 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 41
|
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: Looking for an historical source |
 |
|
I can't recall where it is in the classical literature, but I'm looking for the
account of the
Great Middle-Roman Armor Divestiture of AD 211. I'm sure it's somewhere, but
I've lost
the source.
The reason I know it's there is because the Imperial Warrior list #23 (Middle
Imperial
Roman 193-324 AD) is very clear that before the emperor Septimius Severus died
at
Eboracum in 211, every Roman legionairy wore armor. As the news spread of the
emperor's death, legionairies throughout the empire--at every post in every
theatre of
operations--stripped off their lorica and chucked it in the rubbish.
All sarcasm aside, why do the people that make army lists feel the need to strip
Romans of
their armor at every whim? I'm sure that if there were some obscure literary
anecdote of
Roman legionaries being caught naked and unarmed while bathing, some list-maker
would claim that it means that after a certain date, all Roman legionaries must
be naked
and armed only with their willies (Reg C, MI, W @ 12 pts).
And why such a dogmatic rigidity? The list creates an artificial divide between
"Severan"
and "Post-Severan" troops types with the rule that the two types cannot co-exist
in an
army. Why? Even if the list author is convinced that by a certain date NO Roman
legionary
wore armor, doesn't it make sense that it was a gradual change? Or does the
author
believe that on a specific date the legions elected to keep their swords and
beat their
armor into ploughshares instead?
Sorry for the rant, but I find it goofy that the lists are this way.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6072 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Looking for an historical source |
 |
|
> And why such a dogmatic rigidity? The list creates an artificial
divide between "Severan"
> and "Post-Severan" troops types with the rule that the two types
cannot co-exist in an
> army. Why? Even if the list author is convinced that by a certain
date NO Roman legionary
> wore armor, doesn't it make sense that it was a gradual change? Or
does the author
> believe that on a specific date the legions elected to keep their
swords and beat their
> armor into ploughshares instead?
Hi, I'm the no-name list author you refer to above. No sarcasm
aside, yes, after 11 March of the year in question, all legions
elected to beat their armor into plowshares. Yunno, spread of
Christianity throughout the empire and all that.
Scott Holder, List Horseman
PS: Note no apology for the snark. Nothing like coming back from a
great set of tourneys at Cold Wars only to be greeted with "rants"
such as this.
_________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 41
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Re: Looking for an historical source |
 |
|
Touché, Scott.
I don't mind getting back the snark I give, but there is a serious
question wrapped into the fabric of my rant: what is the source for the
belief that the entire Roman army went unarmored at some point during
the reign of Caracalla and remained so?
The only source I'm aware of for the belief that the Roman army wholly
adopted boiled leather armor at some point in the 3rd c. is Phil
Barker's "Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome." All the other secondary
sources I know of either assume that Roman legionaries remained as well
armored through the 3rd and 4th centuries or explicitly make the point
that they were. Barker's view is based on his interpretation of
monumental evidence and the assumption that the empire was too broke to
maintain the army, but his is a minority view.
The oft-debated question of armor in the Later Empire (4th-5th c.) begs
the question of whether there can be any certainty of how well or
poorly the legions were protected. At least the Later Imperial list in
"Imperial Warrior" gives the option to upgrade legionaries to HI. Is
there so much more certainty about the lack of armor in the 3rd
century?
I realize that published army lists going back to Milgamex' "Tactical
Ancient Armies" (1977) are biased toward the belief that Mid-Roman
soldiers were poorly armored. The "Imperial Warrior" list appears to be
a direct descendent of the Book 2 list for WRG 6th edition (1982).
These lists seem to accept Barker's view--but his isn't the only valid
argument. Barker may be in error, wholly or in part. The opinion of
other writers like Hugh Elton, Ross Cowan, Michael Simmkins, and Simon
McDowell may be correct, wholly or in part. The issue is at least
debatable, so why so dogmatic in how the list is structured?
While Barker agues in AEIR that he bases his view on monumental
evidence, there is clear monumental evidence from the 3rd c. that shows
armored legionaries. There is monumental evidence showing armored
Praetorians being destroyed at the Milvian Bridge (AD 312), which is
the tail end of the Mid-Imperial list.
If, as the list notes seem to argue, the army expanded so rapidly under
Severus that the fabricae couldn't keep up with the demand for body
armor and provided cheaper, more easily-produced leather, that's a
reasonable point. However, wouldn't it stand to reason that the poorly
armored units would be MI while the older, established units retained
their metal armor? Also, after the army's expansion slowed down,
wouldn't the fabricae catch up? So, going back to the no-ranting bits
of my post, why, given the debatable nature of the evidence, is the
list so lop-sided one way or the other: either ALL armored troops (HI
and LHI) or ALL non-armored troops (MI and LMI)?
Regards,
David
On Mar 20, 2006, at 4:56 AM, irobot00 wrote:
>> And why such a dogmatic rigidity? The list creates an artificial
> divide between "Severan"
>> and "Post-Severan" troops types with the rule that the two types
> cannot co-exist in an
>> army. Why? Even if the list author is convinced that by a certain
> date NO Roman legionary
>> wore armor, doesn't it make sense that it was a gradual change? Or
> does the author
>> believe that on a specific date the legions elected to keep their
> swords and beat their
>> armor into ploughshares instead?
>
> Hi, I'm the no-name list author you refer to above. No sarcasm
> aside, yes, after 11 March of the year in question, all legions
> elected to beat their armor into plowshares. Yunno, spread of
> Christianity throughout the empire and all that.
>
> Scott Holder, List Horseman
>
> PS: Note no apology for the snark. Nothing like coming back from a
> great set of tourneys at Cold Wars only to be greeted with "rants"
> such as this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6072 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Looking for an historical source |
 |
|
> I don't mind getting back the snark I give, but there is a serious
> question wrapped into the fabric of my rant: what is the source
for the
> belief that the entire Roman army went unarmored at some point
during
> the reign of Caracalla and remained so?
Look, every, repeat, every list FHE has done has cut off points, you
can't get around it--if that's an unrealistic approach in your mind,
then you can pretty much write off all the FHE lists, that's
certainly your perogative.
An analogy in the Roman context questioned is the movement from HC
to HK in Holy Warrior. Bill and I put that date at 1100 AD. Of
course we don't have any source that sez on such and such a date,
the armor development of mounted cavalry moved to a point that it
triggered the HK characteristics as defined in Warrior. Instead, we
looked at the body, repeat, body of sources and secondary commentary
and picked the date as a point in time when *generally*,
mounted "knights" were more likely to be HK than HC? Does that mean
that some poor knight crusading in the Middle East wasn't HC whereas
his richer counterpart next to him in the line wasn't HK? No, both
were probably different when defined in Warrior rules. However, for
convience's sake, we need cut off dates when dealing with armies
whose time frame runs over a period of time when military develops
changed certain fundamental characteristics of either the army or
portions of the army.
The MIR cutoff point is something I've gone over before. The focus
on armor use (or the academic debate surrounding that issue) misses
the point entirely. The cutoff date has everything to do with the
changing fundamental characteristic of the Roman military system
that occurred *around* that time and since list work is an imperfect
science, we had to pick a date that best represented the movement
toward a different system. Sure, did some legion in Italy "know"
about what we would call in modern parlance a doctrinal change in
combat ops before the poor guys on Hadrian's Wall? But the format
of army lists doesn't give us the ability to be that nuanced and
quite frankly, we don't see a need for it in the Warrior system,
thus, we ain't gonna go there. As Jon put it in an earlier post,
questions such as this imply options FHE was never going to take
although in this specific instance, those options are subtle and
probably haven't been stated outright. Now they have.
So, yeah, you might find some cohort on the Rhine (or elsewhere)
that kept some armor but we're trying to portray armies in the lists
as the systems they were, not with some oddball unit here or there
that *might* have kept their armor past the date when the Imperial
Memo said "make swords out of armor". Or they missed that memo.
And as you pointed out, plenty of this stuff is still debated, thus,
your ranting question comes across as yet another implied insult to
the analytical and interprative process of Bill and myself. We're
not stupid and we're not sloppy, we take into consideration
competing (and quite frankly that's what this is,
competition) "schools of thought" on subjects and have them.
Furthermore, so what if Bill and I adopt a "school of thought" that
is debated? Many of these are debated not just within a Roman
context but in many others (the eternal "what were the Hypaspists"
question springs to mind). We take one (assuming there is one) that
best fits our view of the data and what we're trying to accomplish
with the list. As Jon stated earlier, a post like this one just
screams "All too often a why question is asked by someone who knows
our answer already but is looking for a venue to reopen a closed
issue and beat it to death. Also, if we answer "why is X this
way?" with "because we believe Y to be true" we often get "but I
think Z is true and I think you're wrong and want to debate the
point." We don't have time for such a debate."
Yet here I am. However, this will be my last post on the subject
since this post is clearly another "I think Z is true, y'all are
wrong in your approach, so let's debate it". Not after this. I
simply don't have the time nor the desire to get into this with
people on every pet issue that they think FHE got wrong in 276 army
lists.
> The "Imperial Warrior" list appears to be a direct descendent of
the Book 2 list for WRG 6th edition (1982).
Wrong. The MIR list began from the NASAMW MIR list which was
developed by Mike, er, I always forget his last name and I don't
have the old NASAMW list in front of me. He was a professor of
something in this era out in Hawaii. We took *his* work, then
reviewed all the material that came out since then (1989-90) and
applied our analytical and interprative skills to the task and
presto, MIR for IW.
> These lists seem to accept Barker's view--but his isn't the only
valid argument. Barker may be in error, wholly or in part. The
opinion of other writers like Hugh Elton, Ross Cowan, Michael
Simmkins, and Simon McDowell may be correct, wholly or in part.
The authors you cite, MacDowell and others, Bill and I have read all
those guys and I know I don't happen to agree with many things they
have to say, just like I don't happen to agree with many things Phil
B had to say, just like you don't happen to agree with what I have
to say and vice versa.
>The issue is at least debatable, so why so dogmatic in how the list
is structured?
See above. We are not being dogmatic insomuch as the list structure
demands it--if you don't like that approach, well, you either get
used to it or find something else that provides the level of nuance
*across the board* in terms of lists. You ain't gonna find that
anywhere. But getting back to the MIR question, it is our view that
after the cutoff date, the fundamental structure of the Roman
military system as it related to combat operations changed, and that
change needs a distinct cutoff point to highlight what made the
armies different within the period covered by the list. If you
don't like that approach, which you clearly do not, please do not
come in here and ask FHE to defend or change it. We did what we did
for the reasons semi-outlined above. I might add that McDowell, et.
al. could just as easily be incorrect, "wholly or in part" over the
things they posit in their writings. You assume the issues is "at
least debatable". We do not, given the analytical and interprative
context of how we approached list development for Warrior....a topic
that we've explained in here before on numerous occasions.
All of your position points that I've snipped out are simply another
analytical and interprative review of the material, just don't
assume it's ours or that we subscribe to it.
This is all I will say on this topic. Hopefully I've answered the
question.
scott
_________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: Re: Looking for an historical source |
 |
|
Rule #1 - never bug Scott within five days of an east con...lol
I'd like to add my $0.02. I am here to encourage historical play. If someone
feels that Romans of a certain period/army/theater/legion should be HI vice MI,
please, please, please play them that way. The lists are a *start* point for
the historical player, not the end point. Not only would FHE not object to such
a decision - we would very strongly encourage it.
IF this is about wanting your MIR legionaires to be HI for a tournament, then I
must admit that I am confused. I could see someone who wanted their Irr B SHC
to be classed Irr A if they found some source of wild behavior for the troop
type. But to be arguing strongly to make MIR legionaires MORE expensive with no
change to how they will behave to HTW, 2HCW, 2HCT, L or LB in a tourney setting
defies logic. So, again, I am back to assuming you are looking at this from a
purely historical standpoint in which case absolutely nothing prevents you from
playing your MIR as HI in an historical game - with our blessing.
Jon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6072 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Looking for an historical source |
 |
|
> Rule #1 - never bug Scott within five days of an east con...lol
That is sooooooooo right.
But, there are bad ways to post list questions and good ways. I
won't trot out the bad ways, methinks everybody can figure that out
after the last couple of days, er years:( . Good posts are from
folks like Dave Lauerman, Christian Cameron and many I get offlist
from people like Marc Cribbs. Instead of coming in saying "My Way
is the Right Way" by asking rhetorical questions bound to punch my
buttons, why not balance such a question the way John Murphy did
yesterday? And yes John, I'll have an answer for you later today.
>So, again, I am back to assuming you are looking at this from a
purely historical standpoint in which case absolutely nothing
prevents you from playing your MIR as HI in an historical game -
with our blessing.
Good point. By all means, do that in your basement, local game
club, etc. And also, remember that in many instances, Bill and I
are fully aware of competing lines of thought on issues and don't
believe that we *know* the answer to everthing, far from it. In
fact, we attempt to balance and acknowledge, where we can, many of
the debates surrounding some things. But what sets me off are posts
that imply we didn't do our homework and how it's sooooo obvious to
the poster that we were asleep at the switch, didn't take into
account X, Y, and Z without knowing that, hmmmmm, perhaps we might
have done that and came to a different conclusion. It might not be
the "right" one but then any other position put forth by someone
might not be "right" either, just different.
scott
_________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ewan McNay Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2778 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: Re: Re: Looking for an historical source |
 |
|
JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Rule #1 - never bug Scott within five days of an east con...lol
I dunno. From the point of view of us 'umble bystanders, when Scott or
Bill gets provoked to the point of ranting in such vein, we get some of
the most delightful posts that this list contains . Not so good for the
two of them, of course...
:)
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|