Attila Mercenaries Map

**honga** · March 30, 2015, 01:42 PM

Hi guys.

I make a Attila Mercenaries Map,
You can see different color on regions of Attila campaign map, that easy to know where are the same mercenary pools.
Just put cursor over each region, you will get what the mercenary units there.

http://www.honga.net/totalwar/attila...la&t=mercenary

**wulfgar610** · March 31, 2015, 02:09 AM

A pity the game doesn't show you the mercenaries present and accounted for in a province unless a General is present. Thanks for the good work!

**Darios** · March 31, 2015, 02:40 AM

I don't know if this is the appropriate thread to discuss my opinions on the mercenary situation in the game *bows to Mr. Honga* but this map does highlight certain things very well.

1) Why aren't there actual Roman mercenary troops within imperial borders? You can find mercenary legionary defectors in the Sahara but not in Italy, Greece, or the Balkans? They do not have to be nearly as numerous as the Germanic troops but it is immersion breaking to open up the mercenary tab and wonder where did all the Romans go.

2) Why is Anatolia (a Roman region for over 400 years) full of Persian mercenaries?

3) Why does CA always insist on referring to Scytho-Sarmatians as "nomadic" or "steppe" people? How about we call Germanic peoples "forest tribes"

. The "steppe mercenaries" are so ambiguous (they look more Hunnic/Avar/Tatar than the actual Sarmatians/Alans that inhabited the Pontic steppe at the time) that I do not even know where to begin with criticizing them.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the developers' vision is actually very clear ("badassness"), so there is probably very little motivation for CA to fix or change things in Attila. In Rome 2, the problems with the game were due to poor construction instead of a badass vision so they were more open to fixing things. Attila is a game where Chinese looking people come from the steppes, destroy everything in sight while pushing the Germans to destroy the Roman Empire into oblivion. The Sassanids (and Pals) even have the single purpose of bringing the Apocalypse to the ERE, that's why they have tons of Persian mercenaries waiting for them in Anatolia. Thank you for the map Mr. Honga (+rep) because it helps to show the areas in which CA cared to focus their attention on the most.

**Aeratus** · March 31, 2015, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Darios

3) Why does CA always insist on referring to Scytho-Sarmatians as "nomadic" or "steppe" people? How about we call Germanic peoples "forest tribes"

. The "steppe mercenaries" are so ambiguous (they look more Hunnic/Avar/Tatar than the actual Sarmatians/Alans that inhabited the Pontic steppe at the time) that I do not even know where to begin with criticizing them.

"Steppe" is a better name because it is generic. Not all steppe horsemen were scytho-sarmatian. There were also hun mercenaries in the Roman army, but having multiple unit names would be confusing, and would clutter the recruitment pool. So it is better to use a generic name that covers all. I wouldn't want to have 5 or 6 versions of the same unit but with different names.

**Darios** · March 31, 2015, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Aeratus

"Steppe" is a better name because it is generic. Not all steppe horsemen were scytho-sarmatian. There were also hun mercenaries in the Roman army, but having multiple unit names would be confusing, and would clutter the recruitment pool. So it is better to use a generic name that covers all. I wouldn't want to have 5 or 6 versions of the same unit but with different names.

If you are a fan of generic names then from now I will refer to Germanic peoples as "Forest tribes" and Celts as "Western factions" (joking)

You make a great point actually. Not all steppe horsemen were Scytho-Sarmatian though most of the tribes on the Pontic steppes in 400 AD were (save for the Huns) indeed Scytho-Sarmatians. The entire steppe part of the world had a very interesting flowering of cultures ranging from Alani, Iazyges, and other Sarmatians in the West to Avari, Huns, Yuezhi, and Sveta Huna in the East. They were not always tied to the same material culture either so I find it somewhat insulting/annoying that they're given generic "steppe" names/appearances for their units.

An even more terrible Orientalist approach takes place in the Middle East/Iran in the game with its horribly named "Eastern culture." We have a game that differentiates between Germanic and Nordic tribes yet Arabs, Armenians, Berbers, Persians, etc have the same Persian style "Eastern" culture. The depiction of Middle Eastern cultures in Total War games have usually hovered somewhere between lazy/generic and borderline racist with the goal of depicting "the exotic other" with bright/loud faction colors and well though out units like Eastern spearmen.

**wulfgar610** · March 31, 2015, 02:56 AM

I've generally found "Roman Mercenaries" to be a silly one. Typically the Army disarmed the men they discharged, buying their equipment as part of the discharge bonus if they owned the equipment in Imperial times. Indeed the only "mercenaries" originating form within the Imperial boarders would have been in some way or other brigands. Until this time period that is when Barbarian mercenaries could be hired by all and sundry, but these were fighting men who had lost their lands or were otherwise looking for action.

**Darios** · March 31, 2015, 03:12 AM

I would think that Roman mercenaries would have an appearance similar to this: http://s224.photobucket.com/user/mid...ia/2a.jpg.html (though spearmen probably would have been more common than swordsmen as times were bad and spears were cheaper to produce)

Barbarian mercenaries were widespread and available but "Romans" did not disappear or lose their way or life once the lands fell out of Rome's control. I know that in 6th-9th century Pannonia, "native Romanized people" provided infantry for the Avari.

**Yayattasa** · March 31, 2015, 10:09 AM

Bucelarii were private soldiers (ie. mercenaries).

**Aeratus** · March 31, 2015, 01:33 PM

Actually I would've found it more preferable if some of the unit names were genericized. For example, all eastern factions have a unit called "Armenian Spearman" as their basic spear unit. This doesn't make any sense, when factions like Afghrids and Aria are fielding Aremanian Spearmen as their backbone spear infantry. So I would've preferred a more generic identifier as "Eastern Spearmen."

Ultimately, in my opinion, whether the name should be generic or specific doesn't make a difference, as long as it reflects what it represents (or should represent). For example, a unit that only belongs to Germanic factions should be named "Germanic (spear, cavalry, etc.). On the other hand, a unit shared by many cultures (such as Armenian Spearmen, Persian Cataphract, etc.) should not have a name unique to one culture.

**Zhayedan** · March 31, 2015, 10:09 PM

good work

**Bramborough** · March 31, 2015, 10:46 PM

Nice work, OP; useful reference.

The map does show the big picture on an odd issue I've noticed here and there. The distribution of mercenary onagers seems strange. Bands of artillerists-for-hire roaming northern Europe, but not nearer the Mediterranean? Maybe this is supposed to reflect that WRE/ERE would keep a tighter state control on such military assets within their borders?