Imitation Legionaries

[DarrenTotalWar]

The selucids were over powered because of their silver shielded legionaires. Loved em!

[JaM]

Realistically the Romans never did anything particularly clever on the battlefield - heck even Gallic warriors were equipped essentially the same as your average legionairre (chainmail, helmet, large shield, light javelin/spear for throwing, sword for sticking people). What the Romans did (like Napoleon) was develop a professional army with superior logistics which meant that they could put more men in the field for longer. This meant that those men became professional soldiers, learned to work together more effectively, and hence were far more capable than your average part time bondsman/militia types.

Imitation legions were I think as much an attempt to replicate this logistical system as they were about arming and equipping the soliders in the same way.

Sorry but that is quite inaccurate. Roman Legionaries were uniformly equipped, during Second Punic War chainmail was standard issue even for Hastati. Over can be said, Average Roman Legionary was armored same way as Elite Gallic Nobleman. And regarding weapon, Gauls used slashing longswords, while Romans prefered short thrusting swords... While on paper Longsword might look impressive to some, in reality of close combat, thrusting shortsword proved to be much more effective than slashing longsword would ever be.. Roman combat training, active use of scutum and gladius made them extremely dangerous in close combat to any adversary. Also, game of numbers doesnt play same way in reality - only about 50% of Roman army were composed of Roman Legionaries. Remaining were auxillia recruited locally, which usually didnt had same amount of training. And until Marius reforms, Roman pool was limited to citizens who could afford to buy themselves a weapons and armor. Only later they got this as standard issue from Republic. Its also worth mentioning, during Augustus, Roman army was composed of 28 legions, while during Civil war there was about 50 legions raised on both sides, which could be considered as a maximum suistainable size of Roman Army (50x5000=250.000 men distributed over whole Roman controlled world...)

[vietanh797]

and the so called "extremely dangerous" guys got their asses wipe by a scouting force of Parthia

[JaM]

you again? Same force few years later lead by competent leader sieged Parthia capital... Publius Ventidius Bassus wiped *** with Parthians just few years later...

[vietanh797]

the general who beat Roman already beheaded by Parthia King. I have to say the Roman really have lady luck on their side. If that general still around I doubt that Roman will win even if the Roman bring the same number they once bring to face Hannibal

[JaM]

When the Parthians got to the town, which sat on a small hill, they encountered Roman legions confidently formed in battle order on the slopes. The Parthians rushed to attack - whether this order came from Pacorus or was a spontaneous charge is unknown. In any case, Ventidius ordered his troops, who had the advantage of high ground, to attack the horse-archers advancing up the slope. The horse-archers were forced into close-quartered combat against the legionaries and suffered heavily for it, for they were unsuited for such combat. The Parthian cavalry's will eventually broke and panic spread, many of the horse archers being driven down the slope where they crashed into their fellows in their desperation to escape. The horse-archers eventually fled or fell. Parthian heavy cavalry, which was stationed at the bottom of the hill, was enveloped and surrounded by the legionaries. Instead of immediately attacking with the legionaries, Ventidius made use of his slingers to rain down projectiles on the Parthian heavy cavalry, which included Pacorus himself. After the barrage was lifted the legionaries moved in and were quickly able to identify Pacorus because of his standard and expensive armour. Pacorus was eventually slain along with his bodyguards, and the remaining cavalry broke and attempted to flee from their entrapment, which not all managed to do. Overall the Roman army had achieved a complete victory.

no, you tend to oversimplify quite complex issue... no army is unbeatable, and always there are other things behind it... in case of Carrhae, it was not effectivity of legionaries that caused the defeat, but complete failure of command. Crassus was overconfident, and payed for it. Same way as Pacorus few years later...

[General Maximus]

If imitation legionaries are not present, will we be allowed to at least recruit some kind of 'mercenary' Legionaries?

This question has been bothering me since last year. Mercenary Comitatenses were already present in RTW-BI. I remember gathering a huge army against the Romans as Celts, and defeated them in detail with their own tactics.

If imitation legionaries or mercenaries are allowed, there will be at least a balancing counter to the late-game Legions that Rome will churn out, which will be overpowered.

[vietanh797]

I prefer Greek Thureophoroi and Thorakitai than Legion. Fighting tribes and eastern factions proved that sword quite useless and the Roman did switch to spear in late Empire.

That's a proof that the Greek have a unit suit for combat both west and east about 300 years before Roman. Roman refuse to copy Greek in using spear at first but in the end they still have to do that.

[JaM]

I prefer Greek Thureophoroi and Thorakitai than Legion. Fighting tribes and eastern factions proved that sword quite useless and the Roman did switch to spear in late Empire.

That's a proof that the Greek have a unit suit for combat both west and east about 300 years before Roman. Roman refuse to copy Greek in using spear at first but in the end they still have to do that.

Romans swapped to Spear because they lacked trained men... in late Empire majority of army was composed of Foederati, usually tribesman recruited for military service. They were nowhere as effective as legions few hundreds years before, but Late Rome could no longer afford large professional army.

Spear is a defensive weapon, you can train men with it quite quickly, and they will become effective in what they do best - standing in place to fix enemy, so elite units can decide the combat..
Shortsword like Gladius was completly different concept... together with scutum, it allowed Roman Legionary to fight in formation aggressively. Instead of just standing and receiving enemy attacks, they aggressively engaged enemy, using shields to bash the enemy, and gladius to thrust it into vulnerable parts of enemy body (trying to avoid his armor). Short thrusting weapon also allowed legionary to attack quite quickly - you can deliver 5-6 thrusting attacks with short sword, to single slashing attack with a longsword, that could be blocked by scutum.. In close combat, this combination was deadliest of all...

But as time progressed, more and more barbarians ended up serving in legions, and they adjusted the weapons used. Gladius was abadoned, and so was the aggressive stance of infantry...

[vietanh797]

lol at "Spear is a defensive weapon" I think you should go ask any weapon master to teach you a little about it before bla bla ... about it again

[JaM]

you should learn differentiate between spear and pike... Spear is single handedly used (while second hand holds the shield) that limits its effectivity quite significantly.
Pike is held by both hands, and allow to project much greater strength than spear (obviously you can deliver more strength with both hands than just with one...) Ask your weapon master how much chance you would have with large shield and spear, against a Roman Legionary with short thrusting sword and shield... (NONE)


Gladius was ideal weapon for fighting in confined space, which engagement of two units always was...

[vietanh797]

If you talk about a ideal weapon to use spear always is the best with shield or not it still the best. For 1 week training you can have a legion of spearman and they can beat any legion of gladius users train in 2 weeks

btw if you want to talk about sword the Lakonia is better for fighting in extreme confined space which the Spartan Hoplite always use.

[Woodrow Skillson]

lol what? did you jsut claim any spear based infantry would beat any sword based infantry? Cause that was never the case, ever, in history.

[JaM]

vietanh797: watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX45BFB7yKs

[vietanh797]

lol what? did you jsut claim any spear based infantry would beat any sword based infantry? Cause that was never the case, ever, in history.

given the same training time it is always happen throughout history

vietanh797: watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX45BFB7yKs

no new info here for me
I read tons of books and articles about Roman army since 2004 till now gather knowledge here and there enough to say for sure that the switch to spear have nothing to do with level of professional. Most professional army in history use spear/pike not sword as main weapon so you logic is a fail one.

Roman army design to fight effective against such army like Hellenic army or northern warrior tribes but it isn't good enough to face steppe tribes. While the Hellenic states did fought and often gain victory over steppe armies.

The main point of Roman equipment while fighting Hellenic states isn't the gladius nor the big scutum shield but the pilla, if they only have a javelin they won't get anywhere.
The pushing tactic is not match the pushing of Hoplite since the grip is a normal handle the push power is clearly weaker then Hoplon not mention you have a lower center of gravity point than Hoplite which make it easier for Hoplite to push and kill you will you lie under their feet. The shield isn't strong enough to stop the Sarrissa, it isn't bigger than Hoplon nor it is less heavy than Hoplon it also weaker than the Hoplon.

[Woodrow Skillson]

given the same training time it is always happen throughout history

no new info here for me
I read tons of books and articles about Roman army since 2004 till now gather knowledge here and there enough to say for sure that the switch to spear have nothing to do with level of professional. Most professional army in history use spear not sword so you logic is a fail one.

Most armies have used spears because its cheaper to make a spearhead than a sword. Nearly every single time a nation or culture can afford to equip its foot soldiers well, they choose swords. Because swords are the most versitile and useful battlefield weapon. Spears work great in formation, but are unweildy in single combat against a man armed with a shorter, faster weapon. The whole point of a spear is it has reach, which means it works well when you and your buddies are all in a line, and can stab the enemy when they are not looking. Once a person armed with a shorter weapon closes, it is much harder to successfully stop him with a long and heavy spear.
Swordsmen in general will beat spearmen, the Romans are a perfect case study for this.

[vietanh797]

first, this discussion is not about spear vs sword. second, I'm getting tired of throwing arguments,materials,videos on you, while you ignore whats in them dismantling it by simple - i read books since 2004... so unless you tell us why exactly should be spear better for close combat than thrusting sword, i think i rather pass on further discussion... i spent a lot of time trying discussing things with you in EB thread with same results...

do you know why spear is the most effective weapon in the world?

Most armies have used spears because its cheaper to make a spearhead than a sword. Nearly every single time a nation or culture can afford to equip its foot soldiers well, they choose swords. Because swords are the most versitile and useful battlefield weapon. Spears work great in formation, but are unweildy in single combat against a man armed with a shorter, faster weapon. The whole point of a spear is it has reach, which means it works well when you and your buddies are all in a line, and can stab the enemy when they are not looking. Once a person armed with a shorter weapon closes, it is much harder to successfully stop him with a long and heavy spear.
Swordsmen in general will beat spearmen, the Romans are a perfect case study for this.

Actually it isn't since all such professional armies have the secondary weapon as sword. The cost is actually gone up for such army since they have to equip and maintain 2 weapons, not gone down. And if you ask any weapon master they will pick a spear if you holding sword.

a small example for further study the case: Swiss pike vs Men at arms

p/s: I am preparing to travel in the next few hours. A vacation trip so I doubt I can go online for 3-5 days. I would rather finish the debate now than wait for 3-5 days till I can come back from the trip

[Woodrow Skillson]

Roman army design to fight effective against such army like Hellenic army or northern warrior tribes but it isn't good enough to face steppe tribes. While the Hellenic states did fought and often gain victory over steppe armies.

The main point of Roman equipment while fighting Hellenic states isn't the gladius nor the big scutum shield but the pilla, if they only have a javelin they won't get anywhere.
The pushing tactic is not match the pushing of Hoplite since the grip is a normal handle the push power is clearly weaker then Hoplon not mention you have a lower center of gravity point than Hoplite which make it easier for Hoplite to push and kill you will you lie under their feet. The shield isn't strong enough to stop the Sarrissa, it isn't bigger than Hoplon nor it is less heavy than Hoplon it also weaker than the Hoplon.

Hellenistic pikemen did not use the hoplon, they used a 2 foot (.6m) shield that was smaller then the hoplon. Both the phalangite shield and the hoplon were worn strapped to the arm of the bearer. This significanlty reduces the ability of the bearer to use his shield offensively, and to parry with it. That is why the Romans used a center grip, so they can more effectivly use it as a weapon itself. The Romans did not try to get into a pushing match with a phalanx to begin with, they worked to disrupt its formation and force the individuals to fight in close. There the oversized hoplon and the smaller phalangite shield were inferior to the scutum. I'm not sure how you are classifying which shield is "weaker" then the other as well.

do you know why spear is the most effective weapon in the world?


Actually it isn't since all such professional armies have the secondary weapon as sword. The cost is actually gone up for such army since they have to equip and maintain 2 weapons, not gone down. And if you ask any weapon master they will pick a spear if you holding sword.

a small example for further study the case: Swiss pike vs Men at arms

Which professional armies are you talking about here? The Swiss also had swordsmen. The Byzantines used swordsmen. All of the European states used swordsmen. The Arabs used swordsmen. All of these different cultures had their best fighters using swords. Some used a spear sometimes too, but nearly all of these cultures used dedicated swordsmen. Knights overwhelmingly used swords. You have literally claimed that any "weapon master" would always pick a spear over a sword, so what do they know that the Vikings did not?

Spears are very very good if used in formation by a lot of people. They stop being good in close combat. That is why all of those spearmen who could afford it carried swords or other one handed weapons as backup.

[O'Hea]

There are basically two types of "imitation legionary": you had various flavors of Thorakitai, who are superficially similar to legionaries but were an independent development, and I've also read that the Antigonids and Seleucids started to drill their phalangites to fight in maniples but without changing their equipment. Either way they would be equipped with indigenous gear and wouldn't look like Romans (with exceptions like Hannibal's troops who had looted thousands of Roman corpses).

[JaM]

first, this discussion is not about spear vs sword. second, I'm getting tired of throwing arguments,materials,videos on you, while you ignore whats in them dismantling it by simple - i read books since 2004... so unless you tell us why exactly should be spear better for close combat than thrusting sword, i think i rather pass on further discussion... i spent a lot of time trying discussing things with you in EB thread with same results...