Troop Info for the period

Users who are viewing this thread

At this time frame, the Romans used a variety of armors and weaponry. The Roman Empire having been ravaged by continuous civil wars, would not have been in the financial capacity it once was, and would have been filled with a motley crew of arms and armor.

Some of which would have been new innovations on reduction to the cost to equipping a soldier, and others the continued use of arms and armor of the previous century, where equipment conditions and quantanties permitted.


ridge1.jpg


Included of these are Squamata, Hamata, and even in some cases still seen usage of Lorica Segmentata.



323x425.aspx


220px-Roman_soldier_175_aC_in_northern_province.jpg



There are some exceptions, such as in the case of Roman cavalry, which continued to see an increase of ornate themes to their helms, suggesting an ever increasing value to their utility in battle.

Shields would have varied from some traditional rectangular scutum, to ovular and semi round shields


3rd+Century+unit+1.jpg


The only things left standardized by the legionary at this point were the use of precursor javelins, and now the common use of spatha as choice of primary weaponry.

romano_spatha_large.jpg


The gap of technology and equipment access between the Romans and encroaching barbarians had also dimished by this point. With Rome no longer enjoying the benefit of this technological gap, Rome's enemies were now essentially on par with what they used, with barbarians and Romans often using the same types of equipment.
 
Great, to diminish your job are you going to ask other mods to lend you some of their graphics for armor?. For instance like Brytenwalda, that will be a kind of a help since there almost everything you need there, Im sure Brytenwalda team will no doubt help you they surely love this time period.
Of course this is just a sugestion, prehaps you prefert to do it your self. :razz:
Please don't offend by my comentary.
 
Actually I was thinking of looking at some of Llew's osp stuff to save time, specifically segmentata.

Beyond that, I should have the material from 268 to use. Squamata and hamata for example would just need long sleeves and pants textured, and then would be useable.
 
Im happy to hear that, are you going to implement sea travel and sea battles? or that you will leave for 268 bc?
 
I'll see if I can upload over some of the informational stuff I've got on the Sassanids and Palymrenians in the coming days.

 
In retrospect if there's anyone else more versed in Iranian language and Sassanid military they might be a better choice than I. Sent you three of the ebooks I've got, but I realized retroactively from the amazing stuff Invasio Barbaroum pulled off that Persian military lingo can be rather tricksy.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=290916 - This is their preview of the Sassanids for the 4th century, naturally out of this period but one can look to it as a 'blueprint' or influential source.

I'll do my best, though.  :grin:
 
Hmm that video on their page was removed by WMG? rather rediculous.

They are about what I expected (sassanids), though I wasn't sure on the mace/club use. I guess it's not too early for the mod to use them.

 
E, I can help with the Roman factions.
I did a course on the Roman Army last term. So if you need any sort of troop help, I'm your man.
Also, I think it would be more fun to have it in the 50B.C. - 30A.D. period.
 
Actually I think Sahran has provided enough to this point in regards to Romans. Looking for Goths and western Germanics though

Also, I think it would be more fun to have it in the 50B.C. - 30A.D. period.

Well that period is exhausted tbh, and it would call for a more factions and distinct equipment.

I've never really seen any representation of the third century in any games, so I think it's interesting to look at one of the least explored eras.
 
I'm a bit concerned you won't be able to find anything substantial on the pre-4th century Goths. Cursory glances seem to have everything with substance (beyond "Buncha savages!") being 4th century and onward.

This is from Google Books, the book "History of Transylvania by Bela Kopeczi" not having a preview:
The armed detachments of the Visigothic landed gentry and those of the one or several reiks made up the Visigothic army (harjis) and ... this army consisted mostly of 'professional' soldiers (gadrauhts = miles; drunhtinonds = warrior)

Other sources verify Gadrauhts being soldier, but often of an association like the Future(?) Comitatus.

I'm fairly confident some sort of precursor to the Arriere-ban/Retrobannum (General levy of all men of fighting age in the medieval period) existed for the Visigoths. You'd just need to determine the nomenclature of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ayA-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA47&dq=Visigoth+levies&hl=en&ei=SBV9TdrPOsu70QGkq9nbAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Visigoth%20levies&f=false

When it comes to Visigoths in Spain they comment that (Page 44 or [531) the nobles of the 6th-7th century had war bands of their personal retainers (Buccellarii or clientes), oath bound who made themselves the "men" of the nobles. While this is far from the 3rd century it's entirely likely to have such (mounted?) retainers for the Visigothic nobles in the 3rd century. It's a generalization but generally it seems like all Germanics had that kind of structure.


http://books.google.com/books?id=xsQxcJvaLjAC&pg=PA294&dq=Visigoth+retainers&hl=en&ei=VhZ9TZ28Dcew0QHUrpDtAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Visigoth%20retainers&f=false

This accounts I believe for the 6th century that the retainers could be called "Saiones", remarked as the "(same) name as the lower-ranking Visigothic retainers whom any lord could keep in his entourage"

http://books.google.com/books?id=tOnQDfRU-poC&pg=PA121&dq=Visigoth+retainers&hl=en&ei=VhZ9TZ28Dcew0QHUrpDtAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

This describes the Buccellarii as the higher ranked retainer to the Saio (Retainer as "The true sense of the word"). Both are free to seek other's service but have to give up some/all of their stuff they got from their lord.

More than likely the military is going to look like:
Mounted Nobles
Mounted Retainers
Foot Retainers ("Professional" Warriors)
"Unfree" tribesmen and non retainer Goths.

With possible foreign auxiliaries of Iranian Sarmatian or whatever origin.
 
Sahran said:
More than likely the military is going to look like:
Mounted Nobles
Mounted Retainers
Foot Retainers ("Professional" Warriors)
"Unfree" tribesmen and non retainer Goths.

With possible foreign auxiliaries of Iranian Sarmatian or whatever origin.

Yeah that's about what i'm thinking after reading the wargaming list you sent.

I may just go ahead and make the two barbarian factions as such; "Eastern Barbarian Tribes" "Western Barbarian Tribes", and just use the surplus troop trees to allow them recruitment to various tribes; i.e. franks/alammani, goths/sarmatians etc.

Now, there has to be some spangenhelms in an OSP somewhere i'm sure, which would constitute a major contribution since practically everyone was using them for the period. I think there might be some native helms which I can convert without too much trouble as well.
 
If it's to hard in respects to goths you could just make it fun a base it on RTW - BI......
Thou historical would be bether, just don't make all the units use orange (lol).
 
Regarding the Sassies, I know the wargaming books I sent don't provide for any armored infantry but I think in the fashion of other's depicting the Sassanids we should allow for some heavier foot:

1) I know by mid 4th century we seem to get the famous commentary of a Roman that "Their infantry are armed like gladiators, and obey orders like soldiers' servants"
2) There's the within period depictions at Dura Europas (3rd century) of mailed and even 'coifed' swordsmen. Dura Europas was an often "traded" back and forth city between the Romans and Persians and most authors suggest the mailed swordsmen are not Roman or Persian but rather local auxiliaries.

One such commentary here: http://books.google.com/books?id=6boJulGkWBgC&pg=PA25&dq=dura+europos+warrior&hl=en&ei=FCt-TZCbEIOx0QHe0f3WAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dura%20europos%20warrior&f=false

3) Mid 4th century Libanius says "... archers, slingers, heavy infantry, cavalry, and armed men from every part" ( http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/overview_sassanian_persian_military2.php )

4) The WRG DBM book has the Asavaran being the bulk of the army, and the option to upgrade them to armored horses at greater cost. While I don't agree with them being the bulk of the army, I think it does illustrate that armored unbarded horsemen would exist in sizable numbers (What I'd call "The majority minority" - not the bulk of the army, but the biggest minority in the army).

Simply put, the Parthians were more nomadic in their heritage and would have a greater proportion of unarmored skirmishing light horsemen. The Sassanids seem more "Achaemenid/Middle Eastern" in their heritage, and the rank and file of their horsemen shouldn't be flighty, skirmishy nomads but rather medium cavalry minor retinue and nobles.

From a balance standpoint it's not as though the Romans will be wont for anything, and more than likely it'll be something like Romans getting great infantry and good cavalry, while the Persians get great cavalry and so-so infantry. I wouldn't recommend such armored troops be in abundance to be sure, but the near continual legacy in Middle Eastern infantry warfare from Assyria well into the Islamic age is of the spear wall's first few ranks ideally having armor. If the Sassanids were willing to invest in infantry to any level (compared to the Parthians apparent disregard of it), then I can't fathom them never having any armored footsoldiers even if in limited quantities.

Regarding the Daylami and Ghilani and Mazandarani I would try and figure things out for you, but all I can testify to is that their legacy began as light infantry in Achaemenid Persia and at some point transitioned to heavier infantry of the line (but also still skirmishers).

On the topic of that balance, how I figure the Eastern dichotomy from a historical perspective is that Rome's got the best infantry, Palmyra has the best foot archers, Sassanids have the best horse, but everyone has presumably a little bit of everything.

 
Sahran said:
Regarding the Sassies, I know the wargaming books I sent don't provide for any armored infantry but I think in the fashion of other's depicting the Sassanids we should allow for some heavier foot:

Well there was some material that you sent which did have illustrations suggesting they had heavy infantry.

Your concepts are fairly precise in terms of balance, though there is one thing you haven't mentioned.. elephants.

As it stands, I think this is about the approx of what i'm intending:

Sassanids - Elephants, cataphracts (and archer variant), heavy mailed infantry making up the core of the elite units, with catas being most numerous among those. Beyond that would be some mounterd archers, foot archers, light infantry and perhaps slingers. Those would constitute perhaps 50-60% of the unit.


Palmyrene - Cataphracts and imitation legionaries constituting the core elite. Beyond that some horse archers, good foot archers, then a motley crew of various light infantry types.

All accounts praise their quality of cataphracts, which would be their strong point.

I'm taking a shot in the dark with the "imitation" legionaries, or using legionaries in name, but it seems unreasonable not to have them. Though they would not be on numerical par with traditional roman numbers.

The evidence against them comes from the incursion of Aurelian recapturing the Palmyrene provinces, suggesting that Palmyrene infantry was of poor quality, and their cavalry being superb. Though the text I read does not suggest they didn't have any, and perhaps judged the quality of their infantry on a broader scale.


Others cite a legion which attacked and looted rebelling Palmyrene cities, Gallica III iirc, as a source against. However that only accounts for 1 legion, where the area under influence of Palmyrene control at it's max would have had a considerable amount of legions at it's disposal.

And I find it absolutely silly where legions on a massive scale defected when the Gallic Empire split from Rome, and to suggest that no legions in the eastern provinces would have defected with the Palmyrene rebellion is quite unreasonable.

Just as well Palmyrene Empire was not some unknown upstart. Just a year earlier of the period of the mod Odenathus, when he was still alive, had at disposal all of the eastern legions, which he used to great effect. An established rapport with the legions, and the fact that aside from Odenathus being dead (his wife causing and son inheriting the defecting empire) , the command structure out of Palmyra which issued orders to legions was still in place.


Barbarians - Heavy mail nobles and retainers making up the elite cavalry and infantry. Beyond that, and making up the bulk of the army would be lighter spearmen, axemen, swordsmen. for the eastern barbs some horse archers and lancers.

Roman Empire - Quality infantry making up the bulk. Legionaries, and Legio Lanciarii. A very small portion of Clibinarii making up the cavalry force, as according to accounts in 250 A.D. there was a unit stationed in Moesia. The great majority of cavalry would be less armored though.

Spearmen and eastern archer auxilia.

Gallic Empire - Essentially the same roster as Rome, save no Clibinarii. I'll probably have a higher quantity of Frankish cavalry in place of Clibinarii.

Auxilia would be Foederati; spearmen and perhaps some Iberian slingers.



Regarding unit size that players would face, i'm going to make them the size of cohort strength. Might seem a little large, though there will be filler size parties to rank up.

Using a Roman "faction lord" as a template, this is the general size:

6 x Centurion
480 x legionary (120 -180 as Lanciarii)
120 x Cavalry
300 x Auxilia (probably 200x accounting for spearmen)
6 x vexillationes

So, some 900 for a faction lord size party, with roughly 200 more (including Aquilifer) for a faction leader representing first cohort strength. Obviously the player will recieve bigger morale and charisma bonuses to face such a size.

Haven't broken down the ratios for other factions yet.
 
I'd have to check my own stuff I sent to really back this opinion with any fact, but I think the backbone of the Sassanids should be mailed but unbarded horses. I assume these are the mounted archers you mention.

It mentions under Armies of Imperial Rome #125-126 that not every Sassanid horse in the period is shown with armored barding, but would imply they would have armor.

In the Montvert Publications Persian-Sassanids book, page 10, it mentions "Division of cavalry into heavy cavalry elite and larger number of unarmored horsemen first appeared in Iraq and West Iran in the Parthian Period". I'm partial to believe 'unarmored' means unbarded, not without any armor. It mentions on page 20 that the light horse outnumbered the armored men 10 to one, but again I am not sure if it means unbarded or with no armor whatsoever.

4) The WRG DBM book has the Asavaran being the bulk of the army, and the option to upgrade them to armored horses at greater cost. While I don't agree with them being the bulk of the army, I think it does illustrate that armored unbarded horsemen would exist in sizable numbers (What I'd call "The majority minority" - not the bulk of the army, but the biggest minority in the army).

My perspective is that only the highest nobility and their best retinue could be "Superheavy" cavalry (with barding of felt, leather, or metal). But that leaves a vast gap of the minor Azatan/Diqhan nobility who make up the backbone of the cavalry corps. Yet to lump them in with the presumably generally unarmored light horse of Central Asia and the steppe feels wrong. There's that common trend of arbitrarily dividing cavalry into light and heavy, which leaves those in the medium range rather ambiguous. So I figure you'd have:

1) Superheavy cavalry with barding and armor. Limited to top cavalry unit(s) and NPC nobles
2) "Medium" cavalry, the backbone of the cavalry corps. The Minor, small-fief holding nobility, and nobility from the non-Sassanid Iranians (Sughdians, Gilani, Daylami, Saka, ect.). They'd have armor (mail shirt or scale/lamellar hauberk and helmet) but no barding.
3) "Light" cavalry, being non Persian auxiliaries from the fringes of the empire. No armor.

The Parthian's nomadic heritage and fighting style makes it reasonable for the bulk of their horsemen to be unarmored, skirmishing light horsemen. With the Sassanids that seems less likely given the deliberate 'auxiliary' position of such nomads and the front and center role of nobles great and small in the army. Since only the greater nobility could afford bardings of leather or metal, that leaves the minor nobility to be categorized as "Light horsemen" but not at all (in my opinion) as truly "Light Horse" like the central asian nomads. Rather simply light of armor, but medium/heavy of purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom