|
|
Post by Dangun on Jul 20, 2017 5:32:44 GMT
Actually, I can think of one very good and irrefutable piece of evidence for the difference in the equipment between the legionary soldier and the Roman Auxiliary… …Trajan’s Column. If the fine fellows in the heavy restrictive
If the fine fellows in the heavy restrictive lorica segmentata armour with the large heavy semi-cylindrical squarish shields are the legionaries, then who were the chaps in the lighter mail armour with no extra shoulder protection and the smaller lighter oval shields? armour with the large heavy semi-cylindrical squarish shields are the legionaries, then who were the chaps in the lighter mail armour with no extra shoulder protection and the smaller lighter oval shields?
This is actually a very interesting topic IMHO. But the evidence is circumstantial at best and certainly not "irrefutable." As you say, Trajan's column shows at least two types of armour - lorica segmentata and the lighter mail. Unfortunately, the column does not label one group as auxilia and the other as legionary. That is an assumption, until you demonstrate some logic. I think you will find no clear historical literary reference that says lorica segmentata = legionary and lighter mail = auxilia. I have asked other on other fora, and never seen a clear quote. There may be one, but just saying... Some of the archaeological evidence is unclear, e.g. square scutum shields found at forts supposedly only manned by auxilia. Even grave markers give an unclear picture because legionary graves often depict the dead wearing a tunic rather than lorica segmentata. The original use of the word auxilia was to denote the origin of the troops and not to denote what they were equipped with. If you want to tinker with the most well researched army lists and unit types, it might be advisable to understand the pyramid of evidence and assumptions that underlie them. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 21, 2017 20:40:15 GMT
Actually, I can think of one very good and irrefutable piece of evidence for the difference in the equipment between the legionary soldier and the Roman Auxiliary… …Trajan’s Column. If the fine fellows in the heavy restrictive lorica segmentata armour with the large heavy semi-cylindrical squarish shields are the legionaries, then who were the chaps in the lighter mail armour with no extra shoulder protection and the smaller lighter oval shields?
This is actually a very interesting topic IMHO. But the evidence is circumstantial at best and certainly not "irrefutable." As you say, Trajan's column shows at least two types of armour - lorica segmentata and the lighter mail. Unfortunately, the column does not label one group as auxilia and the other as legionary. That is an assumption, until you demonstrate some logic. I think you will find no clear historical literary reference that says lorica segmentata = legionary and lighter mail = auxilia. I have asked other on other fora, and never seen a clear quote. There may be one, but just saying... Some of the archaeological evidence is unclear, e.g. square scutum shields found at forts supposedly only manned by auxilia. Even grave markers give an unclear picture because legionary graves often depict the dead wearing a tunic rather than lorica segmentata. The original use of the word auxilia was to denote the origin of the troops and not to denote what they were equipped with. If you want to tinker with the most well researched army lists and unit types, it might be advisable to understand the pyramid of evidence and assumptions that underlie them. Yes, ‘Auxilia’ was originally a name given to the compulsory allies of Rome, and not necessarily a troop type. However, many of these compulsory allies fought in their own native lighter styles, which the Romans found useful. And names do change their meaning over time. For example, the ‘middle class’ of Roman society were called equites, and in early times they would supply the cavalry. By the Marian-Caesarian period, other sources of cavalry were recruited, but the equites class still kept their name. And one type of gladiator was known as a ‘Thracian’…that didn’t mean they were armed or looked like actual Thracians. I’ve noticed this change of word meanings even in my own lifetime. When I was a lad, when men were men and women were grateful, being ‘gay’ meant someone was happy, nothing more. Even the song at the end of every episode of The Flintstones sings about “having a gay old time”. I wonder what conclusions future sociologists 2,000 years from now will make of this cartoon!  Anyway, getting swiftly back to the subject (before I get myself banned!), let us assume for the moment that the legionaries were universally adaptable, and could perform every role on a battlefield, thus making a ‘combined arms’ approach to warfare completely unnecessary. If so, then why on earth would they equip half their imperial army with troops with different lighter equipment, as shown on Trajan’s Column? Even from a logistical and supply point of view, it would make much more sense to have everyone armed the same… … if they all had exactly the same function. Surely the lighter equipment was for a reason, because some troops had a different role on the battlefield. A role that the lighter equipment allowed them to perform better than the slow heavy ponderous legionary. Either that or it was nothing more than some sort of Roman ‘fashion statement’… (The Italians have always had a sense of dressing in style, going back even to the Renaissance and before)  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Jul 22, 2017 6:58:47 GMT
Even if we assume that you are right and that different armour denotes different function, you still have not provided any evidence to link light armour exclusively with auxilia and heavy armour exclusively with legionaries. I politely suggest that you may be suffering some confirmation bias, because you may be starting with the assumption that auxilia were "lighter"? Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 22, 2017 10:04:25 GMT
Even if we assume that you are right and that different armour denotes different function, you still have not provided any evidence to link light armour exclusively with auxilia and heavy armour exclusively with legionaries. I politely suggest that you may be suffering some confirmation bias, because you may be starting with the assumption that auxilia were "lighter"? Just a thought. Actually, all I am doing is stating why I agree with Phil Barker’s and other scholar’s assessments. Let’s go over the irrefutable evidence once more:- Fact: Trajan’s Column shows two different types of Roman soldier, one heavier than the other. (This I can see with my own eyes) Fact: Literary evidence says half the Roman army were non-citizen ‘auxiliaries’, and half were citizen ‘legionaries’. (This I can read with my own eyes) Fact: Troops with lighter equipment are not as well protected, but could move about more easily. (This is common sense and you can prove it yourself from personal experience… …try jogging carrying heavy stuff!) Even if you assume that the lads in the lorica segmentata armour carrying the heavy semi-cylindrical shields represents both the legionaries and the auxiliaries, you are still left with who were the blokes in the lighter mail carrying the lighter oval shields? Did the Romans have ‘heavy’ legions, some composed of citizens and some of non-citizens, and ‘lighter’ legions, also with some composed of citizens and some composed of non-citizens? If so, then the situation on our wargames table remains unchanged… …some Roman foot elements are heavy, and some Roman foot elements are lighter. (Change the name, the effect is the same...I'm a poet and didn't know it!)That sums up the case for the defence. It’s now time for the prosecution to lay out their case. Why are two differently armed types of Roman soldier shown on Trajan’s Column? Why would the Romans need some troops with lighter equipment? Why do you believe that troops with heavy armour and heavy shields would perform the same as lighter troops? I’d be interested in hearing how people can use the facts listed above to come to any other conclusion. I politely suggest that you may be suffering some confirmation bias, because you seem to be denying what you can actually see with your own eyes. Just a thought. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Jul 24, 2017 1:18:02 GMT
Even if we assume that you are right and that different armour denotes different function, you still have not provided any evidence to link light armour exclusively with auxilia and heavy armour exclusively with legionaries. I politely suggest that you may be suffering some confirmation bias, because you may be starting with the assumption that auxilia were "lighter"? Just a thought. Actually, all I am doing is stating why I agree with Phil Barker’s and other scholar’s assessments. Let’s go over the irrefutable evidence once more:- Fact: Trajan’s Column shows two different types of Roman soldier, one heavier than the other. (This I can see with my own eyes) Fact: Literary evidence says half the Roman army were non-citizen ‘auxiliaries’, and half were citizen ‘legionaries’. (This I can read with my own eyes) Fact: Troops with lighter equipment are not as well protected, but could move about more easily. (This is common sense and you can prove it yourself from personal experience… …try jogging carrying heavy stuff!) Even if you assume that the lads in the lorica segmentata armour carrying the heavy semi-cylindrical shields represents both the legionaries and the auxiliaries, you are still left with who were the blokes in the lighter mail carrying the lighter oval shields? Did the Romans have ‘heavy’ legions, some composed of citizens and some of non-citizens, and ‘lighter’ legions, also with some composed of citizens and some composed of non-citizens? If so, then the situation on our wargames table remains unchanged… …some Roman foot elements are heavy, and some Roman foot elements are lighter. (Change the name, the effect is the same...I'm a poet and didn't know it!)That sums up the case for the defence. It’s now time for the prosecution to lay out their case. Why are two differently armed types of Roman soldier shown on Trajan’s Column? Why would the Romans need some troops with lighter equipment? Why do you believe that troops with heavy armour and heavy shields would perform the same as lighter troops? I’d be interested in hearing how people can use the facts listed above to come to any other conclusion. I politely suggest that you may be suffering some confirmation bias, because you seem to be denying what you can actually see with your own eyes. Just a thought. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
That was a lot of text, but still not a single piece of physical or literary evidence that links auxilia to lighter armour. Your basic argument is that Trajan's column has light and heavy armour, and therefore the light armour are auxilia. That makes no sense. Your conclusion does not follow logically. Aren't you surprised that from all of the Roman literature and all of the Roman military manuals, that you can't produce a single quote that describes what auxilia wore? Or described what they were wearing as being lighter than legionaries? A single quote would end this argument, but I haven't seen it yet. Try a simpler question, how do you know there are any auxilia depicted on Trajan's column? I happen to think that the assumption is more likely right than not, say 60% in the early period to maybe 30% in later period, but you seem dangerously unaware of how little evidence there is for what you want to assume. The better evidence comes from grave stele. Here is some counter-evidence: Batavian auxiliaries bringing home the lorica segmentata that they used www.cohibat.co.uk/page14.php |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2017 21:03:41 GMT
That was a lot of text, but still not a single piece of physical or literary evidence that links auxilia to lighter armour. …and no literary evidence that links auxilia to heavy armour either.
Your basic argument is that Trajan's column has light and heavy armour, and therefore the light armour are auxilia. That makes no sense. Your conclusion does not follow logically. …of course it does.
We know that half the Roman army were citizen legionaries, and the other half were non-citizen auxiliaries.
And we can see on Trajan’s Column two types of Roman solider, one heavy and one lighter.
1 + 1 sometimes equals 2 you know.
I’ll tell you what doesn’t make logical sense.
In 212 AD Emperor Caracalla made all free men in the empire full Roman citizens.
If the legionaries and the auxilia both wore the same armour, and both are composed of citizens, where is the distinction?
How can someone be an ‘auxiliary’ if they they are full citizens and have the same equipment and functions as the main army?
The only thing that makes sense is if the citizen ‘Auxilia’ were a special troop class, armed differently from the citizen 'legionaries'.
Aren't you surprised that from all of the Roman literature and all of the Roman military manuals, that you can't produce a single quote that describes what auxilia wore? …and nor can you.
Or described what they were wearing as being lighter than legionaries? …or describing that what they wore was the same as the legionaries.
A single quote would end this argument, but I haven't seen it yet. …nor have I.
Try a simpler question, how do you know there are any auxilia depicted on Trajan's column? …very well, let’s say that all the figures on Trajan’s Column are legionaries.
If no auxiliaries are depicted, then we are free to speculate on what they wore.
I say they wore lighter armour.
Prove me wrong.
I happen to think that the assumption is more likely right than not, say 60% in the early period to maybe 30% in later period, but you seem dangerously unaware of how little evidence there is for what you want to assume. The better evidence comes from grave stele. Here is some counter-evidence: Batavian auxiliaries bringing home the lorica segmentata that they used www.cohibat.co.uk/page14.phpThanks for that link. That was very interesting, but even the authors of the site say it is not conclusive evidence. Quote:- “…leaving us with three possible and plausible reasons for it being in his possession;
a) It was a war trophy or ‘spoila’.
b) It belonged to and was worn by him and was deposited as a votive offering to his gods upon retirement and his return home.
c) It belonged to a son who, now being a Roman citizen, joined the legions and it was deposited by him at a later date.”
Only option b) supports your assessment that Batavian auxiliaries may, or may not, have worn heavy armour. I concede that some selective auxiliaries might have done so, but that tells us nothing about all the other auxiliary cohorts within the empire. The authors go on to say:- “We are unable to say for certain that the 77 catalogued finds of segmented armour fittings found in the rural Batavian area were definitely owned or worn by Batavian auxiliary soldiers, but the frequency of the finds, their associated finds such as the diploma fragments, the contexts and their locations suggest that Batavian auxiliary soldiers certainly did have access to such equipment, either as trophy pieces or actual items of personal equipment used by the men themselves. It does not therefore seem unreasonable to speculate that some Batavian auxiliaries did wear the segmented plate armour more commonly depicted as worn by citizen legionary soldiers on propaganda monuments such as Trajan’s Column.”
Meanwhile, you, I, and everybody else, can see two different types of Roman soldier on Trajan’s Column… ...one with heavy armour and one with lighter armour… Anyway, It’s not me you should be convincing. I’m a nobody. It’s all the professional historians, academics, scholars, archaeologists and professors, and all the writers of Roman History books, and the publishers of those beautiful Osprey illustrated publications, and all the creators of various wargames rules, and all the figure manufactures of the past 30 years, that you should be convincing. Best of luck.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jul 27, 2017 18:32:11 GMT
Personally i am thinking that first of all the rules should clarify all the points which have been raised in the forum.
Amended armies if historically proved seems obvious and easy.
Changing combat or melee factors are changing the rule and we all know the negative results on rules who did it in the past.
If you want impact fast vs solid, why do not must pursue fast with 3 fig and stand solid with 4 figs ? Otherwise if no change that is fine for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jul 27, 2017 18:44:31 GMT
Personally i think that first of all 3.1should include all clarifications to questions raised in 3.0 forum
All armies could easily be uptaded with historical proofs
I am not in favor of changing combat or melee factors, we all the impact on previous rules in the past who did that.
If Fast and Solid is a balanced issue may you could make pursue Fast with 3 figs and stands Solid with 4 figs disregard the class of the element.
If no change this is also perfect for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jul 27, 2017 18:53:34 GMT
Personally i think that new 3.1 should include all clarifications subjected to questions in 3.0 forum.
all armies lists should be updated with justified historical supports.
i am not in favor to update combat or shooting factors as if so it change the rule and we all know what happened to rules who did that in past !
if Fast and Solid is a balanced issue, may be you could make pursur Fast with 3 figs and stands
Solid with 4 figs ?
anyway no change is fine for me !
|
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Oct 5, 2017 21:07:05 GMT
No change is fine for me too. There seem to be more and more people at tournaments in England, we have a great set of rules here, lets let them build momentum.
Paul H
PS if there are to be changes, of course, I'd like to see a bit of speeding up for Cm, and relief for them, as well as Cv, from the phantom overlap.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 5, 2017 22:05:05 GMT
No change is fine for me too. There seem to be more and more people at tournaments in England, we have a great set of rules here, lets let them build momentum. Paul H PS if there are to be changes, of course, I'd like to see a bit of speeding up for Cm, and relief for them, as well as Cv, from the phantom overlap. Aiiieeee.... son of a camel 🐪 🐪 👳🏾 etcetc More camel-friendly rules for them pesky Tuaregs??!!! M 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 7, 2017 2:16:45 GMT
Boo Camels!
There! No camels in 3.1... unless I paint a camel army.
(More seriously, I will take your comments under advisement.- Hey... how about we just completely whack phantom overlap? That isn't a joke. I've only seen it used a few times...not sure we need it.)
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 7, 2017 7:34:04 GMT
Joe,
As almost inadvertent inventor of the phantom overlap I would shed no tears for its demise. But the rules would benefit from some way of preventing a single well placed element from closing off the board by two base widths on one flank.
It may be that the conforming rules already do this, although I doubt that anybody has had cause to take a view.
Using a larger board is another option. Certainly since we have moved to 30" boards, edge effects have been completely eliminated.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 7, 2017 10:29:19 GMT
I agree with scottrussell. If you take away the current ‘phantom overlap’, I know damn well that I for one will exploit the table edges! However, I do find the current rule excessively complex:- Is the element in good going or not?… Is the element one of those that is exempt?… Is the element stationary or moving?… Is the element’s corner in contact with friendly troops?… I dare anyone to think up a more complicated, difficult, and unnecessarily convoluted rule!  I’d prefer something far more simple, such as:- “All troops -1 if within 1 base width of a table edge (unless assaulting or defending a city, fort, or camp)”This would be much more straightforward, uncomplicated, and easy to remember…yet still be a deterrent. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 7, 2017 13:44:13 GMT
I agree with scottrussell. If you take away the current ‘phantom overlap’, I know damn well that I for one will exploit the table edges! However, I do find the current rule excessively complex:- Is the element in good going or not?… Is the element one of those that is exempt?… Is the element stationary or moving?… Is the element’s corner in contact with friendly troops?… I dare anyone to think up a more complicated, difficult, and unnecessarily convoluted rule! I’d prefer something far more simple, such as:- “All troops -1 if within 1 base width of a table edge (unless assaulting or defending a city, fort, or camp)”This would be much more straightforward, uncomplicated, and easy to remember…yet still be a deterrent. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
You know Stevie, the blanket -1 may just work on a great many levels. My concern with the larger boards is although they help Cv, LH and LI armies, HI infantry armies (e.g. Pk) have an incredibly hard time. Also camps get very much harder to capture, being so far back. |
|
