take the average reader 34 minutes) and would instead usually opt to watch a spurious, low-quality movie rife with over-dramatization and historical inaccuracies.

I'm slowly making my way through it. One interesting quote:

As regards duration, Roman infantry clashes were sometimes decided very quickly
by one side giving way at (or even before) the first shock. Livy describes this happening
to the Romans themselves at the Allia and Herdonea, and to their enemies at Ibera and
Agrigentum (5.38, 23.29, 25.2I, 25.40). Goldsworthy cites several similar instances
from late Republican and early Imperial times, and argues that such quick decisions
were commoner in these periods than in earlier or later eras of Roman history.21 More
usually, however, Roman infantry battles involved a drawn-out engagement before
either side finally broke and ran. The crucial question is, was the duration of these more
prolonged engagements generally measured in minutes or in hours?

This would be cool to see in the game - units breaking instantly at or before impact. Would be quite humorous to see a band of Germanic infantry of some sort drop their weapons and start scattering seconds before a cavalry charge hits

Also, first post - I hate welcome threads though

[Jester]

This would be cool to see in the game - units breaking instantly at or before impact.

it happens quite often in the games actually. just move a single unit alone against the enemy battleline and they will run to mommy even before the 1st man is killed

[ray243]

There are countless threads and posts discussing all kinds of stupid, unsourced crap by stupid, amateur internet 'historians', and someone finally posts something interesting from an extremely credible expert and no one replies.

I'll have a read later ray243, and +rep for doing it right.

I won't blame them too much, given the large majority of people would not have access to JSTOR.

The interesting thing is how the author attempts to resolve the issue of how the Romans relief their ranks. In most combat model, even the gaming model created by CA, it does not really take into account of how the first ranks can be relieved without suffering major casualties.

The current battle model lacks one major thing before you can ensure units can be pulled back, which is the ability to give ground slowly. Hence, any player that tried to pull Hannibal's manoeuvre at Cannae will result in massive lost of his units most of the time.

[Biggus Splenus]

Looks great, thanks for the link

+rep

[KillaJules]

Interesting that many historians argue that hoplite warfare consisted of 1v1 duels. Even though so many here so strongly insist that 1v1 dueling would be completely wrong in Rome 2.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

Gotta love JSTOR! You must be a history student eh?

This is a bit embarrassing, but maybe my uni doesn't have permissions for this, because although my uni search says I have access to this, the only option I get is to pay $30 for it. is there something I missed?

EDIT: I found this instead. it's much more that 17 pages too!

The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare Vol. 1: Greece, the Hellenistic world and the rise of Rome, 2007, The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, philip sabin and philip de souza
Chapter 13
BATTLE

EDIT 2: Got it.

[themoob]

Try using your own universities link to JSTOR, log in there, then click the link (without closing your browser halfway through obviously).

[torongill]

I have the Cambridge book and I'm not forking over 30 $ for an article. So is it very different from the "Battle" article?

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

I love Adrian Goldsworthy! I've referenced him a thousand times in essays.

and @torongill, yeah the articles are pretty similar. they are a different look at at combat, especially in that the Battle one that I posted is about Greco-Roman combat, and how they were similar, and how they were different, so I think it's actually more relevant for a broad understanding, but I doubt it's what CA will be basing their AI off. they'll more likely be trying to understand Roman military systems, and just say everyone else just Attacked! As Horatio Nelson said "never mind manoeuvres, just go straight at them!"

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

Yeah, for example there is no walk backwards move. in game terms, if you move your unit back, event just a metre, the first thing they do is stop fighting, then turn around, both of which IRL would end up with the entire front line dying.

[themoob]

JSTOR isn't the only place in the world to get sources, so I will continue blaming them.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

^Agreed. TWC is far too full of pretentious self-confessed history experts.

Now I'm off to play squash and continue writing my memoirs. *ruff ruff ruff ruff*

[ray243]

^Agreed. TWC is far too full of pretentious self-confessed history experts.

Now I'm off to play squash and continue writing my memoirs. *ruff ruff ruff ruff*

Well, the issue of ensuring history fans are willingly to read academic articles and books is an issue beyond TWC.

[Radzeer]

Well, the issue of ensuring history fans are willingly to read academic articles and books is an issue beyond TWC.

It's a nice start though. +rep