Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Roman Org.

  1. #11
    lialos@crosslink.ne
    Guest

    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

  2. #12
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    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.

  3. #13
    Samuel Weiss
    Guest

    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

  4. #14
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    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.

  5. #15
    Aaron Sanderson
    Guest

    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

  6. #16
    E Gray
    Guest

    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

  1. Roman military terminology (was: le
    By Ryan B. Caveney in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-1998, 12:14 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.