War, bloody war.

[Bertram]

Not sure if this belongs here, or in the History discussion thread.

But, having played Spartacus last evening, I manage to lose the revolt in about 2 years. According to the F7 screen, the Romans lost 80.000 men, and Spartacus lost 72.000 men.
Then I tried the Mithradian revolt. Took it easy, waited with declaring war on Rome till the heritage event (meanwhile inciting everyone I could against the Romans). Sertorius and Rome apearently fought from the start, because in the F7 screen, it listed 120.000 men lost for the Romans, and 80.000 men lost for the Hispanian fraction. Meanwhile I had lost 10.000 men, and the pirates 30.000 (!).

Were these wars really so bloody? Did the Romans churn through 120.000 men in two years? And if not what was the number of men lost historically? What was their population base (at 75 BC) to support such a loss rate?

[Boomer]

Well, if you look at battles like Cannae, it was unusual but definitely possible to see tens of thousands of casualties. In fact at Cannae, the Romans lost almost 80,000 men... an entire Consular army wiped out by Hannibal in a single day.

I think the difference here is that in the ancient world armies would usually mass up for one big battle, throw everything they had at each other and the winner would take all. Entire campaigns were often decided on one huge battle, say like at the Milvian Bridge or Pharsalus. While the individual small battles might be a bit non-historical, certainly the casualty numbers were very high in those times. Plus there's always the math involved with 'total' casualties. Since casualties are represented in whole in these games, one has to take into account the fact that total casualties would also include those injured, captured, or missing after the battle.

[koningtiger]

That period was the hardest in roman history until his fall. Since the Cimbrian Wars until the end of the Republic the thing was a bloody road with victories and losses everywhere. And they were that big, yes. In Arausio, few years before the romans lost about 100.000 men.

[Ebbingford]

I've been thinking about the same sort of thing while testing for a while now. I am no expert on ancient warfare, prior to testing this game I had only read about a few key battles. I have since read a little bit more and have come to the conclusion that battles should be less frequent, in ancient times it seems that it was easier to avoid battle.
To try and replicate this in the game I play with the "Delayed Commitment" option in the Options/Game menu set to "Long Delay".

[pantsukki]

I agree that the casualty figures seem a bit high, but to make them more plausible I'd like to think that they include wounded as well. On the other hand, there seems to be far few prisoners. I've been fightning against Pompeius for over a year, causing well over 100k casualties, but only captured about 6000 men. I thought that it was very common practice to recruit opposing legionaries.

[Addams]

Prisoners usually ended up as slaves.

[koningtiger]

And you have to think that not all roman forces were from Rome, in that period there are legions and auxiliares recruited in Italy in the firsts scenarios and rest of mediterranean in the late ones.

[Bertram]

Should have googled first....
Roman Empire Population

[Florent]

The battles were indeed bloody as once beaten, the loser would turn their back and very often left their shield and weapons to run faster.
But as Ebbingford said there were not so much battles because of these losses.
Much time had to be used to find a good defensive position and of course an ennemy would try to avoid attacking strong positions thus the delay or maneuvers done à la Napoleon or Caesar.

Here for gameplay it is more interesting to have more battles or you could not be much interested...but it depends for exemple Spartacus won about 9 battles small or big.

For good defensive positions, look at Marius against the Cimbri and Teutones, Caesar at Bibracte, Publicola at Mount Garganus against Crixus or Publius Ventidius against the Parthian Cataphracts. But there is plenty of other exemples.

[yellow ribbon]

a.) number of slaves goes much higher if one army fights in RED-RED order. while historical records lack most of the aftermaths, how many slaves were send to Rome. it was enough to build the economy on it, to make Romans unemployed mainly.
in game they are simply POWs. in my last test games, they could make up 2/3 of Pompeis losses. while he is loosing 3:1 when Caesar blitzes in Summer, waits in winter from time to time.

b.) you find many examples for battles similar hard in history from the time around the game, 120.000 men and more in a battle, and i am not quoting CAESARS misleading overestimations

c.) the main difference is, that the replacements take sure that Legions [color="#FF0000"]are always full equipped[/color], so you have the that many battles that it feels wrong. any delay (but the option Ebbi. mentioned above), like "construction time for replacements" will lead to fewer action and doesnt fit to the engine.


d.) you can actually build many legions, since it is a military game.

the moment you have a Traian-named legion during Caesars time, you should know that historical statistics are not to be used to judge the situation. some legions had never any higher menpower than 1/3 of the original rooster after the first year

[Person of Interest]

a.)

the moment you have a Traian-named legion during Caesars time, you should know that historical statistics are not to be used to judge the situation. some legions had never any higher menpower than 1/3 of the original rooster after the first year

Indeed, it's my undestanding that since a Legion was enrolled as a group and their term of enlistment was a legal contract, once the Legion's term was expired the entire Legion was released. Therefore the Legions didn't receive replacements or reinforcements throughout their existence. Some leadership positions had a constant turnove but the rank and file consisted of the original enrollment over the term of service. Therefore years after a Legion's enrollment it might be well below full strength. Some of Caesar's Legions could muster no more than several hundred. Once a Legion got so depleted two understrength Legions with similar enlistment times would be combined and thus a Gemina(Twin) Legion would be formed.

[koningtiger]

Ehm...i think that is not correct. Imperial Legions received regular replacements and soldiers were dissmissed individually when they period was finished. That was in imperial times with the professional army.

Before that, legions were risen for a specific purpose and disbanded when that purpose ended. But that doesnt mean that they didnt received replacements.

[Kensai]

I've been thinking about the same sort of thing while testing for a while now. I am no expert on ancient warfare, prior to testing this game I had only read about a few key battles. I have since read a little bit more and have come to the conclusion that battles should be less frequent, in ancient times it seems that it was easier to avoid battle.
To try and replicate this in the game I play with the "Delayed Commitment" option in the Options/Game menu set to "Long Delay".

This is a very smart observation and suggestion and I fully concur. In fact, I will probably set this setting to "long delay" as well. Philippe once had said that it is correct to play with at least a small delay. I believe as you get back in time (in ancient conflicts) this delay should be bigger and bigger, especially if the title has one month turns.

Personally I would play ROP (18th century) and later titles with small delay and AJE and earlier with long delay. Everything in between probably with medium delay unless the turns are indeed 30 days in which case I will consider a long delay again.

[yellow ribbon]

Ehm...i think that is not correct. Imperial Legions received regular replacements and soldiers were dissmissed individually when they period was finished. That was in imperial times with the professional army.

Before that, legions were risen for a specific purpose and disbanded when that purpose ended. But that doesnt mean that they didnt received replacements.

as you said, IMPERIAL, most time of the game right now, and the possible content for the Birth of Rome scenarios, arent.

i dont know where i found it,but when Caesar entered Egypt, he had the Legio VI Ferrata. if i am right they had barely more then 1/6-1/3 menpower. (served mainly -51 to -48)
then was dissolved similar as he wrote, Colonia Iulia Paterna Arelatensium Sextanorum.

the first three emperors kept it similar, that how we have that many cities around early empire, while later the name "colonia" has no longer anything to do with veterans, not even with legions quarters, but was "sold" to the city

******************
[color="#FFFF00"]as always, non of us was present in this time, we can only give it the best shot in minds, while read about that other read, that they heard...
(meaning the rest would be better placed in the historical discussion thread)[/color]

EDIT:

- can find evidence that whole legions where raised to be replacements for losses before Caesar

- can find evidence that members of Cohorts, which were recruited as replacements in the Flavian time, had NO right to be citizen afterwards, contrary to the original members of the same legions they served in.

so, whatever they did, it did certainly not happen within 30 days

[yellow ribbon]

This is a very smart observation and suggestion and I fully concur. In fact, I will probably set this setting to "long delay" as well. Philippe once had said that it is correct to play with at least a small delay. I believe as you get back in time (in ancient conflicts) this delay should be bigger and bigger, especially if the title has one month turns.

Personally I would play ROP (18th century) and later titles with small delay and AJE and earlier with long delay. Everything in between probably with medium delay unless the turns are indeed 30 days in which case I will consider a long delay again.

i always favored the idea to combine it to seniority, but nowadays too many generals are involved. thus the generic long delay and historical attrition is the best to simulate a non-sandbox game

[Florent]

" Ehm...i think that is not correct. Imperial Legions received regular replacements and soldiers were dissmissed individually when they period was finished. That was in imperial times with the professional army. "

Yes certainly, but even Caesar during the Gallic War received replacements for his legions and ...in the game too.

[loki100]

To my understanding, actual losses in the fighting phase in the Ancient era were relatively light and relatively even. Thats why Phyrrus' battles with Rome stood out. Once one side broke - usually loss of organisation or a perception of defeat - then one of two things happened. If it was a mercenary force (as with the phalanx of most of the Diadochi), it simply surrendered and this was usually accepted. Or a massacre ensued as the losing side lost discipline and tried to run. One advantage of the legionary camp was providing the means to limit this disastrous phase, at least briefly.

The extent and how deadly the pursuit was in turn depended on how well organised was the winning army at the conclusion of battle, and how favourable the terrain was to such a close and sustained pursuit.

Most of the losses across a campaign would be connected to sieges and attrition.

[Person of Interest]

Ehm...i think that is not correct. Imperial Legions received regular replacements and soldiers were dissmissed individually when they period was finished. That was in imperial times with the professional army.

Before that, legions were risen for a specific purpose and disbanded when that purpose ended. But that doesnt mean that they didnt received replacements.

I was referring to late Republican era but I could certainly be wrong. There is much we don't know about the Roman military and it changed quite a bit over the hundreds of years of its existence.

[koningtiger]

" Ehm...i think that is not correct. Imperial Legions received regular replacements and soldiers were dissmissed individually when they period was finished. That was in imperial times with the professional army. "

Yes certainly, but even Caesar during the Gallic War received replacements for his legions and ...in the game too.

I am saying the same as you.

Its a nosense to think that a legion raised and active for more than one year didnt recieved replaments to fill the ranks.

[Addams]

Was that more interesting for them to fill up the ranks or to simply try to recruit some local auxiliaries though ? I mean, if your legion is operating in some lost area of Gaul it can be quite troublesome for reinforcements to reach you.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Was that more interesting for them to fill up the ranks or to simply try to recruit some local auxiliaries though ? I mean, if your legion is operating in some lost area of Gaul it can be quite troublesome for reinforcements to reach you.

But especially after the Marian Reforms a Roman Legion (and each cohort) operated strictly according to well defined procedures, that were based on a certain strength. So bringing each cohort up to nominal strength with trained legionairs would be very important for efficient operations.

And Caesar's operations in Gallia always tried to protect the lines of communications.

[yellow ribbon]

- for the Gallic wars its known for some authors that they state till -54 (Atuatuca) there was no refilling of ranks at all, but asking for more legions, i cant proof them right nor wrong. but the excessive use/pressing of AUX was part of the reason of the uprise -52

- for the Flavian time i already wrote above, replacements came in as FULL cohorts and replacement cohorts WERE NOT CONSIDERED WORTH to get the citizen status after service

- found some sources that after 300, the AUX and legions mixed much more, no clear distinction, not even with burgher cohorts (militia), they just filled ranks to rag-tag-forces

- found plenty of description giving evidence that either there was no replacing between Pharsalos and battles after Alexandrian war, or they were that small that legions from over 4000 men after Gaul, depleted sometimes down to less than 700 men.
but some of this outfits get hundred of men from integrated Pompeian militia/city guards in ITALY already, ranks were filled with.

others, the POW legions just were put into service with men at hand, it appears no full strength

- found sources stating that even fresh raised "legions" on Pompeys side were far away from 6000 men

provided that they took part in few battles, sometime not even three major ones, that sometimes six legions had less than 25-30.000 men at arms plus LOTS OF AUX (roughly 8000 and more), its not beyond my mind that they had replacements, but in doubt how far it

a.) worked at all
b.) was done on base of men and not "complete" outfits of cohorts size or larger
c.) that over the times from Punic wars to the time of two empires it differed considerably

so its a self fulfilling prophecy for the time horizon the game is in:

either the battles were that hard that replacement system couldnt bring back legions on tactical combat power

OR

the replacement system was inadequate to deal with losses in that high, even within a year and more time, while legions were marching


*****************

PS:

even the level of men not able to do duty (sick, starving etc) is to be though of 15-20% on average till -44. often enough supply was a problem.

as always for every author you find another one who tells you the opposite and contemporary sources can nearly be excluded, sometimes the losses deviate around 100%, depending which side is in favor of the report.

[Person of Interest]

According to Stephn Dando-Collins; researcher and author who has studied the individual Legions of the Late Roman Republic to the Early Empire for three decades; the Legions of this era were recruited en mass and discharged en mass and received no replacements except in very rare circumstances. Once a term of enlistment was complete some veterans would re-enlist for a new period and a draft of new recruits would bring the Legion back up to strength. Now whether he is correct or not I can't say. As yellow ribbon has stated you can easily find another researcher/author to completely contadict him.