Beating the Romans

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

It sometimes seems everyone in the world has a Roman army.. I tended
to think of them as pretty invincible although admittedly this was
mainly from games against 'Barbarians'. Carthaginians or Parthians
seem a much tougher enemy, the latter in Particular I have just
recently seen rout a Roman army with their heavy cavalry (Cataphracts
treated as knights in DBM) and hordes of Horse archers reducing the
legion bit by bit..

But how do people beat the Romans with a Barbarian army? be it Gauls,
Celts or early Germans in particular?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Rhandolph" <rhandolph@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:70465ae0.0406110526.5f267ed9@posting.google.com...
> It sometimes seems everyone in the world has a Roman army.. I tended
> to think of them as pretty invincible although admittedly this was
> mainly from games against 'Barbarians'. Carthaginians or Parthians
> seem a much tougher enemy, the latter in Particular I have just
> recently seen rout a Roman army with their heavy cavalry (Cataphracts
> treated as knights in DBM) and hordes of Horse archers reducing the
> legion bit by bit..
>
> But how do people beat the Romans with a Barbarian army? be it Gauls,
> Celts or early Germans in particular?

Wouldn't this depend entirly on what ear the Roman army was? Aren't early
Roman armies different than Roman armies at the end of Rome? Or when playing
historicals people always use those around the time of Marcus Arielius?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Don't forget the Romans lost a lot of battles. However they did not give up,
recruited a new army and tried again.

On the wargames table, each army should aim to maximise its advantages and
minimise its opponents strengths. So barbarian armies should aim to use
their numbers to beat the Romans. Break their supporting troops and then
attack the legionaries from front and flanks at the same time.

--
Justin Taylor
justin@hellou2.fsnet.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Justin Taylor" <justint@hellou2.*takethisout*fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cad2hh$a50$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Don't forget the Romans lost a lot of battles. However they did not give up,
> recruited a new army and tried again.
>
> On the wargames table, each army should aim to maximise its advantages and
> minimise its opponents strengths. So barbarian armies should aim to use
> their numbers to beat the Romans. Break their supporting troops and then
> attack the legionaries from front and flanks at the same time.

Oh yes, quite. The Roman army does indeed change throughout its
existence, starting weaken, growing in might as it conquers the world
in 'self defense' although I am thinking of it facing the gauls then
Celts at given times in that order, the Gauls must be beaten by ealier
troops to be able to get across the English channel to invade ancient
Britain and to fight the German along the border as appropriate, the
forests of Germania being a dark place for the Roman 'fight in the
open' legions.

Indeed barbarian hordes must use their numbers and bravado, and
strike the weaker German troops then hope to find a way round to the
better Roman troops flank.
The Romans in turn want to stand fast, present an unbroken front to
the hordes and use their technicological advantage and discipline. (of
course as the Empire declines so these traits subside).