08-21-2003, 07:44 AM
Stickers wrote:<br>
<em>I'd suggest that this was normally because they are richer and can afford better and/or heavier equipment. The Roman army around the turn of hte millenium was, of course, equipped by the state and no longer by the individuals who formed it</em><br>
<br>
Uhm - and? Praetorians are still likely to have ben first in line for the best/finest equipment; they certainly had better pay, and they would have felt very favored by the Emperor knowing that their chances for advancement in Roman society was miles ahead of their poor cousins on the frontiers.<br>
<br>
All that, adds up - IMO - to a strong indication that newly recruited Praetorians would have had the morale advantage over his frontier counterpart when recruited.<br>
<br>
It has nothing to do with them being scions of the upper class; which I wouldn't consider them to be. You were the one doubting that upper class troops should have better morale than lower class troops; which was why I drew the - IMO - very noticeable parallel between their situations.<br>
<br>
Funnily, Gladiators were just brought up on Ancmed, and two instances were identified from Appian by Duncan Head:<br>
- Used by Decimus Brutus against Antony in 44 BC (Appian Civil War III.49): "His army was made up of a quantity of gladiators and three regular legions..."<br>
<br>
- Used by Lucius Antonius against Octavian in 41 BC (Appian V.30 "Lucius moved rapidly on Rome by sending ahead three cohorts which entered the city unobserved at night, and followed himself with a large force including cavalry and gladiators" and 33 "Octavian's men were better at<br>
throwing missiles, Lucius' gladiators at hand-to-hand combat..." ).<br>
<br>
But as Hadrianus mentions; the point that makes their inclusion stupid is not their presence; it's the fact that they are distinguished equipment wise from the other troops. Which they wouldn't have been - they would either have been given real combat gear, or scrounged it at the first given opportunity, making them indistinguishable from any of the other hastily raised forces created during the Civil wars.<br>
<br>
Let's just forget about the Egyptians. It seems likely that the Total War series standings as historical games are going to be taking something of a hit with R:TW (as compared to the previous games); at least many of the errors this time around are so blatant that even people with little knowledge of history will catch some of them out.<br>
<br>
Doesn't bother me; it's still not the historical simulation part that will make me play R:TW.<br>
<br>
Regards, <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>
<em>I'd suggest that this was normally because they are richer and can afford better and/or heavier equipment. The Roman army around the turn of hte millenium was, of course, equipped by the state and no longer by the individuals who formed it</em><br>
<br>
Uhm - and? Praetorians are still likely to have ben first in line for the best/finest equipment; they certainly had better pay, and they would have felt very favored by the Emperor knowing that their chances for advancement in Roman society was miles ahead of their poor cousins on the frontiers.<br>
<br>
All that, adds up - IMO - to a strong indication that newly recruited Praetorians would have had the morale advantage over his frontier counterpart when recruited.<br>
<br>
It has nothing to do with them being scions of the upper class; which I wouldn't consider them to be. You were the one doubting that upper class troops should have better morale than lower class troops; which was why I drew the - IMO - very noticeable parallel between their situations.<br>
<br>
Funnily, Gladiators were just brought up on Ancmed, and two instances were identified from Appian by Duncan Head:<br>
- Used by Decimus Brutus against Antony in 44 BC (Appian Civil War III.49): "His army was made up of a quantity of gladiators and three regular legions..."<br>
<br>
- Used by Lucius Antonius against Octavian in 41 BC (Appian V.30 "Lucius moved rapidly on Rome by sending ahead three cohorts which entered the city unobserved at night, and followed himself with a large force including cavalry and gladiators" and 33 "Octavian's men were better at<br>
throwing missiles, Lucius' gladiators at hand-to-hand combat..." ).<br>
<br>
But as Hadrianus mentions; the point that makes their inclusion stupid is not their presence; it's the fact that they are distinguished equipment wise from the other troops. Which they wouldn't have been - they would either have been given real combat gear, or scrounged it at the first given opportunity, making them indistinguishable from any of the other hastily raised forces created during the Civil wars.<br>
<br>
Let's just forget about the Egyptians. It seems likely that the Total War series standings as historical games are going to be taking something of a hit with R:TW (as compared to the previous games); at least many of the errors this time around are so blatant that even people with little knowledge of history will catch some of them out.<br>
<br>
Doesn't bother me; it's still not the historical simulation part that will make me play R:TW.<br>
<br>
Regards, <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>
