# Make me a Roman Legionaire



## BLACKDIRGE (Oct 9, 2002)

Howdy,

I want to play a character based on a Roman Legionaire of about AD 120 (if that means anything to you), using all the tactics and equipment such a warrior would use. I have some ideas but would appreciate any imput from some of the other history buffs on the board. I figure 10 levels would be a good starting point, he could have advanced to the rank of Centurion by now. 

Any Input would be appreciated.

Dirge


----------



## maddman75 (Oct 9, 2002)

Well, I'm not exactly a historian, but I'll give it a shot.

First, the armor, lorica segmentata as I recall, was a series of overlapping metal bands along with a leather skirt.  It was heavy duty armor in those days.  Game wise, I'd interpret this as banded mail.  They would also use a large steel shield.  The legionarres had a tactic of linking their sheild together to form a defensive shell - you'd need to develop a new feat to reflect this.  Maybe something like

Linked Shields
Prerequsites - BAB +3, shield proficiency
Benefits - By taking the total defense action, in addition to the normal benefits of this feat the character gains the benefits of 1/2 cover if there is a character on either side of him employing the same tactic.  If there are characters on either side, he gains 3/4 cover.

note - that was off the top of my head and is in NO WAY tested or balanced.  Just an idea.

The sword was a gladius, a finely made shortsword.  Masterwork or better shortsword and you got the sword down.  They also had a special kind of javelin called a pilum.  It could be treated as a standard javelin, except the long iron shaft tended to bend or break on impact, preventing the enemy from throwing it back at you.

For feats, the legionnares were trained to get up close to the enemy and make an upward stab into their stomach, so I think power attack would be appropriate.  Weapon focus and specialization in gladius would be good as well, along with improved critical.  Throw in some ranged combat feats for the pilum, and maybe top it off with Iron Will (to reflect the stern Roman discipline) and you got yourself a legionnaire.

Again, not a history expert, this is based off stuff I've read or seen on the history channel.


----------



## SHARK (Oct 9, 2002)

Greetings!

Well, Black Dirge, I would submit the following:

Roman Centurion
Level 4 Expert/Level 6 Fighter: (Focus skills on Craft-Carpentry/Craft-Stonemasonry; Profession-Carpenter; Profession-Stonemason; Knowledge-Siege Engineering; Knowledge-War; Knowledge-Streetwise; Knowledge-History; Diplomacy; Gather Information; Intimidate; Knowledge-Nobility; as well as Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, and Wilderness Lore.

Such skills are essential for providing the needed skill ranks to reflect a Centurion's long experience, as well as diverse skills as an engineer, combat soldier, and officer. Centurions not only work daily with the legionnaires of their unit, but they also interact on a daily basis with the aristocratic Tribunes as well as the Legate (or commanding General)of the legion. The Centurion is often responsible for teaching younger legionnaires the skills that the Roman Legionnaires are famous for.

Equipment: Banded Mail seems to be the best D&D equivalent of the Lorica Segmenta, and provide him with a large Steel Shield, a Masterwork Shortsword, Masterwork Dagger, Helmet, cloak, and a wooden rod, which is a symbol of his authority. Hobnail sandals, harness, belt, small pouch, waterskin, and you're good to go!

Feats: Hmmm...Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Leadership; Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack; Expert Tactician; Iron Will.

These feats seem to me to accurately reflect the Centurion's ferocious fighting capability, as well as skill with tactics, leadership, and universal Iron Will. To become a Centurion, a person had to be incredible tough, driven, disciplined, and ruthless, as well as skilled beyond all other lesser legionnaires. Centurions, were, after all, the best men of the entire Legion. They were selcted from men who were the top ten percent!

Hope this helps!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Dragongirl (Oct 9, 2002)

Looks like I there are some good ideas in the posts above, so all I have to add is.......POOF, you are a roman legionaire!


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 9, 2002)

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *Looks like I there are some good ideas in the posts above, so all I have to add is.......POOF, you are a roman legionaire! *




Dammit!  Beat me to it.  I used to get that all the time from my dad when i was a kid.  "Dad, make me a milkshake..." I'd whine, and he'd go "POOF! You're a milkshake!"  Not terribly helpful, I remember thinking at the time.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 9, 2002)

In Lords of Darkness there's a Phalanx Fighting feat, which is meant to simulate the overlapping shield bonus. I don't think i can post it here legally though. Maybe you should just check out your local game shop to see what it does?


----------



## mmu1 (Oct 9, 2002)

Shark's post looks pretty comprehensive...

I will point out, though, that Spring Attack doesn't work in heavy armor (such as Banded Mail).


----------



## boothbey (Oct 9, 2002)

Going to have to go check out Lords of Darkness for that feat.  Heh.  I have an orc nation that uses Legionaires, didn't have any clue how to emulate a shield wall tactic.  THANKS!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Oct 9, 2002)

*Exotic Weapon*

I would certainly get pilum as an exotic weapon profeceincy.

Do a bastard sword thing and say you can use them as regular javelins, but if you get the exotic weapon proficiency you can wield it with different stats and know how to use it to deprive an opponent of his shield or weapon.

Might also consider a special feat for 'crowding' your opponent with your shield in close combat.  An important part of Roman close fighting was limiting their opponents use of larger weapons by pressing them with their shields and/or bashing them with the boss.  Make it something like a limited grapple, where the legionarre would make an opposed check alongside an attack and whammo they would both be limited to small weapons.


----------



## SHARK (Oct 9, 2002)

Greetings!

Ach! I forgot about the Heavy Armor restriction! But wait!--if you can rationalize the armor being forged from Mithril, it reduces it's Armor Weight Category Type to Medium, and also increases his available dexterity! 

That's if you want Mithril, which the Roman Centurions did often wear armor that was especially inlaid with gleaming silver, so...

Also, though Centurions were certainly skilled with the Pilum, they didn't carry them into battle, like other legionnaires.

Thanks by the way, I'm glad everyone likes the stats! great stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Emiricol (Oct 9, 2002)

A quick note - Lorica Segmentata is NOT heavy armor as we think of it, it was medium armor designed to maximize mobility over protection.  Banded armor as we think of it traditionally sort of evolved from Lorica Segmentata.

In game terms, it might be:

Cost: 450; AC +5; Max Dex +3; Armor Check Penalty -1; Arcane Sp. Failure 20%, Speed 30'; Weight 20

Some would say that due to its design for maximum mobility, the AC could reduce by 1 if no large shield is used.

Note that historically, there _were no arrows that could penetrate Lorica Segmentata_ on a straight hit, as the metal plates were designed to bend and be easily bent back, but it didn't cover much beyond the torso, but that's kind of hard to model in game terms.


----------



## maddman75 (Oct 9, 2002)

Maybe breastplate stats would be more appropriate for Lorica Segmentata?


----------



## SHARK (Oct 9, 2002)

Greetings!

Yeah, Emirikol and Maddman75, I tend to agree, the Breatsplate is perhaps more accurate a depiction, in game terms at least, if not function. The Lorica was fashioned into flexible PLATES, and it was more protective than chainmail, but it wasn't Plate Armor of the 15th century. Eh, those damned game mechanics!

Interestingly, according to Warfare In The Classical World, by John Warry, it discusses how there was no system of "obscelesence" in the ancient world, and that several different forms of armour were worn throughout the Legions, as different types and styles of armour often never really went away entirely. Thus, I suppose, you could have a certain Centurion wearing chainmail, while another wears a Breatsplate, while another wears Banded Mail. Apparently, various Roman armour smiths commissioned limited types of very heavy armour, as well as other types of armour. While I think Banded Mail can fit well, I'm fond of Breatplates as mechanically more accurate. One can just hand-wave the actual material involved!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Oct 9, 2002)

SHARK said:
			
		

> *Greetings!
> 
> Well, Black Dirge, I would submit the following:
> 
> ...




Thanks, those are great ideas especially about the centurion having expert levels, it makes good historical sense. 

I agree that Lorica Segmentata would best be represented by the breast plate since it provided little to no lower body protection.

I do have a question though, wouldn't the traditional Scutum be represented as a body shield instead of a large shield. It portected from the neck to the knees, seems a bit large for just a "large shield".

Dirge


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 9, 2002)

As I've said before, while _lorica segmentata_ is armor composed of steel bands, it doesn't match D&D's notion of Banded Mail; it's not full-body, and it's not that heavy.  Mechanically, it matches D&D's Breastplate much better.

I don't see the need to have the _pilum_ require an Exotic Weapon Proficiency; it's just a javelin that "breaks" on impact.

Lords of Darkness's misnamed Phalanx Fighting Feat fits legionaries well.  It gives a +1 armor bonus and gives you the option of forming a shield wall (one quarter cover) if you're armed with a large shield and a light weapon.  (Why is Phalanx Fighting misnamed?  Because the _phalanx_ is the tight formation used by Greek spearmen, not Roman swordsmen, and the Feat cannot work with a spear.  In fact, in D&D, a Spartan Hoplite can't use his 8' spear with his large shield at all.)

I disagree with SHARK's Feat list: Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Leadership; Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack; Expert Tactician; Iron Will.  Of those, I see Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave more as a Germanic barbarian Feats really, and I don't see Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack fitting a tight-formation fighter like a legionary.  Leadership certainly fits a Centurion though, and Iron Will's plausible enough.  Expert Tactician certainly _sounds_ appropriate for a Centurion, but I'm not sure if it's all that necessary.

On the other hand, a legionary should have Endurance (even though it's a lame Feat), and maybe Great Fortitude and Run.  Weapon Focus (Gladius) obviously fits.  Improved Bull Rush also fits Roman legionaries (and Spartan Hoplites), as the initial clash often involved a "scrum" between shield walls.  This doesn't figure into D&D combat too much though.

_Oriental Adventures_ has plenty of occidental goodness, including the Great Teamwork Feat that seems tailor-made for professional soldiers; it offers +4 for flanking.  Improved Aid similarly offers +4 for Aid Another.


----------



## SHARK (Oct 9, 2002)

Greetings!

Excellent Dirge! Well, visually, you might think that the Scutum is a "body shield" but in the real world, it behaved more like a large shield, mechanics wise, than a Wall Shield in the D&D game. In Ceasar's Legion, by Stephen Dando Collins, among other books describing combat with Roman Legionnaires, the shield was very mobile, and still there were wounds recieved in hand-to-hand combat, as they moved around and so on. Essentially, the Scutum, did not protect the legionnaire as the D&D mechanics determine it, but instead, the large shield seems more accurate as a reflection of the real-world use and capabilities.

Hope that makes sense!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## SHARK (Oct 9, 2002)

Greetings!

Hmmm...well, mmadsen, as usual, I like your reasoning, but yet...it seems that in Caesar's Legion, the legionnaires while fighting in formation, do a lot of *dropping their enemies* (suggesting power attack, cleave and great cleave)--while also during combat, their seems no lack of space or ability for them to dodge about and move as they fight, (which suggests dodge and mobility, and spring attack) which makes me think that perhaps you interpret the Roman formation as being more restrictive to their movement than their performance would suggest. 

True, they were not as free and wild of fighters as German barbarians, and I would dovetail that into a restriction of them using the Gladius, rather than the longsword, battle axe, or two-handed sword, as those weapons obviously required more space to use--which the Germans prefered, and the Roman formation fighting would discourage. Having said that, I don't quite think it was so restrictive as to preclude the feats that I suggested, as noted.

I agree that the feats you mentioned from Oriental Adventures are excellent, and should be added to the list!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Dispater (Oct 9, 2002)

I would add Expertise, Endurance, Shield Expert - and Sisterhood of Arms (from the Kalamar PG) to the list of feats.


----------



## Scarab (Oct 9, 2002)

Another vote for Phalanx Fighting. It's standard issue for dwarven militia in my campaign, though I've allowed it to be used with weapons that you have Weapon Specialization in. As written it only allows light weapons.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 9, 2002)

I’m not sure if this is going to help you develop a Roman legionnaire, this is just a little FYI.  

The Roman legions were the first armies in history that used coordinated field artillery in conjunction with their infantry battles. I’m not talking about those huge siege catapults that were used to hammer down city walls, although they had those too. The Romans actually had small stone-throwing catapults (called ballistae) and small spear-throwing devices (called scorpions) that were manned by a crew of three to five men. 

These crews would be standing just behind the main line, maneuver, load their weapons and fire directly into the enemy – either in gaps in the main line, or over the heads of their own troops.

The most surprising thing about these weapons was how light they were. The crew could literally pick them up and run with them wherever the infantry needed additional support. And yet as light as they were, they packed a lethal punch. If any of you have ever seen pictures of the skeleton that was uncovered in Britain at the siege of Maiden Castle, you will know what I mean. For those of you who haven’t seen it, the skeleton likely belonged to a British defender. It was found with a Roman ballista head still imbedded in its spine!

Now, I’m not sure if this tactic is going to be a good idea in a FRPG setting where a wizard could take down an entire cohort with a single fireball spell.


----------



## Dragongirl (Oct 9, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *Now, I’m not sure if this tactic is going to be a good idea in a FRPG setting where a wizard could take down an entire cohort with a single fireball spell. *




That is where the Standards of Magic Resistance come in.


----------



## boothbey (Oct 9, 2002)

Someone mentioned creation of a feat to allow the legionaire to deny the use of large weapons in close combat.  I really like this idea.

Was thinking a feat that allowed a shield to essentially do a limited grapple.  Legionaire moves in close makes an attack with shield arm to pin opponents weapon arm.  Then in comes the gladius.  Not sure how to work this out for balance.

The legionaire would, I assume, have to move into the his opponents space.  The oppnent would then have to move out of that space to free his weapon for an attack.  

Any ideas on how to work this, taking into account attacks of opportunities and movement actions for disentangling yourself from the legionaire?

=====

Copied this post over to rules discussion, as it really fits better there.


----------



## Drakmar (Oct 9, 2002)

just a little flavour thingy..

the Roman's used to wear their swords on the same side as they wielded it.. ie, it would be scabbarded on their right hip if they used it in their right hand.  This was so that it would not foul on the shield when they tried to draw it.

and.. I was wondering, are the skill that SHARK has chosen sufficient.. because the legion would build fortified camps as they travelled.  Would that be covered by Siege Engineering?

A novel that gives a good feel for what it would be like in a Roman Legion is the Videssos Series by Harry Turtledove.. basically a series about a Legion that gets transported to another world by a magic portal.  And how they get on it that world.


----------



## Agback (Oct 10, 2002)

SHARK said:
			
		

> *Such skills are essential for providing the needed skill ranks to reflect a Centurion's long experience, as well as diverse skills as an engineer, combat soldier, and officer.*




Fair enough. But note that he only asked you to make him a legionary, not a centurion.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## SHARK (Oct 10, 2002)

Greetings!

Posted by Dirge:
____________________________________________________
Quote:

"I figure 10 levels would be a good starting point, he could have advanced to the rank of Centurion by now."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.

Hey Akback! Maybe this helps my position?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Oct 10, 2002)

A couple of Feat/PrC ability ideas...


No Weak Links 

When taking the Aid Another action, you may do so as a move equivelent action.


The Chain Has No Links 

You may aid another as a free action.
(This is to represent the "Bussaw " tactic used by legionaires, attacking the foe to their side to bypass the shield.)

Disabling Throw

You may use a Pilum (Javalin) to attack an opponents shield. If sucessful, they must make a reflex save (DC?). Failure indicates that the shield is rendered useless for defense. Sucess indicates that the shield's AC is retained. In either case the Pilum is lodged in the shield, adding an armor check penalty of 5 in addition to it's other effects. It may be removed as a full round action. Tower sheilds are not affected by the loss of AC, but still gain the additional armor check penalties.


Greater Disabling throw

When using the Pilum in an attack and you miss you target by the amount of protection of his shield, you may make a free Disabling Throw attack, as per the feat.


None Shall Pass

When in shield formation, the DC for Tumbling is increased by 5. Tumbling is also not automatic, any attack of opprotunity that hits and does damage to the Tumbler stops him in that adjacent square. Bull Rush attacks are also far more difficult. Any ally adjacent to the target of the Bull Rush adds 1 to his roll to beat the attack. 
(I think this fits best as a  first level PrC ability).


As a character, you might look into some ladership feats, or something like the Warmaster PrC. Most of the stuff so far would make him shine in a group but not as an individual player.


----------



## Agback (Oct 10, 2002)

SHARK said:
			
		

> *Posted by Dirge:
> ____________________________________________________
> Quote:
> 
> ...




So it does. My apologies.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Oct 10, 2002)

*Trumpets*

Something I've always thought to not be properly represented anywhere is that Roman's, apparently, had really sophisticated 'musical' commands.  Particularly in the early periods with those weird maniple formations and the late period with the increasingly complex and remote command posts.  

I wouldn't understand how you could function in such a system without developing some ranks in listen.

Also, it seems to me that if anything in the Roman Legion deserved a five or ten level prestige class, it's the centurion.

Give it some nice skills, a few command based abilities, and something to represent the whole tougher than the tarrasque quality.

And it should certainly get a "put down mutiny" class ability followed by the "cause mutiny" ability.

I thought using the pilum properly should involve an exotic weapon proficiency simply because all the weapons with cool non-hack abilities are exotic and using a javelin or sling in the way the Romans did required a lot more training than most practiotiners had.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Oct 10, 2002)

*Also*

Since this seems like a thread that would appreciate it:

Here's an essay question I saw on a Western Civ. test:

Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?

The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically, 
"Medieval army, they had better technology."

Anyone care to comment?


----------



## Al (Oct 10, 2002)

Combat Reflexes and Hold the Line should probably feature.  Most of the battles fought against barbarian tribes were simply won by allowing the oncoming barbarian to charge at the Romans and then cutting them into pieces.


----------



## sword-dancer (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Also*

Hello SHARK

The roman centurions had in this time AFAIK the lorica hamata(chainshirt) and not the lorica segmata as armour.
The scutum was made fom plywood / sperrholz.
And to hold their own in battle formation they need at least the scutum and better the pilum.
And the Germanic tribes didn`t use Twohanded swords, their swords were akin to the spatha(stabbing longsword), sax, or such.
Their main Weapon would be the spear, or Ger.
They very well their battle formations and tactics.
The wedge in which the kin fought together, shieldwall and such

 Whodat 

 Theses small artillery were siege weapons mainly.
Caesar used them on the battlefield but they didn`t became ussuall, mainly I think there use was to limited in an time were the decision was forced in Mellee, .
And the crew would be a miss in the battle line.



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *Since this seems like a thread that would appreciate it:
> 
> Here's an essay question I saw on a Western Civ. test:
> 
> ...




follow link

http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000219.html


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Also*



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
> "Medieval army, they had better technology."
> 
> Anyone care to comment? *




It is probably true. The use of the stirrup changes the complexion of the battlefield dramatically. While the Roman Gladius and Scutum method of fighting is useful for breaking up pike formations, it is not very good against mounted troops. (During the later medieval period, when pike formations became very common, the Spanish began using Roman-like troops to break those formations up, and were very successful at that, but the Spanish were anihiliated whenever they faced cavalry).


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 10, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *(Why is Phalanx Fighting misnamed?  Because the phalanx is the tight formation used by Greek spearmen, not Roman swordsmen, and the Feat cannot work with a spear.  In fact, in D&D, a Spartan Hoplite can't use his 8' spear with his large shield at all.)*




Sure he can. Give the Spartan hoplite Monkey Grip: Longspear and you are good to go.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Also*



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?
> 
> The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
> "Medieval army, they had better technology."
> ...




Depends on when in the middle ages you pick your medieval army, and from what region.

Tactically, a well-drilled legion would clean up a peasant horde led by local landholders.  But many later knights and military commanders studied Roman tactics, and some of the more martial societies had a good understanding of combined arms tactics that, coupled with improved weaponry, would probably give a standard legion fits.


----------



## johnsemlak (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Also*



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *
> Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?
> 
> The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
> ...




Allong with the advent of Stirrups mentioned above, Medieval horses were bigger and more powerful.  In general medieval architechture was superior, medieval fortifications would have been harder to penetrate.  Medieval archers (both longbowman and crossbowman) were more significant and lethal).

The whole belief that ancient Rome was superior technologically to the whole medievel period is a myth, largely propogated in renaissance times.  The term 'Dark Ages" was coined then and helped embed this myth.  It's difficult to say whether the early medievel period was inferior or equal to the Roman period technologically (it certainly was politically inferior), but by around 1100-1200 ad, West European Medievel society was superior to Roman civilization and a wide range of areas: 

Architechture (the Gothic cathedrals were superior any Roman construction)

Military: as mentioned above

Education: the university

Agrculture: Mediavel cattle and horses were much bigger than their Roman counterparts, plus a number of improvements in farming


Of course, it would be foolish to discount the VAST cultural acheivements of the Roman Republic/Empire in a virtually every sphere of life.  The road network, the politcal infrastructure, legal system, and the incredible disciplne and organization of Roman legions, the most awesome military force of its time.  But techological improvements can make a huge difference.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 10, 2002)

> I do have a question though, wouldn't the traditional Scutum be represented as a body shield instead of a large shield. It portected from the neck to the knees, seems a bit large for just a "large shield".



The _scutum_ wasn't inordinately large, maybe a bit over a meter tall, weighing 5.5 kg to 7.5 kg (based on reconstructions).  At around 13 lbs then, it lands between the Large Wooden Shield and the Large Steel Shield (10 lbs and 15 lbs respectively, in D&D).

The real problem, I believe, is that the +2 AC from a Large Shield doesn't properly reflect how useful such a shield is in the real world -- but since Armor and Shield bonuses stack in D&D, they can't both be high.  Ideally, we'd like the _scutum_ to offer as much protection as the _lorica_ -- certainly under a rain of arrows and slingstones, right? -- but having each give +5 AC would be way over the top.

I guess the Phalanx Fighting Feat does a decent job of this.  Large Shields, particularly _en masse_, should provide Cover, like smaller Tower Shields.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Exotic Weapon*



> Do a bastard sword thing and say you can use them as regular javelins, but if you get the exotic weapon proficiency you can wield it with different stats and know how to use it to deprive an opponent of his shield or weapon.



Perhaps we need this for Game Balance, but I don't think using a _pilum_ to bring down a shield is any different from throwing a _pilum_ at a guy; if he blocks with his shield, the _pilum_ sticks in it and bends along the soft iron haft.  That's just what _pila_ do.  And, to bring Game Balance back in, each _pilum_ is used up by such an attack.


----------



## NoOneofConsequence (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Also*



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *Since this seems like a thread that would appreciate it:
> 
> Here's an essay question I saw on a Western Civ. test:
> 
> ...




Ask the Somalis or the Vietnamese how decisive technology is. Both these third world, backwater nations successfully resisted the military intervention of the most technologically advanced military on Earth. Tech is cool to have, but if that's all you have then it's not enough, as often as not.

This question seems so broad as to leave no real possibility of a decisive answer. However, here's one reflection though. 

Discipline: Without some more specific details, the average Roman legion wins hands down for discipline. This one factor alone can win a phenomenal number of battles. I'd be interested to hear what SHARK has to say about the issue of discipline and esprit de corps.



> Allong with the advent of Stirrups mentioned above, Medieval horses were bigger and more powerful. In general medieval architechture was superior, medieval fortifications would have been harder to penetrate. Medieval archers (both longbowman and crossbowman) were more significant and lethal).




Aahh...the myth of the powerful bow vs. the weak sling. A sling can fling a bullet farther than most bows can shoot an arrow and with greater impact. The absence of medieval level archery doesn't mean that the Romans were unfamiliar with missile weapons, nor incapable of devising solutions.



> Architechture (the Gothic cathedrals were superior any Roman construction)




I know I'm being pedantic, but can you say "Colleseum"? The fact that many Roman buildings did not last is because they were not built to last, not because the Romans didn't know how to build them to last.



> The road network, the politcal infrastructure, legal system, and the incredible disciplne and organization of Roman legions, the most awesome military force of its time.




These cause me to pick the Romans over the Medievalists. On top of which, when the Romans put a huge force into the field (multiple legions) they tended not to suffer from the hugely complex and convoluted systems of personal loyalty which massive fuedal armies experienced. You didn't often get large chunks of the Roman side turning coat and joining the barbarians. Disloyal nobles were a fact of life for a medieval army - a fact which most Roman generals could well be astute enough to exploit. 

In the end, technology not withstanding, the Romans get my vote hands down. After all, the Romans beat other, technologically more advanced groups during their climb to the top. (Rome learnt ironworking from conquering the Gallic tribes.)


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Also*



			
				NoOneofConsequence said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ask the Somalis or the Vietnamese how decisive technology is. Both these third world, backwater nations successfully resisted the military intervention of the most technologically advanced military on Earth. Tech is cool to have, but if that's all you have then it's not enough, as often as not.
> *




Be careful not to confuse the battlefield effect of technology with the political outcomes of war.  In the examples you cite, technology WAS dominant -- on the battlefield.

Unfortunately, wars are not won on the battlefield.  They may be lost there, but they are won when political will matches strategic aims.  The US was simply fighting a different war than either the Somalis or Vietnamese -- neither of which could it win on the battlefield, despite decisive US technological dominance on said battlefield.

I absolutely agree, however, that discipline and training are the core of a fighting force -- ultimately more so than technology.

"Wars may be fought by weapons, but they are won by men.  It is the spirit of the men who follow and the man who leads that determines the victory."  -- George S. Patton, Jr.

[Inter-service rivalry]  Note that the predominant technological answer was from AF students.  If any service exemplifies the creed of technology dominance equals victory, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is the USAF.   [/Inter-service rivalry]


----------



## jester47 (Oct 10, 2002)

OK, you are a legionare.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 10, 2002)

jester47 said:
			
		

> *OK, you are a legionare. *




ROFLMAO!


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Oct 10, 2002)

jester47 said:
			
		

> *OK, you are a legionare. *




Cool!

Now make me a millionaire!


----------



## NoOneofConsequence (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Also*



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Be careful not to confuse the battlefield effect of technology with the political outcomes of war.  In the examples you cite, technology WAS dominant -- on the battlefield.
> 
> ...



*

Your point is well taken, but the fact remains that defeat is defeat, and when pitting Rome against a medieval force it is more than just Knight v Legionnaire. Many Roman generals were master politicians and sought political as well as military solutions to warfare. It doesn't matter who had the best soldiers, only who won or lost - this is a reality of war with which the Romans were intimately familiar.




			I absolutely agree, however, that discipline and training are the core of a fighting force -- ultimately more so than technology.

"Wars may be fought by weapons, but they are won by men.  It is the spirit of the men who follow and the man who leads that determines the victory."  -- George S. Patton, Jr.

[Inter-service rivalry]  Note that the predominant technological answer was from AF students.  If any service exemplifies the creed of technology dominance equals victory, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is the USAF.   [/Inter-service rivalry]
		
Click to expand...


*
Great Patton quote. I have heard it said that some enemies of Rome simply quit the field and left after seeing the incredible precision and coordination of the Roman formations. This is a great story for demonstrating the effectiveness of discipline in warfare and battle, IMO.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Also*



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *Since this seems like a thread that would appreciate it:
> 
> Here's an essay question I saw on a Western Civ. test:
> 
> ...




Are any of you familliar with Harry Turtledove? He writes a lot of alternate history which include some confrontations between a roman legion and armies fitting the description of a medieval army. The books are called the Misplaced Legion and are a pretty good read, Mr. Turtledove really knows his stuff.

Anyway the way the battle played out in the books is, if the medeival army has a lot of room to meneuvre they can devastate the roman formations with calvary charges. If the romans can close ranks and fight hand to hand, their large shields and short stabbing sword gave them an advantage over the smaller shields and large slashing swords of their enemies. 

I think it was a pretty acurate depiction of what might happen.

Dirge


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 10, 2002)

There is a Legionairre core class in AEG's Mercenaries book. Check it out and see if that fits your needs.


----------



## daTim (Oct 10, 2002)

Getting a little back on topic here. This is my personal take on it.

Lvl 10 Fighter-Roman Centurian

Feats - Ambidexderity, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus: Gladius, Weapon Specalization: Gladius, Combat Reflexes, Hold the Line, Iron Will, Expertise, Shield Expert and Phalanx Fighting (i think thats the name)

Basicly I chose the gladius/shield bash combo to reflect the way that they would constantly push with their shields to get their enemy off balance, and not allow them to use large weapons in combat, while giving them an advantage. Hold the Line and Combat Reflexes reflect their ability to strike first and take advantage of any enemies weakness especially when holding a charge. 
You might could exchange Expertise for Leadership, but for someone to be constantly in combat for so many years and still be alive, i imagine they have a great defence!

For Equipment, MW Gladius, MW Large shield, MW Breastplate, MW Javelines (pilum). Being 10th lvl though I imagine you would buy some magic stuff, not just MW, but I am creating a "realistic" Centurion here


----------



## johnsemlak (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Also*

Not sure if I wan't to get in to such an academic arguement, but what the hell...



			
				NoOneofConsequence said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Discipline: Without some more specific details, the average Roman legion wins hands down for discipline. This one factor alone can win a phenomenal number of battles. I'd be interested to hear what SHARK has to say about the issue of discipline and esprit de corps.
> 
> *





I'll agree the the Romans were phenonomally diciplined, but don't assume so quickly that medieval armies were not so.  They had access to roman military manuals; plus medival society was more warlike in general--feudal states were armed to the teeth and people were constantly ready for war.



> *
> 
> Aahh...the myth of the powerful bow vs. the weak sling. A sling can fling a bullet farther than most bows can shoot an arrow and with greater impact. The absence of medieval level archery doesn't mean that the Romans were unfamiliar with missile weapons, nor incapable of devising solutions.
> 
> ...





I agree that those missle weaopns may not be the best example of medieval miliatary superiority, but the cavelry improvements are indisputable.  Comparing a Roman horse to a medieval horse was like comparing an average guy to Andre the Giant.  Plus the advent of stirrups--it was only after that that cavelry became a dominating miliatary unit; for the Romans cavelry were always auxilery forces.

Plus, the English Longbowmen and the GEnovese Crossbowman would have caused major problems to any Roman force.




> *
> 
> 
> I know I'm being pedantic, but can you say "Colleseum"? The fact that many Roman buildings did not last is because they were not built to last, not because the Romans didn't know how to build them to last.
> ...





I'm well aware of the collesum but the Gothic Cathedrals represent a level of technology the Romans simply didn't have.  Go into any Roman temple and you'll notice it's dark and gloomy.  Medieval architects took Roman architechture and took it to the next level.

Of course the Romans built many impressive buildings, but I don't think any of them were technologically superior to what was possible in the 1200's.  Now, many medieval states may have lacked the mammoth resources of the Roman empire, true.




> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Well, it's difficult to say to what degree this is comparable, but the Romans did face all kinds of strife and dissention.  Look at the civil wars.  Plus conquered tribes revolted all the time, and often took allied legions with them.  The battle of Teutoberg Forest is an example, and that was at the height of Roman power, and was a tremendous disaster that fundenetally altered the size the the Roman Empire.




> *
> 
> 
> In the end, technology not withstanding, the Romans get my vote hands down. After all, the Romans beat other, technologically more advanced groups during their climb to the top. (Rome learnt ironworking from conquering the Gallic tribes.) *




In many ways, you might be right, but I think in this conversation we were imagining what would happened if a Roman and medievel army, of comparable size met each other.  And the evidence shows that Roman army simply couldn't have not overcome the technological superiority of any well disciplined army (the armies of Philip of France, Henry the V and Edward I and III were very well disciplined) of the later medieval period.  And while Roman military successes seem easy to recount, don't forget the successful retaking of the Holy Land from the Arabs in the 1st Crusade (against the technologically superior Muslims), just as one example.

Of course, as an empire the Romans had resources no Medieval state could match.  But that doens't mean that they were more advanced, and the point that I was making is that medieval Europe was more advanced than the Roman empire, at least in a lot of (very fundemental) ways.  Modern Russia has vastly more resources than Belgium, but Belgium is way more advanced.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 10, 2002)

> The whole belief that ancient Rome was superior technologically to the whole medievel period is a myth, largely propogated in renaissance times. The term 'Dark Ages" was coined then and helped embed this myth.




It sounds to me as though you have done a great deal of research into Medieval culture. Have you spent much time studying the marvels that Romans produced? What information are you using to base your assumption that medieval technology was even compatible, much less superior? You give a few examples of medieval excellence, but when set against the achievements of the mighty Roman Empire, how can you compare the two?
You do not mention the engineering feats that allowed the Romans to construct aqueducts that ran through mountains and spanned valleys for miles to bring fresh water into a city. You also do not mention the fact that surgery was more advanced in ancient Rome than at any time in Europe prior to the Napoleonic era.

The Romans wouldn’t even consider allowing a city to be built without a working sewer system. You did not mention that Paris didn’t have a functioning sewer until the 1850’s, or the cholera outbreak in London because its citizens were drinking river water that had been contaminated by sewage.

Barbegal. In southern Gaul (France), the Romans constructed a factory which produced 28 tons of grain – per day! And by all accounts Barbegal was considered be a local factory, not some epic exporter.

The tremendous Gothic cathedrals of the later Renaissance may be impressive to look at, but when you consider that they often took over a hundred years to construct, while the Romans could place a magnificent bathhouse in about ten years. I believe the Coliseum took only about five.



> In general medieval architechture was superior, medieval fortifications would have been harder to penetrate.




Medieval fortifications? Ha! Ask the survivors of Masada about how Romans feel about “impenetrable” fortifications. Oh, wait. There were no survivors at Masada.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Exotic Weapon*



> Might also consider a special feat for 'crowding' your opponent with your shield in close combat.  An important part of Roman close fighting was limiting their opponents use of larger weapons by pressing them with their shields and/or bashing them with the boss.  Make it something like a limited grapple, where the legionarre would make an opposed check alongside an attack and whammo they would both be limited to small weapons.



I like what you're getting at, Dr. Strangemonkey.  Maybe it could just be a tweak to how Bull Rush works?  If you've been successfully Bull Rushed, you're penalized as if Grappling until you make space?


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Oct 10, 2002)

Based off of the suggestions in this thread, I built an Imperian Legionaire for my al-Khemi campaign:

*Imperian Centurion, Impirian (Human) Fgt6/Wan4: * CR 10; Medium-Size Humanoid; HD 4d8+6d10+30; hp 86; Init +2 (+2 Dex); Spd 20 ft; AC 22 (+8 _Lorica Segmenta +2_, +1 Dex, +3 _Large Mithril Shield +1_); Atk +13/+8 melee (1d6+5, crit 18-20, _Short Sword +1_), +12/+7 melee or +12 ranged (1d4+3, crit 19-20, _Dagger +1_); SA Evasion, Tradesman, Uncanny Dodge (Dex Bonus to AC), Ward of the Albatross; AL LN; Fort +12, Ref +9, Will +7; Str 15, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 15, Wis 12, Cha 13
Skills: Climb +9, Craft (Carpentry) +9, Craft (Stonemasonry) +9, Diplomacy +8, Gather Information +8, Intimidate +8, Jump +9, Knowledge (Engineering) +9, Knowledge (History) +7, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) +7, Knowledge (Streetwise) +7, Knowledge (War) +10, Listen +8, Profession (Carpenter) +9, Profession (Stonemason) +9, Ride +9, Sense Motive +8, Spot +8, Swim +9, Wilderness Lore +8
Feats: Endurance, Expert Tactician, Great Fortitude, Improved Critical (Short Sword), Iron Will, Leadership, Power Attack, Run, Weapon Focus (Short Sword), Weapon Specialization (Short Sword)
Equipment: _Lorica Segmenta +2, Dagger +1, Mithril Large Shield +1, Short Sword +1, Helm of Comprehending Languages and Reading Magic, Cloak of Resistance +1, _Wooden Rod, Hobnail Sandals, Harness, Belt, Small Pouch, Waterskin, _Potion of Heroism, Potion of Bull’s Strength, _2 _Potions of Cure Light Wounds_


----------



## SHARK (Oct 10, 2002)

Greetings!

Tyler, just excellent! That is a very good, very well-rounded character that accurately reflects the broad range of useful skills that a Roman Centurion would have, in addition to a ferocious skill in combat! Equipment, feats, and so on, very good!

As for the virtues of the Medieval and the Roman military machine and societies that supported them, well, I would say that the Romans would win, hands down.

Tactically: The Romans were the masters of war. They *wrote the book!* on warfare. The medievalists, well, they may have had access to some moldy book in a monastary somewhere, but most of them were entirely illiterate--even the vaunted nobility. Most of the Romans, on the other hand, were essentially literate, and the officers particularly so, and the commanders were often scholars.

In addition, the Romans displayed far more flexible imagination in deploying their troops, using combined arms, night fighting, rain, weather, everything was carefully and scientifically even--taken into account in order to bring about victory in war. Read Caesar's Legion to get an idea of what Caesar was doing 50 years before Christ, and 1250 years before the nobility of early Europe. In contrast, most medieval commanders were crude, basic, and simple in their deployments and tactics, and generally unimaginative, and also slow to adapt to new circumstances and new tactics.

Caesar would have annihilated the Europeans by a swift pincher attack carried out at night with concurrent deception columns to distract the main force, while ambushes were set, and the European force could be panicked in the dark and fire of an attack, and they would have been annihilated.

The Mongols often used tactics that the Romans were familiar with--and skilled in neutralizing 1000 years before--and yet tens of thousands of European knights blindly blundered into again and again. The European record for tactical flexibility during this era is adequate at best, and no where near the fever pitch of skill that would be needed to defeat a typical Roman Legatus in command of a full Roman army.

The Romans faced Huns, Avars, Scythians, Parthians,--all who were master horsemen, and world-renowned archers. The Parthians even had heavily armoured knights. The Romans defeated them all.

In addition, when determining such a battle, it isn't about equal numbers. The Romans were capable of fielding enormous armies, which dwarfed anything the Medieval Europeans literally--could dream of. Even then, the Romans were highly skilled at defeating two and three times their number of the enemy. Though it would be likely under such a scenario that the Romans would heavily outnumber the Europeans, so the Romans would win even faster.

The Romans were also not without cavalry of their own, and the Romans are the ones that started deploying armoured, mounted cavalry after being inspired by the contributions of the Parthians. The Romans still were capable of defeating them, but they saw a good idea nonetheless!

The Roman Legions also made use of integrated field artillery, which would have shredded groups of foot archers, knights, and crossbowmen alike. The Romans also had units of incredibly skilled Peltasts--well-trained guerrilla warriors skilled in swift running and deadly accurate with a satchel of javelins. Peltast units regularly decimated enemy ranks of foot-archers--like English Longbowmen. Peltasts were only outclassed by skilled mounted archers, which the medieval Europeans did not employ to a significant degree. Thus, these forces and tactics would have made serious inroads at compromising the apparent advantage of English Longbowmen or Italian Crossbowmen.

The Europeans would thus be denied those assets, thus leaving the mounted knights. The Roman formations easily adapted to using longer polearms in such circumstances, and did so when the occasion required it. Thus, you would see the European knights being pinned by units of pikemen, then swarmed with sword-armed legionnaires, all the while being targetted by Roman archers. Thus, the knights die.

Rome wins the battle.

Again, Rome would be likely to win such a struggle because of a complex of different factors, all running together, that the European Medievalists just didn't have.

The Europeans seemed impressive when fighting small numbers of their own kind, or when mowing down ranks of half-armed peasants. They would likely go down in horrible bloody defeat when faced with a precision-drilled, iron-disciplined, well-equipped, highly motivated force, especially like the Romans.

As for cultural achievements, well, the Romans here so far outclass the Europeans I don't know where to begin.

(1) Coloseum--80,000 spectators! These were throughout the empire, not just in Rome.

(2) Sewers--throughout Roman cities

(3) Bathhouses--throughout the Roman Empire, and available to everyone. The Europeans didn't even believe in bathing. It was rediscovered when the Europeans came to the New World, and were astonished to find that the natives "bathed daily". The Romans would have thought Europeans to be dirty barbarians!

(4) Hot/Cold running water

(5) Concrete! This wasn't rediscovered by European craftsmen until the 1800's, I think. Certainly after 1500.

(6) Mass transit of food to feed cities with populations of 500,000 to a million or more. Rome had a population of over 1,000,000--while Alexandria had over 600,000. The Europeans, despite technically more advanced forms of plows and crop rotation, were unable to have populations of these sizes until the 1800's.

(7) Aquaducts, bringing tens of thousands of gallons of fresh water from hundreds of miles away to places needing water. 

and on and on. The cultural achievements of the Romans dwarf those of early medieval Europe, from which the Dark Ages were named, because Europe had lost the civilization and achievements of the classical age--of Rome--for over 1000 years. It wasn't really until the later parts of the Middle Ages for many things that the Europeans even began to reclaim the glory that was lost.

Well, I agree with others here as well, but here are some of my thoughts!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Drakmar (Oct 11, 2002)

Interesting thing.. the difference between the effectiveness of the Roman Cavalry and Medievil cavalry because of the stirrup is not that great.  This is because the Romans had a specially designed War Saddle.  It allowed them to fight on horseback very effectively.

Check out a book by the name of "Training the Roman Cavalry".. since I am not at home I can only give you the name at the moment.  That book did a lot to show me just how good the Roman Cavalry would have been.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 11, 2002)

> ...it seems that in Caesar's Legion, the legionnaires while fighting in formation, do a lot of *dropping their enemies* (suggesting power attack, cleave and great cleave)...



Doesn't _any_ fighter drop enemies though?  You don't need Power Attack, Cleave, or Great Cleave to drop enemies -- and, as I said before, those Feats conjure up a brawny barbarian hacking through hordes of smaller, civilized men, not a wiry legionary stabbing multiple enemies in a row with a short, pointy _gladius_.


> --while also during combat, their seems no lack of space or ability for them to dodge about and move as they fight, (which suggests dodge and mobility, and spring attack) which makes me think that perhaps you interpret the Roman formation as being more restrictive to their movement than their performance would suggest.



I'm certainly not claiming that Roman soldiers were immobile, but I can't endorse the notion that they specialized in dancing around like movie musketeers or kung-fu fighters.  That's not their niche.


> I agree that the feats you mentioned from Oriental Adventures are excellent, and should be added to the list!



Agreed then.

Here are a few more that make some sense:
*Eyes in the Back of Your Head* -- unflankable
*Hold the Line* -- AoO against Charge
*Shield Expert* -- use shield as weapon while retaining AC bonus
*Pin Shield* -- attack shield, AoO against opponent w/o shield AC

Perhaps we could find some way to tweak Pin Shield to work with a Bull Rush?  That might handle the initial charge, shield on shield.  Suggestions?


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 11, 2002)

> just a little flavour thingy..
> 
> the Roman's used to wear their swords on the same side as they wielded it.. ie, it would be scabbarded on their right hip if they used it in their right hand.  This was so that it would not foul on the shield when they tried to draw it.



And a related "flavor thingy": Centurions wore their sword on the opposite side, the left.


----------



## GrayIguana (Oct 11, 2002)

*Warfare in the Classical World*

SHARK mentioned this book earlier, and I have to second this as a great source book for more information.  It provides some good information for not just Roman military, but other military powers from other cultures as well.  Again the author is John Warry.  

This thread also brought up some questions that I have regarding integrating historical themes in my own campaigns.  But rather than hijacking this thread, I'll start a new one.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Oct 11, 2002)

*Flavor Questions*

What Roman artifacts would be eligible for enchantment in a Fantasy setting?

I would vote for the Centurion's stick, the Eagles, and the trumpets.

Also, I have to give Tyler props for using the swashbuckling adventurers wanderer class to make a centurion.  Someone who's been in the legion for 10 years would almost certainly have the travel experience to qualify.

My own opinion on the Medieval vs. Romans issue is that it really depends on what period of Romans are fighting which medieval army.  But I would generally give the Romans the edge.  Most medieval armies would not have had nearly the level of field experience or sophistication a legion would possess.

On the other hand, I do not think that the a Roman legion would have had much of a chance against an equivalent force of Mongols.  Even during the heights of their power and sophistication the Roman's had issues with really mobile cavalry forces: Cassius and his legions, Adrianople, problems with the huns...

And the Mongols are the Romans of the nomad world.  They too used field artillery, their logistical skills were insanely good, and a Mongol Imperial soldier was in close to the same category of hardness as a Centurion while still in the ranks.

They were just scary.

There's some really neat historical accounts of Roman legions and their commanders working to hold little bits of civilization against the barbarians after the west had fallen.

I've always wanted to see an RPG based on that period.


----------



## Ace (Oct 11, 2002)

The Roman Legions were pretty good I will agree but they weren't made up of mostly 10th level fighters. 

JMO here but a Roman Legion would be made up of Fighters (not Warriors though) of Levels 2-6 mostly. Just add 2 skill points per level and make a few professions class skills and bingo-- Instant Leginaire


1st- Recruit just trained'
2nd- 1 year of service
3rd- 3 years of service
4th- 5 years of service
5th - 10 years of Service
6th - 15 year veteran
7th- 20 year Veteran 

Add a level or two if the guy saw combat

An Example

Merricus 
1 year legion veteran 

Human Fighter 2
12
10
10
12
13
11

Feats
Phlanx fighting 
Endurance, 
Shield Expert 
1 other

Skills
Profession Legionaire
Profession Engineer
others

Equipment
Chain Shirt 
Helmet
3- Pilum
Shortsword

Special Notes
The Pilum is a martial weapon that can be thrown at a shiled. THe thrower takes a -2 penalty and if he hits and suceeds in penetrating his enemies shields Hardness the shield is rendered useless. This will not work against magic shields unless the pilum has greater plusses. A pilum used in this tactics is destroyed with a hit.


And yes these low level guys (about 4th on average) were the terror of the ancient world

The reasons are many but the big four

Resources,
Kill 1 legion guy so what there is another hundred. OTOH if you kill a Babarbarian, no replacements. And if he is a part timer, no crops next year

Training. His enemies were mostly Warriors, about he same level but with less feats in D&D terms. Even the Barabarians they fought weren't as well trained

Logisitcs. 
Full army with integrated units will always defeat a horde of indvidual fighters. 

Gear.
Typical Barabarian Warrior has a spear and a shield (wood). Roman guy, Shield+ More Weapons+ plus Chain or Better Armor 

In D&D terms, Legionaires have four more points of AC!

For another take try the Soldier class from Sovereign Stone. It is set up with formatuions in mind or if you like there is a legionaire class in The Hunt Rise of Evil setting (from Mystic Eye games)  as well.


Finally i should add that a roman style legion is not going to work with standard D&D magic assumtions. One Wizard with a fireball wand can break up almost any formation. 

Now in a low Magic or High Magic realm (like SHARKs World) its another story


----------



## tarchon (Oct 11, 2002)

SHARK said:
			
		

> *Greetings!
> 
> Hmmm...well, mmadsen, as usual, I like your reasoning, but yet...it seems that in Caesar's Legion, the legionnaires
> *



Tarchon omnibus SPD,

As much as people on here seem to like it, the excerpts I read incline me to take its depictions _cum grano salis_.  There are plenty of real history books in the world.  I'd recommend a translation of Vegetius  (for details) or Caesar (for a grander sweep) more than anything though.
I particularly like Vegetius because he spends a lot of time going on about the most tedious details, exactly what you need for RPG settings.  Caesar's a far better writer obviously, but you don't hear him mention, for example, that all Roman recruits were drilled extensively in swimming or discuss construction methods for practice dummies and anti-elephant tactics.
You can pick such things out from fictional accounts of course, but it's difficult to know whether the author is basing something on history or imagination unless you've already read the sources.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 11, 2002)

> The Roman Legions were pretty good I will agree but they weren't made up of mostly 10th level fighters.



The example under discussion isn't a typical legionary; he's a veteran of many great battles, chosen for the rank of Centurion based on his bravery and skill.


----------



## tarchon (Oct 11, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *
> The tremendous Gothic cathedrals of the later Renaissance may be impressive to look at, but when you consider that they often took over a hundred years to construct, while the Romans could place a magnificent bathhouse in about ten years. I believe the Coliseum took only about five.
> *



The Pantheon is pretty impressive too, and it's still intact, and some aqueducts are still functional.  I would have to say the Roman/Medieval argument hinges on the exact time period you pick.  In the early Medieval, it's pretty hard to argue that anyone in Europe (outside Byzantium) could match early/mid Imperial technology or military might, but I would have to agree that by mid 13th century,  the more advanced countries had technology of the same order, though more advanced in some aspects and more backwards in others.  I really don't doubt that the Romans could have built Gothic cathedrals if they'd wanted to, but that simply wasn't the kind of thing Romans were interested in building.  Likewise, modern construction technology could easily build giant stone pyramids, but we just aren't a pyramid-building culture.


----------



## sword-dancer (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Also*



			
				NoOneofConsequence said:
			
		

>






> Aahh...the myth of the powerful bow vs. the weak sling. A sling can fling a bullet farther than most bows can shoot an arrow and with greater impact. The absence of medieval level archery doesn't mean that the Romans were unfamiliar with missile weapons, nor incapable of devising solutions.



Greater Range than longbow or light crossbow?
The roman slingers, spearthrowers were skirmishers, not the rain of death of the british longbow(or if the french had used them the picards).
Or the armor piercing of the crossbow



			
				Whodat said:
			
		

> *
> Medieval fortifications? Ha! Ask the survivors of Masada about how Romans feel about “impenetrable” fortifications. Oh, wait. There were no survivors at Masada. *



They sieged it so long till the defenders committed suicide for starvation, nothing spectacular.



> The tremendous Gothic cathedrals of the later Renaissance may be impressive to look at, but when you consider that they often took over a hundred years to construct, while the Romans could place a magnificent bathhouse in about ten years. I believe the Coliseum took only about five.



Financial or ressourcial reasons, not technology



			
				SHARK said:
			
		

> *Greetings!
> 
> (5) Concrete! This wasn't rediscovered by European craftsmen until the 1800's, I think. Certainly after 1500.
> 
> ...




And the romans lost the knowledge of it, AFAIK

Hellos SHARK







> Tactically: The Romans were the masters of war. They *wrote the book!* on warfare. The medievalists, well, they may have had access to some moldy book in a monastary somewhere, but most of them were entirely illiterate--even the vaunted nobility. Most of the Romans, on the other hand, were essentially literate, and the officers particularly so, and the commanders were often scholars.



 Vegetius was a classic for medieval warfare.



> Caesar would have annihilated the Europeans by a swift pincher attack carried out at night with concurrent deception columns to distract the main force, while ambushes were set, and the European force could be panicked in the dark and fire of an attack, and they would have been annihilated.



 It may function.
Night maneuvers aren`t something the romans were reknown for.
At the roman dictator circled hannibal he tricked the legionaries by night with cows with torches on their horns.



> The Romans faced Huns, Avars, Scythians, Parthians,--all who were master horsemen, and world-renowned archers. The Parthians even had heavily armoured knights. The Romans defeated them all.



 The roman defeated the avars, persians and parthians?
Carrhae
Which was the name of the roman empereor a persian king used as step when he went of his horse.
It was the alliance of visigoths and romans who carried the day at the catalaunic fields.
The avars were defeated and broken by charlemagne.
The Hungars were defeated, by Heinrich I of Germany, and annihilated to never  come back by his son Otto I the great and Konrad the red, with the first armoured forefathers of knights.
After they were attacked on the march by the Hungars on their back.
" and secure us of the arrows of the hungarys." 



> The Roman Legions also made use of integrated field artillery, which would have shredded groups of foot archers, knights, and crossbowmen alike



In which battles and campaigns did the romans made regularly use of field arillery



> The Romans also had units of incredibly skilled Peltasts--well-trained guerrilla warriors skilled in swift running and deadly accurate with a satchel of javelins.
> Peltast units regularly decimated enemy ranks of foot-archers--like English Longbowmen.



 In which battle these troops encountered longbows or crossbows, the range advantage would be deadly an an conroi of knights would have made short work with skirmishers in loose formation.



> Even then, the Romans were highly skilled at defeating two and three times their number of the enemy. Though it would be likely under such a scenario that the Romans would heavily outnumber the Europeans, so the Romans would win even faster.



 Caannae
Flaminius and the trasimenic lake
the battles wit the cimbern, teutons who annihilated repeatedly roman armies, if they attacked rom instead of only looking for new areas, rome maybe had reexperienced the days of brennus.



> The Europeans would thus be denied those assets, thus leaving the mounted knights. The Roman formations easily adapted to using longer polearms in such circumstances, and did so when the occasion required it. Thus, you would see the European knights being pinned by units of pikemen, then swarmed with sword-armed legionnaires, all the while being
> targetted by Roman archers. Thus, the knights die.



The romans never adopted to the polearm against the heavy gothic cav, not for or even after the annihilation of adrianople
40.000 men the empereor and his chief officers died, after attacking the gothic camp and get attacked by the gothic main force.
So i don`t think its reasonable to say they would.
The short sword isn`t an effective weapon against a full armored knight especially in plate armor.


> In addition, the Romans displayed far more flexible imagination in deploying their troops, using combined arms,



 Crecy, agincourt. Legnano, bannockburn, the crusades, especially the first




> The Europeans seemed impressive when fighting small numbers of their own kind, or when mowing down ranks of half-armed peasants.



 barbarossas slesian infantry was no halfarmed peasants, elite crack infantry would i think fit better, maybe many of the so called english archers used the bill instead of the bow.
Or the swiss pikemen and most city militias would be better armored than the romans, and no roman armor stops a halberd, or so.
The organisation of the swiss was more advanced than the macedonian phalanx. They were also (with exception of the earliest time) better armored.

Organisation and Logistics.
Barbarossa sieged milano for two years.
Then the city fell.

Equipment
The medieval steel could be of higher Quality than the roman,(depending on time) so the europeans fought with MW Weapons, the romans with standard.

http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000219.html


----------



## Ace (Oct 12, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *
> The example under discussion isn't a typical legionary; he's a veteran of many great battles, chosen for the rank of Centurion based on his bravery and skill. *




I apologize for the error. In the case of Legion Veteran I would agree that 10th level seems about right for a semi legendary figure


----------



## MaxKaladin (Oct 12, 2002)

Let's see:

* on the Gladius and Pilum.  Both are statted out in Mongooses Quintisential Fighter.  

* on Armor:  I suspect the breastplate would be a good model.  

*  On romans vs medievals:  A number of things here.  

First, there are so many variables that it is possible to find circumstances where either side would win.  

Second, we are forgetting something.  Only part of a roman legion was legionnaires.  A legion was assigned a force of foriegn auxiliaries skilled in something that the Romans weren't.  I suspect the nature of their auxiliaries would have an effect on the question.  

Terrain and preparation have huge amounts to do with the outcome.  You can't really say any more until you establish the parameters of these two factors.  

One other note:  I seem to recall that most of the horse-based cultures Rome had trouble with were horse archers.

Edit:  P.S. I'd put my money on the Romans under most circumstances so long as its a trained legion with a competant Legate in command.  He'd probably come up with something thoroghly dishonorable and horribly effective while the medieval nobles were still bickering over who was in charge.  Given any time to prepare and a decent idea what they were up against and I'd bet on Roman military engineering.  My main circumstances to bet on the medievals are in a straight up fight on open ground with little or no preparation time.  After all, they said a crusader charge could carry through the walls of Antioch.  I can see a bunch of knights rolling over the legions, though at greater cost than they're used to.  The pila would foul the charge up good, but once the knights hit the formation they'd break it through mass and Roman legionnaires were only average fighters as individuals.  Their strenght was as a group.  That's why battles like Teutoberger went against them.  The Germans there ambushed them in heavy woods to keep them from forming up and were able to slaughter them piecemeal.


----------



## Emiricol (Oct 12, 2002)

I see a lot of opinion, SD, but nothing that would convince me that SHARK is wrong.  Eh, sorry.

edit - plus the Romans didn't lose concrete until they also lost their empire and were reduced to the land-based wealth system of the rest of Europe.  Ugly, ugly system, that.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Oct 12, 2002)

*Classical vs. Medieval?*

I brought up the idea of a battle between a Roman and a Medieval army because I think it is a fine way to analyze what is valuable about either force, and...

...I think that the architecture argument has been very cool as I had previously presumed that the Romans won that fight right out without considering Gothic Cathedrals, superior fortifications, Medieval mills, and ships, but...

...I cannot agree with a contest between Roman and Medieval cultures.

They're simply too closely related.  In almost every way Medieval and Renaissance cultures are reponses to or adaptations of Roman culture.  

For example: to argue that the Medieval land based system of economic organization was nasty compared to the Roman's currency and commodity based system is to ignore the fact that the one occured because of faults in the other.  I mean peasants are bad, but slavery is worse and you still need a lot of people to work the land.  

And in the technology sphere: well, much was forgotten but a great deal that was new was discovered.  What are you gonna do?

I mean the fall of the Empire was basically an apocalypse.  I think western Europe did very well to both thrive in the aftermath, and, so far, avoid a repeat of the phenomena.  

And I'm grateful that at least one Eurasian civilization missed out on the Mongol conquest.  Like I said, scary!


----------



## NoOneofConsequence (Oct 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Also*



			
				sword-dancer said:
			
		

> *
> They sieged it so long till the defenders committed suicide for starvation, nothing spectacular.
> 
> *




Really? Your average medieval king couldn't make a siege last long enough to starve a fortress so well equipped, certainly not in the middle of a desert, where Masada is.

Secondly, the defenders were not on the brink of starvation, they were on the verge of capture because the Romans were about to break through the gate. The zealots of Masada committed suicide to avoid slavery, not starvation.


----------



## SHARK (Oct 12, 2002)

Greetings!

Masada. Indeed...the neatest thing about the Roman siege of Masada is the following points:

(1) Rome could have easily enclosed the fortress area, invested it, and waited for the several thousand zealots to slowly starve to death. But they didn't.

(2) From thousands of miles away, the word went forth from the Emperor--Masada must be crushed! And, after many many long months of backbreaking work, a Roman army stormed the fortress that was at the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere, to defeat several thousand isolated, insignificant guerrilla soldiers.

Rome stretched forth its hand against Masada precisely to prove a point: Rebellion to the Empire would not be tolerated, and it didn't matter where you ran, where you hid, or how mighty or how utterly insignificant the fortress you held up in was, your rebellion to Rome would be crushed. Rome would send armies after you, for years--and bring the wrath of Rome to you, no matter what.

This extraordinary achievement spoke loud and clear to the ancient world. Who could believe any kingdom would have the time, the resources, the troops, the skills, to use for such a small rebellion? Rome, of course, and only Rome. Rome made an example of Masada for the whole ancient world to take notice of, and it was an entirely brilliant achievement. It spoke in a very authoritative and final manner that there was no rebellion possible to Rome. Interestingly, Masada heralded a time of significant peace and stability in the empire in general, and in the Near East in particular.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 12, 2002)

> Sure he can. Give the Spartan hoplite Monkey Grip: Longspear and you are good to go.



Except that, in order to even use an 8' spear (a D&D shortspear) in one hand, the Hoplite first needs BAB +3, Weapon Focus (Shortspear), and Str 13.  Since a typical ancient/medieval militia is full of normal men armed with spear and shield, I find this a bit...quirky.


----------



## sword-dancer (Oct 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Also*



			
				NoOneofConsequence said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Really? Your average medieval king couldn't make a siege last long enough to starve a fortress so well equipped, certainly not in the middle of a desert, where Masada is.
> 
> Secondly, the defenders were not on the brink of starvation, they were on the verge of capture because the Romans were about to break through the gate. The zealots of Masada committed suicide to avoid slavery, not starvation. *



It looks i had take Massada with something other.
Barbarossa sieged Milano from summer 1161 till spring, then Milano surrendered unconditionally.
Otto I get the teutonic Heerbann, the armie in 4 weeks activated in the force  and at the enemy.
Fortification
Krak de Chevaliers


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Oct 13, 2002)

*Spartans*

I have to agree with mmadsen that the rules for 8 foot spears are a little shifty.

Somewhere out there on a Black Company website was the suggestion that you let people take an exotic weapon proficiency for such a weapon and then let them use it with a shield and give them the option of shifting their grip so they can use it at close range for reduced damage.

This seemed like a perfect solution to me since you can do a similar thing with bastard sword, spiked chain exotic weapons already have the reach with adjacent attack qualities, and most hoplites spent so long training with their weapons that it seemed fair to assume that they would use up one of their three fighter feats with this sort of ability.  Plus Hoplites would still have two feat slots left over for phalanx and run.

and there you have it, no need for Monkey grip's requirements while still simulating common spear tactics of first level warriors in a balanced manner.


----------



## Ace (Oct 13, 2002)

I would add that how magic effects your game will determine much about a D&D version of Rome.

If you are running a high magic, money can buy power enviroment you may well end up with something like SHARKS Vallorean Legions. 

OTOH if the "Romans" are magic weak they could be outmatched by crafty Barbarian Shamans or even obliterated by Epic Persian Wizards. 

I could easily Epic  imagine spells like "The White Plague" which rendered everyone in an Empire major cities  non fertile or worse killed all the women (Ala Frank Herberts novel of the same name) .  OK the spell might kill half a nation as a casting cost but the effects would be devastating

If "Uber Rome" didn't have defenses against that sort of thing or couldn't stop the multiple casting, you can kiss the Emipre good bye.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 14, 2002)

*Because it beats singing "Kumbaya"*

Tis the season...Almost
A Solstice Carol for your Legionnaire

I think you know the tune:

Dead Celts roasting on an open fire 
Short swords nipping at your nose 
Wartime songs being sung by a legion 
And corpses dressed in shades of woad

Everybody knows a druid and some mistletoe 
Help to make the fire bright 
Tiny Celts with their homes all aglow 
Won't find it hard  to sleep tonight 

They know that Caesar's on his way 
He's finding lots of Celt barbarians to slay 
And ev'ry mother's child is gonna fry 
After the Romans make their parents die 

And so I'm offering this simple phrase 
To Celts from one to ninety-two 
Altho' it's been said many times, many ways: 
"Rome will always beat you!"


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 15, 2002)

> Imperian Centurion, Impirian (Human) Fgt6/Wan4...



Could someone give a brief run-down of the _Swashbuckling Adventurers_ Wanderer class?  Is it effectively a PC Expert?  A Rogue with larger Hit Dice in place of Sneak Attack?

It sounds like a class D&D could use: the Adventurer -- a class most real adventurers could and should multiclass into, with Class Skills like Listen, Spot, Wilderness Lore, etc.


> SA Evasion, Tradesman, Uncanny Dodge (Dex Bonus to AC), Ward of the Albatross



I don't see Evasion and Uncanny Dodge as very "Centurion", and I don't know what Tradesman and Ward of the Albatross mean.


> Str 15, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 15, Wis 12, Cha 13



High stats -- and oddly allocated for a Centurion.  The Con, Str, and Dex make sense (in that order), but why the extremely high Int?  If anything, I'd rank Cha, then Wis, then Int, in that order.  A Centurion is a grizzled leader of men.


> Skills: Climb +9, Craft (Carpentry) +9, Craft (Stonemasonry) +9, Diplomacy +8, Gather Information +8, Intimidate +8, Jump +9, Knowledge (Engineering) +9, Knowledge (History) +7, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) +7, Knowledge (Streetwise) +7, Knowledge (War) +10, Listen +8, Profession (Carpenter) +9, Profession (Stonemason) +9, Ride +9, Sense Motive +8, Spot +8, Swim +9, Wilderness Lore +8



Why the Profession skills where he already has Craft skills?  And should a Centurion have Craft (Stonemasonry)?  Weren't the daily forts made of wood?  And does a Centurion need Craft skills at all for what could fit under Profession (Siege Engineer)?  His skills aren't general; they're specific to building _exactly_ what the Legions build.

I strongly agree with most of the skill choices though: Intimidate, Jump, Swim, Wilderness, etc.


> Feats: Endurance, Expert Tactician, Great Fortitude, Improved Critical (Short Sword), Iron Will, Leadership, Power Attack, Run, Weapon Focus (Short Sword), Weapon Specialization (Short Sword)



Those look good.


> Equipment: _Lorica Segmenta +2, Dagger +1, Mithril Large Shield +1, Short Sword +1, Helm of Comprehending Languages and Reading Magic, Cloak of Resistance +1, _Wooden Rod, Hobnail Sandals, Harness, Belt, Small Pouch, Waterskin, _Potion of Heroism, Potion of Bull’s Strength, _2 _Potions of Cure Light Wounds_



How can that wooden rod _not_ be magical?  Perhaps a lesser version of the Rod of Lordly Might?


----------



## Darklance (Oct 15, 2002)

*Re: Flavor Questions*



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *There's some really neat historical accounts of Roman legions and their commanders working to hold little bits of civilization against the barbarians after the west had fallen.
> 
> I've always wanted to see an RPG based on that period. *




Sounds interesting. Know any links to info about this?


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 15, 2002)

> Tarchon omnibus SPD...



Perhaps it's a minor point, but this bit of Latin (and the "_cum grano salis_") made me smile.  For everyone at home, it's a standard greeting; it means "Tarchon sends greetings to everyone" -- or, I guess, "Hey everybody!"


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: Darklance*

Well, I asked the medieval historian who told me the story, about those legions.

Here's the basic background as I understand the instance I was referring to:

The empire is collapsing/collapsed and a general finds himself isolated in Northern France with three legions.  He marches south to Paris, secures a route down to the ocean, contacts as many of the local Bishops as possible, and sets up a little island of Romanness.  The Franks move in around him, but through clever use of his resources and good diplomacy he and his legions hold until he dies of old age, which is when the Franks come in and offer to absorb them, as it is now obvious that the western empire is dead and the Eastern empire isn't that interested in retaking the west at the moment.  The absorption itself has massive long terms implications for the Franks and eventually plays a large role in the dynastic struggles that lead to Charlemagne becoming such a good friend of the Pope in order to secure his crown.

Guys name was Syagrius/Aegidius and Gregory of Tours is the major source for him.  Gregory is also good for the whole early dark ages really shows you how wild a time that is, and how the whole of France was basically Ceasar in reverse with Barbarians kind of sitting over a Roman nation.

I don't have links yet, but I'm getting them.

Mmadsen:  the wanderer is basically a kick butt expert for pcs.  You choose any 12+int bonus skills as your class skills (8+int if you multi-class) and get 8+int points at every level.  Simple wp only, d8 hit die, reflex as highest save, cleric BaB, and several special abilities as time goes on.  The two you would be unfamiliar with are:

Tradesmen: one skill point gets you two ranks in profession, knowldege, and craft skills

Ward of the Albatross: once a day you get to change a natural 1 to a natural 20, so you might crit on a fumble

They also get evasion and uncanny dodge.  I think it's a good choice for a centurion.  Represents well-travelled nature, skilled abilities, and generally liklihood to survive weird situations.  I just can't see someone who's been a soldier for 10 or more years ever being flat-footed.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 16, 2002)

*PC Expert*



> Mmadsen:  the wanderer is basically a kick butt expert for pcs.  You choose any 12+int bonus skills as your class skills (8+int if you multi-class) and get 8+int points at every level.  Simple wp only, d8 hit die, reflex as highest save, cleric BaB, and several special abilities as time goes on.



I definitely like the idea, but I think it's easier just to give the Expert a Bonus Feat every other level (like the Fighter) from a list of adventure-oriented Feats, e.g.: Alertness, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Quick Draw, Run, Skill Focus, Skill Mastery, Track, Woodland Stride.  If anything, that's still less powerful than the Rogue's special-ability progression.


> The two you would be unfamiliar with are:
> 
> Tradesmen: one skill point gets you two ranks in profession, knowldege, and craft skills
> 
> Ward of the Albatross: once a day you get to change a natural 1 to a natural 20, so you might crit on a fumble.



A bit wonky, but workable.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Also*



> Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?
> 
> The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically, "Medieval army, they had better technology."



A lot is left implied by that question.  I feel the Romans would win "unfairly" by deploying a much larger force, much more quickly.  Even if medieval heavy cavalry units (knights) matched up well against ancient heavy infantry units (legions) and their auxiliaries, how many Romans would show up on their doorstep?


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 20, 2002)

> The romans never adopted to the polearm against the heavy gothic cav, not for or even after the annihilation of adrianople 40.000 men the empereor and his chief officers died, after attacking the gothic camp and get attacked by the gothic main force.  So i don`t think its reasonable to say they would.  The short sword isn`t an effective weapon against a full armored knight especially in plate armor.



Against cavalry (pre-stirrup, pre-_cap a pie_ armor), Caesar instructed his legions to use their _pila_ as spears and to aim for the faces of the cavalrymen.  I wouldn't expect them to hold off a true cavalry charge, but I wouldn't expect the Romans to be at a complete loss as to what to do.  Besides, I'm sure the knights horses wouldn't be _pilum_-proof.


----------

