Xth legion and silver shields

[badhabum]

Let us have a quick look at the famous Xth legion : That legion was founded/enlisted/created from nothing in 61 BCE and 2 years later is already exceptionnal before really going to war. The Gallic Wars are 58 BCE - 50 BCE. The  Xth legion is exceptionnal from 59 BCE till 45 BCE. This is all based on the myth created by Caesar' in his books that were propaganda.Propaganda helps a lot

Now let us look at another veteran unit from earlier times . Alexander's campaigns 336 BCE – 324 BCE + Diadochi wars 323 BCE   280 BCE what about  Alexander's veterans, the Hypaspist/Silver Shields who start superior under alexander, who , we know, also fought during the diadochi wars and were much sought of and were known to crush, roll over their opponent ..they never become "exceptionnal" but they fought for so many years as did Alexander's army in general,

So why may those guys not become exceptionnal ?

[tarnowski1]

because in the relative contexts of their opponents and campaigns the classifications best suit the model without making the silver shields overly super powered for their cost and effectiveness?

at a guess

[badhabum]

because the Xth legion is not "overpowered" ? Silver shields may have to fight other veterans in asiatic successor campaigns and yet are SUP as the others ...they are not better than other veterans while the Xth legion yes ....and that in 2 years ..

Silver Shields are said to walk over enemy phalanxes and that in more than one battle so what is overpowered ?

[tarnowski1]

missing my point but ok.

context...

Having the X legion as Exceptional may better create the impact it had in Caesars propaganda histories

and I didnt say 'over powered' I said 'overly super powered' in the sense of would an exceptional silver shield phalanx overwhelm its contemporary opponents
excessively fast.

[martymagnificent]

I tend to agree. By the time Alexander is past the first battle or two in Persia the hypaptists should be exceptional and a sizeable proportion, possibly all, of the Macedonian foot superior. Not sure it would make the army better from a game POV but given their achievements, experience and confidence it's hard to see why they aren't.

Martin

[lionheartrjc]

It is a matter of judgement but I wouldn't disagree that you can make the argument.  However the Agema of the Companions should be the best troops in the Macedonian army and they can be Exceptional.

With the Silver Shields I would argue they could be Exceptional but should probably be in their own command under a mediocre ally general.   And of course if the camp is sacked, the Army commander is handed over to the opponent for execution!

Making the pike Exceptional certainly wouldn't improve the overall army.  The Macedonian army is small enough already.

Richard

[badhabum]

and I didnt say 'over powered' I said 'overly super powered' in the sense of would an exceptional silver shield phalanx overwhelm its contemporary opponents
excessively fast.

Which is what is was doing if we follow the history ..they crushed what was to their front ..other pikes ..

[badhabum]

With the Silver Shields I would argue they could be Exceptional but should probably be in their own command under a mediocre ally general.   And of course if the camp is sacked, the Army commander is handed over to the opponent for execution!

Under their own command yes, 2 UGs of SUP pikes and one Exceptionnal, but why should the general be mediocre as in every battle they went for it, crushed the enemy but yes surrendered when completely encircled and the camp was taken ..but why mediocre as they were reliable in all battles ?

What on earth makes you fight the idea of an exceptionnal veteran pike UG, when you accept exceptionnal varangian guards, exceptionnal black guard and a non veteran exceptionnal Xth legion ?

Making the pike Exceptional certainly wouldn't improve the overall army.

Does the Xth legion not improve the much too largely  superior roman army ?

However the Agema of the Companions should be the best troops in the Macedonian army and they can be Exceptiona

yes but I was not clear enough . I am mostly the silver shields that fought during the successor wars and crushed all that was to their front. There are no more companions at that time. My mistake if I was not clear enough now I hope it is more understandable .

[SteveO]

I have to admit I have always struggled with the classification of Alexander's infantry in MeG. If the Hypaspists aren't exceptional in the latter years than who would be? If we are using the 'context' perspective for their current classification, I am not sure the X Legion needs to be exceptional in its context of fighting Gauls to have the right effect. And as for the Praetorian Guard - for most of its history it was not the equal of veteran legions and yet it can be exceptional too.

I absolutely agree that upgrading the phalanx would make the Alexandrian army problematic but this highlights another issue. We are sometimes unclear about when we make decisions around playability versus historical accuracy. I have a Swiss army and it is expensive points-wise so very small. However, the army still 'looks' and feels' like a representative Swiss army with its three keils. Upgrading the Macedonian phalanx would make recreating Alexander's battlefield army almost impossible.

It is a vexatious issue and I don't claim to have the answers. However, I still struggle classifying Alexander's veterans as 'average' let alone the Hypaspists...😊

[martymagnificent]

Probably better to rate them high as players can always downgrade them as they deem necessary.

Martin

[ShrubMiK]

That would be a material change. Downgrade is only allowed by one level - you would then be taking away the option (that I am sure gets used very frequently ) to downgrade those currently listed as superior to average.

Large numbers of exceptionals appearing on-table is IMO a bad thing.

Personally I am a bit sceptical about the Xth legion being rated as such, but it is a long time since I read Caesar's works so I have forgotten what exactly is said about them.
I am even more sceptical about Praetorians/later "guard" legionaries justifying it. Are there accounts of these troops performing amazingly in battle against opponents who would be rated as superior? Perhaps Argentoratum, where IIRC the Primani defeat nobles who have won through the first line; but one battle isn't really proof of a consistent quality edge (and maybe it was just that Julian paid for melee expert capability?). And aren't there some references to Praetorians being softened by long periods spent parading around Rome and being shown up when they meet actual battle-hardened troops?

At least the number of bases in these cases is not large, but IMO would still be preferable if it was one small UG rather than one large or two small.

Eumenes pikes had a reputatitn for being better than their opponents, and seemed to prove it in several battles, but (again IMO) that is easily justified as superiors facing average.

I also don't accept the argument that any army which stays in the field for an extended and successful campaign gets better and better until a large proportion of them should be rated exceptional just on general principles.

[badhabum]

Probably better to rate them high as players can always downgrade them as they deem necessary.

Martin

That's my way of thinking

You can have the exceptionnal even during the diadochi wars as they are reputed to have crushed all opposition , all phalanx that went against them , a bit like the Xth legion did vs other legions ( and all diadochi factions can have some SUP so to be better you need exceptionnals).

But of course you can downgrade them as it will be a costly unit indeed ( average is 800, SUP is 1120 and EXC 1360 )

Compared to other army lists who may have exceptionnals, it is not that strongh but it is a quite good unit indeed

I would say that you could have them Alexander ( 331 BCE till 323 BCE ? ), after that withAntipater ( 323 BCE till 321 BCE ), after that with Eumenes ( 321 BCE till 316 BCE ) and finaly with Antigonus Monophthalmus ( 316 BCE till 310 BCE as, fearing them, he broke them up in small units  ) The unit will dissapear only to be reinstuted by the seleucid kings but no more exceptionnals

So all in all some 21 years

So why not exceptionnal what would blok such a change ?

[badhabum]

That would be a material change. Downgrade is only allowed by one level - you would then be taking away the option (that I am sure gets used very frequently ) to downgrade those currently listed as superior to average.

Large numbers of exceptionals appearing on-table is IMO a bad thing.

Personally I am a bit sceptical about the Xth legion being rated as such, but it is a long time since I read Caesar's works so I have forgotten what exactly is said about them.
I am even more sceptical about Praetorians/later "guard" legionaries justifying it. Are there accounts of these troops performing amazingly in battle against opponents who would be rated as superior? Perhaps Argentoratum, where IIRC the Primani defeat nobles who have won through the first line; but one battle isn't really proof of a consistent quality edge (and maybe it was just that Julian paid for melee expert capability?). And aren't there some references to Praetorians being softened by long periods spent parading around Rome and being shown up when they meet actual battle-hardened troops?

At least the number of bases in these cases is not large, but IMO would still be preferable if it was one small UG rather than one large or two small.

Eumenes pikes had a reputatitn for being better than their opponents, and seemed to prove it in several battles, but (again IMO) that is easily justified as superiors facing average.

I also don't accept the argument that any army which stays in the field for an extended and successful campaign gets better and better until a large proportion of them should be rated exceptional just on general principles.

There is one good reason : playing the myth, the reputation of the army, the unit 

But yes most of it is all mythical but fun to play. Reality would be boring indeed . Now in MEG we dream our armies, we dream our battles and if only the the mouvement system we use a highly unhistorical manoeuver system as usualy you went forward without knowing what was on the flank so manoeuvring would essentially be forward, a bit of wheeling and for some really drilled guys, turn left, turn right ..boring game

[SteveO]

Agree on not having large numbers of exceptional troops and the questionable classification of the Praetorian Guard for most of its history. Also agree that simply existing for a long time and being successful does not automatically qualify for upgrading.

However, Alexander's army is a pretty special case. IMO it would be just as worthy as the Swiss or Mongols for being Superior across the board. I would also accept the Hypaspists being Exceptional as well as the Agema. All that said, I am not sure it would allow the tabletop army to replicate the success of the historical army😊. You would certainly not be able to afford an army that looked like the real thing if playing 10k points.

Seems to lead back to the simulation versus game issue. We probably have to accept that there will need to be compromises.

[badhabum]

I would also accept the Hypaspists being Exceptional as well as the Agema

The Agema, if you want to use it historically, needs to be exceptionnal.

We might discuss the Hypaspist as being SUP is already quite good and having both exceptionnal might create an unbalance. So I would be really happy if those guys become exceptionnal when the Ageman becomes SUP (after ALEXMAC's death ..but that is based on a feeling of right gaming balance