[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.42556971 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>Late Republic/Early Empire
>Roman Legions are equiped with a large, rectangular shield (scutum) and a shortsword which is closer to a large dagger (gladius)
>The idea is to use the massive shield to stay alive against superior foes while using the gladius to stab at the weakest parts of the foe's armor (usually the stomach and legs)

>Late Empire
>Roman legions have abandoned the scutum for an oval shield, and have replaced the gladius with a longsword called the spatha

Can anyone explain why the Romans did this? The early legion equipment appears to be superior for a well-organized army like the Roman one. The rectangular scuta's are much easier to lock together, making it easier to form either a shieldwall or a testudo depending on the needs of the situation. You can't do that as easily with oval shields as they'll leave gaps at the top and the bottom. As for their swords, wouldn't a shortsword like a gladius be much easier to use in tightly packed formations than a longer weapon with which you risk harming your fellow soldiers?

I'm obviously overlooking something, the Romans weren't stupid so they wouldn't replace something that works with something inferior. So can anyone explain why the transformation from the early legions to the late legions happened?

>Inb4 not /tg/
Don't tell me you've never played the most patrician of all games: Scuta et Senatori.

>> No.42557142

I bet one reason was that the "barbarians" were much more used to using round shields.

once "barbarians" started to become a huge chunk of the army, they just used what they were comfortable with

>> No.42557183

The fault lies with Germans, as per usual. German barbarians started off as a semi-independent military force within the Roman Army and as such provided their own equipment. Eventually, once German mercenaries came to dominate the Roman army, they just adopted barbarian weaponry wholesale.

>> No.42557223

though even byzantines adopted them

although by then, everyone used round shields

>> No.42557303

/twg/ explained to me that a lighter oval shield and a long sword were better than a heavy rectangular shield and a shorter gladius for when you were fighting in loose formation. Also, those later legionnaires often found themselves being trained and equipped with spears as well, which once again favored the lighter shield.

>> No.42557332

The Byzantine army had the same problem as the Late Roman Army. Initially, just immediately prior to the reign of Justinian, the army was entirely composed of Ostrogoths. After the Germans were purged by Anastasius the Isaurians, Huns, and Heruli became the bulk of the Byzantine army.

>> No.42557335

East Romans

>> No.42557353

>east romans
>not romans

get out of here you westerner

we are the true roman empire

>> No.42557404

>the true Roman Empire was usurped by Muslims

You shut your pederast mouth.

>> No.42557424

>East Romans

>> No.42557450

>your precious western empire couldn't handle the scottish lands

go back crying to king arthur you half germanian scum!

>> No.42557474

>implying those greek boy lovers could ever be called roman

>> No.42557522

There is nothing in Hibernia or Caledonia worth conquering, but at least the old Empire saw fit to trade with their people, and probably at an exorbitant advantage too.

Also, 4th Crusade best war of my life.

>> No.42557535

Chinese here

dont mind us, just bankrupting your empire with our worm fabric

>> No.42557544

>Unwashed, pants-wearing Germanic barbarian ridicules the inventors of philosophy and rhetorics
>Calls himself a Roman

Western "Rome" is about as Roman as its armies.

>> No.42557616

"The Lost Legion was a cover up for the invasion of Atlantis I tell you!"

>> No.42557691

pic related: "Roman" soldiers

>> No.42557731

1: Warfare changed, the empire changed, the gladius stabbing machine was completely dominant in an era when the opposition was, to be blunt, shittier.
2: more and more "foreigners" in the legions, culture and weapon preference made an impact.

It's not necessarily a case of which is better or worse, but a case of what is practical. If you gradually replace a centrally trained and equipped standardized army with soldiery from vassal nations and warlords paying tribute to rome, it's going to show.

>> No.42557791


The fuckhuge shield and dingy stabby sword is amazing when you win battles by standing in formation and stabbing the screaming barbarians who consider throwing themselves at you and dying in droves the manly thing to do. When more and more of the army is made up of the aforementioned barbarians who are now less shit at war and have better stuff, things change.

>> No.42557808

especially cataphracts with their giant kontos

>> No.42558127


For the same reasons any military changes its equipment, because the demands of the battlefield were different and adaption was necessary to survive.

The enemies of Rome circa 50AD were completely different to the enemies of Rome circa 350AD. The huge, immobile blocks of gladius-armed Legionnaires may have worked against the Barbarians earlier, but that definitely wasn't the case any longer once the Barbarians had adapted Roman tactics and culture, and in many cases had actually served in the Roman army themselves!

Not only that, but the advantages of the scutum compared to an oval shield are often vastly overestimated. Ever wonder why massive tower shields never came back into military usage in Europe besides pavises strapped to the backs of crossbowmen?

An oval shield is much handier and often lighter than a scutum, meaning it is easier to block blows with it. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that an enemy will aim for your legs below the knee in close combat, making the scutum's extra surface area negligible (not to mention, again, such an attack is easily blockable with any shield).

Its shape also makes it easier to form shieldwalls, and the fact that its flatness allows it to overlap with other shields actually makes those resulting walls stronger.

The gladius was just impractically small outside of the perfect conditions for its use. A spatha can serve both as a cavalry sword (which it started out as) and an infantry sword. It can stab just as effectively as a gladius, while also providing the user with greater reach and a far more potent swing outside of close formations.

>> No.42558936

No you're not, you're busy killing THIRTY FUCKING MILLION of yourselves before the invention of fucking gunpowder. And then you're going to have some upstart Koreans make a terrible game series out of it.

China, not even once.

>> No.42558976

Didnt they also do it order to decentralize the army so a general wouldnt declare himself emperor every other day ?

>> No.42558987


Better Muslims than smelly Vandals, Goths and Franks.

>> No.42559020

Heard you were talking shit

>> No.42559034

>No you're not, you're busy killing THIRTY FUCKING MILLION of yourselves before the invention of fucking gunpowder.

And not even flinch. China can do that in decade. China give no fuck.

>> No.42559069

u fucking wot ?

>> No.42559073

>implying kebabs don't smell

We really need some kind of metric for determining who is the overall worst. Unwashed barbarians or unwashed kebabs.

>> No.42559077

I'm sorry for that, sometimes I get carried away.

>> No.42559100

Latins can suck it.

>> No.42559132



>> No.42559134

hey man when every general and hero can kill 1000 men each, 30 mil aint nothin!

>> No.42559147

>Cory from Boy Meets World is a Roman archer

>> No.42559161

At least the kebabs can actually make and hold a fucking centralised empire, unlike you feudal failures.

>> No.42559162

The French did a better job with their slice of the West Roman Empire than the kebabs with their slice of the East Roman Empire.

Then again due to mass migration it becomes ever harder to tell the two apart, sadly.

>> No.42559174

Man, I hope I never get as butthurt as you Franks are.

>> No.42559197


Do you mean ultimately? Because the Ottomans did just fine for centuries, and were the superpower of North Africa, the middle east and the Balkans, basically the entire area of the Byzantine empire that the Byzantines failed to reclaim. And if we're going to go "right up until today" the French dropped the ball pretty hard too last century.

>> No.42559206

Now i really want to play a game taking place in the Kingdom of Soissons for some reason. Fighting against invading Franks, trying to keep hold of the last remaining roman part in Gaul.

>> No.42559213

>Implying the french ever did anything right.
Lmao you are fucking hilarious.
No seriously though the french have never done anything right or correct. The world would be leaps and bounds better if france had never existed.

>> No.42559239

>implying france didn't become a clusterfuck of feudal lords up until Louise 14 with only TINY amounts of national stability such as Charlamange

>> No.42559241

>Gets dominated by Britain.
>The pope has to try and interevene constantly
>Bunch of French and British assholes invade Byzantine empire thinking they are Saracens when really they are Romans.
>Gets shit kicked in by actually Saracens.
>Meanwhile Byzantium is doing swell until Muhammed comes knocking with a huge fucking cannon.

>> No.42559245


>implying we don't have the French to thank for the creation of Best Country and Best Empire

>> No.42559259

>unites france
>ruins it again by partitioning it between his sons based on "equal income" lines

Face it, your dirt-sucking Germanic "noble" was a failure.

>> No.42559267

Man; I want to go back in time and make sure Germany won WW1, so they'd honor their agreement to industrialize and modernize the Ottoman empire. That literally would have solved all modern problems in the Middle East.

2nd Ottoman Empire WHEN!?!?!

>> No.42559268


I've got bad news for you buddy.....

>> No.42559270

You mean worst country and worst empire.

Angle-land would have been better as fucking Angle-land, not Norman-fucking-over-anything-even-remotely-Angle-land.

>> No.42559274


Are goths even people?

>> No.42559276

>Meanwhile Byzantium is doing swell until Muhammed comes knocking with a huge fucking cannon.

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've read all day. I agree on French ineptitude but then you dropped the ball hard with this dishonest as fuck statement.

Byzantines sure as shit weren't doing swell until the siege of Constantinople.Their history was just a series of variously bad clusterfucks for centuries up to that point.

>> No.42559285

>2nd Ottoman Empire WHEN!?!?!

keep giving money to UAE until they have Disney Land: Dubai

>> No.42559292

>yfw there's a tiiiiiiny little village in armorica still full of romans, holding out against the barbarian scum

>> No.42559302

>That literally would have solved all modern problems in the Middle East.
You are far too optimistic of both German and Ottoman capabilities at the time.

Anyway, there's no way Germany could have ever won the war- as it was with all the powers involved, anyway.

>> No.42559316

These barbarians are crazy!

>> No.42559322

>Meanwhile Byzantium is doing swell

4th Crusade says hi

>> No.42559324


>French speakers from France who acknowledged French sovereignty over their lands on the continent for long after they conquered England and later had a century long war over who was king of France.

inb4 "bluh bluh muh viking ancestry" they were fucking French.

>> No.42559330

Germany was an industrial powerhouse; which gave France a run for its money the first year and a half of the war. Had they won in that time; they could easily help industrialize at least Turkey and then allow Ottoman bureaucracy to eventually industrialize the satellite countries (at least Egypt).

>> No.42559332

>Thinks normans and french are the same people.
Kill yourself

>> No.42559341

Yeah, but they weren't just fighting against the French.

>> No.42559369

The point being; they at least kept their shit relatively together until the siege of Constantinople. And I'm talking car-running-down-hill-without-an-engine together. It wasn't pretty but compared to France and the Western Roman Empire; you could at least point to the Byzantine empire and recognize the Roman in them.

>> No.42559372

They were french in the same way british, french and spanish are roman.
Anotherwards they weren't they were dominated at one time by the french but that doesn't actually make them french you ignorant faggot.

>> No.42559374

>implying germany wouldn't put a giant Stamp "owned by germany" over the entire mid east, giving them the best oil fields in the world

>implying fundamentalists wouldnt get angry at foreigners owning their ancestral homelands

if europe buttfucked africa, they'd totally do the mid east

>> No.42559389

>recognize the Roman in them.

they spoke greek though

>> No.42559396


>> No.42559401

Why do people believe no Roman army ever used spears, and have to accompany any discussion with "spear is a whore weapon" copypasta?

>> No.42559417

So did the Romans.

>> No.42559425

Up until 1916; it was a German victory as the Russian mobilization was so slow as shit that they didn't really need to worry about it until the middle of 1915. Had Austria put up just a little more offense, Germany could have focused fully on the Schleifen plan without worrying about the Eastern Front until Paris was in their control.

But it's a moot point; because it fell apart and the Modern world today is fucked because of it.

>> No.42559476

>Implying Germany was good with Colonialism.

It's one of the few European powers that were relatively calm (mostly due to its late coming) when it came to imperialism. A victorious Germany would probably honor the agreement if only to not deal with a second war right after.

>> No.42559478

What? There's no way the Germans could ever have won the first world war without substantial differences in the war. They just didn't have the core industrial capabilities to do so. And there's no guarantee the Schlieffen plan would have worked.

And don't be a faggot; the world would have been exactly as bad had the Germans won the war, because exactly the same problems would have occurred.

>> No.42559505

>Gets dominated by Britain.
Did you know that "Angevin" means "from Angers"? Did you know that Angers is part of the historical duchy of Anjou, which is in France? Did you know that until the fall of House Lancaster the English (not British) nobility spoke exclusively French?

I think you're mistaken on who dominated who. Pic related: Edward III of England swearing fealty to Philippe VI of France as his vassal.

>> No.42559512

>early /tg/
>People discuss traditional games

>late /tg/
>People "discuss history" (aka: regurgitate le epic Rome/Crusader memes from /int/, /pol/ and /reddit/ spiced up with some rare wikipedia trivia) and other entirely board-unrelated topics

Can anyone explain why the Mods did this? The early mode of posting appears to be superior for a well-organized board like /tg/. So can anyone explain why the transformation from an okay board to a cesspit like this happened?

>> No.42559513

They did hold on to many Roman offices and traditions, such as the Senate, but spoke Greek primarily, yes. Apparently it changed rather early in the ERE's history post-fall of the West as well. Justinian was said to have been the last Emperor who spoke Latin as his first language but, I think that's up for debate.

>> No.42559524

Wait, Edward I. My bad.

>> No.42559529

Yeah, Prussians are well known for being honest and upholding their agreements.

It's not like realpolitik is a German word or anything.

You need to start learning /tg/ history real quick if you think /tg/ was anything but worse than this.

>> No.42559615

/tg/ "history" threads are fun for that very reason. It's basically a bunch of people spouting their favorite interpretation of history.

>> No.42559721

So I'm guessing you don't know what it looks like for a board to really go downhill. You haven't even slipped until you end up like /v/ - split into three boards just so that people can actually discuss video games like they were meant to.

>> No.42559872


I'd like to add that this is probably the best board for historical discussion. Where else am I supposed to go? /int/? /pol/? I hope I don't have to explain why this is retarded.

Call me new, a traitor, cancer or whatever but I don't see a problem with /tg/ discussing history once in a while. Hell, we already have a general dedicated to historical wargames.

>> No.42559883

Just people having a bit of fun.

>> No.42559940

I WISH there were separate boards for quests and history. Hell, maybe a separate one for Warhammer too. It'd be better for everyone in the long run, but this site's administration is so anally conservative about creating new boards it's not funny.

>> No.42559979

That would pretty much kill /tg/. Board is slow enough as it is.

>> No.42559992

>separate board for quests
>separate board for history
>separate board for webcomics
>separate board for youtube personalities

What will be left of /tg/ then, other than "that guy" threads? I've been on this site since 2007 and while I'm relatively new to this specific board, I can tell you that most of the "it used to be better" whining is just patently false. The only whining that may have a point is "/b/ used to be good", and that's literally only because old /b/ used to produce worthwhile memes. Other than that, it hasn't really changed.

>> No.42560097


Setting discussion
List Threads
Card Games
Lore discussion
Build an RPG
/tg/ collaborative creation
Judging other nerds

There'd still be a whole lot without quests.

>> No.42560100


the sword was no longer the primary weapon. The spear took on a larger role in late empire

>> No.42560101

The reason there's no history board is because it would become /pol/ 2.0 very, VERY fast.

>> No.42560103

because the segmentata costed way too much per soldier, and having a large amount of land they needed to keep mostly guard patrols which wouldn't have operated in coorts, so they decided to cut the expenses per soldier and make an equipment good enough to face small attacks

>> No.42560139

The true Roman empire finally died with the last of the Czars.

>> No.42560151


Yeah... Yeah this is very true. But then again we have history and we... Oh. This explains a lot.

>> No.42560160

Russia pls

>> No.42560168

As evidenced by the fact that history discussions on /tg/ tend to become /pol/ish fast. Particularly those involving the Roman Empire, as it seems pretty much everyone wants to use Roman history to support their ideological narrative.

>> No.42560280

New old /b/ is /r9k/.

>> No.42560313

Carthage was nordic!

No. Seriously, i have met people who believed that. I put them in the same box as those who claim Cleopetra was black

>> No.42560398

I thought Carthage was originally Phoenician, and thus grew from the same roots as early Jews?

>> No.42560466

Carthage was African. Africa Strong!

>> No.42560565

Phoenician with a large libyan ethnic population.

>> No.42560630

No they didnt, you have absolutely no idea- what books or papers have you read which gives you this impression?

>> No.42560690

I wonder what would had happened if they had managed to beat back the Franks.

>> No.42560716

They were French in the same sense that people who stuck around for barely 150 years in France before shipping off for England and having Norse names were "French".

>> No.42560728

another invasion would have occurred a few years later

>> No.42560787


Seems to be the prevailing opinion, which I'd be more inclined to agree with if we observed the legions suffering defeat after defeat an eventually phased out

Are a lot closer to the truth. The legions were phased out by auxiliaries, not because they were better but because it was easier to do so. By the time of the east/west schism the empire had had literally forgot how to train legions (source:soldiers and ghosts) because of its near total reliance on auxiliaries.

Eventually the byzantines had to come up with a miltary based on what they knrew, spear walls and eastern calvary

>> No.42560866

Why did the Byzantines do so poorly? They had a solid position between the middle east and europe with plenty of trade going through them, and they controlled some of the most well-established areas with plenty of infastructure instead of the relative frontier that is Europe, they maintained many Roman traditions and had access to ancient knowledge that had been lost in the west, and when the chips were down they were able to call on their Roman Catholic buddies to lend a hand.

They had so much in their favor, but everything seemed to fall apart. What went wrong? Bad emperors? Plague? They held off the Turks for long enough, so it couldn't be invasion.

>> No.42560906

Low manpower, political instability, constant invasion from every direction and a due to lack of manpower, a overreliance on mercs.

>> No.42560923

Plague and then overrun by muzzies

>> No.42560969

that picture is bullshit. Romans did not have full plate mail

>> No.42560989

>didn't have plate mail
>plate mail
This bait was made for me.

>> No.42561094

Absolute bollocks m8

>> No.42561105

There's a reason the word "byzantine" is used to describe complex, outdated, and inefficient bullshit. The byzantine leadership alternated between astoundingly good and unbelievably terrible with so much backstabbing and court politics it's a wonder they lasted as long as they did.

>> No.42561112

Numidia was the fucking shit

>> No.42561121

Rolled 42, 16, 40, 41, 30 + 23 = 192 (5d42 + 23)


>> No.42561156

>and a shortsword which is closer to a large dagger (gladius)
It is not

>> No.42561279

>describing every political system ever

>> No.42561319

Nigga, just find some shitty thread right at the bottom of the catalog and do it. No one will ever notice.

>> No.42561327

Constantinople was a special kind of clusterfuck

>> No.42561444

Brown backstabbing horsefuckers you mean

>> No.42561495

Military history and the nations and factions that dominated it, and that we still look at today for inspiration are such a core part of traditional gaming because we recreate a lot of it on the tabletop.

>> No.42561557

>Reclaim Rome under Justinian
>Keep going strong against the Sassanids until Islam ruins everything (as it usually does)
>Still keep existing for centuries
>Things only start going downhill after the Venetians fuck it up
>All in all outlived the West Roman Empire by a thousand years

By what insane measuring stick did the Byzantines do "poorly"?

>> No.42561577

Internal corruption. Crusaders pillaging their lands while they were ostensibly aiding them in reclaiming the Levant for Christendom. Venetians. Merchants and nobles who didn't bother providing troops and funds for the defence of Constantinople (during the decline and eventual fall of the city), the Fourth Crusade which was the crushing blow from which they could never recover but, honestly?

I think it has to do mostly with the fact that since the last peace with the Sassanids before the Muslims arrived on the scene, they barely had 50 years of peace to themselves, coupled with the constant loss of territory and, as a result, reduced ability to fight and recover their manpower. They just needed a damn breather of about a century or two.

>> No.42561729

Apparently standing alone for 1000 years as waves of barbarians and infidels and muslims bash your face in but still surviving is poorly.

I mean after Anatolia was lost they still struggled on bravely for centuries.

Guys were fucking heroes

>> No.42561857

>Fucking shit up
Byzzies never have any sense of scale.

>> No.42562036

They aren't around today, of course.

More seriously, they'd been on the losing end of the stick since Manzikert. All they were really doing is slowing their own fall. It doesn't help that they really weren't that good a friends with the Catholic Christians because of all the theological arguments, and Russia was all the way to the north. And then they got Venice mad because they were the only kingdom to really rival them as a trading power.

Basically they just became a shadow, and then nothing, with everything getting worse and worse.

>> No.42562082


Never trust a Frank to do a Roman's job.

>> No.42562237

Mighty Jugurtha did nothing wrong!

>> No.42562430


Nah, Putin is still holding strong.

>> No.42562439

>a Romanov

>> No.42562483


>early /tg/

Got some of them rose tinted glasses, anon?
I've been here for years and there have always been historical debates here.
I remember some charming screencaps from the "early /tg/" you mentioned that draw attention to just how hilariously easy it is to get this board on a very involved political/historical tangent.Wish I had them just to remind you that "early /tg/" isn't "whatever convenient ideal I wish /tg/ could be imposed backwards."

>> No.42562616


>> No.42565844

> laughs from south america
Yeah, but did you have good plumbing? The. fucking mayans did.

>> No.42566122

>Own most of France for Centuries.
>Speak French because you raise your nobility in the new land

Lolkek. French revisionism in a nutshell.

>> No.42566249

1000% This.

>> No.42566633

>No official capital. Court was generally held at Angers[France] and Chinon[France]

> Following his accession he spent very little time, perhaps as little as six months, in England, preferring to use his kingdom as a source of revenue to support his armies
>When Richard was raising funds for his crusade, he was said to declare, "I would have sold London if I could find a buyer."

>There was little resistance when the prince entered London and Louis was proclaimed King at St Paul's Cathedral with great pomp and celebration in the presence of all of London. Even though he was not crowned [neither were Edward V and Edward VIII], many nobles, as well as King Alexander II of Scotland (1214–49) for his English possessions, gathered to give homage.

>As Duke of Aquitaine, the English king Edward I was a vassal to Philip, and had to pay him homage.

Where is the evidence that the "British" dominated France? You mean that claim to the throne Henry V never lived to actually push?

LThere's a reason why French words make up a third of English vocabulary. Even more if you count words of Latin and Greek origin that made their way into English through French.

I wonder what it is that drives a man to derail a thread about Romans to whine about the French. Is it that ever present inferiority complex?
>It must be British insecurity, then, this clinging to the hope that the French despise us when they don’t. It makes us feel we still matter. Most Englishmen would struggle to accept the truth: the French of the 21st century find us interesting, peculiar, even fun on occasion — they think of us much as we might think of the Irish, or Jamaicans. They just don’t care enough to be jealous.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.