Marian Madness?

[Cohors_Evocata]

There are hardcoded limits of 500 units. That means 500 slots in the EDU, rather than 500 skins or models or anything else. We can only have 500 actually-different, rather than cosmetically-different units in the game. In terms of the planned roster, 95% of that is filled. While that will change as our ideas evolve, the bulk of what is going to be in the game is already planned. Currently, the Imperial roster is 8 units.

I have to say, the only solution I would personally be in favour of, for representing Imperial legionaries, is an armour upgrade for Marian legionaries. Anything else is a waste of units slots. I don't see any justification for them being so different to Marian legionaries that they require completely new unit slots with different stats.

I believe that is basically what I suggested.

Anyway, thanks for the information. This has cleared things up a bit.

[Thuycidides]

These points are valid, I agree - but do they justify to have crippled (unit-wise) Hayasdan, Saba, Nabataea, Pontos etc?

Yes, I've been playing a Hayasdan campaign. It is challenging to say the least. My best spearmen have a base attack value of 2. There is no justification for anything, just limited resources that make for difficult decisions. I don't care about imperial units, but without the Marian units the Romani are not very fearsome. Like others have observed, I haven't seen them expand much, while Massilya consistently kicks the crap out of everyone (how?).

[Roman Heritage]

... while Massilya consistently kicks the crap out of everyone (how?).

I think it should be because of their relatively low upkeeps

Anyway, back to topic: I'd love to see Marian units, even though the most interesting phases of Roman expansion took place during the Polibyan era, and therefore I honestly feel they're all I need to finally play my Roman campaign - yeah, I keep on waiting to start it just to have Polibyans Anyway, I do agree that many other factions need to be fleshed out. After all, it isn't that funny to field uber-legionaries against poor levies and militia spearmen. Honestly, I'd really like to see even those faction I might play at last - nomads, arabians - fleshed out, since variety- and accuracy - is what really makes this mod so amazing. Waiting for the summer release, I'm reading infos and deepening my knowledge about Taxilans and Sakas, which really fashionated me for some reason...nonetheless, as soon as I get those Polibyans, it's time to make this Mare truly Nostrum.

Also, I see no real need for Imperial units...at this point of time, you should have quit the campaign, or conquered nearly everything. No true need for them - even though the "armour upgrade" idea is definitively intersting to me.

Keep on the amazing work, EB team!

[Poppis]

I love playing as Rome but I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Imperials if that means 8 more units for factions/areas where they could be more useful. Although the vast majority of my campaigns are as Rome, I know I will never finish any of them or get anywhere close to getting the Imperial units.

Armour upgrade sounds like a much better way of representing them than wasting unit slots.

[Sarkiss]

I’ve been interested in all things related to the Romans and Greeks. The original Rome: Total War and the mods which sprang from it were quite ideal for me as a result (which is how and why I discovered the original EB). Over time, this interest has begun to shift however. Nowadays I’m much more interested in those cultures and peoples which weren’t so lucky as to have the historical spotlight shining on them all the time.

same here. and this reminds me, Hayastan only got 3 factional units atm (there are also 2 caucasian ones, but those are regionals and shouldnt be recruitable in Hay lands to begin with).

...I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Imperials if that means 8 more units for factions/areas where they could be more useful.

^ this.

[anonimo272]

holywood made those units have a special place for me
bring on the holywood romans hate !!!

[Sint]

Unrealistic!Not historical!Terrible tactics involving testudo in meele!Lorica Segmentata!Go home Holywood romans

[haereticum]

I vote "I don't care about Romans either way" because that's it: i don't care. I am Greek Makedonian and thus a big fan of hellenistic factions with my favourite the Seleukids. I hate early romans, they were worse than the barbarians at this time and stop the Greeks from re conquer the world. First with Pyrrhos, Philip V, Antiochus III, the Epeirotai, the Makedonians, the Seleukids. I love the Seleukids because they were the last major hellenistic power that could stop roman expansionism.

You, sir, are speaking the words of a true Rhomaioktonos. Hai, Getai, Saba and the Hellenes needs more attention before the romaioi barbaroi needs any.

[Hummer]

I love playing as Rome but I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Imperials if that means 8 more units for factions/areas where they could be more useful. Although the vast majority of my campaigns are as Rome, I know I will never finish any of them or get anywhere close to getting the Imperial units.

Armour upgrade sounds like a much better way of representing them than wasting unit slots.

This

[Shadowwalker]

Well I dont't get exactly why do you say that ... Marian reform took place in 106 BC, which is about 100 years before the end of the mod. What you said could be appliable to the Imperial reform, but not the Marian one. And as I said in another topic, it is the Marian reform that changed the face of the antique world. It is the reform that created the first professional army ever ... So it is more than a crucial event of the period of this mod.
And a lot of people who have been disapointed by R2TW would like to play as Rome. But Rome without the Marian reform is like a US Marine fighting with an M1 Garand rather than an M16 !

Please don't take the following post as an offense, Titus le Chmakus, as it is not meant as such.
But your words are a perfect illustration of what I meant in my first post in this thread.

First of - there was no single event that could be named as the "Marius Reform". What we call "Marius reform" was a gradual process that spanned several decades if not centuries. [At this point I'd once again like to recommend Kate Gillivers "the Roman art of war" (1999) as a good read about the roman army.]

That process involved the change from the republican manipular tactics to cohort tactics. Cohorts were apparently already used (on some occasions) in the Iberian wars while manipular formations were still in use way after 106BC. If I'm not remembering wrong, the last mention of a maniple was in the middle of the first century BC.

Marius didn't even have the authority to change the roman armed forces as a whole, he simply levied legionnaires from all classes, including the capite censi, and therefore raised the numbers of available men to serve in his army.

We have such a narrowed, wrong and prejudiced view on the Romans and their army, it's not even funny anymore.
Example:

The first, and most obvious result, was the improvement in the military capability of the army. No longer, when war threatened the Republic, did a general have to hastily recruit a citizen army, train it to fight and obey military commands and discipline, then march it off to do battle, raw and un-blooded. This fact alone was instrumental in the growth and success of the Roman military machine and resulted in the continued success of the Romans on the battlefield.

When I read such statements I can barely manage to keep sitting on my chair instead of falling over, laughing.
You just need to read "De bello Gallico" to know of several occasions where a general 50 years after Marius' famous "reform" had to do exactly that - hastily recruit new legions to face a sudden threat. (And that threat was not even that sudden. Subduing whole Gaul, including several powerful tribal confederations? A fool who doesn't expect uprisings! )

Yes, the legions became a standing army over time, but that was - I have to say it again - a process. It was not Marius in 106BC sitting in his tent, rubbing his chin and suddenly exclaiming "Eureca! A standing army, all fighting in cohorts rather than maniples, all armed like the Principes, including the capite censi which I will order the Senate to outfit at the states' expense! That's the only solution!".

The roman government system itself prevented such long-term innovations to be single events, since the men who went through the cursus honorum (which was evolving as well and was not the same cursus honorum as the one applied by Augustus or his successors, just to mention it ) were not primarily looking for the state, but for their own advantages. And if they were elected as Consul, they had one year (with some famous exceptions to the rule) to earn money and reputation.
In that year they didn't have the time to sit around and ponder about what consequences their actions might have in 10, 50, 100 years. They acted on behalf of their own short-term advantages. Period.


So, once again, the process of the professionalization of the roman army was gradual, started way before 106BC and was not finished when Octavianus became princeps.

And neither the Romans nor the Makedonians under Phillippos/Alexandros were the first to have a professional fighting force.
The Spartans (another subject of a narrowed, one-sided, prejudiced and often completely wrong view, by the way ) had a full-time citizen army years before that. The Assyrians had levies, but also a (small) standing force of professionals. The complete history of Punic Sicily is a history of professionals, since, as z3n has pointed out correctly - what are mercenaries? Professionals!

The only difference between all those forces is that the romans won enough conflicts and survived long enough that their view on the events has been preserved until today. In many parts of our society they are still heavily influencing us, the most problematic field being the roman law (which is responsible for quite a few key problems of the modern world). We mostly know the roman point of view. "History is written by victors", remember?


Anyway, onto my last point. The Marian "reforms" are not the crucial event of the era. They are not insignificant, either, don't get me wrong, the evolution of the roman army during the first centuries BC/AD is an interesting process for sure. But there were other events that proved to be equally crucial.

To single out the Marian "reforms" just because they're part of the roman history is exactly that mindset of "romanocentrism" that EB is not about. And I'm damn glad about that.

[QuintusSertorius]

Marius didn't even have the authority to change the roman armed forces as a whole, he simply levied legionnaires from all classes, including the capite censi, and therefore raised the numbers of available men to serve in his army.

Just on this particular point, it wasn't even Marius' idea, for all that the "reforms" are attributed to him. The notion of recruiting from any class was that of his friend (and legate) Publius Rutilius Rufus, who was recruiting reinforcements to replace the losses in the war in Numidia against Jurgurtha in 110BC.

[z3n]

Perhaps it was easier to take the Marian reforms seriously than the Rufian reforms.

[kdub22]

I'd like to use the Marian units in either EB, but it takes so long to get there that I usually get bored and stop playing well before that happens.

[Satapatiš]

And as I said in another topic, it is the Marian reform that changed the face of the antique world. It is the reform that created the first professional army ever ...

Uhm, no.
Not the first one professional army ever.
Egyptians
Assirians
Babylonians
Persians
Chinese


Plenty of people before this time stumbled upon an idea of having a core of professionals to gather levies around. Roman accomplishment was rather in polishing this idea and pushing it further, than in coming with something completely new.

[Roma_Victrix]

I hate early romans, they were worse than the barbarians at this time and stop the Greeks from re conquer the world.

I bet you love those Eastern Roman Byzantines, though.

Just on this particular point, it wasn't even Marius' idea, for all that the "reforms" are attributed to him. The notion of recruiting from any class was that of his friend (and legate) Publius Rutilius Rufus, who was recruiting reinforcements to replace the losses in the war in Numidia against Jurgurtha in 110BC.

This really needed to be said. Some Romans did a really good job downplaying the work of their colleagues. For instance, the general Publius Ventidius Bassus, an underling of Mark Antony who won the first great battles against the Parthians after the loss of Carrhae, was most likely deliberately overshadowed by his superior (although he was given a triumph, but not heard from a lot after that). I suppose ambition was a lethal attribute to have back then; it was probably wise not to take too much credit for anything, or shine too bright a light on one's role.

Uhm, no.
Not the first one professional army ever.
Egyptians
Assirians
Babylonians
Persians
Chinese


Plenty of people before this time stumbled upon an idea of having a core of professionals to gather levies around. Roman accomplishment was rather in polishing this idea and pushing it further, than in coming with something completely new.

This also really needed to be said.

[War lord]

Honestly, I'd rather they not bother with Marian units, and instead use those slots for other units that would not otherwise make the cut. Marian reforms come so late in any campaign that one may as well ignore them.

[Roma_Victrix]

Honestly, I'd rather they not bother with Marian units, and instead use those slots for other units that would not otherwise make the cut. Marian reforms come so late in any campaign that one may as well ignore them.

I would argue that for Imperial reforms, not Marian reforms. I can't speak for everyone here, but I usually play these campaigns well into the 1st century BC, because I actually like to aim for the goal of conquest and empire-building. Not that I care too much about the Romans, though, as I've said before, Koinon Hellenon is my first pick.

[anonimo272]

Unrealistic!Not historical!Terrible tactics involving testudo in meele!Lorica Segmentata!Go home Holywood romans

and yet awesome
well kinda subjective but who hasn't seen a roman movie in childhood and thought they weren't cool ?
pretty epic armies make you watch stuff and can make you get involved
holywood took me to total war, total war to mods and mods eventually took me to real romans

anyway my real unpopular opinion is that both are "cool" on their own way
good looks aside as some have already said the fact they are a professional army makes them unique in this period of time

[QuintusSertorius]

good looks aside as some have already said the fact they are a professional army makes them unique in this period of time

Except that it isn't true. They weren't the first, and they certainly weren't the only professionals around at the time. Again, what do you think mercenaries are? Successor armies had large components of professionals, too.

[Sint]

Except that it isn't true. They weren't the first, and they certainly weren't the only professionals around at the time. Again, what do you think mercenaries are? Successor armies had large components of professionals, too.

It's impossible to tell some people to look at the romans unbiased,it's like trying to explain that Samurai aren't the best to a weeaboo.