The Legions! 0.4 RELEASED

[Matrix33]

However I think I did suggested this on several other occasions I would like to tell once again:
Why not to set mod's time frame around 100 BC? We could have free Gaul, Germans (Teutons and Cimbri!), mixing greek and middle eastern warfare Mithrydates, Numidaians, various iberic or thacian tribes. We could have hastati, principe and triari fighting alongside republican legionnaire. There could be cilil, "socii war" so we could meet Samniti or Lucanii or different roman factions struggling for power (Marius and Sulla).
Of course this would limit available factions somewhat - no Macedons, no Seleucids, No Carthago, no Greece etc. And of course - there would be no beloved imperial legionnaires. This would be the price.

In my opinion this was very interesting period perfect to be portrayed in M&B mod.

 

[Lord_Kosmos]

Kosmos, that is superb and I'm definitely using it! Did your brother draw those himself?

He used this http://www.prepolino.ch/navigation/0156.html black and white drawings as a basis, but all the colorization and shadowing was done by him.

*snip snap*

In my opinion this was very interesting period perfect to be portrayed in M&B mod.

Well as much as I would love a proper set timeperiode I do not recommend it for this mod atm.
There is to few gear for the factions already and limiting it to 100 BC will make us loose all the Imperia Armor + some of the greek armor would be obsolete too. This is nearly all new ancient gear in the game to date.
As already mentioned before we should concentrate on first getting the base right and then build upon it.
As long as noone here is capable of modeling armor pices we should use what we already have but make it more resonable used in game.
Like first of you fight with hastati, triarii etc and later on get the chance to recruit and train roman auxillias and imperial Legions.
This would simulate a more dynamic timeframe spanning from 200 BC till somewhere around several 100 years ad.

 

[ealabor]

Sounds good, these will certainly provide some variety, though I'd like to see the either the Casse or another Briton tribe as their own faction in Britannia. Having the Samnites as a bandit party is actually a good idea, by 82 BC they had been defeated and dispersed by Rome, this would tie in nicely with Legions' setting. I'd definitely like to see more of a challenge in terms of factions, with more wars, more parties, more fighting etc, basically more options in terms of expansion.

What I'd also like to see is some work on the Lords and Companions, such as more historical renditions and names. We already have Centurion Marcus, Borcha could represent a Gaul or otherwise, Marnid seems a bit out of place and Ymira isn't really in line with the setting at all. The same applies to Caesar, Cicero and many of the lords, who in my opinion could be substituted for more period accurate commanders etc.

Also, are there any plans to work on the villages, or will these be left as is? It would be nice to see some new models/textures for these as well as barbarian towns.

Yes im going with historical names to the time.

I've retitled the settlements in game to City / Castle / Town, as opposed to Town / Castle / Village, of which I have done the models for "Towns" already in addition to the "City" Models I showed.

As far as other factions are concerned, I have ideas to add more in, but i'd like to see if the game can handle the amount in already.

 

[dHErblay]

Hi guys!

And what about implementing the "ironman" minimod as an option in Legion? I'd love to face the possibility to cross the Styx!



Just a idea...

 

[Legionary]

You can enter the lorica segmented of hard leather??? 
It was used much more by roman troops..

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YXaW2YlkHtJhGM:http://www.costumidiscena.it/eventi/images/ar114.jpg

 

[Nordmann]

I've heard this type of Segmentata mentioned before, however I can find little or no information regarding it's existence or use; the link you provided appears to be dead. It seems somewhat unlikely that leather would provide better defensive properties than steel, and given that it would be just as restrictive in terms of movement would seem a poor substitute, even if it were lighter. The use of Lorica Hamata and Squamata was never fully superseded by Segmentata, since Rome would have had vast stocks from disbanded units and retired soldiers, Hamata or Squamata would have provided the perfect trade off between mobility and protection if and where it was needed. Designing an all-leather variation of Segmentata seems somewhat pointless, at least in my opinion.

 

[sparto]

i have many pictures of romans i love to see some new helmets like in these pictures and better foot ware  sandals  http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/5755/bbbbnme1.jpg  http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6819/nnbbvvvffdj6.jpg  http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9234/nnnbvcccddsszw1.jpg http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3084/nnhooiuqv3.jpg

 

[Nordmann]

I have that book, actually I have most of that particular set of books, very good for reference. I would definitely recommend them, if anyone's interested in getting hold of a few Amazon have them and many others.

 

[Scaevolus]

I've heard this type of Segmentata mentioned before, however I can find little or no information regarding it's existence or use; the link you provided appears to be dead. It seems somewhat unlikely that leather would provide better defensive properties than steel, and given that it would be just as restrictive in terms of movement would seem a poor substitute, even if it were lighter. The use of Lorica Hamata and Squamata was never fully superseded by Segmentata, since Rome would have had vast stocks from disbanded units and retired soldiers, Hamata or Squamata would have provided the perfect trade off between mobility and protection if and where it was needed. Designing an all-leather variation of Segmentata seems somewhat pointless, at least in my opinion.

I really could not have said it myself.  Close to ten years of research on the Roman military and all things regarding it...and I haven't seen a single reference to a leather Segmentata.

In fact, here's two links that all should check out on the RomanArmy.com forum regarding the issue:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=167595&sid=5b59761f243de1bae875d2abfbe818bb

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=19287

^As you can see in the second forum thread...no one took the poster seriously when he wanted to make a leather segmentata.  That's because there's no archaeological evidence to support such a creation.  And when you don't have solid evidence from the past, well then you're just pulling **** out of your ass.

 

[sparto]

I have that book, actually I have most of that particular set of books, very good for reference. I would definitely recommend them, if anyone's interested in getting hold of a few Amazon have them and many others.

yes indeed  also i hear  they are making an Egypt mod  maybe they code 2 horses and make a http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/3847/gdffgfem6.jpg  Ben  Hur

 

[Merlkir]

The idea of leather segmentata is still very popular among the "normal" people. If you watch some movies with romans in them, it's quite obvious why. (Last Legion for instance..)

 

[dHErblay]

IMO (and a bit because I'm in historical research stuff...) if we had trouble to have real medieval armors due to the fact that leather is not very tough to pass trough times... imagine leather armors coming from 2000 years...

Ok, no proof on period image and text, but, not everything in that time (the difference of them and us!) was represented on a "media"... you see.

Experimental archeology propose a theory that : if it's easy to make and to use, and that we don't have proof of the non-existense of them, they should have existed, maybe in a "marginal" way, but existed!

IMO, as always....

 

[ealabor]

IMO (and a bit because I'm in historical research stuff...) if we had trouble to have real medieval armors due to the fact that leather is not very tough to pass trough times... imagine leather armors coming from 2000 years...

Ok, no proof on period image and text, but, not everything in that time (the difference of them and us!) was represented on a "media"... you see.

Experimental archeology propose a theory that : if it's easy to make and to use, and that we don't have proof of the non-existense of them, they should have existed, maybe in a "marginal" way, but existed!

IMO, as always....

Come up with something tangible and I might consider it

Im pretty sure that It would have been mentioned by historians that such an armor would have been used.
CERTAINLY if it was effective, and CERTAINLY by Roman historians

 

[Legionary]

I've heard this type of Segmentata mentioned before, however I can find little or no information regarding it's existence or use; the link you provided appears to be dead. It seems somewhat unlikely that leather would provide better defensive properties than steel, and given that it would be just as restrictive in terms of movement would seem a poor substitute, even if it were lighter. The use of Lorica Hamata and Squamata was never fully superseded by Segmentata, since Rome would have had vast stocks from disbanded units and retired soldiers, Hamata or Squamata would have provided the perfect trade off between mobility and protection if and where it was needed. Designing an all-leather variation of Segmentata seems somewhat pointless, at least in my opinion.

I really could not have said it myself.  Close to ten years of research on the Roman military and all things regarding it...and I haven't seen a single reference to a leather Segmentata.

In fact, here's two links that all should check out on the RomanArmy.com forum regarding the issue:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=167595&sid=5b59761f243de1bae875d2abfbe818bb

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=19287

^As you can see in the second forum thread...no one took the poster seriously when he wanted to make a leather segmentata.  That's because there's no archaeological evidence to support such a creation.  And when you don't have solid evidence from the past, well then you're just pulling **** out of your ass.

I think that Romans used this armour, leather lorica segmentata...I read it in  some articles and i also watched it in many films...read this http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_00000d.htm  I suggest to introduce this armour and to add a new class of soldier after princeps:i would call it 'Legionary with leather lorica segmentata'..This legionary is speedier than the classic one,its armour defense is  more powerful than lorica hamata but less strong than steel lorica segmentata

 

[Lord_Kosmos]

You can watch as many roman based movie as you want, this makes nothing shown there anything more historical as any other evidence may it be archeological or in books. Those movies (may it be spartacus, Ben H or such documentations as shown on BBC etc) are only either bound to the budged of the producer or just made up to have some cool looking romans show off. They are no base for discussion.

http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/welc/beginner/faq1.htm#armour2 this is only one of the many sites online (even more books are around) that scratch that particular question and try to find an answer. And even they are not to be trusted fully. All is based on the current stand of knowledge of the ancient times, but I am rather shure that lether was not wiedly used by the roman troops (at least not the main forces).
And lether beeing superior to the chain mail hamata ? Sorry but no.

BTW I made some tiny progress in my attemp to make some rearangement of the armor. I have added a bronze recoloration of the legionary helmet like this one

 

[Shiro]

I think someone had posted an article arguing for the existence of the leather segmentata,on this thread itself IIRc. unfortunately it was in italian.

 

[Nordmann]

I'm in agreement with Kosmos, there is no proof to it's existence, without this you can not say that it actually existed or was used. Going by some obscure website or movie is just plain silly, likely the website is run by people with no understanding of what they claim to present, and the movie is some Hollywood bastardisation of history; not really good sources of information at all.

As I have said, leather Segmentata seems very unlikely and is quite possibly a modern creation by armour enthusiasts, wishing to create a light replica. Legions should stick with items and equipment that have been archaeologically proven, not theorised or rumoured.

Kosmos, it would definitely be nice to see some variety and accuracy in Legionary equipment, both Gallic and Italic helmets are known to have been made in iron, coppr alloy, bronze and brass, however won't all the Legionaries then have your bronze helmets? I'd simply prefer to stick to the current appearance, as every Legionary equipped with a bronze helmet might look somewhat odd, unless there's a way to randomly assign units different equipment?

 

[Scaevolus]

I think that Romans used this armour, leather lorica segmentata...I read it in  some articles and i also watched it in many films...read this http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_00000d.htm  I suggest to introduce this armour and to add a new class of soldier after princeps:i would call it 'Legionary with leather lorica segmentata'..This legionary is speedier than the classic one,its armour defense is  more powerful than lorica hamata but less strong than steel lorica segmentata

I used Google to translate that page.  Unfortunately the English was so broken throughout the whole article that some parts are just random words put together.  I did, however, get the main point.  The article claims, just like dHErblay, that since we don't have any evidence of it NOT existing then that must mean that it DID.  It's a waste of time trying to understand how this logic works.  Not only that, but the site claims that a leather lorica segmentata would be harder to penetrate than a lorica hamata.  Let's see...leather or metal...leather or metal...

Going with your evidence that you saw it in a movie, just think about how inaccurate movies are on these time periods.  It's a widely known fact that Hollywood does whatever the hell they want, and there's no reason they wouldn't when using a creative license.  As long as it looks cool that's all they care about.
An example would be the recently famous HBO series Rome.  There are so many inaccurate representations regarding the armor, the weapons, and the tactics that I could go on to write a damn book on it all. (At least they didn't incorporate a leather lorica segmentata)

You can watch as many roman based movie as you want, this makes nothing shown there anything more historical as any other evidence may it be archeological or in books. Those movies (may it be spartacus, Ben H or such documentations as shown on BBC etc) are only either bound to the budged of the producer or just made up to have some cool looking romans show off. They are no base for discussion.

Bingo.

I'm in agreement with Kosmos, there is no proof to it's existence, without this you can not say that it actually existed or was used. Going by some obscure website or movie is just plain silly, likely the website is run by people with no understanding of what they claim to present, and the movie is some Hollywood bastardisation of history; not really good sources of information at all.

As I have said, leather Segmentata seems very unlikely and is quite possibly a modern creation by armour enthusiasts, wishing to create a light replica. Legions should stick with items and equipment that have been archaeologically proven, not theorised or rumoured.

Another coffin nail on the leather lorica segmentata.

 

[Legionary]

I think that Romans used this armour, leather lorica segmentata...I read it in  some articles and i also watched it in many films...read this http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_00000d.htm  I suggest to introduce this armour and to add a new class of soldier after princeps:i would call it 'Legionary with leather lorica segmentata'..This legionary is speedier than the classic one,its armour defense is  more powerful than lorica hamata but less strong than steel lorica segmentata

I used Google to translate that page.  Unfortunately the English was so broken throughout the whole article that some parts are just random words put together.  I did, however, get the main point.  The article claims, just like dHErblay, that since we don't have any evidence of it NOT existing then that must mean that it DID.  It's a waste of time trying to understand how this logic works.  Not only that, but the site claims that a leather lorica segmentata would be harder to penetrate than a lorica hamata.  Let's see...leather or metal...leather or metal...

Going with your evidence that you saw it in a movie, just think about how inaccurate movies are on these time periods.  It's a widely known fact that Hollywood does whatever the hell they want, and there's no reason they wouldn't when using a creative license.  As long as it looks cool that's all they care about.
An example would be the recently famous HBO series Rome.  There are so many inaccurate representations regarding the armor, the weapons, and the tactics that I could go on to write a damn book on it all. (At least they didn't incorporate a leather lorica segmentata)

You can watch as many roman based movie as you want, this makes nothing shown there anything more historical as any other evidence may it be archeological or in books. Those movies (may it be spartacus, Ben H or such documentations as shown on BBC etc) are only either bound to the budged of the producer or just made up to have some cool looking romans show off. They are no base for discussion.

Bingo.

I'm in agreement with Kosmos, there is no proof to it's existence, without this you can not say that it actually existed or was used. Going by some obscure website or movie is just plain silly, likely the website is run by people with no understanding of what they claim to present, and the movie is some Hollywood bastardisation of history; not really good sources of information at all.

As I have said, leather Segmentata seems very unlikely and is quite possibly a modern creation by armour enthusiasts, wishing to create a light replica. Legions should stick with items and equipment that have been archaeologically proven, not theorised or rumoured.

Another coffin nail on the leather lorica segmentata.

In "Colonna Traiana"   you can see that those may not be iron armour!
It 's writting in the article

 

[Merlkir]

the very shape of a segmentata is made such to be bendable and alowing movement in to some extent when made of metal! It would have little sense to make it that way of leather which is rather well bendable!
Also, leather itself is not very protective...If you want protection, use hides with hair, they're at least comparable to the so popular (mostly by roleplayers) boiled leather.