Roman manipular legions...with spears?

[Damocles]

Very good stuff. I shall be using this stuff for my research because you guys are currently considering the pros and cons of whether hastati or whatever had spears. This will serve very useful indeed. Thanks again.

I suggest following my link above. The hastati misnomer is specifically addressed, and there are sources in the bibliography. And it's from 2012. Not some 30 year old treatise.

[TheOrangeProject]

I suggest following my link above. The hastati misnomer is specifically addressed, and there are sources in the bibliography. And it's from 2012. Not some 30 year old treatise.

No offense, but thats a dumb statement and shows that you actually dont have a clue about academic matters.

Time to leave the thread.

[Damocles]

No offense, but thats a dumb statement and shows that you actually dont have a clue about academic matters.

Time to leave the thread.

No offense, but I think your own statement proves that you're the one with no clue.

Today's scholarship about niche subjects such as the Republican-era Legion or the Normans in Italy, is vastly more advanced than it was in the 60s, 70s or 80s. You're like one of those guys who still thinks Steve Runciman or John Julius Norwich is cutting edge.

Any history major in this thread would concur. Or anyone who keeps up to date with various periodicals. Outside a few subjects where someone managed to put a definitive work together (there's a famous one out there about the logistics of Alexander's baggage train) knows that our knowledge is always increasing.

I am not done with this thread, but I am done with you.

And just for the record? I could care less about whatever anecdotal success you or anyone else has currently experienced with Rome's 272 gimped roster. I could beat the game on VH with a bunch of armed mobs. Most of us could at this point. The fact is, they're wrong, and distinctly underpowered compared to the surrounding factions. Just take a look at Sparta's skirtai. Those guys are absolutely incredible, and quite cheap to support. They're more legionary than Imperial Rome, and special forces caliber to boot.

[Dresden]

I am not a professional historian so I won't step into the middle of this spear vs. sword debate.

I will say that a few versions ago we had many complaints that Rome's armies were overpowered. I made the argument that this game is indeed Rome-centric (hence the title) and that it was a part of the game. However, people still did not like the slightly overpowered Roman units. So, now Rome's units are on par (or early on, worse than) many other faction units. Whether or not this will change I am not sure, but I wanted to explain why Rome is no longer overpowered in the mod.

[Damocles]

I am not a professional historian so I won't step into the middle of this spear vs. sword debate.

I will say that a few versions ago we had many complaints that Rome's armies were overpowered. I made the argument that this game is indeed Rome-centric (hence the title) and that it was a part of the game. However, people still did not like the slightly overpowered Roman units. So, now Rome's units are on par (or early on, worse than) many other faction units. Whether or not this will change I am not sure, but I wanted to explain why Rome is no longer overpowered in the mod.

Do you realize this is causing the AI to crush AI Rome nearly every game? The Gauls, Syracusans, Carthage, Illyrians and Greeks have far more powerful starting units. The Gauls have some of the same units in 272 BC that they do in Caesar in Gaul, where they're fighting Marian legionaries.

Keep in mind that 272 BC that after defeating the Epirots and the Samnites, Rome's manipular legion was already proven to be more effective than the hoplites.

If you really weakened them that much, based on claims that they were overpowered by a few forum cranks...Then I can only express disappointment. This is coming from someone who rarely plays Rome, but likes them being the challenge and danger they should be. Starting out, they are by far the easiest AI faction to beat on.

[BooBooLovesAll]

Do you realize this is causing the AI to crush AI Rome nearly every game? The Gauls, Syracusans, Carthage, Illyrians and Greeks have far more powerful starting units. The Gauls have some of the same units in 272 BC that they do in Caesar in Gaul, where they're fighting Marian legionaries.

Keep in mind that 272 BC that after defeating the Epirots and the Samnites, Rome's manipular legion was already proven to be more effective than the hoplites.

If you really weakened them that much, based on claims that they were overpowered by a few forum cranks...Then I can only express disappointment. This is coming from someone who rarely plays Rome, but likes them being the challenge and danger they should be. Starting out, they are by far the easiest AI faction to beat on.

Explains why I keep getting overrun by the Barbarians.

[TheOrangeProject]

About Rome too weak or not.

"It makes no sense historically, and is bad for gameplay"

1. I currently play as rome on legendary with Junia. Success so far, taking greek atm and successfull defending the alps.

2. Played coop a while ago. Rome was able to take the parts below Magna Germania (forgot the name) and didnt get crushed in the early game.

3. Rome got by no means a weak roster. The formations are really strong, compared to other factions on legendary the battles are easy. Also you can have sword units after 12 turns, which is nothing, because you have to build up your city and stuff anyway. => 2 turns first military tech, 4 turns first one in the left tree and buildung auxiallr barrack (6 turns). There are your sword guys.

The AI isnt the smartest one, but that will not change if you give them swords. Romes starting point is harsh.

___

Btw i really dont know what the fuss is about. The reforms hit in after 40 turns, thats around 262 bc. Thats right in the first war. So whats the big deal? There are your swords.

[Mark of Calth]

I had a few problems with that article. It seemed to mention how great it was that the Roman citizen-soldiers defeated, for example, Pyrrhus and the Macedonians (p8). The Macedoinian phalanx was, at least in part, levied from the citizens, thus making it an army of citizen-soldiers as well, and I think the same logic can be applied to a proportion of the Epirot army as well. It also said that the men were taught to thrust, not to slash, as well as that the Romans used a loose formation so that they could slash easily.
Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood or was incorrect about anything that I just said

[Damocles]

I had a few problems with that article. It seemed to mention how great it was that the Roman citizen-soldiers defeated, for example, Pyrrhus and the Macedonians (p8). The Macedoinian phalanx was, at least in part, levied from the citizens, thus making it an army of citizen-soldiers as well, and I think the same logic can be applied to a proportion of the Epirot army as well. It also said that the men were taught to thrust, not to slash, as well as that the Romans used a loose formation so that they could slash easily.
Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood or was incorrect about anything that I just said

You're a little incorrect.

The gist of it is:

A) The Greek hoplites/phalanx by this time was less citizen-soldier and more mercenary. I'm sure that the Macedonians had a citizen levy. But by this point in Greek history, it was mostly mercenary work. They were by no means a 'citizen army' in the sense that Republican Rome was. People can debate this to a greater or lesser extent, but most acknowledge the prevalence of mercenaries in hoplite warfare. Just look at Carthage, for example.

B) They did fight in a looser formation than their hoplite or phalanx opponents. They threw their pilums (first the light, then the heavy) then they closed with a tremendous war-cry and charge, and engaged in individual combat...thus combining missile and shock. They were not the machine-like automation of Augustinian legions (if such a thing ever truly existed - accounts vary, but definitely, there was a peak of discipline in Augustus' time). They were extremely lethal against the Macedonian phalanx.

In an unrelated note, when the phalanx returned to popularity some 1500 years later, one of the developments used to defeat them was the use of 'sword and buckler men'.

One of the more fascinating repeats of history.

[Mark of Calth]

Cool, thanks for enlightening me. Yeah, the resurgence of the pikes was an interesting development in military history, especially when the Spanish made Tercios work properly. Shame mixed equipment regiments aren't a thing in Total War

[Don_Diego]

Ok Damocles, you make interesting points and all the historical information is interesting. However why such an aggressive tone and rudeness to others? Can we have a civilized, open debate without putting people down? I quickly got bored of such arrogant replies, a shame as I am fascinated by the history of this period. Also I understood historians do not have clear evidence when the gladius was adopted atm. Only that spears were gradually phased out near the end of the camillan era, since we cannot make mixed units in this game, surely the early spear vs late sword units distinguish them clearly and make the reform more meaningful? However if there is good evidence that by 270bc most hastati used short swords I am happy for the units to be changed.

[Damocles]

Ok Damocles, you make interesting points and all the historical information is interesting. However why such an aggressive tone and rudeness to others? Can we have a civilized, open debate without putting people down? I quickly got bored of such arrogant replies, a shame as I am fascinated by the history of this period. Also I understood historians do not have clear evidence when the gladius was adopted atm. Only that spears were gradually phased out near the end of the camillan era, since we cannot make mixed units in this game, surely the early spear vs late sword units distinguish them clearly and make the reform more meaningful? However if there is good evidence that by 270bc most hastati used short swords I am happy for the units to be changed.

You might have been reading a little selectively. I was only brusque, if you can call it that, with those who were brusque to me. If someone calls me a liar, or claims something that isn't true, when the reverse is demonstratively apparent, then I will react a bit more bluntly. Since they're just misleading people.

In any case, I had only two things to share with the DeI team:

1) Sourced scholarship that states hastati meant 'spearman' but they weren't actually spearmen, and that the 'spear' in question was the pilum. That they were using blades against the Greek hoplite formations since the Third Samnite War. That this was a result of their transition from coastal hoplite formations pre-Claudine Forks, to the necessities of mountain warfare.

2) My observation that the Roman roster was significantly weaker than the surrounding factions. This observation was acknowledged by the DeI team. It was stated that some people found the game to be more fun with the Romans ahistorically weak. I simply disagreed and said it made playing an enemy of the Romans less rewarding.

My own personal opinion is that both historical accuracy and gameplay would be improved by letting the Romans fight the Punic Wars with the troops they actually had.

[Ballpoint202]

I thought it was pretty conclusively well documented, that by 272 BC, the Roman manipular legions had adopted the gladius and scutum. It was certainly the case during the Phyrric Wars which had just ended and probably came out of the Third Samnite War.

It's also well known that 'hastati' despite meaning spearman, is actually a misnomer.

This isn't groundbreaking scholarship, but just for the hell of it, here's a link which includes a selection of published scholarship: http://www.scribd.com/doc/194289975/...ary-298-105-BC

So why do we start the game with a bunch of spear units, and Triarii utilizing the hoplite formation. It makes no sense to fight the First Punic War with a bunch've hoplites.

Any explanation?

On an unrelated note - the autoresolve is crazy. It way benefits the AI. You're better off just charging ahead and fighting man to man than relying on autoresolve. You'll take many more casualties.

Beyond that...What's the logic in making Hastati, Principi and Triarii available at different times? You already have the AoR which limits how many kinds of troops can be in the army. Rome should have access to all from the beginning...And they might stop getting their arse kicked by Syracuse or Liguria.

This is from the document you linked:

Dionysios of Halikarnassos, who calls them 'cavalry spears' (20.11.2), says hoplite spears were still being employed in battle by the principes during the war with Pyrrhos.

-- page 27

Heavy javelin (pilum)
IN the Livian legion there is no reference to the pilum, which, if Livy's account is accepted, may not yet have been introduced. The earliest reference to the pilum belongs to 293 BC, during the Third Samnite War (Livy 10.39.12, cf. Plutarch Pyrrhos 21.9), though the earliest authentic use of this weapon may belong to 251 BC (Polybios 1.40.12). The pilum, therefore, was probably adopted by the Romans who had experienced the deadly efficiency of this weapon when it was used against them by Iberian mercenaries fighting for Carthage in the First Punic War (264-241 BC).

-- page 35

Short sword (gladius)
Sometime in the 3rd century BC the Romans adopted a long-pointed, double-edged Iberian weapon, which they called the gladius Hispaniensis ('Iberian sword'). A later lexicographer, possibly following Polybios' lost account of the Iberian war, says the gladius Hispaniensis was adopted from the Iberians (or Celtiberians) at the time of the war with Hannibal, but it is possible that this weapon, along with the pilum, was adopted from Iberian mercenaries serving Carthage during the First Punic War (Polybios fr. 179 with Walbank 1957: 704).

-- page 37

Did you link to the wrong article? This one doesn't support you at all -- quite the opposite in fact.

[Damocles]

Ballpoint,

First off, let me congratulate you for providing the exact type of post that I mentioned in my own response to Don_Diego. Don_Diego, take note.

I'll try not be 'rude' with you. But it's hard when I can prove you're not actually reading the source material you're trying to claim 'proves me wrong'.

The quotes that you gave perfectly supported my position. If you don't believe otherwise, I might not have been clear enough. That could be my fault. Other people grasped it, but I do get wordy and eyes glaze over.

Anyhow, since you evidently combed over the document with a careful attention to detail, it's interesting that you don't quote the section dealing with hastati (who have been the brunt of this debate. We all know the principe and triarii might've been armed a little differently in the rear, and leaving the triarii with spears might be a good compromise). I'll get to that later.

My gut tells me this is the usual picking an argument for the sake of it. But one last time, I'll respond.

Dionysios of Halikarnassos, who calls them 'cavalry spears' (20.11.2), says hoplite spears were still being employed in battle by the principes during the war with Pyrrhos.

RE: 'cavalry spears'

The war with Pyrrhos took place before the 272 BC start date. What I find most interesting about this quotation is that the phrase 'were still being employed'. This suggests, as it was the author's intention, that spears were at least by the time of the Phyrric War, an exception rather than the rule. The Roman legionaries used more than one style of short sword before settling on the famous one.

The hastati, by the Third Samnite Wars, had moved to the sword and scutum. Some reserves of older men back from the front lines with a spear to guard against a sudden cavalry charge, requires no stretch of the imagination.

In real life, we must acknowledge that in war, soldiers will use whatever is available. When it comes to modelling it in a game, one's goal should be to settle on the weapon that they were most identified with by their contemporaries. Rome's enemies identified them with the sword and pila.

RE: The pilum

You're kinda missing his point, but he also wrote this:

Further, it has been suggested that the pilum was copied by the Romans from their Samnite enemies (e.g. Sallust Bellum Catilinae 51.38), or alternatively, that they may have developed it from a more rudimentary weapon of their own.

In any case, the quote here directly supports my position. My position is that the First Punic War is where these reforms became solidified and iconic. You might choose to believe it happened in the ~250s BC. You might choose to believe it happened in the Third Samnite War ~300 BC. The author says it probably happened sometime during the middle. Which play style is more accurate? Which plays better? I think beginning with the iconic Manipular legion in 272 BC, or else making it among the very first buildings you can acquire, makes the best sense. Not waiting until the Second Punic War timeframe. When the difference is only 6 or so years, go with whatever helps the AI as well.

When you're picking an argument, and claiming quotations don't support me, over the grand total of about 6 years...That's really just trying to be contrary.

RE: The short sword (gladius)

I don't think you're reading the entirety of the account. And you certainly didn't read my other post in the thread, addressing this. To begin with, he states right in the quote that that specific style of gladius could have been adopted in the First Punic War. Why is everyone getting hung up on this fact?

There are direct reference to the gladius-style weapon being used by Romans (although the account was of a personal combat) as far back as the 4th century BC.

But finally, just to end this once and for all, at the risk of making you look silly, I'll quote the section you somehow managed to skip, which dealt specifically with hastati and which answered all the questions you raised above:

Front-Line Legionary, hastatus (page 28 - READ IT)
In this reconstruction we show a hastatus, in fighting order, from the time of the Pyrrhic War. He is a citizen of few means: he wears an unadorned Montefortino helmet [...]. He is holding two pila, one heavy and one lightweight. An Iberian-pattern cut-and-thrust sword (a straight-bladed, sharp-pointed weapon from which the celebrated Roman gladius Hispaniensis would evolve) is carried in its scabbard high on the right hip. [...]

It is worth noting that the term hastati, spearman, should be taken to mean armed with throwing spears, namely pila, instead of thrusting ones. This is after all, the sense it bears out in our earliest surviving example of it, in Ennius' line 'hastati spargun hasti', meaning 'hastati who hurl hasti' [Annales fr. 284 Vahlen), and their name probably reflects a time when they alone used pila.

Tell me again how my own source proves me wrong? I'll allow that you probably didn't mean to give such offense, but it is extremely disrespectful to claim something like that, when you clearly barely skimmed it, and what you did skim, you did not effiectively synthesize with the actual subject of our ongoing discussion in the thread. It's possible you're not aware the Phyrric War took place before the game's start date.

The kind of relentless devil's advocacy of some knee-jerk counter-factual position just undermines any kind of worthwhile conversation. It makes this forum a hard place to post sometimes, because you rarely get people that come up with a meaningful refutation based on sources of their own. Then we can compare sources, and the whole debate becomes a learning experience.

I'm going to let this quote from the book stand as my final thought on the subject. I'll not be responding to anymore posts along the lines of Ballpoint's. There's nothing I can say which the author doesn't say better.

I'll happily respond to any other kind of reasonable or constructive post. And of course, the debate as to what's best for gameplay. Historical 3rd century BC-style manipular legions, or 4th century BC-style. But I consider the hastati issue settled. The only evidence against it is a misreading of Livy.

[Ballpoint202]

Ballpoint,

First off, let me congratulate you for providing the exact type of post that I mentioned in my own response to Don_Diego. Don_Diego, take note.

I'll try not be 'rude' with you. But it's hard when I can prove you're not actually reading the source material you're trying to claim 'proves me wrong'.

The quotes that you gave perfectly supported my position. If you don't believe otherwise, I might not have been clear enough. That could be my fault. Other people grasped it, but I do get wordy and eyes glaze over.

Anyhow, since you evidently combed over the document with a careful attention to detail, it's interesting that you don't quote the section dealing with hastati (who have been the brunt of this debate. We all know the principe and triarii might've been armed a little differently in the rear, and leaving the triarii with spears might be a good compromise). I'll get to that later.

My gut tells me this is the usual picking an argument for the sake of it. But one last time, I'll respond.



RE: 'cavalry spears'

The war with Pyrrhos took place before the 272 BC start date. What I find most interesting about this quotation is that the phrase 'were still being employed'. This suggests, as it was the author's intention, that spears were at least by the time of the Phyrric War, an exception rather than the rule. The Roman legionaries used more than one style of short sword before settling on the famous one.

The hastati, by the Third Samnite Wars, had moved to the sword and scutum. Some reserves of older men back from the front lines with a spear to guard against a sudden cavalry charge, requires no stretch of the imagination.

In real life, we must acknowledge that in war, soldiers will use whatever is available. When it comes to modelling it in a game, one's goal should be to settle on the weapon that they were most identified with by their contemporaries. Rome's enemies identified them with the sword and pila.

RE: The pilum

You're kinda missing his point, but he also wrote this:



In any case, the quote here directly supports my position. My position is that the First Punic War is where these reforms became solidified and iconic. You might choose to believe it happened in the ~250s BC. You might choose to believe it happened in the Third Samnite War ~300 BC. The author says it probably happened sometime during the middle. Which play style is more accurate? Which plays better? I think beginning with the iconic Manipular legion in 272 BC, or else making it among the very first buildings you can acquire, makes the best sense. Not waiting until the Second Punic War timeframe. When the difference is only 6 or so years, go with whatever helps the AI as well.

When you're picking an argument, and claiming quotations don't support me, over the grand total of about 6 years...That's really just trying to be contrary.

RE: The short sword (gladius)

I don't think you're reading the entirety of the account. And you certainly didn't read my other post in the thread, addressing this. To begin with, he states right in the quote that that specific style of gladius could have been adopted in the First Punic War. Why is everyone getting hung up on this fact?

There are direct reference to the gladius-style weapon being used by Romans (although the account was of a personal combat) as far back as the 4th century BC.

But finally, just to end this once and for all, at the risk of making you look silly, I'll quote the section you somehow managed to skip, which dealt specifically with hastati and which answered all the questions you raised above:



Tell me again how my own source proves me wrong? I'll allow that you probably didn't mean to give such offense, but it is extremely disrespectful to claim something like that, when you clearly barely skimmed it, and what you did skim, you did not effiectively synthesize with the actual subject of our ongoing discussion in the thread. It's possible you're not aware the Phyrric War took place before the game's start date.

The kind of relentless devil's advocacy of some knee-jerk counter-factual position just undermines any kind of worthwhile conversation. It makes this forum a hard place to post sometimes, because you rarely get people that come up with a meaningful refutation based on sources of their own. Then we can compare sources, and the whole debate becomes a learning experience.

I'm going to let this quote from the book stand as my final thought on the subject. I'll not be responding to anymore posts along the lines of Ballpoint's. There's nothing I can say which the author doesn't say better.

I'll happily respond to any other kind of reasonable or constructive post. And of course, the debate as to what's best for gameplay. Historical 3rd century BC-style manipular legions, or 4th century BC-style. But I consider the hastati issue settled. The only evidence against it is a misreading of Livy.

I read the whole thing and, like you, cherry-picked quotes. But IMO my quotes are much much more useful.

"Were still being employed" means "were still being employed". I read it in conjunction with most of his citations that indicate the short sword was introduced during the fights against Carthage, which outnumber the cites supporting the short sword's introduction during the Samnite Wars.

The quote about hastati hurling spears comes from a poet who wasn't born till the second half of the 3rd century bc, so what use is that in the face of quotes from ancient historians? He may well have used an image with which he was familiar from his own time, like Shakespeare did when staging his plays about the ancient world. It is hardly dispositive and barely interesting.

I get the argument about play balance, but the historical side of your argument is weak tea if you have nothing else to support it. And your assumption of superiority combined with your "mic dropping" moment in this quoted post amuses and frustrates, as you first commended me (shall I tug my forelock?) for responding as you wished, but then said you'd never reply to another such response. Is it beneath you to answer for your comments? You started this whole discussion, for crying out loud.

Edited to add: 1. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I think you are wrong. Staggering thought, I know.
2. When I wrote this, I made a mistake. I actually see no citations in the work indicating that the short sword was adopted during the Samnite Wars. It is implied by the adoption of pila, so if pila were adopted during that time, it is likely short swords were as well. But the author actually states (on page 35) that the pilum was likely adopted during the Punic Wars, which is why his hastati reconstruction is so odd.
3. And the quote you present as such a big miss by me is simply a reconstruction by the author, unsupported by anything I have not already quoted.

[Damocles]

I read the whole thing and, like you, cherry-picked quotes. But IMO my quotes are much much more useful.

"Were still being employed" means "were still being employed". I read it in conjunction with most of his citations that indicate the short sword was introduced during the fights against Carthage, which outnumber the cites supporting the short sword's introduction during the Samnite Wars.

The quote about hastati hurling spears comes from a poet who wasn't born till the second half of the 3rd century bc, so what use is that in the face of quotes from ancient historians? He may well have used an image with which he was familiar from his own time, like Shakespeare did when staging his plays about the ancient world. It is hardly dispositive and barely interesting.

I get the argument about play balance, but the historical side of your argument is weak tea if you have nothing else to support it. And your assumption of superiority combined with your "mic dropping" moment in this quoted post amuses and frustrates, as you first commended me (shall I tug my forelock?) for responding as you wished, but then said you'd never reply to another such response. Is it beneath you to answer for your comments? You started this whole discussion, for crying out loud.

Edited to add: 1. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I think you are wrong. Staggering thought, I know.
2. When I wrote this, I made a mistake. I actually see no citations in the work indicating that the short sword was adopted during the Samnite Wars. It is implied by the adoption of pila, so if pila were adopted during that time, it is likely short swords were as well. But the author actually states (on page 35) that the pilum was likely adopted during the Punic Wars, which is why his hastati reconstruction is so odd.
3. And the quote you present as such a big miss by me is simply a reconstruction by the author, unsupported by anything I have not already quoted.

The relevance of the quote is that it is the earliest known reference to hastati, and what hastati do. One ought discard that at their peril.

I could go on, but honestly, I'm finished with you. I can think of no way to say this in a kind fashion, and you're simply not worth the effort.

[Ballpoint202]

The relevance of the quote is that it is the earliest known reference to hastati, and what hastati do. One ought discard that at their peril.

I could go on, but honestly, I'm finished with you. I can think of no way to say this in a kind fashion, and you're simply not worth the effort.

Oh good grief.

edited to quote myself:

the author actually states (on page 35) that the pilum was likely adopted during the Punic Wars, which is why his hastati reconstruction is so odd.

And which is why it is so odd that you use that piece to support your contention that pila were in great use by the hastati during the Epirote War.

[Damocles]

I quite like the fact that you start with spear units, it provides a nice challenge and once the first reform hits you start steam rolling... Like you used to from day 1.

DO NOT get rid of the spears, please.

You have to decide if you want either A) Historical-ish gameplay. Or B) Unhistorical-ish gameplay for sake of an arbitrary challenge.

I personally feel that the historical-ish gameplay is more fun, for reasons not unlike Menulo just mentioned. Fighting the First Punic War with a 4th Century BC-era Roman army just isn't fun. It's doable. But it sure is a grinding slog, where I find myself using autoresolve as much as possible.

But in any case, you're in luck. I doubt the rorarii will be taken out, and they're armed with spears.

[ABH2]

I actually agree completely with Damocles on nearly everything he's said in this thread. People tend to make a lot of sweeping statements (sometimes it seems like they are just regurgitating what others have said) that aren't backed up. There's little use of actual academic sources or even primary accounts. There's a sort of group think and defensiveness that takes over sometimes, as well. More importantly that an all of that, though, giving the Romans spears in the early game never made much sense to me.

One thing I do disagree somewhat with, however, is that giving the AI access to the current Polybian units would really help the weak Rome issue. I think Dresden's point was that Rome's units were toned down in general (across the board) because of complaints. It's not the reason the Romans start with spears. The main issue with AI Rome is the start position and the lack of friends in the early stages. It ends up at war pretty fast with Carthage, Gallic factions, the Ardiaea, and Epirus. It has to use the water to move which the AI is bad at in general.

Basically, everyone Rome fought in the third century besides Macedon ends up attacking it all at once because of the starting diplomacy programmed by CA.

[Damocles]

One thing I do disagree somewhat with, however, is that giving the AI access to the current Polybian units would really help the weak Rome issue. I think Dresden's point was that Rome's units were toned down in general (across the board) because of complaints. It's not the reason the Romans start with spears. The main issue with AI Rome is the start position and the lack of friends in the early stages. It ends up at war pretty fast with Carthage, Gallic factions, the Ardiaea, and Epirus. It has to use the water to move which the AI is bad at in general.

Basically, everyone Rome fought in the third century besides Macedon ends up attacking it all at once because of the starting diplomacy programmed by CA.

That's an interesting and relevant point. Although, I'm not so much in favor of the AI starting with the current Polybian units, so much as having actual Camillan units.

What I have done though, is load up the starting positions of various factions surrounding the Romans, and I have observed that they all begin with access to immensely powerful units. The Gaullish general's bodyguard is devastating, even against Marian-reform roman units. Under the control of a player, it can singlehandedly rout entire wings. And even the AI, who blindly throws it forward, sometimes achieves surprising success.

But even the Spartans start with access to skirtai, who despite their ~1000 gold cost, have a fairly cheap upkeep...and are basically even better than that old Rome 1 late game unit, I forget its exact name, but it was the 'special forces' evocati. Those troops are utterly amazing.

In any case, for every faction surrounding Rome, I found that Rome was the easiest target, and source of easiest battlefield victories. There is no threat at all from a stack of rorarii and hastati. Even the gauls all throws their spears/javelins before they charge, which does devastating damage. (In Caesar in Gaul, those thrown spears make testudo formation a must until battle has gone to melee). The Epirots and Carthaganians have elephants.

Oxford, David Potter, publicated 2011

Soldiers of the fourth century were spearmen—at least as can be seen in the painting on the Esquiline Tomb where we find spearmen that resemble Samnite representations of warriors—and the new system was clearly based upon a reorganization of spear-wielding infantry in the Roman army (for typical Samnites, see Saulnier 1983). The gladius (sword), the characteristic hand-to-hand weapon of the legions in the period of Mediterranean conquest, would not be adopted until the second half of the third century.

(Saulnier, C. 1983. L'armée et a guerre chez les peoples Samnites)

i do not believe, the sword was a important main weapon for roman army in the early 3rd century. Unfortunately we can not travel back to this time ...

That's an interesting source. I also believe that the Roman army in the 4th Century BC was equipped with spears. I've simply been convinced by the other author's stance that they began to switch to the sword and scutum during the Third Samnite War, owing to the difficulties of mountain terrain. That in fact, the hastati began as something like the velites (pilums and short blades), and after the disaster of the Second Samnite War, there was a radical shift away from hoplite tactics. These were the Camillan reforms.

What convinced me, is as the author quoted, the earliest actual reference to hastati is as pilum users (throwing spears).

That said, without comprehensively reading your same source, I must also warn you against the possibility of making the same mistake of combining Livy's reference to the iconic and infamous gladius, with the fact that they used other iberian-pattern swords before that design became dominant.

That is an extremely common mistake. And like other posters/historians, one shouldn't get caught up on the fact that they hadn't conquered Spain yet. That's like saying no army can use the FAL battle rifle until they conquer Belgium.

At one point though, you will have to decide which sources you prefer. I have quite a few books actually that still parrot Livy on the subject. It's not a fierce debate. You will not find much ink spilled on this subject. But it certainly does have a strong bearing on our little hobby, where having properly armed units makes a big difference.

Interestingly enough, a lot of this incredible emphasis and obsession about how units were precisely armed and equipped, did not really begin until the 70s and 80s, when wargaming/modelling started to take off in a big way (is anyone old enough here to remember?). Most academics until that point, did not truly care. Though of course, now you have generations of historians who are obsessed about these details as well.

You would find very similar debates as these on old mailing lists.

The problem with Rome is that when in battle their units are superior, but in auto resolve they are not. Their actual stats allow my Hastati to rack up over a hundred kills against the barbarian factions, and completely butcher the Greeks, however the auto resolve for some reason completely destroys them.

I have also noticed strange behavior with autoresolve.

Some units are given vastly more weight than others, even though in actual combat, the one is destroyed by the other. (A ~300 unit of Gaullish spearmen seems weighted the same as 240 Marian legionaries. On the battlefield, the legionaries can advance in testudo, soak up the thrown spears, switch to hollow square and rout the Gauls with very little loss of life. When autoresolving, they will lose half their number.)

This is unavoidable of course, but autoresolve appears to be stressing quantity over quality.

How is this fixed? I don't know. I've never modded autoresolve. I've just noticed it in all TW games, and to a particularly interesting extent lately. To the point where I can't use it unless I want to lose a couple thousand troops with 2-3 silver chevrons against a Gaullish garrison.