I am looking to refight Dertosa /Ibera 215Bc P. Scipio v Hasdrubal. We know that half or more of the Roman troops that have arrived from Italy will be from the Italian / Latin allies. My first assumption was to treat these as similar to the Romans themselves but knew that Army lists often give some of these italian units medium infantry stats. To check I went to the Oracle and Duncan writes...
Allied armament is not specified - which may simply be because the Romans laid down no regulations about it. Certainly the Latins were equipped in Roman style, but many other Italian peoples fought in their own armies in lighter equipment. Livy believed that in 217 Rome traditionally used only citizen and Latin heavy infantry, which may imply that other allies retained their native lighter styles. Perhaps a gradual adoption of Roman armament took place. Plutarch seems to envisage the Paeligni at Pydna equipped as Romans, but they had then been Roman allies for nearly 150 years, and even if they had adopted Roman arms that need not mean all allies had done so. Allied alae seem to have included some light infantry skirmishers, but perhaps in smaller proportion to the legions;...
I feel that I might be better to make some of the Italian units medium rather than heavy infantry. would folks agree?
Allies may not have been as wealthy as Rome, may not have had the money to contribute towards equipment. Also individual allied soldiers may not have been as wealthy (often best land had gone to Roman/Latin colonists) so even if they were effectively Legionaries, they may have been more poorly equipped?
Also worth remembering that Polybius' description of the legions' equipment is from mid 2nd century rather than late 3rd, so even the Romans may have had less body armour than is sometimes imagined.
If you look back to Adrian Nayler's article in Slingshot last year, I forget which issue, on statuettes of Italian allies, you'll see there is now a good deal more evidence at least on the appearance of Italian allied troops than I had back in AMPW. There certainly may be a case for "medium" infantry - whatever that means in whatever rules you're using. But I'm sure I've seen some people classing even Roman legionary hastati as medium, whatever that means in whatever rules they were using.
Thanks Duncan, yes I remember the article now you mention it. Adrian's piece is in 357. Yes, I think downgrading a few units it is. Thanks.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Jun 27, 2026, 01:39 PMAllies may not have been as wealthy as Rome, may not have had the money to contribute towards equipment. Also individual allied soldiers may not have been as wealthy (often best land had gone to Roman/Latin colonists) so even if they were effectively Legionaries, they may have been more poorly equipped?
A good point that I had not really thought of.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Jun 27, 2026, 01:39 PMAllies may not have been as wealthy as Rome, may not have had the money to contribute towards equipment. Also individual allied soldiers may not have been as wealthy (often best land had gone to Roman/Latin colonists) so even if they were effectively Legionaries, they may have been more poorly equipped?
I think Ian should consider the potential difference between Roman 'allies' and 'auxiliaries' when he musters his armies.
I suspect that Italian 'allies' were for the most part as 'wealthy' as Romans. They too were communities with citizens spanning the whole income spectrum. Many 'wealthy' allied elites maintained close relations with Roman elites. Allied communities were probably as able to make money from their agricultural assets and trade as were the Romans. I think it is likely that they produced, on the whole, contingents as well-equipped and accoutered as the Romans (whose own contingents may not have been as uniformly accoutered as we might imagine and Polybius may have us think). At this time the Roman state is not apparently equipping their soldiery so there would inevitably be individual variance. Romans directly serving their state were men of some stature having met the appropriate property qualification. Allied communities likely had similar processes too.
The complaints of certain allies during the later Second Punic War that they had reached the end of their resources, both financial and human, were perhaps unusual. I would treat the vast majority of 'allies' during the Second Punic War as pretty much indistinguishable from Roman and Latin troops. It's worth bearing in mind that many allied colonists were originally Roman citizens who had lost their full citizenship rights on being settled on 'foreign' soil. If not immediately, then probably within a generation their contingents were 'Roman' in all but name and legal status. Any remaining 'indigenous' allied communities had likely been pretty much assimilated to the Roman way of things by Hannibal's day (Rome having dominated the whole of Italy several generations previously). I suspect that the south Italian allied communities were fairly swiftly assimilated into the Roman military 'system' in the process losing much of what we like to see as their 'lighter' characteristics. (Ian may need to consider the differences between a 'lighter' panoply and a 'lighter' tactical function within his chosen rules.)
Wealth was, however, probably the key rationale of the whole Roman ally policy. Allies provide troops free of charge. They equip them, provision them and replace them entirely at their own expense. Roman troops have to be paid and maintained by the Roman exchequer and thus the ally contingents allow Rome to field twice the number of troops for half the cost, so to speak. There was a reason why the allies usually provided three times as many cavalry as the Romans. Cold hard cash!
Later, after the Social War when the Italian allies become Roman citizens, Rome has a big problem. The settlement immediately 'doubles' the cost of every army it raises. This is likely the primary driver for why Rome employs more and more non-Italian auxiliaries such as Gauls. Their communities had been granted allied status by treaty and thus Rome could continue to raise 'free' troops from them instead. For Ian's armies in Spain, he may well wish to field some Spanish 'auxiliaries' (which he may consider as 'allies' to the Romans). I would field them as 'native' contingents unadulterated (in wargames rules terms) by their relations with Rome. They would not have been the same kind of 'allies' as the Italians at this time.
Thanks Adrian. It is almost certain Scipio would have taken little time over beginning to recruit local troops. This seems to be fairly typical behaviour. In this instance I have them on the wings where they are also supplying some extra cavalry. Livy of course ignores these troops although he does give otherwise a much more detailed idea of the disposition of troops. He claims Hasdrubal puts Spanish troops in the centre with heavier troops to either side. There are echos of Cannae to come in this which could be because Livy is mixing it up or could the Barka Bros have discussed this sort of tactics before the war.
I rate the allied Italians the same as most of the Roman & Latin troops, i.e. medium infantry, which is still pretty tough in the rules I use. They are better than Spanish infantry but not quite as good as the best Carthaginian veterans.
The difference is that Roman & Latin troops have a reserve line (Triarii) and Italians do not.
Quote from: stevenneate on Jun 28, 2026, 08:35 AMI rate the allied Italians the same as most of the Roman & Latin troops, i.e. medium infantry, which is still pretty tough in the rules I use. They are better than Spanish infantry but not quite as good as the best Carthaginian veterans.
The difference is that Roman & Latin troops have a reserve line (Triarii) and Italians do not.
Interesting, I do use the main legions as HI but I have indeed put some Triarii behind the lines (with some Velites as I am trying to keep my interpretation reasonably close to Livy.) But I also need the Legions to be a bit stronger than the Scutarii etc. facing them or the historical break through cannot occur.
My medium infantry legions usually punch a gap through the Spanish quickly when we have done Dertosa. They might still take some punishment as do the Italians, but they generally win in this case.
For the Cartho's it's a case of whether the veterans and elephants can get there quickly enough to help the outgunned Spaniards. The trade off is the command resources that have to be spent keeping the Spanish alive and fighting until help arrives. Most often, by a long way ahead, it does not. By the time the better Cartho troops get involved, the Spanish are largely scattered and their break point is approaching.
Still. It is an interesting refight. We have had the odd Cartho success, but on the whole, the central breakthrough and crushing of the Spanish is rapidly achieved.
Quote from: stevenneate on Today at 12:03 AMMy medium infantry legions usually punch a gap through the Spanish quickly when we have done Dertosa. They might still take some punishment as do the Italians, but they generally win in this case.
For the Cartho's it's a case of whether the veterans and elephants can get there quickly enough to help the outgunned Spaniards. The trade off is the command resources that have to be spent keeping the Spanish alive and fighting until help arrives. Most often, by a long way ahead, it does not. By the time the better Cartho troops get involved, the Spanish are largely scattered and their break point is approaching.
Still. It is an interesting refight. We have had the odd Cartho success, but on the whole, the central breakthrough and crushing of the Spanish is rapidly achieved.
What rules are you using there? DBA? Command is not something I have suggested any special ideas about here. I see no reason not to allow both sides to be competent rather than exceptional or poor. I do wonder about the Punic set up whether the idea of a centre that gives a bit to allow an envelopment was something that the Barcas had been discussing as a tactic even prior to the war. It goes wrong here. The Spanish have otherwise a reputation for sticking in a fight once committed, an idea often missed when we see them switching sides.
We have been playing with Commands & Colours and Strength & Honour. Both sides are "competent" (unless I am in command of course, when they are "dire").
Commands & Colours uses a pre-set battle deployment map. The Spanish foot are deployed to the fore and bear the brunt of the central Roman infantry assault which is the logical thing for them to do. In combat the Roman medium foot have 4 combat dice to the Spanish 3. The Romans have more support for their generals whereas the Spanish have no nearby general in support. Tactically, the Spanish can try moving to the rear (with the emphasis on "try") but it may not be a choice available to any or all of them, OR they can stand and throw some javelins and hope they can hold, OR they can try and get their flanking troops moving more speedily and just accept that some Spanish units will get crunched and hope for the best (the "tribal mercenaries are expendable" option). Commands & Colours uses Command Cards for movement and the Scipio's get a 6 cards to Hasdrubal's 4 advantage to reflect a superior command structure on the day. We often increase Hasdrubal's Command Cards to balance it up a bit more. Of course, at any one time the cards can fall in any combination so sometimes you have an advantage and sometimes no matter how many cards you hold you may have no advantage.
For Strength & Honour the Roman legionaries combat out-factor the Spanish infantry (4 vs 3). The Romans also get the combat advantage of Velite screens (+1) whilst they live and if/when they perish the Triarii can be deployed (+2). At 4+2 vs 3, the Carthaginians will accumulate casualty cards at a higher rate. Latins legionaries start at combat factor 3 but still have the advantage of Velites and Triarii supporting them. The Italian infantry at combat factor 3 and no supports are the one thing the Spanish can evenly tackle head-on. Command structure is equal. Bonus command dice rolled up at the start of the battle MAY slightly favour one side or the other but the commanders can spread these in any way they like to give them an advantage in one or more aspects (attack, defence, movement, morale). This might pay off or be wasted depending on the Dice Gods.
I'm thinking that Dertosa was being set up as a Cannae replication but the Roman centre attacked rapidly before the Carthaginian flanks got into step. Possibly the Cartho cavalry was not in overwhelming superiority and the Roman flanks held back or any or all of these. Consequently, the Spanish have to fight the legionaries to give time for the tardy flank support to arrive.
Interesting. I have assumed fairly equal 'generalship' I don't think Hasdrubal has done anything significantly wrong and the Scipios are competent rather than exceptional. They perhaps got a good press by not being overly rash than being clever.
The cavalry at Dertosa get almost no mention after the set up (apart from the fact that they mistly survived the battle) so I am assuming that the cavalry pretty much cancelled each other out on the wings.