Bloody Romans!

[Paul Innes]

All covered in other people's blood, that is:

http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/roma-victrix.html

Nasty.

[aligern]

However clever the opponent is against Romans he still has to face and beat the legions and that is very hard to do. As soon as a barbarian has to. rely on a frontal fight for victory he is doomed, especially when  the game is as big as your games are Paul. That's because with so many units luck tends to average and the barbarian needs a run of luck for several moves.
The big problem with Facing Romans is that skirmishing does not really weaken them and they are going t keep walking towards the warband.
Roy

[Paul Innes]

I think you're right there, Roy.  Having said that, as it turned out the Caetrati in the centre went the wrong way.  If they had come in at an angle against the Roman legions from the forest they could really have helped to swing the battle on that wing.  By going to help their pals against the Latins, they effectively ended up against nobody.  Another thing that the chieftain facing the Romans could have done was pack the warbands deep, and he would definitely have got all of them into the fight.  This does leave them vulnerable on the flanks and to angled attacks by cavalry, though, as Ariovistus found out against Caesar, and this is why they didn't do it in our game. 

Hindsight is a fine thing...

[aligern]

Did Caesar attack Ariovistus with angled cavalry attacks?
Roy

[Paul Innes]

Sorry, Roy, should have explained the comment about angled cavalry and Ariovistus in more detail - it's how I would interpret Publius Crassus' use of the cavalry on the left wing against the advancing Suebi.  I have been trying to visualise how this would have worked, and it seems to me that from what we know of the battle, some sort of gap would have to appear between the pressured legionaries on this wing and the hill with the camp and auxiliaries - enter young Crassus and friends from a position somewhat out of sight of the initial German deployment lines.

I hope this is making sense!

[Patrick Waterson]

I can see why Roy asked the question; Caesar describes this stage of the action thus:

"Id cum animadvertisset P. Crassus adulescens, qui equitatui praeerat, quod expeditior erat quam ii qui inter aciem versabantur, tertiam aciem laborantibus nostris subsidio misit."

(On observing which, P. Crassus, a young man, who commanded the cavalry - as he was more disengaged than those who were employed in the fight - sent the third line as a relief to our men who were in distress.)

It was the third line, not the cavalry, that Caesar reports young Crassus committing at this juncture.   

The cavalry soon had their turn:

"Thereupon the engagement was renewed, and all the enemy turned their backs, nor did they cease to flee until they arrived at the river Rhine, about fifty miles from that place. There some few, either relying on their strength, endeavored to swim over, or, finding boats, procured their safety. Among the latter was Ariovistus, who meeting with a small vessel tied to the bank, escaped in it; our horse pursued and slew all the rest of them." - Caesar, Gallic War, I.53

[Paul Innes]

Thanks for clarifying, Patrick, I was working (badly) from memory.  It would be interesting to see how the options open to Crassus would be handled by wargames rules - exactly the sort of thing the Battle Day does so well...

[aligern]

I would love to know how the third line (of cohorts I presume). actually intervenes. It does not sound as though they go around the flanks, yet if the front lines retire the  third line would be very much outnumbered. Do they advance and sort of filter in to the melee.
This battle is discussed on the battles section of this Forum, where the account by Cassius Dio is also cited and gives interesting detail. It is under Vosges 58BC.

Roy

[aligern]

This is the passage  from Appian's  Roman History. Appian is not that trustworthy, he quotes impossibly high numbers, but he does say that the Romans were pushed back and that they manoeuvred to defeat the Germans.
Appian is a bit of a cynic about Caesar, claiming that he was defeated by the Nervii at the Sambre before the tenth legion rescued him and I find that refreshing.

'He also overcame the Germans under Ariovistus, a people who excelled all others, even the largest men, in size; savage, the bravest of the brave, despising death because they believe they shall live hereafter, bearing heat and cold with equal patience, living on herbs in time of scarcity, and their horses browsing on trees. It seems that they were without patient endurance in their battles, and did not fight in a scientific way or in any regular order, but with a sort of high spirit simply made an onset like wild beasts, for which reason they were overcome by Roman science and endurance. For, although the Germans made a tremendous rush and pushed the legions back a short distance, the Romans kept their ranks unbroken, and outmaneuvered them, and eventually slew 800000 of them.'

Note also that the German assault, 'like wild beasts' runs pretty much counter to the description by Caesar where the momentum is equal and the Germans have a much more disciplined. formation.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I would love to know how the third line (of cohorts I presume). actually intervenes. It does not sound as though they go around the flanks, yet if the front lines retire the  third line would be very much outnumbered. Do they advance and sort of filter in to the melee.

Caesar merely says they were 'misit' - sent.  If the entire third line could act like a single command, as it had apparently done in the battle against the Helvetii (Gallic War I.25) then the logical course would be for it to march leftwards until its right third was behind the embattled legions on the left, which could then be relieved normally, whereupon the remaining two thirds would be in a position to sweep round the flank of the oncoming German right.  This would readily explain why the hitherto successful German right 'broke and fled without stopping' once the manoeuvre was complete.

[aligern]

But does that fit with Caesar and with Dio in particular? Shouldn't we expect a rather fuller explanation of the manoeuvre from Caesar if something more dramatic than frontal reinforcement happens.
The description in Dio emphasises the exhaustion of the Germans who are less fit and well trained than the Romans.
It would seem sensible that Romans have more 'lives' per unit than their opponents to enable them to outlast the barbarians, which is pretty much what happens in Paul's mega game. 

Roy

[Paul Innes]

Thanks for an interesting discussion, gents.  The one thing that Tactica does seem to get right as a ruleset is the mechanism for Roman line relief.  The details vary between Republican and cohortal legions (for lack of a better term), but in effect the legion operates as a sort of single unit composed of sub-commands in a way that is denied other military systems.  There is an element of abstraction, but basically the leftmost of Caesar's legions, that fighting the Suebi in this instance, would see the large German column defeat at least some of the first couple of lines of cohorts, which then need to be reinforced at points by the third line.  Before this happens, though, Crassus may have been able, as Roy suggests, to shift some troops into a superior position from which they could launch a sort of angled attack.  This is the bit I got wrong above - I misremembered, thinking it was the cavalry that did this, not the legion.  I suppose I'm trying to envisage how a tabletop game could represent this.  The angled attack isn't necessary, as indeed Patrick seems to be pointing out, since committing the third line as normal might have stabilised the Roman line and given it the extra power it needed to turn a pushback into a major advance. 

In our game on Tuesday, something like this did happen.  One of the close formation warbands broke the Hastati of the rightmost Roman legion, but was then destroyed in turn by the Principes.  The way Tactica makes this work is quite interesting -the units of  a properly supported duplex acies or triplex acies do not test morale until the legion is down to its final component.  The Hastati of the accompanying legion would normally test morale on seeing the destruction of their compatriots, but because they were themselves fully supported by their own Principes within 8" (25mm game distance), they didn't have to test.  And the Principes that saw their own Hastati destroyed didn't need to test either, because they were within the legal support distance while remaining outside the compulsory 4" zone for rout tests.  I could imagine a writer like Polybius describing the situation as one of line relief - the Hastati aren't destroyed as such, just relieved or reinforced by the Principes.  I suspect this is very similar to how Simon MacDowall represents line relief in his rules - in practice, it works really well on the table.  It gives the legions some flavour without being too gimmicky, if you know what I mean.  Conversely, the Triarii deployed wide of the main body of the legions did have to test morale, and passed.  They have built up a reputation in our campaign of failing such tests precisely because they are meant to be the elite troops!  It didn't happen this time, though, and the fate of the Celtiberians was sealed.

This could turn into another one of those threads about line relief.  As someone who isn't a professional historian, I am especially interested in how it is represented in games, as well as the written commentaries that tantalise us at this distance.

Thanks again!
Paul

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks for an interesting discussion, gents.  The one thing that Tactica does seem to get right as a ruleset is the mechanism for Roman line relief. 

And Armati although I havent played them both side by side to "cross reference" any subtle differences.....

Incidently would people consider Armati and Tactica like DBM and DBA?

[Mark G]

No

Armati is designed for competition style one on one games.  The armies are armies, not 12 element dba stylistic representations.

Tactica is designed for massed figure games which lend easily to multiplayer.

If they are ever published, no one will be playing competition games with tactica .  But it is a great choice for demo games, historical refights for classical infantry armies and for club games.

Also, playing two games side by side, tactica is far more likely to finish first.

A better comparison would be hail Caesar and dbm.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Mark,

currently using Armati 2 for solo play but do have a set of Tactica + supplement lurking around on my shelves. I think I will keep going with the Armati, warming to them nicely as a set of rules