Roman Empire

[Heresson]

To Heresson: I want to paint a polish PZL P37 Los, but I only have a blurry black and white picture of the front section. Any hints?

He he he I surmise it is some modern military stuff...
But I'm not into this subject...
I guess You'll have to search the web.

[Heresson]

Ah, now I know. Sorry, name "Los" means "a fate" in Polish,
but You can't write it otherwise in Apolyton, because they do not recognise our special fonts; the true name means "a
moose" and is pronounced like "wash" though not quite,
the last letter is pronounced otherwise... Nevermind.

Here You have one model;

[Heresson]

And a second picture I got from the net

[St Leo]

Yawn.

The Ottoman Empire was the true successor of the East Romans.

It's not as if the Romans and the Greeks started out civilized if we are to trust Virgil and Homer in that respect.

Come to think of it, I can't name one civilized civilization...

[tanelorn]

To Heresson: Wow man, this is just what I was looking for!

To Valuk (?): I tried hard not to comment on that "Turkicized Greeks" thing, but think about it. Cultural exchange between neighbours is not uncommon, imagine what happens when a totally alien culture is imposed by the conquering nation. It has to leave a mark. This however doesn't transform Russian to Mongols, Polish to Russians or Slovenes to Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Serbs, Croats, Germans or just for the sake of argument Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Huns, Avars, Romans, Franks and so on.

Trying to define ethnicity by selecting a certain isolated time-frame to set as standard for "National purity" is nonsensical. What is a "pure" national culture? Does it exist?
Trying to define/set rigid cultural barriers between nations is like trying to cut soup with a knife.
Why should cultural interaction be treated as a bad thing? Societies and cultures are enriched by a cosmopolitan environment.
The Italians, the Portuguese, the Greeks, the Russians, the Romanians, the French, the Germans, the Spanish and some Swiss (to name just a few) consider themselves to be either descendants or successors to the Romans, each one in its own different way. Mabye they are all right. Or wrong, depending on the way you look at it.
They have all benefited from Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian culture that came along with the Roman empire. Should they be called Hellenized, Romanized or Jewish? And why should this be a bad thing?

To sum up, Valuk: Do you consider yourself to be Yugoslavian? You are old enough to have been Yugoslavian for a while, I believe. What makes you a Slovene now? You woke up one day and Valuk the Yugoslavian had ceased to exist?
I know this is hard, even brutal, on my behalf -with the wars in the Balkans and all, but think that since we are in the same bad neighbourhood, you must know touched that very same string.

[tanelorn]

On the "Barbarian" quality some here ascribe to nations other than their own (and we are clearly not talking about the "8th civ") so easily:
The word barbarian originally meant a person whose language is not understood by Greeks.
It means "Blah-Blah man" literally.
It was just so, devoid of notions of national identity or cultural supremacy.
Later it came to mean all those that were not part of "Greek/ Greco-Roman/ Christian/ European/ Western" culture. All nations emerged or regressed to a barbarous state at some point, depending on what the dominant idea of "Barbaricity" was at the time.
And of course, it depends on who you ask.
The Chinese refer to all non Chinese as barbarians.
I don't think that Attila the Hun considered himself to be a barbarian. Genghis Khan was IMHO more "civilised" than many of his "civilised" opponents.
The typical criterion for "civilisation", a writing system that is, is fulfilled at some stage by all the aforementioned cultures.
What would be a barbarian civ today? Presumably a civ that transgresses human rights, civil liberties and "democratic values". Be it in the free market/ capitalist or controlled market/ socialist view. In that view mid 20th century Adolph Hitler was a barbarian. Does this make 2002 Germans barbarians? I disagree.
Why on earth then would one persons behaviour half a millenia ago stigmatize an entire nation as barbaric?
One last thing. Suppose characterized the Taliban as barbarians, I am sure there would still be enough arguments against it.
Conclusion: Be careful with the "B" word.

[tanelorn]

I had some typos, but frantic typing has it's consequences

[Stefan Härtel]

In that view mid 20th
century Adolph Hitler was a barbarian. Does this make 2002 Germans barbarians? I disagree.

This doesn't. But there are enough other things

[Palaiologos]

This thread is not about your Polish-Russian differences. Poles have a right to hate the Russians for what they have done to their country. We are not discussing the heir of the Roman Empire here. In my opinion there was no true heir of the Empire.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE SCENARIO.

To Stefan Hortel:

Good idea about the metamorphosis of the Persians into Mongols.

To Aleksandar:

I liked the "icon and flame" scenario too. However it has one major IMO flaw-too many turns. It ends up being united Byzantium versus the world. But apart this the gameplay runs smoothly.

[Palaiologos]

To correct one of my previous posts:

The "limitanei" were not the remnants of the old legions. The old legions were incorporated into the field armies.

About the units:

I plan to have 4 buildable units for each "epoch" in the Roman army's evolution. 1 heavy infantry, 1 heavy cavalry, 1 siege unit and 1 light troops/irregulars/auxiliaries(both infantry & cavalry).

Ships are extra to these.

[Valuk]

Tanelorn: Yes, I admit to being a barbarian. Why?
1) My ancestors didn't use steel to up until the ninth century, which can't be stated for your forfathers, aye?
2) Ne, jaz se sploh ne priznavam za Slovenca, temveè sem veè Srba/Ukrajinca/èesarkoli, da bi bil èisti Slovenec.
Did you understand what I just said? Thought so

I didn't mention the Turkisization of the Greek nation was a bad quality.
But come to think of it, it is, considering that the Turkish Ottoman empire slipped into anarchy and consequentially, barbarism soon after their defeat vs. the Austrians and Venetians in 1700.
From the turkish capture of Byzantium to the 18th century, a certain cultural level was maintained in great cities such as Edirne, Istanbul and Saloniki(oops, I did that on purpouse )
But the Turks soon changed their mind.
"Our greatest mistake" wrote a sage in 1699 "was abandoning the true way of the Dervish".
And when lord Byron arrived into Greece, what did the young noble find? A group of ragged turban- wearing peasants with a distinct hatred of the authority, thought they knew nothing else.
And in Macedonia, things were even worse. The oppression of the Pashas is still felt today.
The Greeks were integrated into balcanic culture, thus also embracing nationalism, a sentiment that hadn't been noted before.
And as the Turks oppressed the Armenians the Greeks turned upon the Macedonian Slavs in an ethnocidal mood, which goes on right to this day.
And the Greek Roumali Nationalist' pages flower like never before, each stating that the glory of the queen of cities MUST be renewed.
Ah, a pity.
And no, I was never Yougoslavian, not the least, thought I have a mainly Serb descent .
Yougolavia fell back in 1991, when I was about five years old.
And I do not consider myself Slovene, and am not nationalistic, I just have a taste for history.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
To correct one of my previous posts:

The "limitanei" were not the remnants of the old legions. The old legions were incorporated into the field armies.

Did you get my Notitia Dignitatum e-mail, Palailogos? if you did you will see that the the old legions did become the Limitani and Ripenses, at least on the formation of the field armies under Diocletian. The majority of the field army units were the new Palatini, with some of the old legions and auxilia subsequently being taken into the mobile armies either permanently, as Comitatenses, or temporarily as Pseudocomitatenses.

For example, the Dux Raetiae (Duke/commander of part of the fixed forces on the Danube) commanded Legio II Italica as 5 detachments of Limitani, while the Dux Mesopotamiae had Legio I Parthica and II Parthica as his Limitani Legions. It's worth noting that Limitani also included most of the old auxilia also.

IMHO, you should convert the 'old' legions into less able Limitani in the later stages of the empire (new rules file), while allowing the player to build new legio and auxilia Palatini which retain the combat stats of the early empire legions together with increased movement to allow mobile defence. After all, if the existing legions don't become less combat worthy they will present too great a defence against the barbarian hordes (and I don't mean Russians / Yugoslavians )

In an earlier post you stated that the field army system was not successful - on the contrary, the campaigns of Constantine, and later Julian (at least against the Germans if not the Sasssanids) were execptionally successful. What brought down the Western empire was lack of willing manpower, endless power struggles for the throne and the relentless western migration of the barbarians, not the inherrent weakness of the field army system.

BTW, can't wait for this scenario - it's the one I would have attempted if I had the skill or patience to create scenarios

[Alexandr]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
This thread is not about your Polish-Russian differences. Poles have a right to hate the Russians for what they have done to their country. We are not discussing the heir of the Roman Empire here. In my opinion there was no true heir of the Empire.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE SCENARIO.

Well, sorry... the discussion must be finished here (although there is still a lot to say )

We, Russians, also have enough reasons to feel antipathy against Poland (by the way, today is 390 anniversary of the liberation of Moscow from Polish interventionists); but, as victors, we are above any hatred.

About «Roman Empire scenario». Are you going to realize the phoedus system and (later) the theme army? [There is an idea, about recruiting system, which I tryed to realize in my «Justinian» scenario: the military power of Empire based on barbarians, especially in the «early-Byzantine» period. How it works in Civ: special «diplomat» units - may be diplomat or strategos - which hire barbarians to serve in army and to guard the borders. (This can be found in Prokopius’ writings; for example: when Roman forces suffered a defeat in the war against Persians, strategos Belisarius was sent there to support them - not with an army, but with large amount of money to recruit the army)].

[Heresson]

but, as victors, we are above any hatred.

You are not a victor; You don't hold any of the grounds You were fighting over with us - and we do not hold them too.

[Valuk]

Actually, the Russians did win. Poland was nearly a Russian colony until 1991! But now it's over, and Russia and Poland don't have any territorial disputes, come to think of it, they don't even border much anymore(except in former Eastern Prussia).

[Palaiologos]

Aleksandar i indeed planed to have diplomat units to bribe barbarians! I got hold of the idea a few days ago but without any access to a computer was unable to post it here.

Wait for some cool pictures in a few hours(6-7).
Fairline i unfortunately did not get your e-mail. My e-mail account space was full for a long time and lost many mails. Please send it again if it is not too much trouble.

[Palaiologos]

The field army system's drawback IMHO was that it allowed no space for failure. The soldiers lost in Adrianople were irreplacable. All it took was one tactical failure and the whole defence strategy colapsed.

But perhaps i am too strict. After all any other Empire that faced faced similar threats would have colapsed long before Rome.

[Palaiologos]

Legionaries of Legio II Parthica repel a Sassanian attack. Messopotamia, 260AD.

[Palaiologos]

Last stand at Hadrianopolis. The veterans of the scolae prepare to sell their lives dearly. Thrace, Battle of Hadrianopolis, 378AD.

The Draco standard is visible.

[Palaiologos]

Legionary and Cavalryman on campaign, 150AD.

[Palaiologos]

Onager and crew, defending the shores of Britain, circa 340AD.

[Palaiologos]

Although it is out of the chronology that my scenario focuses on, i thought it was cool so i posted anyway.

Auxiliary skirmish during the second Dacian War, 105AD.


The fallen Legionary belongs to the Legio I Adiutrix originaly raised from naval personel.

[Palaiologos]

This is ONE of the maps that i was talking about. It shows the aproximate stations of the Legions around 80AD. I have the exact names of the Legions from P.Connoly's "Greece and Rome at War". In the same book there are also the locations of the field armies according to the Notia Dignitatum. However something just doesn't fit. There is a field army in Strassburg, one at Pasau, at Regensburg!!!, at Concordia, at Aquileia!!!, at Rome, Split, Adrianople, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyrene and Dionysias.

Question 1: Why were some field armies positioned so close(the ones at Passau and Regensburg, and the ones at Aquileia and Concordia) ?. Where the Romans campaigning during that time in those areas?

Question 2: Why two field armies in Western Africa? I thought there was only one, cavalry only. The other was located in Tangiers, i think. Can somebody shed some light here?

[Palaiologos]

Byzantine troops.

[Palaiologos]

What do you know of the Sassanid military?
Did they use War elephants in battle?(i personally doubt it).

My impression is that their army composed of ultra-heavy cavalry(cataphracts) and horse archers. They also used sophisticated siege technics.

What about their infantry? Where they only irregulars and skirmishers or they also fielded heavy infantry?.


Any info on dates, numbers, locations etc. would be much appreciated, thanks.

[Valuk]

Their cavalry was not as heavily armed as the byzantine kataphraktoi, as there are reports of the 52-year old emperor Heraclius riding down three persian champions in a row at the battle of Nineveh in 627 A.D. and surviving only because of his heavy battle gear.
Try fanaticus.org

[Valuk]

Ok, got the link right this time.

[Alexandr]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
What do you know of the Sassanid military?
Did they use War elephants in battle?(i personally doubt it).

My impression is that their army composed of ultra-heavy cavalry(cataphracts) and horse archers. They also used sophisticated siege technics.

What about their infantry? Where they only irregulars and skirmishers or they also fielded heavy infantry?.

Yes, they used elephants (may be this type of forces wasn’t very widespread...) In «Epitoma rei militaris» by Flavius Vegetius Renatus (IV - V c. AD) there are some fragments about methods of fighting against Persian elephants. Another example - «History of persian kings» by Tha'alibi: 589 AD, persian battle elephants in the battle against turks (who also had elephants in their army). By the way, in that battle persians used oil-flametrowers («lions») against turkutes’ elephants.

The main force of Persian army - perfect horse archers and heavy-armoured cavalry (which were trained to use bows, too). Persian infantry (irregulars, skirmishers, middle infantry), on the contrary, had very low battle qualities. The siege technics were well developed, of course.

[Stefan Härtel]

Yes, the Persians used elephants in battle. Ammianus Marcellinus mentions them in the battle between Iulianus Apostata and Shapur II in AD 363.
I've made some graphics for Sasanian units. I posted some of them in the graphics showcase thread, and I attached them here.
They're based on descriptions of Roman historians and what little I could make out from carvings and bas-reliefs, so they're quite accurate.

[Civfan]

question 1
around 80 AD the Romans were fighting the hill tribes and the tribes I believe from Dacia. There was a king of the Dacians who if I remember right was causing much trouble to the Romans. It wasn't until Trajan crushed and created serveral provinces out of his kingdom around 105 AD or something like that, and this is when the legions were restationed. I have some books that depict this and theres much information about this I think at the site roman-empire.net.

I'm not 100% right now on this but I believe this is close to an answer that you were looking for. Got to double check on this one!

This is great what your doing. Good luck to you on it.

Civfan..

ps. Actually I found your answer:
http://roman-empire.net/emperors/domitian.html