Principate Roman Auxilia

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

Post Reply
Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by Eques » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:09 pm

The list gives a choice of Heavy or Medium foot.

What do people think is most accurate?

Thanks

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3789
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by dave_r » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:14 pm

If we knew that then the list would have them as that choice :)

Seriously - nobody knows. One school of thought is that the Auxilia were tactically no different to the legions, whilst others think they were more lightly armoured and fought in a consequent looser formation.

The choice is given so that if you care about the historical correctness you can read up on the period and make your own decision on what they should be. Not a definitive answer by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the best i can do I'm afraid.
Evaluator of Supremacy

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by timmy1 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:24 pm

Much though I hate to argue withe dave_r (OK, that is not true...) if I were talking my own book I would agree with dave_r as I have MF Auxilia in my PRs. However there is, and has been for most of the past 20 years, fairly much a consensus among historians that they were mostly or all Heavy foot whose battlefield role was almost identical to that of the other heavy foot in the Legion. Adrian Goldsworthy probably has it most clearly articulated. I suspect that as most if not all of the Auxilia were not Roman Citizens (Civis romanus sum and all that) and therefore their contribution was not recorded in quite the same manner as that of Citizens but I could not state that as a 100% certainty.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3789
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by dave_r » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:33 pm

concensus amongst historians that
We all know how reliable those useless gits are. In six years time they'll find a book buried somewhere that shows they were all wrong!

If you show me definitive proof that doesn't involve words like "probably", "appears", "likely" and "assuming" I'm sure we'd have a 100% concensus.
Evaluator of Supremacy

Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by Eques » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:06 pm

Happy to go with the current consensus as that ties in with my pre-conceived notions.

I reckon perhaps if they did play a markedly different role to the legions this would have come up more in the sources.

I believe at Mon Graupius, for example, the legionaries did not actually come into play and the Auxilia did all the fighting, which would suggest they were used as frontline close combat specialists.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by grahambriggs » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:30 am

I suspect the reality is that there were troops who could either form solid line of battle or scamper across terrain and our rules have incorrectly made two troop types out of them.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by timmy1 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:11 pm

Graham, could not agree more but within the limits of the rules we can only choose between what they define...

Now if we can open the multirole debate up a bit we would soon get on to a certain Greek chappie and some blokes who can be either / or (so to speak) as well as reigniting the Atilla The Hun / Mongol LH as Cav debate...

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8695
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by philqw78 » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:41 pm

Eques wrote:I believe at Mon Graupius, for example, the legionaries did not actually come into play and the Auxilia did all the fighting, which would suggest they were used as frontline close combat specialists.
But surely this battle was fought in terrain that would have suited MF better.
or
They may have used the auxilia reasoning "Why let citzens (legio) die fighting for such an inhospitable, cold, wet, horrible and heathen piece of land"
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:45 pm

timmy1 wrote:Graham, could not agree more but within the limits of the rules we can only choose between what they define...
Perhaps our thinking is no as far from history as we might think. e.g. if you are entering a competition where you think all the armies will be mounted but think you'll be able to get a fair bit of terrain down you might choose MF to dominate the bad going. If you think you'll spend all weekend trudging over the steppe, HF might be better. i.e horses for courses.

ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by ShrubMiK » Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:37 pm

I'm of the opinion that there was was some perceived difference between Auxilia and Legiones. Otherwise why bother to make the distinction, and reatint hat distinctikonm so strongly for hundreds of years?

Whether it was a difference that would be significant in the terms of how they would be represented on the wargames table is another matter....

One theory is that it was purely logistical and administrative differences; one theory is that the auxilia were less heavily equipped; one theory is that it was about legal status (citizens vs. non-citizens); one theory is that it was about tactical usage and fighting style. There are probably a number of others I have forgotten! They migfht all be true, they might all be false. And all of those factors change over time as well, so you need to be clear on exactly when you are talking about.

I tend to deploy them as MF under FoG, but I don't think that's a very good representation. But that's part of a wider problem with FoG and MF generally.

BTW, my trust in Goldsworthy as an authority on these matters was diminished by his series of articles on representing Romans with troop type/ability changes under WAB ;)

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:40 pm

Heavy Foot.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

IanB3406
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:06 am

Re: Principate Roman Auxilia

Post by IanB3406 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:53 am

I was kind of hoping the whole troop type would disappear in fog2..


..The extra maneuverability of MF in fog although reduced in v2 somewhat makes these troops nice to have. Certainly I used to use these with the lanciari to swarm flanks while the 2-3bg of legions refused and looking for a spot. It was a lot of fun to fight other heavy foot armies, however Not so fun for the heavy foot.

Ian

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”