Legionaries can't hold a crossing against barbarians?

[tropdars]

So I just finished playing my first river crossing battle against the Gallic confederation. I set up my armoured legionaries to block the crossing with archers and javelins on their flanks. The gauls had mostly high tier swords and spears. In spite of my missile units emptying everything they had into the barbarians, they managed to slowly destroy and rout every last one of my legionaries. What the ? Roman legionaries are supposed to be the most advanced and disciplined troops of the time and they can't hold the line against a bunch of barbarians? What's the rationale for making legionaries so lame?

[Celtichugs123]

I didn't know "barbarian" meant "really terrible at fighting".

Thanks for the lesson

[antred]

I didn't know "barbarian" meant "really terrible at fighting".

Thanks for the lesson

So should it mean "absolutely superior to Roman legionaries"?

[Knight of Heaven]

So should it mean "absolutely superior to Roman legionaries"?

You know if the romans were superior fighters then the gauls, then they didnt had Rome sacked by gauls, twice didnt they? There is more to it then better soldiers and logistics. There is plenty of factors.
The gauls werent as weak as one might think, in comparisson, and they had organization as well, plenty of stuff the romans used, were taken by celtic, and galic concepts, such as chain mail and helmets, and the gauls usualy, had better metalurgic technology then the romans.
Regardless in game if they are against high tier galic units, then you shouldnt take them lightly, the spear nobles and specialy the oathsworns are amoung of the best units in the game. Wich is fine given their background, and a clear contrast to other celtic troops, wich arent very good and are usualy the majority of their armies.

Really like your approach to this, Don_Diego.
From what I have read you are right about the barbarians escpecially the germanic tribes, many times used sheer power to push through enemy lines with the wedge formation. But saying that they attacked in a disorderly maner is wrong.(not that you did that. just that some do. ) Some of them might have done this to gain pride and glory but they did not all attack like headless chickens.
Giving them more impact dmg and perhaps have them lose in the long run in close combat with a cohort would be the best. Germans won mainly because of more troops, ambushes or flanking manouvers. Same I guess goes for many of the gallic tribes. even today people from southern europe are small

Quite so, there is alot of missguided myths about the celtic gauls in this thread. Taken some pre conceptions as face value, where evidence sugests things are much more complex than that.
The galic tribes were divided, they were politicaly disorganized, but they werent disorganized militarly, specialy the cream of the galic warrior society, and nobility. I mean when you look how and where the galic tribes expanded, they are all over europe, from Iberia, to central, to the east, and to the anatolia, they werent simple mindless barbarians, no barbarian realy is (specialy when the word barbarian back then didnt meant what it does this days). They sacked Rome twice, they faced macedonians and Greeks and won, they were used as auxiliares, and mercenaries in all of this armies, for good reason, the galatians were even the Ptlomaic Pharaos personal guard at times, and takes alot more then numbers to win against these. They did knew how to fight organized for sure.
Lets not mistake levies, and comom tribesman, with the fighting warlike nobles as well.

think the only formation barbarians should have is shield wall

Even though they are knowned to form phalanx like formations historicaly?! You know as i said alot of indiscipline issues related with the gauls has alot to do, with their tribal nature, and leaderships, they were people divided, and thus disorganized in this, matter, didnt meant their warriors and soldiers fight disorganized usualy.
And not every gaul had better cavalry then the romans, the belgae, and the batavians had epic cavalry, but i cant say the same for alot of other galic tribes. If there is something the barbarian tribes shouldnt have is access to siege balista, and onagers imo.

Bothom line Romans losing and bested by gauls and other barbarians, it isnt something you shouldnt be suprised, it happened quite alot when you look at it. and it wasnt always because the barbarians were so manny, or very savage, there usualy had tactics, and strategies involved. Even ceasar did lost a few battles against the gauls, due to strategies and tactics. In fact alesia was so important, because Ceasar could have lost right there, Vercengetorix was a formidable oponent that gave Ceasar a run for his money, Ceasar was able to win because again, there was much division, misstrust, ambition and greed between the galic chieftans, had they did what vercengetorix had said, The campaing of Ceasar could have ended in alesia, but they all decided to continue to atack, instead of playing the siege game and just wait and starve out Ceasar legions. Their disorganization had alot to do with their tribal political nature, not on strategies, or tactics, or way of fighting imo.

[Marsus]

I didn't know "barbarian" meant "really terrible at fighting".

Thanks for the lesson

He is correct, at least from my reading of many battles of the romans vs the barbarians.

The barbarians best hope for defeating legionaires were usually concentrated force on a thin or weak roman formation. If the formation held, the romans most of the time win.

[tropdars]

I didn't say that did I.

[dowdpride]

Compared to the legions of Rome, it may as well.

[tropdars]

From what I've read, the strength of the Roman soldier wasn't in their individual combat prowess, but in their tight, disciplined formations, their large shields, heavy armour and superior logistics and organization. I want to know on what basis the mod presumes that a unit of Roman legionaries--in close quarters head to head fights--should be decimated by Gallic warriors with presumably inferior logistics, unit cohesion, and longer swords.

[antred]

From what I've read, the strength of the Roman soldier wasn't in their individual combat prowess, but in their tight, disciplined formations, their large shields, heavy armour and superior logistics and organization. I want to know on what basis the mod presumes that a unit of Roman legionaries--in close quarters head to head fights--should be decimated by Gallic warriors with presumably inferior logistics, unit cohesion, and longer swords.

You will shortly be lectured on how any notions of Roman military prowess are really a fabrication of Hollywood and how the average Roman legionary was a sissy that couldn't hold a candle to the 10-foot tall Gauls.

[KAM 2150]

What difficulty are you playing on?

[Don_Diego]

Lol, except history proves the Romans obviously did have military prowess... But yeah, fighting greeks is one thing, fighting a berserk 10-foot gaul probably did make some romans pee their pants... But one barbarian champion is no match to a disciplined roman legion cohort where he would charge in but get stabbed by 3 or 4 gladius at once. The Romans certainly knew how to get the job done. I do think stats need to be played around with so a full frontal charge of barbarians against a formed unit may cause initial damage but the tide should turn and they in turn will be wiped out unless other units flank the romans. Maybe the gallic swordsmen need higher melee damage vs romans but less armour?

[FlashHeart07]

Really like your approach to this, Don_Diego.
From what I have read you are right about the barbarians escpecially the germanic tribes, many times used sheer power to push through enemy lines with the wedge formation. But saying that they attacked in a disorderly maner is wrong.(not that you did that. just that some do. ) Some of them might have done this to gain pride and glory but they did not all attack like headless chickens.
Giving them more impact dmg and perhaps have them lose in the long run in close combat with a cohort would be the best. Germans won mainly because of more troops, ambushes or flanking manouvers. Same I guess goes for many of the gallic tribes. even today people from southern europe are small

[gornoviceanu]

The Romans used brilliant tactics, auxiliary troops system, professional armies and excellent equipment. But in terms of let's say a fictive 1v1 the Romans were not superior.. they had their champs and their noobs just like the Gauls, Germans, Thracians had theirs. They were so amazing mainly (but not only) because of their brilliant military knowledge.

You fail to specify stuff like army numbers, army composition for the Gauls or anything about their general / xp level. These things really matter. Also, you might have not considered stamina.. even the most elite of troops will crumble against inferior but fresh troops.

[TheOrangeProject]

The Romans used brilliant tactics, auxiliary troops system, professional armies and excellent equipment. But in terms of let's say a fictive 1v1 the Romans were not superior.. they had their champs and their noobs just like the Gauls, Germans, Thracians had theirs. They were so amazing mainly (but not only) because of their brilliant military knowledge.

You fail to specify stuff like army numbers, army composition for the Gauls or anything about their general / xp level. These things really matter. Also, you might have not considered stamina.. even the most elite of troops will crumble against inferior but fresh troops.

Stamina is imo one of the most important stuff in DeI, i didnt feel stamina as a problem in vanilla. In DeI, i actually switch units in longer battles, because they fighting power drops significantly in longer battles as their stamina goes down.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

ugh god it pisses me off this post-modern "barbarians were way better than the Romans" mentality. NO. THEY WEREN'T. The Roman Legionary was better trained, better outfitted, better organised, and mostly better motivated. Personal strength and coming from a warrior culture will get you so far in a one-on-one duel, but one-on-one duels were rare when a roman maniple was in form. The entire point of the legion was to maintain coherency. If this was achieved, the Romans would (and did) win 9 times out of 10.
So enough of you antiestablishment history-hipsters with your "the romans sucked at everything". It's immature, and shows that you haven't actually studied the Roman war machine compared to that of any contemporary peoples.

This thread is about armoured roman legionaries holding a bridge (therefore in very close formation) against foes of likely equal fighting ability. If this took place in reality, the Romans would probably still be holding that bridge today.
The roman empire failed (in a small part) because the roman war machine failed. And the roman war machine failed because the romans started fighting like barbarians, and the barbarians started fighting like romans.

[gornoviceanu]

ugh god it pisses me off this post-modern "barbarians were way better than the Romans" mentality. NO. THEY WEREN'T. The Roman Legionary was better trained, better outfitted, better organised, and mostly better motivated. Personal strength and coming from a warrior culture will get you so far in a one-on-one duel, but one-on-one duels were rare when a roman maniple was in form. The entire point of the legion was to maintain coherency. If this was achieved, the Romans would (and did) win 9 times out of 10.
So enough of you antiestablishment history-hipsters with your "the romans sucked at everything". It's immature, and shows that you haven't actually studied the Roman war machine compared to that of any contemporary peoples.

This thread is about armoured roman legionaries holding a bridge (therefore in very close formation) against foes of likely equal fighting ability. If this took place in reality, the Romans would probably still be holding that bridge today.
The roman empire failed (in a small part) because the roman war machine failed. And the roman war machine failed because the romans started fighting like barbarians, and the barbarians started fighting like romans.

Yes, the Romans we're a brilliant war machine but they we're no supermen. If put in the right unfavorable circumstances they would lose just like any army of men. That's what I was pointing out along side some people here, that he might have made mistakes during the battle and that he shouldn't expect a Roman army to steamroll through exhaustion and flanking just because they are Romans.

[dowdpride]

Well, that was mostly due to the fact that the people in the legions where the barbarians they were originally fighting

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

Well, that was mostly due to the fact that the people in the legions where the barbarians they were originally fighting

*were.

Yes. And that proves my point more than it dismantles it.

But I still don't like the fact that for ROME 2 (WAY outside the period where the legions were mostly comprised of non-Romans, or even non-italians) is full of modders who think that the barbarian factions deserve to have shirtless soldiers as impervious to missiles as Principes, and legionaries as weak-willed as tribal swordsmen.

[HerrBree]

*were.

Yes. And that proves my point more than it dismantles it.

But I still don't like the fact that for ROME 2 (WAY outside the period where the legions were mostly comprised of non-Romans, or even non-italians) is full of modders who think that the barbarian factions deserve to have shirtless soldiers as impervious to missiles as Principes, and legionaries as weak-willed as tribal swordsmen.

Yes but I, as well as some other people im sure, don't like it when the Romans are portrayed as armies of T-101s. Like someone mentioned before there was no info given on the number of Romans vs Gauls, there was no info given on the gallic units being used, it was however said that the Gauls were high tier swords and spears, so there goes your "shirtless barbs not dying to javelins" theory. Another note while its true Romans fought best when fighting in a tighter formation, a formation can become useless when it becomes too tight. I don't think that's possible in game, but realistically that is something that could plausibly happen especially on something as CQ as a bridge.

[ABH2]

The description of the battle was vague which makes me doubt the story, but I find the morale given to barbarian units excessive. Despite the common defenses, there aren't many examples of the typical 'barbarian' factions in this game standing up in the open field to Romans. If the initial charge (which is too low an ineffective for infantry, I believe) was broken up, the battle was pretty much won.

All this one-on-one stuff is absolutely irrelevant for reasons mentioned and repeated ad nausea. The only advantage the Gauls had against the Romans was in cavalry, and even then the Roman maniple system made up for that a great deal when used properly. The Roman system was almost idiot proof.

Combine with the fact that the Gauls pump out their elite infantry at ridiculous rates, and they are a bit overpowered in game. But I can't really complain. I don't know how you lose battles in DeI unless drastically outnumbered. I haven't played much of .9, but in general, my Roman units still beat barbarians and everything else.

I also find Roman individual training to be highly underrated. They trained from young ages during the early to mid Republic, and the Marian reforms made them into a large scale professional force. Gallic tribesmen did not have the same skill as a professional soldier.