Roman Empire

[Palaiologos]

No, no, no civfan. You have misunderstood. More propably I was not clear enough.

The map that has the "strange" info is NOT THE ONE that i have posted.

It is P.Connoly's map in "Greece and Rome at War". It supposedly shows the Roman frontier regions and field armies according to the enigma that calls itself Notitia Dignitatum in 395AD. Your link however provided me with a lot of information. Many thanks.

[Palaiologos]

And just if anyone asks the first FIVE plates (Eastern frontier, Last stand, Legionaries on campaign, Saxon shore, and Dacia 105Ad) along with the map are from "Imperial Rome at War" by Martin Widrow. They were designed by Angus McBride.

The Roman troops 9th century are from Osprey's title "Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th-9th centuries", they too designed by Angus McBride.

[tanelorn]

Some good sites at:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/prm/blbelisariusb.htm

http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/ROMARMY/art1.htm

http://ragz-international.com/roman_army.htm

http://www.royalty.nu/history/empires/Byzantine

http://www.angelfire.com/games/vinceshomepage/VincesImages/Byz/byz_index.htm

and of course the brilliant http://www.dbaol.com/start.htm

[tanelorn]

And http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...ignitatum.html ,in English of course. Plus the images accompanying the manuscript in the homepage.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
What do you know of the Sassanid military?
Did they use War elephants in battle?(i personally doubt it).

My impression is that their army composed of ultra-heavy cavalry(cataphracts) and horse archers. They also used sophisticated siege technics.

What about their infantry? Where they only irregulars and skirmishers or they also fielded heavy infantry?.


Any info on dates, numbers, locations etc. would be much appreciated, thanks.

The Sassanids inherited their military system from the Parthians. The aristocracy provided clibanarii cavalry (both rider and horse fully armoured), while minor nobility and nomad mercenaries fought as light horse archers.

Indian Elephants were used (placed at the rear of the army)

Infantry were generally poor quality, lightly armed peasants. These were supplemented by good quality light infantry such as Kurdish kavelinmen, Syrian foot archers and Anatolian slingers.

The elite units of the Sassanid army included 'the Immortals' - 10,000 Clibanarii - and the 7th century Pushtighban bodyguard - 6000 men.

[fairline]

A selection of units from the Notitia Dignitatum:

[Palaiologos]

Hell!!
"Immortals"!!!?
Are you certain?

Any way "Clibanarii" will not be included in the scenario. Their only diference from the Cataphracts was that the Clibanarii wore plate contrary to the cataphract's mail armor. Which is not really a difference in "civilization terms".
Oh, and they were completely inefective.

There will be only Cataphracts.(Buildable by both Persians and Romans).

[fairline]

There's a lot of debate about exactly what was meant by the terms clibanarius and cataphract. I think that current thinking regards cataphracts as heavily armoured riders whilst clibanarii were heavily armoured riders and horses - at least if you use the (apparent) late Roman designations. In the late Roman army only units of clibanarii used horse armour, and usually only appeared in the eastern armies, to oppose the Sassanids. Units of cataphracts, or well-armoured cavalry appeared throughout the later empire. If you get a chance, check out 'Late Roman Cavalryman, 236-565AD' by Simon MacDowall.

There's a good description of the Sassanid army in the Osprey book 'Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanid Persions'. This states that the 'Immortals' were an emulation of the ancient Persian unit, but were probably clibanarii. The figure of 10,000 seems a bit high, though. This book suggests that later Sassanid armies included less well armoured cavaly.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Valuk
Actually, the Russians did win. Poland was nearly a Russian colony until 1991! But now it's over, and Russia and Poland don't have any territorial disputes, come to think of it, they don't even border much anymore(except in former Eastern Prussia).

The eventual score counts.

[tanelorn]

Emulation... I thought so. The immortals were an Akhemenid unit.

Tactics
About the Cataphracts and Clibinarii, one has to say that eventhough Roman and Sassanid units shared comparable equipment, their tactics differed significantly at this point.
Whereas Roman Cataphracts and Clibinarii were used primarily as heavy shock cavalry, the Sassanids opted for the use of the bow, instead.
In this respect, they departed from the Parthian tradition that segregated light horse skirmishers from the heavy lance armed chargers.
In DBA and DBM lists later Sassanid cataphracts are represented as lighter than Roman ones, to reflect this change.
One has to say though that later "East" Roman armies used mixed lance/ bow cavalry formations (a 2/1 ratio) within the same unit.

Horses
As to horse quality, the situation was inversed. The Parthian warhorses (called 'Nicaean" in the Roman empire) were the most powerfull ones of their time. The Romans and even the Chinese imported them for a hefty price. The Roman's best horse breed, the Iberian (an arabian offshoot via Carthage) was fast, but could not support as much weight.
Sassanid light horse units still used the parthian steppe pony, I guess.

Sources
Emperor Mauricius "Strategicon" comes from that age, and discusses tactics and formations in detail.
Amongst other things, he states that the Persians were among the few nations of his time that employed disciplined formations and tactics.
At least from his reign onwards Cataphracts were trained to alternate between the use of bow and lance, individually (though in game terms, a cataphract upgrade should have to wait for Justinian, IMHO).

I support the use of Elephants for the Sassanids, since they deployed them on the field up to the battle of Nehavend, against the Arabs.
Elephants were part of Muslim Persian & Khorasmian armies also, not to mention the Indians, Annamese etc.

Ah, yeah, later Roman armies addopted several practices from the Sassanids, like conical helmets and such.

I 've read somewhere that the Cataphract used a Parthian horse, an Avar lance (instead of a pilum), a Hunic bow, a Germanic spatha (as opposed to the gladius) and a Bulgar cloak.
I have no idea about what makes a "kontos" Avar. Must be the laces?

[fairline]

The generic Roman term for heavy cavalry was cataphract, which may have been celtic in origin. Equites cataphractii were introduced by Hadrian in the 2nd Century, after the Romans had encountered the Sarmations - they were equiped with complete mail or scale coats, spangenhelm (four piece conical helmets used well into the dark ages), carried the kontus lance, and carried no shield. It is possible that some had horse armour but grave stalae of cataphracts show the horses unarmoured. It is postulated that most cataphract units were descended from Sarmations settled by the Romans in Gaul.

Roman Clibanarii were Persian or Parthian in origin (check out the unit names in the Notitia Dignitatum) and were introduced in the 4th Century. Both Persian and Roman 4th century clibanarii were very heavy armoured lancers (there are lots of Sassanid and Roman depictions) who were mounted on armoured horses. It is interesting that all of the Clibanarius units in the later Roman army were senior to the cataphract units.

Later Sassanid armies are described as having lighter armoured cavalry. They used both the bow and kontos, and the Roman army of the 6th Century copied this style. The best troops of this type in Justinians day were the bucellarii of the generals such as Belisarius and Narses.

IMHO you should include cataphracts in the 2nd/3rd century army, supplemented by extra-heavy clibanarii in the 4th century. Give an upgrade to bucellarii in the 6th century.

[tanelorn]

Originally posted by fairline
The generic Roman term for heavy cavalry was cataphract, which may have been celtic in origin.

Whose origin, the term or the unit?
The term is Greek in origin, "Kataphraktos". It means "all-armored".
It originally referred to Bactrian heavy cavalry, in later Achemenid military. There were "cataphracts" in late Hellenistic armies as well, though they differed in equipment.

I think that Clibinarius is latinized "Klibanophoros", "Kiln-bearer", weird

[Palaiologos]

Yes "Cataphract" is Greek in origin, it is well known.
Fairline can't mean the unit, since Celts with heavily armored cavalry were non-existent. .
I thought that the bucelarii were mainly "private" forces used by the aristocrats. They were incorporated in the normal army at some time though. Again i state that due to the limited unit slots(remember the Franks and others will have their own units as well,not only the Romans) i believe that a cataphract unit will cover both cataphracts and clibanarii. I read in an Osprey title that the cataphracts too are thought to have riden armored horses.

[Valuk]

Hey, can anyone post some pictures of the Akritas?
All I know of them is that they were multiethnic warlords loosely defending Asia Minor from the Muslims, and that they were later introduced by Michael VIII. in Bythinia and that there were similar units of men known as the Uskok in modern-day Croatia, of which I am a descendant.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Yes "Cataphract" is Greek in origin, it is well known.
Fairline can't mean the unit, since Celts with heavily armored cavalry were non-existent. .
I thought that the bucelarii were mainly "private" forces used by the aristocrats. They were incorporated in the normal army at some time though. Again i state that due to the limited unit slots(remember the Franks and others will have their own units as well,not only the Romans) i believe that a cataphract unit will cover both cataphracts and clibanarii. I read in an Osprey title that the cataphracts too are thought to have riden armored horses.

both you and Tanelorn are right, Palaiologos; what I was trying to say was that the cataphract unit names in the Roman army are almost universally celtic - ie the units were probably recruited in Gaul, perhaps from the descendents of the Sarmation military settlers there introduced, I think, by Hadrian or Trajan.

You are also correct in saying that bucellarii were 'private armies'. These household troops, particularly those of Belisarius and Narses were rergarded as the best cavalry in Justinians army.

Have you thought of using multiple units files, as with Red Front or Imperium Romanum to give upgrades rather than using up additional slots?