Infantry and Battle Tactics Thread

[tentaku]

Thanks guys for pointing out about recovering stamina. It must be much slower than original version then because I usually let my army rest a while after breaking through doors to recover stamina, but one siege I rested them for like a very long time and they did not recover any stamina, and the battle ran out of time and it costed me a defeat. I almost thought if I needed to park my army in the shade to recover stamina....

[Rad]

He's got a point though. Machimoi were not, as some fanboys seem to think, medieval style levies. Like Kleruchoi, Machimoi were a social class that was expected to join army when necessary and often served as guards or peacekeepers, and therefore did have some training and preparedness for combat from early age. Most societies of antiquity did have some kind of class or caste that was more prepared for war than general population, and drew majority of their armed forces from them.

Far being from me to underestimate them, but I haven't exactly found records of their exceptional service during EBs period. They are mentioned to have been present at the battle of Raphia, serving as pikemen. On the other hand, the warriors of many peoples - Celts, Iberians, Germans, just about everyone from modern day Italy, Thracians, Greeks, Dacians etc are mentioned as to have been very fierce combatants.

Marian reforms allowed into frontline service large body of troops that were, until joining, totally unprepared, both physically and psychically. While the year or two of intense training they usually got before their first battle did a lot to harden them, it takes longer to instill some degree of psychical resilience to combat and willingness to kill, and I dare to say that in this matter, legionnaires were on average less prepared than most Celts or even Machimoi that were in military sevice.

I disagree.
When talking about the professional Roman armies, one has to consider that most recruits probably joined at the ages of 17-18 in order to make the most of their service. Would Celts/Machimoi become soldiers earlier than that? Even if so, I cannot see an advantage. The Celts and the Romans both had very heroic and martial cultures, the heads of both cultures' youths would have been filled... brainwashed with tales of glory since birth.

When it comes physical fitness prior to becoming a combatant, I doubt that there was a noticeable difference between any nations existing in the geographical area that EB covers. Unlike today, most youths of Antiquity did not have the luxury to spend their day in front of a computer or tv, but were engaged in some sort of demanding physical labor.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I mean, the problem with that, Rad, is that we're talking about Antiquity.

Now I've studied the Battle of Stalingrad, I've studied the First World War and Antiquity too - and let's just say that we have here very different timeframes.

We *know*, for instance, that things were what they were because Polybius and Caesar wrote about it. But coming to think of it, did they write a first hand account of events?

Did they write as professional historians? Did they write as real time battle reporters? No, absolutely not.

So the problem here lies in the obvious: we don't have detailed logs, we don't have many surviving accounts. 75% of the events of the late Roman Republic, for instance, come from Cicero. Lots of works were lost. This is true for every part of the world which lacked a printing press: copying works required a lot of toil and expense, books were rare, not everybody could read them, and they were easily subject to calamities.

So let's just say that the historical bias when dealing with Antiquity is very, very glaring. Especially because history is often written by the victors, who tend to exaggerate their own prowesses.

This is often the case in Western historiography, when dealing with WW2 and the Eastern front - we have a paradigm that was visibly biased towards the Wehrmacht. But now, thanks to the renewed work of professional scholars and the analysis of Soviet sources, we can now paint a different picture from what Hollywood and popular imagination try to convey.

With the Romans we don't have such a thing. We have these dispersed and scarce surviving accounts, no doubt based upon hearsay and questionable sources already when they were written. In sum, even though you can say that "Romans were the best" because Polybius or Livy say so, does that mean it's true?

That's the difficulty, per se. But let's just say that an average Roman legionary, with 1-2 years of service, wasn't that much above what the average grunt or serviceman on the battlefield is today. In many aspects, he didn't reach that level because training, feeding, physical exercises and conditioning were obviously not as good back then as they were now.

And we need to remember also that "Elite" is something very clearly defined nowadays as it was back then. "Elite" troops in the Ancient-Medieval period often were raised to be Elite: they were privileged, and spent their whole years since childhood training. Knights, Samurai and Spartan Hoplites would be a case in point: they would start intense training and conditioning since a very young age, and would often have the means to support themselves while dedicating themselves full or part time to martial pursuits for the whole span of their best years.

That's different from the average grunt who would get, at best, 1-2 years of professional training or even less before being thrown into the fray or disbanded. Now we know service in the Imperial legions could last up to 25 years, but even then, was all that spent into physical conditioning and training, or was that period also spent sitting idly on a garrison somewhere in Germania?

It's very hard to quantify, and even more to translate into particular stats in a computer game, this sort of reality. But let's just say that most legionaries were on the level of average grunts, and in-game, EB depicts them as such. Not really an "elite" class into themselves.

[Rad]

I mean, the problem with that, Rad, is that we're talking about Antiquity.

Now I've studied the Battle of Stalingrad, I've studied the First World War and Antiquity too - and let's just say that we have here very different timeframes.

We *know*, for instance, that things were what they were because Polybius and Caesar wrote about it. But coming to think of it, did they write a first hand account of events?

Did they write as professional historians? Did they write as real time battle reporters? No, absolutely not.

So the problem here lies in the obvious: we don't have detailed logs, we don't have many surviving accounts. 75% of the events of the late Roman Republic, for instance, come from Cicero. Lots of works were lost. This is true for every part of the world which lacked a printing press: copying works required a lot of toil and expense, books were rare, not everybody could read them, and they were easily subject to calamities.

So let's just say that the historical bias when dealing with Antiquity is very, very glaring. Especially because history is often written by the victors, who tend to exaggerate their own prowesses.

This is often the case in Western historiography, when dealing with WW2 and the Eastern front - we have a paradigm that was visibly biased towards the Wehrmacht. But now, thanks to the renewed work of professional scholars and the analysis of Soviet sources, we can now paint a different picture from what Hollywood and popular imagination try to convey.

With the Romans we don't have such a thing. We have these dispersed and scarce surviving accounts, no doubt based upon hearsay and questionable sources already when they were written. In sum, even though you can say that "Romans were the best" because Polybius or Livy say so, does that mean it's true?

That's the difficulty, per se. But let's just say that an average Roman legionary, with 1-2 years of service, wasn't that much above what the average grunt or serviceman on the battlefield is today. In many aspects, he didn't reach that level because training, feeding, physical exercises and conditioning were obviously not as good back then as they were now.

And we need to remember also that "Elite" is something very clearly defined nowadays as it was back then. "Elite" troops in the Ancient-Medieval period often were raised to be Elite: they were privileged, and spent their whole years since childhood training. Knights, Samurai and Spartan Hoplites would be a case in point: they would start intense training and conditioning since a very young age, and would often have the means to support themselves while dedicating themselves full or part time to martial pursuits for the whole span of their best years.

That's different from the average grunt who would get, at best, 1-2 years of professional training or even less before being thrown into the fray or disbanded. Now we know service in the Imperial legions could last up to 25 years, but even then, was all that spent into physical conditioning and training, or was that period also spent sitting idly on a garrison somewhere in Germania?

It's very hard to quantify, and even more to translate into particular stats in a computer game, this sort of reality. But let's just say that most legionaries were on the level of average grunts, and in-game, EB depicts them as such. Not really an "elite" class into themselves.

What is your point, exactly? This whole discussion sprang up because I thought your statements about Romans to to be subpar fighters on the individual level incorrect. Nothing you said so far validates your claims. If I am reading this correctly, you are now comparing the training/living conditions of a Roman soldier with those of a modern day one.

Please stop what appears to be some form of filibuster and get back to the topic. If you consider the Roman soldier less capable than his enemies, why is it so?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

No probs, we get back on topic: Infantry tactics. I said most Roman legions were comparableto Kleurochoi and Machimoi in quality. That's my claim. Anyway getting back on topic.

[Rad]

I said most Roman legions were comparableto Kleurochoi and Machimoi in quality. That's my claim.

I agree that the Kleurochoi/Katoikoi would be quite similar to Roman soldiers. They were Hellenistic era soldier-settlers. The Diadochi wouldn't give them lands and incomes without good reason. I remain unconvinced about the Machimoi, though. Although I cannot remember any records of them performing poorly, I also cannot remember reading praises about them. My impression is that they were a no longer a dedicated fighting class in the period that EB covers - much like how the Ottoman Janissaries had declined by the late 18th and early 19th century (and even earlier than that).

However...

The thing is: while the average Roman soldier probably didn't have the best physical conditioning or the best skills in fighting

This was your original claim, the one I felt was incorrect.

[QuintusSertorius]

The Ptolemaioi didn't make a great deal of use of the Machimoi outside Egypt. They performed policing, patrolling and other internal security roles.

[Rad]

Interesting. So, they and the Vigiles had some similar duties?

[ramsesii]

The Ptolemaioi didn't make a great deal of use of the Machimoi outside Egypt. They performed policing, patrolling and other internal security roles.

I think this also had to do with trust.
The machmoi were Egyptians, the ruling class wasn't so if the machmoi became a too big factor in the military they became a potential source of rebellion.
Therefore the underperformance/underequipment/underuse of Machmoi was a choice bij the Ptolemys.

If Egypt would have been ruled by a native dynasty, the Machmoi would have to fill all military roles.
Then you would also see eliteunits composed off Machmoi.

I would love to see an option where all macedonian units were replaced by native units when you Pharao was a native Egyptian.

[QuintusSertorius]

I think this also had to do with trust.
The machmoi were Egyptians, the ruling class wasn't so if the machmoi became a too big factor in the military they became a potential source of rebellion.
Therefore the underperformance/underequipment/underuse of Machmoi was a choice bij the Ptolemys.

If Egypt would have been ruled by a native dynasty, the Machmoi would have to fill all military roles.
Then you would also see eliteunits composed off Machmoi.

I would love to see an option where all macedonian units were replaced by native units when you Pharao was a native Egyptian.

Yes, and the half-century of rebellion that came after the employment of Machimoi at the battle of Raphia would tend to suggest the Ptolemaioi's suspicions were well-founded.

Makedonian units come from colonies and polis buildings, an Allied Government in Egypt will give you only native units, for the most part. Even a lot of factional Hellenistic governments will only give you native units, so there's no shortage of them. Though it's worth noting there was a fair degree of Hellenising amongst Egyptian elites (since that's how you got ahead) so Greek-style unit wouldn't vanish overnight.

[Rad]

I think this also had to do with trust.
The machmoi were Egyptians, the ruling class wasn't so if the machmoi became a too big factor in the military they became a potential source of rebellion.
Therefore the underperformance/underequipment/underuse of Machmoi was a choice bij the Ptolemys.

If Egypt would have been ruled by a native dynasty, the Machmoi would have to fill all military roles.

Good point(s)!

[hlidskjalf]

The thing is: while the average Roman soldier probably didn't have the best physical conditioning or the best skills in fighting

So, I can try to address this. The following is taken from Aldrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army

"A recruit's training at first focused on physical fitness and accustoming the new soldiers to discipline. Closer-order drill was an especially important element, and the men were taught to march in step and keep formation. They also underwent route marches to improve their stamina. Vegetius claims that they were expected to complete a march of 20 Roman miles in five hours at the ordinary pace, and 24 miles in the same time at the quick step. There was also great emphasis on running and jumping. At least some of these exercises were performed in full kit and, in the case of the marches, often carrying packs and extra gear. Weapons' training employed a system copied from the gladiatorial schools. A 6'ft post was erected and the recruit taught to fence by aiming blows at it. He was issued with a wooden sword and a wicker shield, both of the normal size but considerably heavier than the real thing. Therefore, as he practised the regulation cuts, thrusts and parries, the heavy equipment also helped to strengthen his arms. Pila would also be thrown, using the post as a target, and it is possible that there were basic instruction in other weapons, such as slings, bows and the various forms of artillery. Vegetius also recommended that all troops be taught to ride and swim. The level of training gradiuaclly increased. Recruits would then begin to fight mock battles, using practice weapons or real weapons with their points covered with leather discs to prevent serious injuries. At first pairs would fight each other, and then larger groups until exercises involved entire units. In all, basic training probably lasted for several months, until the recruit became a fully qualified member of the unit. Training did not end, but was a continuous activity throughout the remainder of his service, and Roman commanders were supposed to keep their units well drilled and prepared for actual war."

My understanding is roughly this: in the middle/late Republic, the ability of individual legionaries was dependent on: how much the commanders bothered to train the men and how long the armies were deployed. Remember that Scipio novelized intensive training which probably accounted for much of his success, but that intensive training remained up to the magistrates, most of whom probably preferred to complete their campaign before their office ran out, and so didn't have much interest in spending excessive time training and cultivating well-prepared legions. So for this period, the ability of the individual in a legion surely varied wildly, such being that there isn't an "average Roman legionary."

Toward Vegetius' time it's clear the training became intensive and regulated and so the "average" legionary was probably massively beyond the ability of seasonal-fighting campaign warriors.

[Septentrionalis]

Is there any way that a moderator could salvage this EB2 tactics thread by separating the discussion about general/historical military training into a dedicated thread? I know that in some forums moderators do that regularly.

I love both discussions and the fact that the EB2 forum is alive and productive, but it makes discussing the original subject hard at the moment.

@MLvP; you mentioned a heroic victory being ruined by an unspecified error after the end of the battle statistics screen. That is almost certainly the product of not applying the 4gb fix discussed in other threads. If you have not done so yet, please take steps to allow for 4gb of memory for the game or you will experience a lot more of that. The longer and more heroic the battle, the more likely it is to get the error.

[Rad]

Is there any way that a moderator could salvage this EB2 tactics thread by separating the discussion about general/historical military training into a dedicated thread? I know that in some forums moderators do that regularly.

I love both discussions and the fact that the EB2 forum is alive and productive, but it makes discussing the original subject hard at the moment.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Domaje]

I believe the blend between gameplay and history is what EBII is all about !

[BasilHawkins]

switching tired cohortes for fresh ones really improved my gameplay experience so much its a beautiful way of showing dominance on the battlefield


also gallic keltic heavy infantry make excellent backup for roman legion flanks

[Domeric_Bolton]

I have a Question.

How do you "switch Cohorts" without that entailing massive losses on the cohorts that are withdrawn? Do you send in the Princeps *through* the already fighting Hastati, *then* Order the Hastati to move back?


Because when I (VH/H) try to do it, sometimes the Hastati rout, but they always sustain losses to the point where I conclude that keeping the exhausted Hastati fighting and Using the Princeps as a flanking force is actually more effective.

How do you do it?

[Domeric_Bolton]

I have a Question.

How do you "switch Cohorts" without that entailing massive losses on the cohorts that are withdrawn? Do you send in the Princeps *through* the already fighting Hastati, *then* Order the Hastati to move back?


Because when I (VH/H) try to do it, sometimes the Hastati rout, but they always sustain losses to the point where I conclude that keeping the exhausted Hastati fighting and Using the Princeps as a flanking force is actually more effective.

How do you do it?

[tentaku]

Because when I (VH/H) try to do it, sometimes the Hastati rout, but they always sustain losses to the point where I conclude that keeping the exhausted Hastati fighting and Using the Princeps as a flanking force is actually more effective.

my experience is first i tell the unit to hold position before engaging, so their individual soldiers don't push out too deep into the enemy formation??? Then when it is time to rotate, it is easier to disengage. Also it helps to cover its retreat by engaging the enemy with another unit first.

[BasilHawkins]

I have a Question.

How do you "switch Cohorts" without that entailing massive losses on the cohorts that are withdrawn? Do you send in the Princeps *through* the already fighting Hastati, *then* Order the Hastati to move back?


Because when I (VH/H) try to do it, sometimes the Hastati rout, but they always sustain losses to the point where I conclude that keeping the exhausted Hastati fighting and Using the Princeps as a flanking force is actually more effective.

How do you do it?

VH/H on Romani Campaign here mate i do it by assisting the tired line with drawing it on the tired line and letting them run to it when they are on place i let the tired soldiers slide behind and draw a formation for them..

and to the guy a few posts before that said he experienced it that the units need way longer to recover even till the battle ends..

try changing the units before they are exhausted to death i never experience things like that my soldiers come freesh back to battle to scare the out of the foes