Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 07, 2023, 07:08:52 AM

Quote from: Alcibiades on April 07, 2023, 12:26:37 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 06, 2023, 09:11:22 AM

Quote from: Alcibiades on April 06, 2023, 12:13:22 AM
Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

No it doesn't.

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike in 4 ranks  +2.
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike in 3/4 ranks +2
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain 

Richard

I believe that you have missed my point. Flexible Romans, if in the right formation, would be able to fight the Macedonians without the General Terrain claims against the, as you say.  Wouldn't the close order Mid Republican Romans be inconvenienced by terrain in the rough?

As Close order troops in Rough going both the Mid Republican Romans and Macedonians are Affected - as they are equally affected the claims for fighting an opponent affected by terrain cancel out, Pike cannot get Preferred Claims in rough, but the Romans still get Impact weapon and Melee Expert and so we are left with the combat factors Richard posted. Close order Romans are better in terrain than Macedonian pikemen.

I acknowledge my mistake in not understanding that Impact weapon and melee expert would still apply if affected or badly affected by terrain. And still no evidence is offered to explain why later Roman troops become flexibles in these rules. Surely there can be something better than "feel"?

Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 06, 2023, 06:41:46 AM

Quote from: Alcibiades on April 05, 2023, 11:48:34 PM
Why do you believe that the "best unit in army" fails to demonstrate the "whole package" while average troops did?

I didn't say that. The "guard" are better troops in MeG than either the Superior types or the Average types - their "whole package" is better.

Quote
How do you explain the difference from the Early Imperial list? Surely this is not a reflection of Gibbon's dated prejudice against the late empire...

Which difference are you referring to? In terms of the guard (which is what you have been questioning) the EIR and IR lists have exactly the same numbers and classification.

Apologies if I misunderstood you and yes, I had missed the change for Praetorians in the EIR list. What is the "whole package" to which you refer? Is it only the KAB test and the charge combat factors? Why don't Praetorians have melee expert as an option? What is the evidence that they lacked that compared to average or superior legionaries?

Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 06, 2023, 11:18:17 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 05, 2023, 07:32:55 AM
Think it's one of those "gets the desired effect" ones where a call has been made on something that could be classified either way. I think for the MRR on the whole, close is the more appropriate option for the "feel" of the army, although I also think that for some of the best trained armies such as Scipio's in Spain around the time of Ilpia there could be an argument for a different classification. The use of the "Marian" date for the split between MRR and LRR is really just one of convenience.

I'd add to this that I think that for the pre-2nd Punic Wars part of this list that the legionaries should probably be Formed not Drilled.

There is no evidence that the Romans systematically trained their troops in this period: they learnt on the job. It would be more consistent with the evidence if veteran troops could be upgraded to drilled. Similarly, veteran troops could be limited to those like Scipio Africanus' troops and those that volunteered for the legions which fought in the Second Macedonian War.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 06, 2023, 09:11:22 AM

Quote from: Alcibiades on April 06, 2023, 12:13:22 AM
Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

No it doesn't.

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike in 4 ranks  +2.
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike in 3/4 ranks +2
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain 

Richard

I believe that you have missed my point. Flexible Romans, if in the right formation, would be able to fight the Macedonians without the General Terrain claims against the, as you say.  Wouldn't the close order Mid Republican Romans be inconvenienced by terrain in the rough?

Thank you both for your replies. I have little ideal of what "feel" is and no idea how you subjectively measured it but your reference to Scipio's army in Spain is something I understand. Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

As for Marian reforms being a myth, abandoning the myth does not mean that there were no changes. On the contrary, it opens up the idea of gradual change whereas reform claims a single author and a single point in time for all the changes: see François Cadiou, L'armée imaginaire. "Evolution" may not be the best metaphor given its teleological implications.

Thank you for your reply. Ignoring the small points and such, my concern is not the rationalisations, it is the evidence on which you based them. Why do you believe that the "best unit in army" fails to demonstrate the "whole package" while average troops did? How do you explain the difference from the Early Imperial list? Surely this is not a reflection of Gibbon's dated prejudice against the late empire...

Fellow wargamers,

I have wondered for some time why Roman infantry in the Mid Republican list are close order rather than flexible, as in later lists. Polybius' descriptions of the Roman infantry (i.e., Mid Republican Roman) he knew are the most detailed descriptions of the organisation and equipment of Roman troops that we have. In writing in Greek to a Greek speaking audience, he makes a point of emphasising the flexibility (no pun intended) of Roman troops compared the the Macedonians. Even the triarii with their long spears use oblong shields, quite unlike hoplite shields. These long shields would have enabled them to have fought in either loser or tighter formations, as needed. Later Roman infantry are classed as flexible. The answer cannot be the so-called "Marian army reforms". They are a modern myth and didn't happen. So why are the Mid Republican infantry different to the later troops?

Alcibiades

Fellow wargamers,

I am perplexed by some items in the Imperial Roman list. There is no option in the maximus list for Imperial Romans for giving legionaries or auxilia upgraded to guard melee expert. All of the average legionaries and auxilia get melee expert. Why don't the guard? Something similar happens to the regraded legionaries and auxilia. Up to 16 Average troops can be upgraded to superior or exceptional but they lose their melee expert option. I believe that earlier lists gave the guard melee expert but it has now been removed. Why is this?

Late Republican Xth legion get melee expert, thanks to Julius Caesar's self-serving commentaries, but Early Imperial Praetorians don't. Perhaps the view is that the Praetorians were "asphalt soldiers" but they did campaign with emperors; did not all spend their days looking for a Claudius behind the curtains to make emperor. In any event, they were disbanded by Constantine. The guard units, to which the list refers, are presumably the Scholae Palatinae bodyguards which accompanied the mobile courts of Constantine, his successor and rebel Augusti and Caesares. These troops fought in both foreign and civil wars. I am unaware of evidence that they lacked the fighting skills of average legionaries and auxiliary soldiers.

Alcibiades