Historic Mod for R:TW.

[AlexandrosMaximus]

Europa Barbarorum is the definitive Historical mod for R:TW. a few bugs, but the developers wil be releasing a patch soon.
www.europabarbarorum.com

[Sean Manning]

Ave Alexandre,

Here's a friendly question: Why should I play EB rather than another mod like RTR? Over Christmas break I may have time to play one computer game again, and I'll probably download a mod of RTW.

Some features of EB look quite nice including the detailed scripted campaigns for non-Roman factions. On the other hand, it looks like there are too many troop types for my taste including some questionably historical ones like Spanish cataphracts. (Although for all I know their Spain experts have sources to back that one up).

[Robert Vermaat]

Spanish cataphracts

Spanish cataphracts? hock: What period is EB covering anyway?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Spanish cataphracts

Spanish cataphracts? hock: What period is EB covering anyway?

I didn't realise white water rafting was time period specific........

[AlexandrosMaximus]

i dont recall seeing spanish cataphracts, i'll have to look at the unit cards.


EB is WAY more historical than RTR. Dont get me wrong i like RTR but RTR is still hollywood compared to EB.

not to mention you get 4 turns for one year, and it has a government system where you can regulate the level of independence a province has, which also affects the amount of indigenous auxiliaries you can levy.

[Sean Manning]

Gratias Alexandre,

The government type rules do sound interesting, as do the local recruitment rules in EB and RTR. And the EB team are much nicer about putting information about their game online than the RTR is.

For Iberian cataphracts, go here and search the page for "Iberi Lanceari" who are modeled as cavalry with helms, body armour, and greaves on horses with a full mail trapper. The caption description suggests that these troops were the mainstay of Hannibal's Spanish cavalry at Cannae!

[Robert Vermaat]

For Iberian cataphracts, go here and search the page for "Iberi Lanceari" who are modeled as cavalry with helms, body armour, and greaves on horses with a full mail trapper. The caption description suggests that these troops were the mainstay of Hannibal's Spanish cavalry at Cannae!

Fully armoured cavalry in Hannibal's time? Based on what? I recall that horse armour originated in central Asia, spreaking through persia to the Roman empire. "These are probably the most versatile heavy cavalry in the world", the text claims. Based on what exactly? Wishful thinking?

"Historically, the Iberian heavy cavalry was the most instrumental unit aside from the African Infantry at the battle of Cannae. They showed their martial prowess to an extreme degree by driving both the Roman and Allied heavy cavalry off the battlefield, turning and proceeding to drive the Roman light cavalry off the battlefield, then turning once more to completely surround the Roman infantry." Did they really? Heavy cavalry simply cannot chase light(er) cavalry from the field unless they completely rout, because light cavalry will rise rings around heavy cavalry, whose horse tire much more quickly.

Besides, was it not the loss of the famous North African cavalry that really weakened the cathaginians? North African cavalry seems to have been much more appreciated than Iberian cavalry.

Personally I think the information for the armour as presented below is to say the least a bit thin, and more based on national pride than on historical proof:

These hardy Iberians are among the choicest units available to a Carthaginian commander. They are a good all-purpose heavy cavalry, and they have a staying power on the battlefield that is simply unmatched by all but the most elite cavalry forces. They do not suffer from the same morale problems that the other Iberian troops in the service of a foreign power do since they are usually lavished upon by their commanders and their officers marry into Carthaginian or Liby-Phoenician families. They wear good quality mail armor and carry long Iberian style ovular shields. This combined with their use of a cavalry spear and falcata make them ideal cavalry for both the charge and fierce melee. These are probably the most versatile heavy cavalry in the world, and their status in the Carthaginian army proves this.

Historically, the Iberian heavy cavalry was the most instrumental unit aside from the African Infantry at the battle of Cannae. They showed their martial prowess to an extreme degree by driving both the Roman and Allied heavy cavalry off the battlefield, turning and proceeding to drive the Roman light cavalry off the battlefield, then turning once more to completely surround the Roman infantry. Most cavalry would have been content with simply chasing after the Roman heavy cavalry. It takes a great deal of discipline to turn thrice, all without a commander of note during the battle! After ten years of fighting in Italy two thirds of these men were still at Hannibal?s side!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Does this mod have artillary and seige equipment? I did not see anything in the units listing. The troops them selves look pretty good tho'!

Is it a direct mod for RTW?

[Sean Manning]

Fully armoured cavalry in Hannibal's time? Based on what? I recall that horse armour originated in central Asia, spreaking through persia to the Roman empire. "These are probably the most versatile heavy cavalry in the world", the text claims. Based on what exactly? Wishful thinking?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I've gotten the impression that some things creep in to EB as more the result of passion than scholarship. The game still looks much more historical than the base game, of course!

At Cannae, if we can trust Polybios, the cavalry on Hannibal's left beat their Roman opposite numbers, rode all the way along the line to attack the cavalry on Hannibal's right from behind, and then attacked the Roman infantry in the rear. So the second Roman cavalry were caught between two foes.

I've only got a general knowledge of Spanish warfare, and I didn't want to leap in with "Hah! They're wrong on this!" when I wasn't sure.

[MD]

What period is EB covering anyway?

EB timeframe is 272 BC to 14 AD.

Does this mod have artillary and seige equipment? I did not see anything in the units listing. The troops them selves look pretty good tho'!

Is it a direct mod for RTW?

Yes, it has artillery and the default siege equipment (ladder, rams, siege towers).
Roman artillery becomes available after the marian reforms, which is the second of three Roman military reforms in EB, before only Greek artillery designs are recruitable in certain provinces.

The mod is for Rome V. 1.5. Any expansion pack is not needed.

[Komanos]

Hey guys,

I'm with EB and just wanted to present y'all with some of the background behind the unit.

The armored warrior vase from Liria depicts horsemen much like our unit, as you can see here:

liria vase

with a detail of one of them here:

img95.imageshack.us/img95/6486/ebookenglishospreymaa18ms8.jpgOsprey closeup

and an osprey version here:

mcbride depiction

Now, the description that we used is perhaps a little contentious. I'm not sure who wrote it, and its one of several that will be revisited at some point, mainly because I'm not sure we can definitively say whether these were among Hannibal's Iberian cavalry. You may also notice that our depiction shows a full coat on the horse, which does not fit the representation shown in artwork. This was unfortunate: we lacked the model space to show the particular type of horse armor used by the Iberian cavalry, and to save space went with something that could also be used with eastern horses. As we convert to M2TW, that won't be a problem. Perhaps I can find one of the old WIP shots that included the "new" horse model which wasn't included.

Anyway, I hope some of y'all are able to enjoy EB. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Good day!

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,

Please enter your real name into your signature - it's a forum rule.

I'm with EB and just wanted to present y'all with some of the background behind the unit.

Yes, I feared you had used that one. McBride's plates are gogeous but totally fanciful at times. The author is very quick in stating that the 'horse is armoured with some kind of mail protection', but admits that 'the detail of the horse's leg armour must remain problematic'. (p.45). Indeed! No wonder McBride covers that with a man in front.

I totally disagree with the interpretation of Trevino, as you probably guessed. :wink: For all we know, one vase is not proof of so far unprovenanced horse armour. What we know of Central Asian horse armour up to Medieval horse armour is that this usually was chest protection or full bards, never 'close-fitting' armour of any kind as suggested here. It's no wonder that the author comes short when trying to explain the details.

[Komanos]

Ah, I edited my profile, but not the sig. Perhaps it works now?

Anyway, the depiction is not based primarily off the osprey, its based primarily off the vase painting. This just happens to be a case where our interpretation of the material is comparable to an osprey interpretation, which is not often the case.

As to the cavalry and the horse's armor, we've had an internal discussion that's gone on occasionally about how to properly depict different types of armored horse, and the full coat we have is not really fully pleasing to many of us on these Iberians. Shoot, a couple of guys are still wondering whether they're actually just mottled coats. Trajan's column, as I'm sure you know, depicts Sarmatian horsemen in full, form-fitting scale coverings, which is almost certainly either stylization or misunderstanding on the part of the artists. The vase has a similar depiction, so we can either assume that its either a similar case where the Sarmatian horseman's coat becomes a form-fitting "suit," or, as several of our members have been arguing, a sort of mail covering which would have been secured to the legs of the horse using leather straps, extending down from what may be more like an armored saddle blanket than a full suit of mail armor.

It also seems that you're questioning whether we're right to base a unit off a single artistic depiction. How are you reasoning your unease with that? The helmet and shield and other weapons can all be attested elsewhere easily enough, leaving one unparalleled aspect. Do we assume its an element of fantasy crafted in among "realistic" depiction? That doesn't really make sense as option 1 to me, but I'm happy to entertain other reasonings.

I guess the point kind of is, when crafting individually unique unit rosters for 21 factions and more than a dozen rebel "factions," we've often been forced to rely on sources that are either few in number or even slightly outside our time period. There are many types of troops in the ancient world that we want to see represented, and if we only represented those that were particularly well-attested, we'd have a pretty limited unit roster, especially outside of Greece and Italy. I think most of our members would also freely admit that we're often--certainly not always--on shaky ground with some units, especially those further afield from Rome and Greece, and so might defend our representation of a Marian legionary more ardently than a unit like the Iberian lancers.


EDIT: and as long as I'm on here, I might as well give a little promo: we have over 450 units, 21 playable factions, individual, beautiful generals, officers, and standard bearers for each faction, as well as possessing the most advanced scripting and traiting system in RTW. Oh, and oppida walls for the Gallic factions (Aedui, Casse, and Arverni), the Lusotann, and the Getai.

[Sean Manning]

I've got to say I'm still skeptical that that vase portrays armoured horses: the zig-zag pattern could be just shading or suggesting the texture of the horses' hair. A similar zig-zag pattern is used on the riders' kilts or tunics after all, and the cut of those looks much more like cloth than mail. And I very much doubt the horses wore mail trousers! Are there any finds of horse armour from Spain? Any texts that refer to Spanish cavalry with armoured horses? I can't think of any culture west of the Black Sea and Aegean which had cataphracts before the Roman Empire and Sarmatians.

I personally don't think including a unit based on one unclear source is a good approach for a game which prides itself on its historical accuracy, especially when this interpretation would produce something very unusual.

The other point is that if these cavalry were cataphracts then they weren't “the most versatile heavy cavalry in the worldâ€

[M. Demetrius]

Ok, the big Q I've had about all sorts of these games. Why can't Romans (and other advanced cultures) build bridges across rivers? There is ample documentation in history, but for some reason, a bridge is either already built, or there is no bridge at all possible.

To be plain, an existing bridge should be able to be destroyed, just like a building, and rebuilt at a suitable location whenver time and money permit, seems to me. I guess, as a non-programmer, I don't see some difficulty in the game code that must prevent a "building" across a "river" that troops can cross. Maybe even improve to be larger, more fortified, etc., like towers and gates, such as were known to exist.

Pons facta, Caesar transiit.