Recruit slaves for emergency defences?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Since slavery seems to be a much more bigger feature this time around, I got this feeling that maybe we can use them for city defence and bolstering up numbers? Obviously we are not always going to have an army defending a city or it even being anywhere nearby, so maybe if a city has a specific number of slaves in it, we could use a percentage of them? Since there are going to be 700 units this time around, that could potentially contain some slave classes. For anyone who is wondering, this is just an idea that I have come up with since Rome 2 will have slaves playing a much more important part where it will affect the economy and things like that. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this and as always, keep things constructive .

[Dude with the Food]

For city defending we'll probably just get a couple of weak/small units like Samurai Retainers in S2TW or Armed Citizenry in NTW.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Makes sense and most likely will be the case. I just figured that having the option to recruit slaves into the defending ranks would be an incentive for players to get into the slave trade? It's not just got economic benefits but military benefits too. It fits but I'm not sure that we going that in-depth though.

[Gugg]

As Confucius once said "To send the common people to war untrained is to throw them away"

[SinerAthin]

Problem is, slaves would be pretty useless at it.

But I suppose they could be good meatshield, soaking up arrows, charges & tying up the enemy.


I always reasoned with that we would have a small militia, and; if any military structures are present: a few soldiers/warriors as well.

As Confucius once said "To send the common people to war untrained is to throw them away"

That's not really a problem if you face the prospect of losing the entire town xD

Better to throw a thousand untrained men and women at the enemy to let them do a little damage rather than just letting them get butchered like useless sheep

[eregost]

I don't think slaves would make for a good last line of defence. Unless you promise them freedom if they win or something, why would they remain loyal to you when poop hits the fan?

[[N2]Kami]

I don't think slave like Spartacus could be useless in anycase

[zagy20]

I would rather have a garrison such as the Town Watch or whatever it was. At least a unit with some form of armor, a shield and a weapon instead of a cloth shirt and a butter knife which the peasants from the first Rome had.

[Faris ad Din]

Uh... if you think about it this is the system that has always existed at least since Empire: Total War. You get "Armed Citizenry" or "Firelock-armed Citizenry" or other peasants or "Musellims" peasants for the Ottomans. Peasants from the ancient era until the modern period were practically all slaves, or just about near being slaves. They were tied to the land, were dirt poor, overworked, underfed, had no freedom, could be killed by their nobles or the aristocracy on a whim, and were forced into labor on construction projects and pressed into the army regularly. If one attacked an otherwise unfortified town in a granddaddy strategy game like Lords of the Realm 2 (1996) which was a tile-based medieval warfare game (with a campaign map/real time battles), the defender AUTOMATICALLY gets a big conscript army of peasants armed with pitchforks. So what's the difference? Pressed peasants, pressed slaves - to me and in reality they were just about the same thing, poor miserable starving runts and completely unwilling soldiers who are no better than arrow/sword fodder.

I think the Yari Ashigaru garrison units in Shogun 2 were a little bit unrealistic - how their armor/weapons and training could be cooked up so fast. One could just assume that in S2 there were just permanent garrisons for each castle free of charge for police/guard duties, etc., I guess.

I would rather have a garrison such as the Town Watch or whatever it was. At least a unit with some form of armor, a shield and a weapon instead of a cloth shirt and a butter knife which the peasants from the first Rome had.

Yeah right... with what prepared armory/money? They should be armed with maybe sharpened sticks and some wooden boards maybe, doors torn down and tied on the arms with a leather strap perhaps. Armor? Pish. These are slaves/peasants.

[zagy20]

Yeah right... with what prepared armory/money? They should be armed with maybe sharpened sticks and some wooden boards maybe, doors torn down and tied on the arms with a leather strap perhaps. Armor? Pish. These are slaves/peasants.

How is arming peasants with a spear, a shield and possibly some leather or other form of amor unrealistic? Most cities and large towns in this time period had an amory or at least a weaponsmith, look at the siege of Carthage for example. Quote from Wikipedia

They produced about 300 swords, 500 spears, 140 shields and 1,000 projectiles for catapults daily.^[1]

If they could produce weapons in that quantity do you not think they would arm every able bodied man, peasant/slave or not considering they are in a desperate situation?

[AngryTitusPullo]

Every 25-30 turns (years) I want to disband my legions on newly conquered province and would like that region/province to have Evocati in case being attack rather than town militias.

[RGA]

Our city is under attack. Now what? Let's give weapons to those who hate us even more than our enemy. Seems legit

Slaves were rarely used in ancient warfare, and when they were, they often had to be freed first. They were, after all, people with their own free will.

[[N2]Kami]

I think they were promised with freedom after the siege.

[Fishdawg]

slaves would probably only be useful in meat grinding actions, though i would still love to be able to use them in battle

[Pour Some Sugar On Me]

Give slaves weapons and you'll see what happens

Slave: Centurion?
Centurion: yes, slave?
*slave stabs sword*
Centurion: aaaghhh
Slave: This was for my wife *splash* This was for my son! *splash* This was for my ... dog!! *megasplash*

[HinFoo]

*slave stabs sword*

he stabbed the sword?

[Caesar15]

We know that Spartans obviously used slaves on the battlefield, so what's stopping them from using slaves siege defense?

[RGA]

We know that Spartans obviously used slaves on the battlefield, so what's stopping them from using slaves siege defense?

Spartan helots never took part in battles. They were purely non-combatants, helping hoplites carrying their food and equipments. But there were indeed (though rare) cases of Spartan commander having his helots killing enemy prisoners, only because it was considered inconceivably barbaric for free men to commit such an atrocity.

[SamueleD]

If your city was under siege I was your slave and you were to give me a weapon, I would probably kill you and then go and open the gates to the attackers, so that they may kill your family, your friends and all those that forced me to a life in hell.

[Gugg]

Well if we look at it from a realistic standpoint, I think most slaves were pretty loyal. I mean they wouldn't have slaves in their households that would kill you in your sleep the first time they got. And while most slaves understandably didn't care about Rome the way Roman citizens did, I think it would be more or less safe to hand a sword over to a slave if it came to it. Because slave or not; if the city is lost you will be treated just like any other Roman by the enemy. Which would mean be killed, raped, or just generally get F'ed up. And that's a good enough reason as any to fight for your life, and thereby fighting for the defence of the city.