Hello late antiquity fans 8)
A topic I pick at from time to time.
The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused. OK, the sources are a bit patchy but do include Ammianus who is invaluable. I'd like to revisit the classification with an eye to tidying the list up a bit - assuming RJC agrees with any finding of course ;D
So, I was wondering what others think the infantry classification(s) in this list should be, and why.
Mildly surprised nobody has any thoughts on this.
So you looking at 2nd half of 4th century onwards?
I think for Roman line of battle infantry short spear, shieldwall, shieldcover would be allowed by Ammianus' descriptions of battle, but they aren't really detailed enough to be prescriptive. His description of the missile exchange pre - contact at Strasboug gives no indication that the Romans had any qualitative advantage over their German opponents in that regard.
The shieldwall characteristic is something useful against many of their historical opponents, of course.
Some superior allowed - then melee expert, integral shooters as optional characteristics.
I would probably allow drilled or formed, to cover newly recruited units, and possible deterioration among some units. Vegetius I think bemoans the lack of discipline amongst current day troops.
Trouble then is do you make them flexible? Certainly no indication that opponents such as Germans, which can often be flexible,, had any terrain advantage. So possibly allow something like Viking Huscarles for the Romans - either close with shieldwall or flexible without. I would probably allow shieldwall to continue into the later period, such as Early Byzantine.
The idea of giving them Shieldwall certainly has its attractions and the use of shields is a recurring theme in Ammianus for resisting enemy in melee.
The issue we have had with this is that as it cancels the Shatter from Devastating Chargers it means that "warband" types lose their potential to have a really significant impact in the charge phase, effectively reducing their chances of that to the effect of lucky Skulls without also getting the +2 claims if the Skull or S. The game balance between Roman infantry and Warbands is pretty much predicated on a "ferocious charge" - although, of course, one could argue that this is more of a trope than reality.
On the other hand looking at Ammianus' description of the Battle of Argentoratum, it was only the Alemanni who were led by a group of nobles (i.e. the Superior ones allowed in the list) who had a major impact so you certainly could argue based on that that the DC being cancelled is justified. Caveat of course is it is a single battle, however, we don't have much that goes into the sort of detail that Ammianus' account of this battle does - the old sources issue. The nearest other battle with something similar might be Ad Salices where part of a Roman army (probably limitanei I suspect) was in trouble from a wild Gothic* charge.
* as mentioned elsewhere, the Goths in the early part of their rebellion may justify a different classification than the list currently allows.
The infantry classification also needs to work against the Sasanid cavalry as well of course, and the Romans seem to have frequently taken the fight to the Persians rather than being charged by them - no doubt the archery is a good incentive ;D
Ammianus mentions a couple of times the Romans pressing forward quickly to minimise the effects of archery, but doesn't specify if its vs mounted or foot.
So Roman infantry would be down one factor in the impact phase vs Sassanid mounted, but more resilient to the cataphracts in negating the shatter/shove.
Re the Germans - yes, a change to shieldwall for the Romans would affect the chance of significant impact in the charge phase.
To be honest, in most games I have seen recently the shatter/shove doesn't play a huge part because the Roman player normally partially negates it, either by aligning/charging at angles/narrow deployment of separated TugS so as to minimise the number of files which can benefit from it.
Possibly some small number of Germans could be classified as melee expert to make up for it. By the 4th century they had been in contact with Romans for so long and served with them that it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable.
Quote from: accard on August 15, 2022, 04:06:49 PM
Ammianus mentions a couple of times the Romans pressing forward quickly to minimise the effects of archery, but doesn't specify if its vs mounted or foot.
IMO the context makes it pretty clear that it is cavalry.
Quote from: accard on August 15, 2022, 04:06:49 PM
Re the Germans - yes, a change to shieldwall for the Romans would affect the chance of significant impact in the charge phase.
To be honest, in most games I have seen recently the shatter/shove doesn't play a huge part because the Roman player normally partially negates it, either by aligning/charging at angles/narrow deployment of separated TugS so as to minimise the number of files which can benefit from it.
True. The Romans going 2 wide and having a 1 BW gap between units is a pretty effective way of neutralising Shatter anyway - been there, done that 8)
Quote
Possibly some small number of Germans could be classified as melee expert to make up for it. By the 4th century they had been in contact with Romans for so long and served with them that it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable.
Less keen on this as the underlying idea is that the Romans should be better in a prolonged fight assuming that the barbarians don't damage them sufficiently in their charge.
Thinking about the charge if the Romans are SSp, Shieldwall and the Germanic barbarians are (mainly) SSp, DC then at equal quality the barbarians will be Yellow vs. White without Shatter compared with Green vs. White with Shatter against Impact Weapon and no Shieldwall. I think the latter has a better chance, however, as you noted above in practice it doesn't work out that way once a Roman player works out the fairly simple counter measures :(
Be nice if other would chip in with their views on this ;D
Germans as charge only javelin, impact weapon and short spear ?
Or make a rule change so a shatter can propagate over a 1 BW gap via a supporting file.
I think it best at the moment to avoid rule changes.
Ah, a pity. :)
I was thinking of a change even more severe than Lawrence.
Let troops with shatter/shove in the charge phase in a supporting file position roll a combat dice as though fighting straight ahead.
Would get rid of the shenanigans to reduce files in combat in the charge phase.
That occurred to me, but I thought it might have too much impact on other interactions.
Indeed. Having no supporting files in the charge phase is a specific design feature.
Moving back to the topic - what apart from short spear/shieldwall would you see as possible options for change?
My initial thoughts were more about a tidy up of the current options.
On that basis I think I'd make the Impact Weapons and the Unskilled Javelin (the auxilia) options all/none for one or the other. IMO by the end of the C3rd any previous distinction between legions and auxilia have to all intents (and certainly for MeG classifications) gone and so all should be the same on that basis.
The option for Darts, SSp can stay as is though.
Ammianus' continued use of terms such as "levis armaturae auxilis" and "velitis" through to Julian's reign suggest that the lanciarii option should be available later than it currently is, but maybe restricted to just 1 unit.
A few other cosmetic changes as well - I found a reference to Huns being used in 383 CE for example.
QuoteQuote from: accard on August 15, 2022, 04:06:49 PM
Re the Germans - yes, a change to shieldwall for the Romans would affect the chance of significant impact in the charge phase.
To be honest, in most games I have seen recently the shatter/shove doesn't play a huge part because the Roman player normally partially negates it, either by aligning/charging at angles/narrow deployment of separated TugS so as to minimise the number of files which can benefit from it.
True. The Romans going 2 wide and having a 1 BW gap between units is a pretty effective way of neutralising Shatter anyway - been there, done that 8)
But it has a cost in command cards as coordination is a bit more difficult
Not overly onerous for Romans in my experience.
Quote
The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused.
If any part of the Imperial Roman list need changes, it is the cavalry options and classifications above all else: the infantry is pretty decent as-is, if.
Short Spear Infantry should have the Shieldwall characteristic as an option, so too in the Foederate and early Eastern Roman/Byzantine lists, etc. Impact Weapon foot with Shieldwall would be broken.
I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.
The Imperial Roman list should have the options for Superior/Veteran Equites increased, 0-12 bases. Examples include the cavalry under Aurelian vs. Cataphracts at Lake Antioch, Constantine's veteran cavalry, etc.
There should be a Cataphractarii/Charging Lancer/call-them-what-you-like option. Currently it makes little sense that this troop type is an option in the Early Imperial list, then disappears, then re-appears in the chaos of the Foederate Period. I'm well aware of the confusion/debate over the exact terms and equipment/fighting style, but it makes little sense to force all Cataphractarii/Clibanarii units to only be FA/Long Spear as currently.
CdlT
Quote from: Chevalier de la Terre on August 17, 2022, 01:54:20 PM
Quote
The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused.
I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.
I discovered there's a super-cheesy way to get around this problem of being forced to be in 8s. I don't know if anyone has spotted it before.
Take two 6s and a 4.
Quote from: LawrenceG on August 17, 2022, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: Chevalier de la Terre on August 17, 2022, 01:54:20 PM
Quote
The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused.
I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.
I discovered there's a super-cheesy way to get around this problem of being forced to be in 8s. I don't know if anyone has spotted it before.
Take two 6s and a 4.
What an astonishing idea :o ;D
It works quite well in practice as well 8)
FWIW a lot of lists have similar "irritating" maxima for some trop types. Whilst arbitrary (and I have included such in lists I have contributed) they do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.
Quotethey do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.
They really don't: they take away from list-building variety and reduce each army to a more limited set of workable options.
CdlT
Quote from: Chevalier de la Terre on August 17, 2022, 01:54:20 PM
Short Spear Infantry should have the Shieldwall characteristic as an option, so too in the Foederate and early Eastern Roman/Byzantine lists, etc. Impact Weapon foot with Shieldwall would be broken.
Agree on both counts. Thought I'd mentioned the former, but maybe it was elsewhere.
Quote
I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.
In addition to Lawrence's point I'd add that there are 0-24 Superior auxilia types allowed as well as the 0-16 you refer to. Now they aren't quite as tough as the IW types, but having used some they are still pretty handy troops.
Note that this gives potentially more Superior types than the EIR - something I think is wrong and needs adjustment (although in practice due to the restriction on number of Exceptional/Superior units you can field it does not normally happen so isn't a biggie in the real world).
Also, as I'd prefer to have the infantry as all one classification or the other (excluding the Dart types as previously mentioned) I would review the upgrade anyway and probably go with 0-24.
Quote
The Imperial Roman list should have the options for Superior/Veteran Equites increased, 0-12 bases. Examples include the cavalry under Aurelian vs. Cataphracts at Lake Antioch, Constantine's veteran cavalry, etc.
I am not convinced about this. Aurelian's cavalry against the Palmyrans skirmished until the catafracts were knackered and then fought them rather than fighting them head on - no need for Superior there. Zosimus 1.50 is the reference for this. The Romans tried it again in the following battle but got caught and suffered appropriately. Possibly a better argument for Constantine, however, I rather feel that a Superior unit with a Legendary general at their head would get the desired result when supported by Average ME cavalry - a trickier one for sure, but only Constantine really has an argument for more being allowed, for the rest of the time the Roman cavalry was really a bit indifferent.
Quote
There should be a Cataphractarii/Charging Lancer/call-them-what-you-like option. Currently it makes little sense that this troop type is an option in the Early Imperial list, then disappears, then re-appears in the chaos of the Foederate Period. I'm well aware of the confusion/debate over the exact terms and equipment/fighting style, but it makes little sense to force all Cataphractarii/Clibanarii units to only be FA/Long Spear as currently.
I think the ones in the Foederate list are a tad dubious and may well justify a bit of a review. They are based on the probably weak argument that units such as the Comites Alani are recruited from barbarians who bring their "native" fighting style along with them. In respect of the catafractarii/clibanarii I am personally comfortable that for this list they had replaced the older style and so there are none in the Imperial Roman list.
Quote from: Chevalier de la Terre on August 17, 2022, 03:33:12 PM
Quotethey do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.
They really don't: they take away from list-building variety and reduce each army to a more limited set of workable options.
CdlT
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 17, 2022, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: Chevalier de la Terre on August 17, 2022, 03:33:12 PM
Quotethey do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.
They really don't: they take away from list-building variety and reduce each army to a more limited set of workable options.
CdlT
We'll just have to disagree on that.
You can't really disagree that 0-16 of something gives you reduced options compared to 0-18.
While we're about it, I was looking at the Scots Irish list and I reckon it would have an improved range of options if it was allowed 0-18 infantry drilled flexible superior protected impact weapon melee expert shield cover, too.
Quote from: LawrenceG on August 17, 2022, 05:54:12 PM
You can't really disagree that 0-16 of something gives you reduced options compared to 0-18.
I can't, but that isn't what I was suggesting disagreement about :D
Think of 0-16 as 0-12 but allowing you an extra 4!
I am happy to reduce it to 0-12 if it stops the complaints.... (okay I am joking, but my point is that limits are set as limits).
Richard
Quote...if it stops the complaints...
The fact that you think this is about min/maxing and "complaining" in that regard is rather missing the point. This isn't about that when I raise a point: it is about trying to make the army list allow for more interesting and different combinations/configurations within both a historical context and game context. But they're just ideas...
CdlT
Just take two 6 base units? Wanting three might come across as being greedy :p
In my Devil's advocate spirit today, I will also argue that if we follow the logic that "wasting" available bases reduces your options, 0-18 then forces you to take three 6 base units rather than two 8s. Which is obviously a good argument for making it 0-24! ;)
Quote from: ShrubMiK on August 18, 2022, 01:50:56 PM
In my Devil's advocate spirit today, I will also argue that if we follow the logic that "wasting" available bases reduces your options, 0-18 then forces you to take three 6 base units rather than two 8s. Which is obviously a good argument for making it 0-24! ;)
indeed ;)
Now coming back to the "common" legion soldier,from MRR, LRR and Imperial roman times IMO they should not be close or flexible but loose ( with shield cover ) as in battle they needed some space to fight, twice the space an hoplite needed. They are battle infantry fighting in a loose order but I fear MEG does not have it in the rules to represent such a thing
For the Imperial Roman period Ammianus certainly supports Close formation and also the ability to fight effectively in terrain. Note also Vegetius on this as he gives a closer formation.
For earlier ones there is a lot of academic (and other) discussion about exactly what Polybios means in the passage you are (indirectly) referring to - not to mention that he is writing about a particular point in time in the development of the Roman infantry - so care is needed.
It is a really interesting rabbit hole to go down. Phil Sabin, Fernando Quesada Sanz and Alexander Zhmodikov have all written some interesting analysis on republican Roman fighting and the use of missiles for example.
Generalisations from the republic through to late antiquity really may not be a good idea.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 17, 2022, 07:53:40 AM
My initial thoughts were more about a tidy up of the current options.
On that basis I think I'd make the Impact Weapons and the Unskilled Javelin (the auxilia) options all/none for one or the other. IMO by the end of the C3rd any previous distinction between legions and auxilia have to all intents (and certainly for MeG classifications) gone and so all should be the same on that basis.
The option for Darts, SSp can stay as is though.
Ammianus' continued use of terms such as "levis armaturae auxilis" and "velitis" through to Julian's reign suggest that the lanciarii option should be available later than it currently is, but maybe restricted to just 1 unit.
A few other cosmetic changes as well - I found a reference to Huns being used in 383 CE for example.
I think some at least some of the auxiliaries should be allowed a lanciarii type option, as Ammianus describes the tribune of the Cornuti leading a body of 'auxiliares velites' across the Rhine. Not sure how much it needs to be limited - I have never seen them in large numbers on the table.
If distinctions between legions and auxilia in the battle line are largely seen to have disappeared, then I think that whatever variation is chosen, shield cover should be considered as a characteristic of that type. Not sure why the short spear/unskilled javelin battle line infantry wouldn't have it in an all or none situation. Otherwise you have the main battle line infantry being shield cover(impact weapon) then not shield cover/ short spear, then compulsory shield cover again when they all move to darts in later periods. Not sure why that shield cover would drop away in an all or none situation. Fine maybe for the late 4th century for some troops. I tend to think after Adrianople in the east a fair amount of variation in types should probably be allowed.
Quote from: accard on August 22, 2022, 03:19:45 PM
I think some at least some of the auxiliaries should be allowed a lanciarii type option, as Ammianus describes the tribune of the Cornuti leading a body of 'auxiliares velites' across the Rhine. Not sure how much it needs to be limited - I have never seen them in large numbers on the table.
There are a number of reference to that sort of thing in battles (I'm discounting "special ops" as MeG isn't really about them) - "levis armaturae auxilis" and "velitis" are used certainly as late as the battles in Julian's invasion of Persia; not sure there are any after that. I'd probably allow as single SUG of lanciarii types to at least 363 CE on that basis.
Quote
If distinctions between legions and auxilia in the battle line are largely seen to have disappeared, then I think that whatever variation is chosen, shield cover should be considered as a characteristic of that type. Not sure why the short spear/unskilled javelin battle line infantry wouldn't have it in an all or none situation. Otherwise you have the main battle line infantry being shield cover(impact weapon) then not shield cover/ short spear, then compulsory shield cover again when they all move to darts in later periods. Not sure why that shield cover would drop away in an all or none situation. Fine maybe for the late 4th century for some troops. I tend to think after Adrianople in the east a fair amount of variation in types should probably be allowed.
I'd agree that it should really be all/none classifications other than the option to partly replace one of the all/none options with the Dart armed types.
For the immediate aftermath of Adrianople for eastern armies in Thrace, etc. I see it more as a quality issue than anything else.
FWIW to summarise where I got to on this, I have suggested to Richard that the Legionaries & Auxilia infantry in the Imperial Roman list are either an option of All Impact Weapon, Shield Cover, optional Melee Expert, or All Short Spear, Shield Cover, Shieldwall, optional Melee Expert.
The option to convert to the Dart armed remains the current numbers by date, but they are Short Spear, Experienced Darts, Shield Cover, Shieldwall.
Also that all the SSp, Darts infantry of the Foederate Roman, Eastern Later Roman, Early Byzantine and Maurikian Byzantine should have Shieldwall as well.