Parallels Between T2K and 5th Century Roman Warfare

[Raellus]

I've almost finished Adrian Goldsworthy's excellent How Rome Fell and I'm once again struck by the similarities between Roman warfare in the 5th century A.D. and the type of warfare c.2000 as described in T2K canon. I know I've rambled on before about parallels between the late Twilight War and the wars of late Imperial Roman but I thought I'd share some of my more recent thoughts just the same. I hope that you find them interesting and/or helpful.


1. Small Armies

Apparently, Roman and Gothic armies were relatively small during the 5th century. The paper strength of the Roman army as a whole was much larger than its actual strength. There is considerable evidence that some units mentioned in Roman documents were maintained at only cadre strength while others may have existed in name only. This reminds me of some of the late Twilight War divisions (mostly Soviet or Pact) listed at 300-men strength. Scholars are not sure why Roman armies were so much smaller in the 4th-5th centuries than they were during the early Imperial period but it is likely that endemic warfare and disease were the primary culprits. Due to these manpower shortages, the Romans were all too willing to accept the services of former enemies in their armies. Another reason that field formations were smaller is that the Roman bureaucracy of the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. had considerable difficulties in supplying them.
Roman and barbarian armies needed to be able to survive mostly from foraging in regions that were often already stripped of resources due to earlier raiding or government levies.

2.Compostion of Armies

The Roman army was divided into garrison formations and field formations. In general, the former were smaller and of slightly lower quality than the latter. There was some mixing of these two types of units during large-scale campaigns. The field formations were usually split up between several neighboring cities between campaings in the field. This arrangement reminds me of the split between relatively poorly equiped "ORMO" units (I'm using ORMO to denote any and all government-sponsored militias, regardless of their individual affiliations) tied to a specific locality and field formations which were deployed in cantonment areas (sometimes including several neighboring towns or cities) between field operations.

3. Style of Warfare

In the 5th Century, the Roman army preferred raids and ambushes to pitched battles. Because Roman formations were much smaller than they'd been during the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., Roman commanders were reluctant to risk significant casualties. Gothic "armies" were in the same boat. Operating within the empire, they could not expect large scale reinforcements. They were sometimes reinforced by small numbers of escaped slaves, deserters (usually of Germanic origins), and/or small bands of Germanic warriors from other tribal groups who were also raiding within the empire.

Instead of large, pitched battles (of which there still a few), many smaller skirmishes decided the course of a campaign. The goal seemed to be jockeying for a strong position from which to negotiate a favorable settlement (land, food, bribes and payoffs, a position in the Imperial army/gov., etc.). The Gothic leader Alaric, well known for leading the sack of Rome in the 5th century, was several times a Roman Master of Soldiers (CiC). He was rewarded at such on at least of couple of occasions as a result of his success in raiding the Western Empire!

This seems to parallel the style of warfare in the late Twilight War. Raiding is cited in canon as the primary mode of fighting from '99 onwards. Pitched battles appear to be quite rare (Kalisz being the only example I can recall). Armies in the late Twilight War- already grossly understrength- simply can't afford to take significant casualties. What fighting there is seems to center around trying to either secure food-producing regions or deprive the enemy of same. Going Home suggests some fighting for winter quarters as well.

Marauders are the rough equivalent of the Germanic barbarians. Once a large unit goes marauder, it can't expect reinforcements except in small quantities (i.e. deserters and otehr small marauder "units"). Depending on their own situations, soldiers from all sides might also be tempted to desert and join a particularly successful renegade war leader (e.g. the Margrave of Silesia or the Black Baron).

Successful sieges also became rarer in the 4th and 5th centuries. Armies simply did not have the manpower to storm most walled towns and cities nor, due to their problems in securing supplies, have the staying power to invest a town or city for more than a few weeks. Also, siege equipment seemed to be less prominent in the later years of the Roman empire. In the Twilight World, it would take a very large, well equipped, and well supplied force to successfully besiege or storm a city like Krakow.

4. Divided Loyalties

The Roman empire of the 5th Century was split into Western and Eastern parts, each ruled by its own Augustus. Civil wars were frequent as generals and bureaucrats in various parts of the empire decided to declare themselves emperor or jockey for position in the imperial hierarchy.

This kind of reminds me of the CivGov/MilGov split in the U.S. and the rebellious Soviet republics. Going Home cites several U.S. divisions in Germany and Austria going rogue after receiving their OMEGA orders. Over time, I wouldn't be surprised if more and more generals decided to take their units and secede from their respective national militaries in order to carve out their own local or regional fiefdoms or negotiate a stronger position for themselves in the remains of their national government.

5. Weapons and Equipment

Roman weapons and armor became less complex over time. For example, the one-piece Imerial Gallic helmet of the 1st-3rd centuries A.D. was gradually dropped in favor of a less effective but easier to manufacture helmet made up several segments riveted together. The heavy, fairly compex pilum throwing spear was eventually replaced by lighter, simpler javelins. Barbarian armies tended to use a lot of captured gear and it is likely that it was fairly difficult to tell a Roman army apart from a Gothic one. There are several eye-witness accounts of friendly forces being mistaken for enemies and vice-versa. Large early Imperial Roman armies almost always included field artillery (Scorpios and Ballistas). There is little evidence of such units being included in most late Imperial armies.

With hi-tech weapons and equipment being used up or wearing out, armies in T2K would also need to adopt more simple, if less effective, alternatives. Likewise, armies on all sides would likely need to make use of increasing quanities of captured enemy gear. Over time, it would be harder to tell troops apart based on their uniforms, kit, weaponry, and vehicles. Heavy weapons would also being less common as AFVs and artillery pieces wore out or were destroyed.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Armies in the late Twilight War- already grossly understrength- simply can't afford to take significant casualties.

Vehicles are also often like the good dishes you keep back in the cabinet and never take out, because they're too valuable to actually use.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Vehicles are also often like the good dishes you keep back in the cabinet and never take out, because they're too valuable to actually use.

Good point. I agree.

I added some material on siege warfare and a new section on Weapons to the "essay" in which this is briefly addressed.

[Webstral]

A nice piece, Raellus. You've done a good job presenting analogies. Lets' hope the analogies only go so far. Otherwise, the Twilight War really does lead to a new Dark Age. Who, then, will be our Byzantium?

Webstral

[simonmark6]

France.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Who, then, will be our Byzantium?

Texas? Just kidding. I was tempted to say France at first too but it isn't a perfect anaology. They will hold the torch for modern, technological civilisation for quite a while after the Twilight War though, at least until other former first world nations drag themselves back onto their feet.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

France.

France retains centralized control , an effective military,nuclear powerplants ,overseas dominions and has enough of Nato between it and the Russians to pull through.

But the Australian/New Zeelanders also stand a pretty good chance imho - at least at regional dominance

[Raellus]

I forgot to mention that another reason pitched battles were rare in the 5th and 6th centuries is that commanders were worried about losing prestige if they lost. A loss could triggers desertions on a massive scale or possibly assassination at the hands of an ambitious subordinate.

I can see this happening in some units in 2000 and beyond. A weak and/or unsuccessful commander would have a hard time keeping his unit together.