Results 1 to 7 of 7
Thread: Questions,Rome
-
01-13-1998, 12:02 PM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 2
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Questions,Rome
> The point at hand is that i need more detail on the setting, esp. concerning the Roman army's rank and tactics
> system.
> Soooo..if there are any budding historians out there, or if anyone has run a Roman campain before, please
> help me out.
>
> Also, why did the Roman army have such a mish-mash of armor types, including leather, studded, chain, banded and Plate. Also they seemed very fond of short swords, and knowing how PC's love maxing-out on damage how do you get PC's to use them?
>
OK lets see if any of this will help....I can't remeber the Roman ranks
either( except for legonaire, decturion and centurion) but the tactics
are simple enuf: the basic idea was to use a Shield-Wall formation (eg
tortise) and fight from behind that with Javlins and Pilums (aka spears)
and in later years slings and bows. As Cavalry was almost none
exsistant(lack of saddles and more importantly stirups) then this was a
VERY good battle plan (if you are playing in an AD Rome then you might
want to consider the Elephant, this lead to the need for more missle
troops, who were used to infuriate the elephants before they could start
a'squishing). When the wall didn't work the Gladius (shortsword) came
into play. The reason for the shorter sword is that it is easier to
stab someone in close quarters than it was to slash/bash. Seige plans
were also pretty basic:"a hungry solder can't fight" and "wooden walls
burn". In the few cases where these tactics didn't work, Rams and
Towers were used.
The type of armor worn was based on rank and climate....the higher your
rank the more metal in your armor...this did change in the hotter
climates were horseman/leather armor became the norm (metal being to hot
to wear).
My suggestions for getting your PC's to use Shortswords is to either
have them in the Gladiatorial Fights, or close combat were
slashing/bashing weapons are given negatives, or better yet make weapons
such as Longswords as hard to come by as they were in Ancient Rome ie
almost impossible due to the lack of steel.
Well I hope that helps...
- --
Clint
clintl@ihug.co.nz
}
-
01-13-1998, 12:04 PM #2Brian StonerGuest
Questions,Rome
Dragon Peaks Park wrote:
> Also, why did the Roman army have such a mish-mash of armor types, including leather, studded, chain, banded and Plate. Also they seemed very fond of short swords, and knowing how PC's love maxing-out on damage how do you get PC's to use them?
Keep in mind that the Roman Empire lasted nearly 1000 years (if you include the founding of the city and the beginning of its rise, until the final sacking). A lot can happen during that time.
Early on, they employed phalanx tactics, which involved forming the soldiers into close formations. They used pikes and held up large shields, then, like a tank, they were nearly impervious to most of their enemies and could deal out a lot of
damage. If this tactic failed, they still had their short swords available. Additionally, they used archers and charioteers to round out the forces.
Later on, as technology advanced (for both them and their enemies), they began using cavalry (the invention of stirrups allowing the rider to better stay in the saddle during a fight), which greatly changed the tactics of battle. The infantry was
still important, but no longer the key to the Roman army...having been replaced by the calvalry's newfound capabilities.
As for armor types, there are many factors for the mish-mash. The Empire was huge and wealthy, but it cost a lot to provide armor for the whole army. Thus they figured out what was most cost effective yet provided the best protection. Not every
soldier needed plate armor...in many cases, chain, or even leather worked just as well, if not better.
Finally, the short sword was not a primary combat weapon. Spears and pikes were used first, and the swords only if the others could not be used.
More history on weapons and armor can be found in the Armor and Equipment Guide for AD&D. Specifically, when particular weapons and armor were developed and popular.
Brian
-
01-13-1998, 01:41 PM #3KAI BESTEGuest
Questions,Rome
Hi all, I'm finally back on the list after an extended Christmas
break due to server problems.
Let's see how much I remember about the legionaires off the top of my
head.
> Sorry to go off-topic here, but recently i began,and still am in the process of, creating a campain
> with a Roman genre.
> The point at hand is that i need more detail on the setting, esp. concerning the Roman army's rank and tactics
> system.
> Soooo..if there are any budding historians out there, or if anyone has run a Roman campain before, please
> help me out.
Sooo, here we go.
The legions were the backbone of the Roman army, even if a lot of
auxiliary troops were used.
Keep in mind I'm talking about the Roman legions after the military
reform made by Marius (ca 90 BC). This reform unified the legionaires
gear and introduced the occupation of a professional soldier. The
legionaires where also called "muli mariani" ("Marius' mules")
because they had to carry all their gear, including rations, parts of
tents...
A legionaire was armed with a gladius, the Roman short sword, and two
pila (plural of pilum). He was armored with a lorica segmentata,
basically a banded mail shirt and the scutum, a large, square,
slighly curved shield, and a helmet.
A centurio had an ornate breastplate instead of the lorica, and leg
guards.
A legion was divided into centurions, consisting of 100 legionaires
led by a centurio. This basic unit was divided into ten smaller units
(can't remember the name), each led by a decurio.
Upwards, the legion was grouped into cohortes, with one cohors being
5 centurions. Ten cohortes made up a legion. Sometimes a group of
cavalry (about 100 strong) was added for scouts. The whole legion was
led (during the time of the empire) by the legatus (which roughly
translates to "the one who has been sent (by the emperor)"). He was
advised by five tribuni.
Other important persons in a legion were the aquilifer (standard
bearer) and the centurio of the fists centurion of the first cohors
(can't remember his title), who was the second commander of the
legion.
All in all, a legion was a good 5000-5500 men at full strength, which
would suggest about 25 war cards for a single legion. If you consider
the fact that sometimes up to three or four legions were dispatched
to quell a revolt, you know why the Roman empire lasted that long.
Tactics: The basic formation of a legion for field battles was a kind
of carree formation.
- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | |
- --- --- --- ---
--- --- ---
| | | | | |
--- --- ---
- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | |
- --- --- --- ---
Each square represents one cohors, and this is the way it must have
basically looked like. When entering a field battle, the legion set
up in loose squres. When the enemy drew close, they threw their first
volley of pila. Shortly before engaging in melee, the threw the
second volley, and then closed ranks and set up a shield wall. The
third rank of soldiers was kept back as reinforcements to close gaps.
When under enemy missile fire, the romans set up in a special
formation know as "turtle". In this formation, the shields were set
up and interlocked in a way to shield front, flanks and heads from
missiles. Movement was possible, but not very fast. This formation
was mainly used to approach walls and other fortifications defended
by archers.
The pila were constructed in a way to get stuck in the enemy's shield
and to bend upon impact so that it could not be thrown back.
> Also, why did the Roman army have such a mish-mash of armor types,
> including leather, studded, chain, banded and Plate. Also they
> seemed very fond of short swords, and knowing how PC's love maxing-o
> t on damage how do you get PC's to use them?
The mish-mash armor was used during the time of the republic. The
legionaires gear was standardised, as I explained above.
The reason for using short swords is easy. Stabbing weapons are much
easier to use in close formation combat than hacking ones. They were
used to stab through the gaps between the shields.
The legion as I described it above was probably that most powerful
fighting force of its time. In addition, the legions were augmented
with auxiliary troops from conquered nations, such as archers and
cavalry. One of these auxiliaries was the Dracian cavalry. While the
Romans had developed the saddle, they did not have stirrups. The
cavalry's main weapon were spears and the spatha (a longsword
variant).
Another thing the Romans excelled in was siege warfare. They knew how
to build great catapults and scorpions (ballistae), siege towers
protected from fire with metal plates, sappers... AFAIK, they took
most cities by storming them, not by starving them out.
So, this is as far as I recall now. Hope this has helped. Comments,
as always, welcome, flames cancelled by resist fire (blood ability)
Kai
-
01-13-1998, 02:03 PM #4Daniel McSorleyGuest
Questions,Rome
Some other people have covered these pretty well, so I only have a little to
add.
The variety of armor was due to the auxiliaries. The Romans let anyone
they had conquored join the army. After a certain period of time, 25 years
I think, they were discharged with a pay bonus and full roman citizenship.
These auxiliaries were armed and armored in generally their native styles.
They were never used in their own home nations, but were shipped to far off
places to fight and serve as garrisons, that way they would be less likely
to revolt than if they were near their homes. The legions were also the
construction workers of Rome. Almost all the roads, cities, aqueducts and
whatnot else were built by the legions. They had to be kept occupied when
not fighting, and it helped keep them in condition.
Roman engineering: The Romans were great at it, probably the best of
all time. They made cement that would set underwater and built all those
huge stone buildings by man and animal power, with marvelous accuracy. They
had flowing water, indoor plumbing, and built their businesses on the ground
floor of their homes (the first telecommutors!! Wow!). They also built
artillery that wasn't again matched till the advent of gunpowder. Their
ballistae used coiled ropes to provide huge power, and we don't know even
today how they did it. They designed the trebuchet and used excellent
sapping tactics, especially considering they had no explosives to set under
the walls. When reducing a city, they would build a ring of fortifications
around it facing in, then another facing out. Covered walkways provided
safe access for their troops from enemy fire.
Hope it helps.
Daniel McSorley
mcsorley.1@osu.edu
-
01-13-1998, 05:48 PM #5James RuhlandGuest
Questions,Rome
> > help me out.
> >
> > Also, why did the Roman army have such a mish-mash of armor types,
including leather, studded, chain, banded and Plate. Also they seemed very
fond of short swords, and knowing how PC's love maxing-out on damage how do
you get PC's to use them?
> >
Well, in part diferent armor types were used at diferent times. In part
also, diferent armor types were used in diferent places, depending on
conditions, or for specialized units. Hard to go into it here. Now, a Roman
Legionary would defend his Gladius against the longsword any day; In their
opinion, the (stabbing) short sword was a better weapon than the (slashing)
longsword because it was easyer to penitrate armor with it, and easyer to
make your blow count (stab through the vitals rather than slash open the
skin. . .the latter makes a nice, bloody wound, while the former makes a
small, less-impressive one, but more deadly.) AD&D doesn't reflect this.
Actually, what AD&D reflects is that the German Spatha was usually made of
better steel than the late Roman Gladius, and the troops using them were
better than late Roman soldiers. . .so it isn't so much the weapon, but
it's bearer, that should cause the damage difference.
>
> such as Longswords as hard to come by as they were in Ancient Rome ie
> almost impossible due to the lack of steel.
>
> Well I hope that helps...
>
-
01-13-1998, 07:53 PM #6Dragon Peaks ParkGuest
Questions,Rome
Sorry to go off-topic here, but recently i began,and still am in the process of, creating a campain
with a Roman genre.
The point at hand is that i need more detail on the setting, esp. concerning the Roman army's rank and tactics
system.
Soooo..if there are any budding historians out there, or if anyone has run a Roman campain before, please
help me out.
Also, why did the Roman army have such a mish-mash of armor types, including leather, studded, chain, banded and Plate. Also they seemed very fond of short swords, and knowing how PC's love maxing-out on damage how do you get PC's to use them?
Glenn Tungay
dpp@futurest.co.za
-
01-13-1998, 08:21 PM #7E GrayGuest
Questions,Rome
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dragon Peaks Park
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Monday, January 12, 1998 8:04 PM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Questions,Rome
>Sorry to go off-topic here, but recently i began,and still am in the
process of,
>creating a campain with a Roman genre.
Not all that far off-topic. Of course you should think of the exact time in
Roman
History you want to base your campaign on....there are differences, you
know..
>The point at hand is that i need more detail on the setting, esp.
concerning the Roman
>army's rank and tactics system.
Hmm...ever read the Videsso Cycle by Harry Turtledove...has an actual Roman
Legion
from the time of Caesar transported to a world with magic and an empire
more like the
Byzantine Empire than anything else. Quite good to read. Then there's
that book by
TSR, Glory of Rome I believe..
>Also, why did the Roman army have such a mish-mash of armor types,
including leather,
> studded, chain, banded and Plate.
Because the Roman Army was equipped with real armor and not the
simplifications
used in AD&D for Armor Types? Now of course there was variation as to
the
stardard equipment used by the Legions at various times....centuries of
history and
what to you expect.
>Also they seemed very fond of short swords, and knowing how PC's love
maxing-out
>on damage how do you get PC's to use them?
Yes, they were, mostly because of well how there army worked....very hard to
swing
a long sword in tight ranks.. And the fact that they were able to craft
better and cheaper
Gladiuses than longer ones..
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Rome!
By Paladin132 in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 10Last Post: 04-13-2006, 05:15 PM -
New Here and a few Questions
By Paladin132 in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 2Last Post: 03-23-2006, 02:27 AM -
Questions
By Sepsis in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 36Last Post: 01-10-1998, 12:45 PM -
A few questions
By Matt Lewis in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 11Last Post: 09-02-1997, 03:50 AM -
Some questions
By Dan Medeiros in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 1Last Post: 08-05-1997, 03:37 PM
Bookmarks