Results 11 to 16 of 16
Thread: Roman Org.
-
05-08-1998, 03:47 PM #11lialos@crosslink.neGuest
Roman Org.
Eric Dunn wrote:
>
> n the west at around c. 395.
> >
> >Sorry for the long history lesson, must be habit from way to many
> >research papers.
> >
> >The recovering Student,
> >AmS.
> >
>
> Exactly the type of info I was hoping for... :)
>
> Now, if someone could get us some valid info for what medieval units were
> made up of--of course, I think they were less of a unit--and more of an
> army or "horde" *grin*
>
> I mean, take the Crusades for example. All those knights running
> around--what was the military make up?
>
> What about the battle of Hastings--what did each side look like,
> organizationally speaking?
>
> E
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> >
Once again someone with more knowledge than I on this subject will need
to correct me[and I'm sure someone will].
At the Battle of Tours where the Moorish expansion into Europe was
halted, weren't there less than a hundred knights on each side? Don;'t
know why I am saying this, but the fact seems to stick in my mind.
Tripp
-
05-08-1998, 04:00 PM #12James RuhlandGuest
Roman Org.
>
> Now, if someone could get us some valid info for what medieval units were
> made up of--of course, I think they were less of a unit--and more of an
> army or "horde" *grin*
>
> I mean, take the Crusades for example. All those knights running
> around--what was the military make up?
>
The crusaders (at least the ones that made it past, say, Nicea) were fairly
sophisticated militarily (of course, being dumb clucks, once they went back
home, they returned to the "horde" method of organizing their armies for a
good streach).
Several battles (especially ones conducted in the imediate aftermath of
the capture of Jerusalem) had very few knights involved (30-60 at some
points), and armies numbering in the hundreds (or low thousands). Once the
crusader armies got "weeded out" of the undisiplined rabble and feckless
ninnys (right around/after the siege of Antioch by the Turks, I.E. once
they got rid of Stephan of Blois et al), some very sophisticated combined
arms tactics started showing up (of course, the crusaders had seen what
real militarys were capable of in their experiences with the East Romans &
the Turns. . .but that shows that they were smart enough to adapt such
tactics to their own forces once given a proper template).
Long digression: These particular battles really show the effect of morale
in a way that game systems usually don't cover. The Arab (and to a lesser
degree, Turkish) forces that faced Baldwin & Godfrey's armies vastly
outnumbered them, but the Knights (especially) had developed a reputation
for invincibility (which was later lost/thrown away, but that's another
story), so the 1st sign of trouble (I.E. a charge of a few knights hitting
home) and the Arabic army would route.
-
05-08-1998, 04:56 PM #13Samuel WeissGuest
Roman Org.
OK, based on my experience with Imperium Romanum, the boardgame from West
End, and all the wonderful research the developers and designer did on it, I
can offer the following.
1. The number of legions was around 20-30, except during civl war periods,
when that would be the number per claimant.
2. The late empire legions (after the Thrid Century and valens mentioned
recently) were half the size of the older legions.
3. Large numbers of troops were stationed as limes along the borders in
Europe. Such were not counted among the legionary strength as i recall.
4. After the Goths moved in Kicking our buddy Valens butt as has been noted,
the empire, both East and West, began hiring large numbers of Gothic and
other Germanic mercenaries. these were invariably heavy cavalry formations
and were not counted as regular legions.
So there could have been 330 "legions" in the empire, but only around 25
usually were real legions. The rest being garrison troops and mercs. And
condsidering how often the empire fought as the migrations and civil wars
picked up, I don't see those numbers as being unreasonable. Or of the large
numbers of kills for a legion to be properly experienced as being out of
line either. But that's me. I was just a grunt playtester, you should go
find Al Nofi (the designer) and ask him for details on this.
Samwise
-
05-08-1998, 08:10 PM #14James RuhlandGuest
Roman Org.
> 3. Large numbers of troops were stationed as limes along the borders in
> Europe. Such were not counted among the legionary strength as i recall.
>
Technically, they were parts of Legions, If I remember correctly. But these
guys were in "static" defence, and eventually (rapidly) they developed home
lives & families, and would rebel if anyone tried to send them someplace
else (and they lost much of their military discipline & effectiveness. . .)
The 1/2 Legion, the "real" Legion is that part which didn't get tied into
static defence on the Limes, and was shifted around. Eventually (actually,
somewhat quickly), they lost all "real" connection to the "other half" of
the Legion, which might be stationed in Gaul, say, while the mobile force
was in Thrace or even Syria.
-
05-08-1998, 11:06 PM #15Aaron SandersonGuest
Roman Org.
>
>"150 legions going in the east and 180 legions"
>
>330 legions?
>
>At between 4000-6000 men per legion[what I vaguely recollect they
were],
>that gives Rome an army of 1,320,000 - 1,980,000 I find this numbers to
>be ludicrously high for the date in question.
>
>I myself had always heard it was more along your 30 Legions number,
>which still makes an army of 120,000 - 180,000 or 600-900 Birthright
>Units, which is still a large number, hehehe.
>
>Tripp
>
Ok. You must realize that this army was covering an area from Scotland
to the Black Sea to Persia to North Africa, and then some. Second. By
the time of that writing, ~395 IIRC, then the size of a legion had
broken down. Rome was basically taking entire German tribes and making
them part of the R. Army to defend the frontier against their cousins.
You must remember that Hadrian's Wall crosses most of Scotland and that
there were walls like that all over in Europe at the time. The 30
Legion number is only accurate durning the time of Augustus. And we
know that there were at least 60 legions before he cut them down in
number in an effort to try to prevent civil wars. Rome had a huge army.
That is one of the major reasons for their downfall, to many people on
the walls and not enough planting crops.
AmS.
__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-
05-08-1998, 11:35 PM #16E GrayGuest
Roman Org.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Sanderson
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Roman Org.
>Rome had a huge army.
>That is one of the major reasons for their downfall, to many people on
>the walls and not enough planting crops.
Um, not really. The Romans had plenty of people to plant crops, they
just didn't have the infrastructure to transport it, and make full use of
it.
Heck, they didn't take advantage of what they did have(like a Horse-thresher
that handled grain much faster than men). A bigger problem was Rome
began to rely on wealth the Legions got and spent that stuff like sand,
and when the Legions eventually stopped gathering much gold, well..
Another factor was the Armies were no longer made of citizens or
those who wanted to be citizens, just barbarian tribes paid in gold
and loot, without concern for the empire, compounded by people
decided to leave while the getting was good and establish their
own territory in the hinterland.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Roman military terminology (was: le
By Ryan B. Caveney in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 05-08-1998, 12:14 AM
Bookmarks