Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

The Roman Camp

CrimswordKnightCrimswordKnight MemberPosts: 80Registered Users
edited October 2012 in Total War: ROME II
Since R2 has been announced I've been reading up ancient Rome and obviously it military. It seems wherever the Romans went the legion would always hunker down at the end of the day and build a camp/fort to protect themselves. The next day they would set out and destroy the camp if they weren't coming back. Does anyone think this will be in R2? In RTW you always had the option to build a fort if you had a general in your army and paid 500 denari for it but it seemed kinda just thrown in.
Also, a legion had about 6000 soldiers plus officers but was usually under that. I found many mentions of how there was nearly as many non-combatants that went with the legion like supply personal, smiths, the expendable red shirt, etc. In all the layouts of Roman camps I see there is never a section that shows where these non-combatants stayed. They wouldn't stay outside the camp because whose gonna risk losing all your support personal? If anyone knows anything about that I'd like to know.
Post edited by CrimswordKnight on
This is left blank for an unknown reason.

Comments

  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 12,132Registered Users
    edited August 2012
    That's because the emphasis of siege battles in RTW was between the attacking and defending armies. Non-combatants had no role in a battle, hence the term non-combatants. Hence there were no visible non-combatants in RTW battles.

    Camp followers were not "expendable red-shirts", especially if they were slaves, blacksmiths, and priests, and for non-Roman factions, women and children.
    How to install Steam games without downloading
    How to post DXDiag: Windows+R key, type "dxdiag" in the input box. Select Save All Information, and attach as [/code]
    in your post. Ork grenadier: Which partz ya throws again??[/SIZE][code] in your post.
    Ork grenadier: Which partz ya throws again??
  • CicimuholovacCicimuholovac Senior Member Posts: 487Registered Users
    edited August 2012
    I found many mentions of how there was nearly as many non-combatants that went with the legion like supply personal, smiths, the expendable red shirt, etc.

    You got it wrong. Roman legion was never acompanied by supply personel when on war marches, forced marches ect (if there were auxiliary troops with the legion, as ussualy they were, than it is posible to have suply troops, but they would suply auxiliaries, not the legion). They might accompany them when a legion moved from one garrnison to another without the risk of engaging combat.

    As for the smiths, lumberjacks, builders, masons, ect. all these duties were done by the legionares themselves. Every legionaire had a skill and legion used those skill to make equipment, roads, aqueducts, ect. In essence, aside from food, legions were almost selfsuficient.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 12,132Registered Users
    edited August 2012
    I think the OP was referring to Roman forts, which were more permanent fortifications intended to be house a garrison indefinitely, essentially operating much like medieval castles. Their permanent nature allowed civilian settlements to grow adjacent or nearby, employing locals for jobs or trade. Merchants, prostitutes and slaves would have been found in forts that have stood for a long time and relatively safe from conflict.

    Camps were just camps that troops pitched for the night. In that case an army on the move would likely not have a terribly large following of non-combatants, especially if the civilians had homes.

    The Romans used the word "Castra", and there seems to be no distinction between temporary camps and permanent forts- only in size.

    I have come across the term immunes being used to describe "specialist legionaries" exempt from more general tedious chores due to special skills like artisans and the like, however the references in the wikipedia article themselves give no citations. It is thus likely a modernist interpretation of how the Roman miltiary was organized. So there are about three possible sources of specialist labour: actual immunes , hired civilians (impossible nor likely for a temporary camp) or slaves. Since slaves could range from menial to skilled and educated, the possibility of slave labour for various tasks in a Roman fort or camp is not outrageous.
    How to install Steam games without downloading
    How to post DXDiag: Windows+R key, type "dxdiag" in the input box. Select Save All Information, and attach as [/code]
    in your post. Ork grenadier: Which partz ya throws again??[/SIZE][code] in your post.
    Ork grenadier: Which partz ya throws again??
  • CicimuholovacCicimuholovac Senior Member Posts: 487Registered Users
    edited August 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    I have come across the term immunes being used to describe "specialist legionaries" exempt from more general tedious chores due to special skills like artisans and the like, however the references in the wikipedia article themselves give no citations. It is thus likely a modernist interpretation of how the Roman miltiary was organized. So there are about three possible sources of specialist labour: actual immunes , hired civilians (impossible nor likely for a temporary camp) or slaves. Since slaves could range from menial to skilled and educated, the possibility of slave labour for various tasks in a Roman fort or camp is not outrageous.

    It is correct that some legionares had special skills in contrast to most legionares having "normal" skills (like working in the kitchen, cooking, choping wood, cleaning armour, standards, ect.) and because of those special skill they were imune to guarding and camp duties. Thus the term immunes - those who are imune (the root and the meaning is the same in both English and Latin).

    As for the slaves, it is not likely that a legion would be accompanied by them. They simply present too much of a risk. So do the hired civilians. You don't see civilians looming around military camps today, you wouldn't see them 2000 years ago either.
  • WiskeyBobWiskeyBob Senior Member Posts: 257Registered Users
    edited August 2012
    Back on topic though.

    The camp you're describing wouldn't come about very often in-game.

    Perhaps if a Roman army is hit by a night attack, the Romans can have the choice of fighting inside the camp, and thus having the help of their ditches and fences, or fighting outside, because there might be a risk of destroying their belongings and tents. Obviously this choice also applies to other factions where applicable.

    The forts that you payed 500 denarii for in the original should be expanded upon to make them more useful. I would like it if they were upgrade-able into stone forts for example, and if they had a better zone of control to make them a better tool for protecting your cities.
  • wilo1066wilo1066 Senior Member Posts: 2,174Registered Users
    edited August 2012
    i liked the ones in rome you could build them between settlements as you moved forward you take them down and get some money back.And move you army from cities to camp to cities.And build where you like between two mountains in the pass to stop any enemy armys passing through
    wilo1066
  • TristanTristan Member Posts: 66Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    Cicimuholovac Your right craftsmen were done by legionaries who each had a job other than war, but many soldiers brought slaves
    with them especially Greek soldiers and barbarians did bring wives and children with them, that's why the Screaming Women unit exists in Rome Total War as it states in the biography of the unit. That's what I think.
    ~Tristan~
  • MacroMacro Junior Member Posts: 28Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    If this does get added; it should be added with the concept that

    When you take a turn, where you move your army to a location on the map and at the end of the turn, your army has seen no action, only travelled, it will automatically make some kind of camp. By camp I mean tents, The odd defensive poles sticking in the ground, and then if you get attacked on the next turn without moving, you can fight amongst the camp, otherwise if you move on, it automatically packs up the camp.
    If you think of me, think of one thing. Rome.
    Rome is the thing I'm interested most in. The roman era, war tactics and history of Rome is all so fascinating and interesting. I'm all for it, films & books.

    BRING ON ROME TOTAL WAR 2!!!!
  • wilo1066wilo1066 Senior Member Posts: 2,174Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    Ive just finished watching the EAGLE. Not very accurate but its about romans,The roman camp in the film was good the ditches infront of the walls were full of pitch one flaming torch thrown in surounded the fort in fire that would be a cool defence for camps
    wilo1066
  • CorporalCorporal Member Posts: 69Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    You got it wrong. Roman legion was never acompanied by supply personel when on war marches, forced marches ect (if there were auxiliary troops with the legion, as ussualy they were, than it is posible to have suply troops, but they would suply auxiliaries, not the legion). They might accompany them when a legion moved from one garrnison to another without the risk of engaging combat.

    As for the smiths, lumberjacks, builders, masons, ect. all these duties were done by the legionares themselves. Every legionaire had a skill and legion used those skill to make equipment, roads, aqueducts, ect. In essence, aside from food, legions were almost selfsuficient.

    I am afraid someone has wrong and it is you. Roman army did accompany or kept large wagon trains and groups of camp followers. It was reforms of Marius that brought some limitations to number of slaves within army unit moving. Thus the nickname "Marius Mules" to the legion. Obviously the legion after Marius reforms looked and was different but that too had a very important and regulated amount of legion slaves. And camp followers when and where possible. Battle of teutoburg forrest indicates clearly a presense of large number of non legionary people moving and being close to legions, attacked by Arminius and german tribes.

    Whole consept of "Military supply" was to large degree none existent and living off the land was mean to supply a legion as well as taxing the regions it went through. Simple tasks such as laundry could be carried out by troops but men tend to let women do that work when and where possible. Buying loot and slaves and distribution of wine and prostitution meant that when and where was a legion on the move or stationary, then and there was need for camp followers. And term "Camp wife" is much more than just "handy".

    I personally doubt Legions actually building a fort when on the move unless they were in hostile territory. Only the late imperial army of late emperors were likely not to have camp followers and this due to large number of cavalry units and war turning more mobile.
  • somekidfromnosomekidfromno Junior Member Posts: 21Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    Corporal wrote: »
    I personally doubt Legions actually building a fort when on the move unless they were in hostile territory. Only the late imperial army of late emperors were likely not to have camp followers and this due to large number of cavalry units and war turning more mobile.

    It is widely known that the Roman legions on the move almost always constructed a marching camp or fort that had palisades and defensive ditches while on the move, this being nearly always the case after 100BCE. Several generals made a point of doing this wherever and whenever their forces were on the move, friendly territory or not.
  • wilo1066wilo1066 Senior Member Posts: 2,174Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    I personally doubt Legions actually building a fort when on the move.From what ive been reading camps and forts .camps were only built when a army was on the move.Forts were built when entering a hostile land that they were trying to invade to keep garrison forces and only if they intended to stay.
    wilo1066
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 12,132Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    It is correct that some legionares had special skills in contrast to most legionares having "normal" skills (like working in the kitchen, cooking, choping wood, cleaning armour, standards, ect.) and because of those special skill they were imune to guarding and camp duties. Thus the term immunes - those who are imune (the root and the meaning is the same in both English and Latin).

    As for the slaves, it is not likely that a legion would be accompanied by them. They simply present too much of a risk. So do the hired civilians. You don't see civilians looming around military camps today, you wouldn't see them 2000 years ago either.

    "Special skills" most often meant bribery of the centurions and/or social privilege (re. the senior officers' personal slaves would not be relegated to digging ditches or foraging for food, or even generals' immediate subordinates); the "grunts" do the grunt work, and a lot of the army's members were not grunts for various reasons.

    And unless I see a rule about the Roman army not having slaves on the march or in camp, you can certainly assume that a salve-based society will have slaves accompanying armies. Obviously not every legionary can afford or be permitted to bring their own slaves, but slaves of generals performed other menial jobs like scribes and accounting and taking care of certain parts of the camp. Naturally bringing foreign slaves was a better idea than, say, a Briton slave in an army on the march through Britain. So unless you were dumb enough to bring along a slave that came from the region presently being conquered and hates you, your slave would just be as interested in your survival as you would, seeing as they'd benefit. Not every slave was a chattel slave.

    As for civilians that depends entirely on how you define the word. Slaves were civilians, and if Roman nobles had slaves they'd definitely have them around in the camp. The fact that the militaries we have today have certain rules regarding civilian presence, mean absolutely nothing to past customs.
    How to install Steam games without downloading
    How to post DXDiag: Windows+R key, type "dxdiag" in the input box. Select Save All Information, and attach as [/code]
    in your post. Ork grenadier: Which partz ya throws again??[/SIZE][code] in your post.
    Ork grenadier: Which partz ya throws again??
  • CicimuholovacCicimuholovac Senior Member Posts: 487Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    And unless I see a rule about the Roman army not having slaves on the march or in camp, you can certainly assume that a salve-based society will have slaves accompanying armies.

    Since most of the Roman law concerning the legions and armies was custom based you won't ever see that rule.
    daelin4 wrote: »
    Obviously not every legionary can afford or be permitted to bring their own slaves, but slaves of generals performed other menial jobs like scribes and accounting and taking care of certain parts of the camp.

    Slaves of "generals" (I will assume that by this you mean those of the tribute and the legatii) would number less than 50.
    daelin4 wrote: »
    Naturally bringing foreign slaves was a better idea than, say, a Briton slave in an army on the march through Britain. So unless you were dumb enough to bring along a slave that came from the region presently being conquered and hates you, your slave would just be as interested in your survival as you would, seeing as they'd benefit.

    It would be very dumb to bring 6000 slaves in the first place, regardless of their origin... And even dumber to give them the jobs of cleaning weapons and armour, digging trenches, building moats, roads, bridges, ect.

    Not to mention the problems romans had with Spartacus and his men and how that affected their society..

    daelin4 wrote: »
    Not every slave was a chattel slave.

    Please tell me your source on this.
    By Roman law, slave was an object. There were, ofcourse, some ideas in the Roman society (mainly by some philosophers and distinguised lawyers) that by the norms of the natural law there is no such thing as a human being treated like an object, though, those ideas were never realized in the pozitive law. During the late republic, slaves were given some protection: owner could not kill the slave as he wished anymore for example. Much later, under the Christian influence, slaves had some more rights, like marriage, ect.
    daelin4 wrote: »
    As for civilians that depends entirely on how you define the word. Slaves were civilians, and if Roman nobles had slaves they'd definitely have them around in the camp.

    Civilian is a word that comes from the Latin word cives, which means citizen. There realy was no word of which we know that had the same meaning back then as the "civilian" has now. Slaves were not regarded as "civilians", in fact, they weren't regarded as humans, they were objects like dogs and cats, tables, forks, ect.
    Also, why do you now mention only nobles and not ordinary soldiers as you did before?
    daelin4 wrote: »
    The fact that the militaries we have today have certain rules regarding civilian presence, mean absolutely nothing to past customs.

    It means absolutely everything. Army wether it's stationary or on the move, has some secrets they wish to keep secret. Once you have secrets than you also have people who want to know them, and than you have to take measures for those people not to break your secrets. That has been that way since the break of time.
    Military is the strongest part of the states represive ar.s.enal, it has been since the formation of the first tribes/city states. That also means that the military is very suspectable to information breaking.


    @Corporal
    Battle of teutoburg forrest indicates clearly a presense of large number of non legionary people moving and being close to legions, attacked by Arminius and german tribes.

    Those 3 leagions were send to evacuate a city over the Rhine that the Germans cut off, thus the large presence of civilians.
    And term "Camp wife" is much more than just "handy".

    Legionares tended to have "unmarried wives" since they were not allowed to mary while in service (with few exceptions). Now, those "wives" weren't allowed in the camp, nor were they allowed to travell with the legion. As far the state was concerened they didn't exist. Later, in the 2nd and 3rd century AD when legions got fairly permament posts, than those "wives" would have lived in the vicinity of the legion fort, but again, they didn't live with the legionares. If those wives occasonaly washed some underweare is hard to know for certain, but isn't that realy hard to believe;, yet that was the exception, not the rule.
  • CorporalCorporal Member Posts: 69Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    It would be very dumb to bring 6000 slaves in the first place, regardless of their origin... And even dumber to give them the jobs of cleaning weapons and armour, digging trenches, building moats, roads, bridges, ect.
    Well...yes in general that is the case, However if your name was Ghengis Khan and you were on serious mission to bring enemy city under your sword. You might even tie your semi armed slave-prisoners-army into siege weapons and let them storm the city as first wave. At least one military commader could and did pull a stunt most others would fail. In central asian warfare unthinkable things are known to turn into thinkable. That is unthinkable to most european minds and thinkers. Such as building a rampart from living human beings and charging enemy city over it...
  • CicimuholovacCicimuholovac Senior Member Posts: 487Registered Users
    edited October 2012
    And you base your conclusions over such unthinkable situations?
    Why would you even compare such different cultures; mongolian nomads and romans or any other civilized antique europeans? Not to mention that they are 1000 years apart..
Sign In or Register to comment.