Imperial Roman infantry classification

[nikgaukroger]

Hello late antiquity fans 

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 

So, I was wondering what others think the infantry classification(s) in this list should be, and why.

[nikgaukroger]

Mildly surprised nobody has any thoughts on this.

[accard]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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 

[accard]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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 

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 

[LawrenceG]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

I think it best at the moment to avoid rule changes.

[accard]

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.

[LawrenceG]

That occurred to me, but I thought it might have too much impact on other interactions.

[nikgaukroger]

Indeed. Having no supporting files in the charge phase is a specific design feature.

[accard]

Moving back to the topic - what apart from short spear/shieldwall would you see as possible options for change?

[nikgaukroger]

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.