In other rules I have played, the Roman allied contingent for Cartimandua is either allowed, or obliged, to have no legionaries.
Why did the MeG list writers decide to keep the legionaries compulsory?
It is not a bit of history I have explored in any detail. Would welcome views from anyone who has studied that bit of history.
Richard
Quick and dirty search of Tacitus gives two quotes that appear relevant.
Annals 12.40
"The emperor on hearing of the death of his representative appointed Aulus Didius in his place, that the province might not be left without a governor. Didius, though he quickly arrived, found matters far from prosperous, for the legion under the command of Manlius Valens had meanwhile been defeated, and the disaster had been exaggerated by the enemy to alarm the new general, while he again magnified it, that he might win the more glory by quelling the movement or have a fairer excuse if it lasted. This loss too had been inflicted on us by the Silures, and they were scouring the country far and wide, till Didius hurried up and dispersed them. After the capture of Caractacus, Venutius of the Brigantes, as I have already mentioned, was pre-eminent in military skill; he had long been loyal to Rome and had been defended by our arms while he was united in marriage to the queen Cartismandua. Subsequently a quarrel broke out between them, followed instantly by war, and he then assumed a hostile attitude also towards us. At first, however, they simply fought against each other, and Cartismandua by cunning stratagems captured the brothers and kinsfolk of Venutius. This enraged the enemy, who were stung with shame at the prospect of falling under the dominion of a woman. The flower of their youth, picked out for war, invaded her kingdom. This we had foreseen; some cohorts were sent to her aid and a sharp contest followed, which was at first doubtful but had a satisfactory termination. The legion under the command of Caesius Nasica fought with a similar result. For Didius, burdened with years and covered with honours, was content with acting through his officers and merely holding back the enemy. These transactions, though occurring under two propraetors, and occupying several years, I have closely connected, lest, if related separately, they might be less easily remembered. I now return to the chronological order."
and Histories 3.45
"These dissensions, and the continual rumours of civil war, raised the courage of the Britons. They were led by one Venutius, who, besides being naturally high spirited, and hating the name of Rome, was fired by his private animosity against Queen Cartismandua. Cartismandua ruled the Brigantes in virtue of her illustrious birth; and she strengthened her throne, when, by the treacherous capture of king Caractacus, she was regarded as having given its chief distinction to the triumph of Claudius Caesar. Then followed wealth and the self-indulgence of prosperity. Spurning her husband Venutius, she made Vellocatus, his armour-bearer, the partner of her bed and throne. By this enormity the power of her house was at once shaken to its base. On the side of the husband were the affections of the people, on that of the adulterer, the lust and savage temper of the Queen. Accordingly Venutius collected some auxiliaries, and, aided at the same time by a revolt of the Brigantes, brought Cartismandua into the utmost peril. She asked for some Roman troops, and our auxiliary infantry and cavalry, after fighting with various success, contrived to rescue the Queen from her peril. Venutius retained the kingdom, and we had the war on our hands."
Seems that we should allow only Auxilary Infantry and Cavalry. I will look at making the change for the 2022 lists.
Richard
Depends how you read the bit in Annals that says "The legion under the command of Caesius Nasica fought with a similar result." IMO. All a bit vague as to whether it was with the British or not.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 02, 2021, 08:32:21 AM
Depends how you read the bit in Annals that says "The legion under the command of Caesius Nasica fought with a similar result." IMO. All a bit vague as to whether it was with the British or not.
last line of histories is 'Venutius retained the kingdom, and we had the war on our hands' and from Annals 'These transactions, though occurring under two propraetors, and occupying several years, I have closely connected, lest, if related separately...'
so might well be indicative of an initial foray of Auxilia to rescue the Queen and then a more substantial response later by a Legion or part there of.
so perhaps Legions should be optional and, if taken. cannot outnumber Auxilia Tug's in the Allied command? Edit= possibly better as 'cannot outnumber Cavalry and Auxila tugs'
Maybe that option should apply to all Roman imperial allies in the PDF's? with exceptions for known full throated 'power of Rome' incursions?
Regards
Matt
Looks to me like:
1 intervention by "some cohorts"
1 intervention by a legion which may or may not be allied to a pro-Roman British faction.
1 intervention (rescue mission) by auxiliary infantry and cavalry.
Possibly the first and third are the same one, as cavalry might be included in "some cohorts" if they are "equites cohortales".
I think in the armies that can have Roman allies, the limit of Legionaries should be 1 Tug. Didn't the Romans tend to fight with their Auxiliary troops as opposed to the Legionaries anyway? Correct me if I've got that completely wrong.
Quote from: Tommy on November 07, 2021, 10:33:26 AM
I think in the armies that can have Roman allies, the limit of Legionaries should be 1 Tug. Didn't the Romans tend to fight with their Auxiliary troops as opposed to the Legionaries anyway? Correct me if I've got that completely wrong.
I think whatever the case, consideration needs to be given to people that have already built and bought lists on the current format. If a change is intended, making it so that you cant have more Legion Tugs than Auxilia/cavalry is less of an impact than limiting it to 1, while still reducing the impact of such allies on the game balance.
Quote from: Tommy on November 07, 2021, 10:33:26 AM
Didn't the Romans tend to fight with their Auxiliary troops as opposed to the Legionaries anyway?
Nope they used both but it would depend on the sort of action - but for set piece battles of the sort MeG represents they'd have both.
Quote from: Tommy on November 07, 2021, 10:33:26 AM
Didn't the Romans tend to fight with their Auxiliary troops as opposed to the Legionaries anyway? Correct me if I've got that completely wrong.
There is a well known (i.e. a Roman historian reported it in some detail) battle against the Caledonians in which the Romans were able to win by only using auxiliaries and cavalry, but the legions were still present.