So, apart from political things, were there any main differences between the Goths and the Ostrogoths?

Their origins are the same, so generally speaking they would not be very different. I think most differences between them are from after their settling in the Empire. Ostrogoths held Italy, Visigoths Spain and parts of Gaul. They lacked the numbers to completely dominate their territories so their culture would have mixed with local culture and Roman culture.

Indeed.

I imagine the troop rosters for these and the Visigoths to be quite similar. The main difference between them, as I see it, is their king. Each has one. And where they settled. Other than that, they are quite similar.

So this can be Ostro and visigoths then make the small changes to the visigoths later?

Add more Romanized units/buildings, other than that there isn't much to do I don't think.

Again, please kindly provide a vanilla roster from which we can hammer out the new one.

The Ostrogoths were probably enriched by their conquest of Italy (except Ravenna of course, ahem)? They are going to want to take the Romans out for good, which means perhaps we can put their starting field army somewhere near the Roman remnant?

I would imagine that a balanced roster of good infantry (not as good as the Saxons or Norse), good cavalry (not as good as the Franks) and average archers would suffice, but then what will they use for their calling card?

Quoted from GKA:

Again, please kindly provide a vanilla roster from which we can hammer out the new one

I will, as soon as my BI disc surfaces again sometime after the New Year.

In the meantime, feel free to research what kind of infantry and cavalry (Besides Gothic Cavalry, ha ha) you feel they should have.

The Goths were annoying pirates too. They raided Roman Turkey and Tracia for many years. As most tribal armies the Goths were probably not much of a unity. It was more a mix of warlords with the men they brought with them. Usually a great part being poor spear units/archers/skirmishers and a minor part decent warriors and even less real warriors and cavalry.

I would say start with spear/axe units and gradually introduce weapons like swords for the richer/better soldiers.

first of all to safe terikal some work:
the vanilla roster:

Infantry:
-peasants
- Arian priests
- Runaway slave spearmen
- Gothic warriors
- steppe horde chosen warriors
- gothic spearmen
- Gothic raiders (archers)

Cavalry:
- Gothic lancer
- Gothic noble warriors
- warlord
- steppe horde horsemen (horse archers)
- goth horse archer
- alan horse archer

Ostrogothic armies may have had the same organizational structure (with separate field armies and frontier armies) as Byzantine armies.

Also we need to consider when doing the visigoths that they lived in the empire since 376, what implifies they could be more romanisized (serving as foederati) than the ostrogoths who came around the year 454 in the empire.

the Battle at the River Nedao in 454:
...a most remarkable spectacle, where one might see the Goths fighting with pikes, the Gepidae raging with the sword, the Rugii breaking off the spears in their own wounds, the Suevi fighting on foot, the Huns with bows, the Alani drawing up a battle-line of heavy-armed and the Heruli of light-armed warriors. (Jordanes, The Origin and Deeds of the Getae/Goths, written in 551)

Than a question: The Gepids came together with the Longobards in Italy around 567. Should we make them available in the Ostrogothic army as AOR-unit?

They should be firmly settled in Italy and the environs by 500AD, yes? Then I propose we knock off the steppe/horde units, and replace with AoR units, like... like... yeah you know what I'm talking about.

Another thing is we could try introducing some kick-ass light and medium units to fit that raider/pirate image they had. Anyone buying the idea?

i like the AoR recrutment in Italy idea, and we could use some combination of Romano units and barbarians, sort of like romano british?
or we could just have a few actual roman units that they could recruit in italy

i like that better than the changing to conform to the raider personality idea
but thats just my 2 cents

lets make sure they have some specialities, As I wouldn't want Italy being to easy to take when I'm WRE. Throw in some pirates, roman, barb(kinda like auxilia/sarmartians/Bosnians if historically right)

I agree with ditching the horde units- they are no longer a horde, having settled.

Some AoR local units is a must, but what? The rulers would not want an defeated populace to be armed and well-trained- so we are looking at levy spearmen and the like.

I can well imagine Italy as a tired and weary place around 500AD, barely recovering from the severe blows to its political and economic stability in the previous century or so. On top of being a poor region overall, Italy should also be filled with bands of roaming immigrants and steppe peoples - Alans, Huns, Vandals who've stayed and taken land/ offered their swords to the highest bidder?

If so, we have some mix of multi-ethnic troops to throw into Italy's regional AoR. Nothing too advanced, since the best are going to be finding work as mercenaries.

Here's a rough draft, and the * means a new unit. While ** means my idea of the Romanization of the Goths.

Govt Building
Peasants

Infantry
Arian priests (Erm... shall I deploy my trusty strike-through code?)
Runaway slave spearmen (stay?)
Gothic Sword Comitatus**
Gothic Axe Comitatus**
Gothic Spear Comitatus**

Missile
Gothic raiders - archers

Cavalry
Gothic Lancer
Gothic Noble Warriors
Gothic Cavalry* (I am half serious about this: they'd be almost as kick-ass as the vanilla Germanic one)
Warlord

AoR
Alan Horse Archers
Vandal Light Cavalry* (medium-ish chase cav)
Suevi Spearmen* (just putting it on the table - I actually have no idea if they've moved into Italy by that time)
Sarmatian Auxilia (?)

I'm still toying with the idea of Roman AoR troops. Seems cool, but also not very sensible.

Suevi had a kingdom in Spain and a smaler one just north of the Ostrogoth kingdom. So imo they can be available to the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths.

I'm still toying with the idea of Roman AoR troops. Seems cool, but also not very sensible.

I think there should be no roman AOR troops for the Ostrogoths. i read somewhere that the Romans hated the Goths so mutch that they even called the Gothic architecture after it:

It [the term gothic architecture] came to be used as early as the 1530s by Giorgio Vasari to describe culture that was considered rude and barbaric.

In Spain it was a different situation. There some rich hispanic-Romans, or how you call them, suported the Visigoths in some cases.

I'm no fan of the runaway slave guys and priests, make those Gadrauhts (gothic for Soldier, Militiaman, kind of levy spearmen?). And maybe Hairus Gadrauhts (Hairus meaning sword).

The Vandals have their own faction, so there would be no Vandal Cavalry for the Goths.

Suevi are okay. Both spear and sword. Did you know that two Suevi kings and their men fought for Vespasian at the Second Battle of Bedriacum?

Neither the Alans nor the Sarmatians (if they were even alive then) had a presence in/around Italia. Ditch them.

Gothic Raiders sound like a nice light cavalry unit. As for AoR units, there would be occasional tribes/warbands passing around looking for land and such. We could borrow a few units from the Alemanni and Burgundians if we need to, but as Seneca said, Roman AoR units would be a poor choice.

As far as I know, the Sarmatians beyond the Roman Empire were wiped out by the Huns.

And why would there be Alan horse archers if there are no Goth ones?

Whoops, looks like I made quite a few mistakes up there.

I was actually thinking that Gothic Raiders should stay as melee-archers - we've had too many cavalry raiders in vanilla BI that the "raider cav" unit's becoming rather cheap for a regular army. AoR should be where they belong, which means the Goths will get their light cav from roaming Burgundian bands (who actually boasted OK cav in vanilla BI).

And since nobody objected to the intro of Gothic Cavalry, I'm assuming it's agreeable?

Roster updated:

Govt Building
Peasants

Infantry
Gadrauhts (Levy Spearmen)
Gothic Sword Comitatus Hairus Gadrauhts
Gothic Axe Comitatus
Gothic Spear Comitatus

Missile
Gothic Raiders (melee-archers)

Cavalry
Gothic Horse Archers
Gothic Lancers
Gothic Noble Warriors
Gothic Cavalry [Elite, Centers of Power]
Warlord

AoR
Suevi Spearmen (somewhat tougher than Gothic Spear Comitatus?)
Burgundian Cavalry (generic chase cav)
Lombard Archers (you guys like?)

sorry, but what does AOR mean? thanx

Lab

AoR is the Area of Recruitment. The units in these areas will only available from these areas.

Perhaps a couple of italian-based mercenary units?

Veteranii would cover a bit of that, but further discussions should go in the Mercenaries thread.

Any qualms or suggestions on the roster?

I am not too happy with Gothic Raiders as a name for an archer unit.

'Raiders' evoke visions of scruffy men with swords and knives moving rapidly to pillage and burn.

Huntsmen evoke images of bowmen on the prowl in the forests and emadows.

I'd prefer we rename the unit.

And why can't bowmen be raiders? All they need is to ambush their targets with arrows, then close in with swords, axes or hammers to finish the menfolk off, and the town is theirs. I do not insist, though.

Missile
Huntsmen (Okay bowmen)
Javelinmen/ Any Romanized name (with adapted models of the plumbata)
Gothic Archers (Chosens)

Gothic Raiders can be another cavalry unit, or they can be dropped and replaced with an AoR light cav unit. Mounted Raiders/ Hellequin, heh heh.

Raiders can be light cavalry or light infantry. This is the image the name evokes.

In the old days, bowmen were not raiders- they were hunters, and until the advent of the longbow, relatively low-ranking and pitiful creatures. Raiders were pillagers- slaying with sword or axe in hand, raping the women, then stealing everything that isn't nailed down. They rape, kill, pillage and burn face to face, not a hundred paces away like a bowman would.

That's why.

Looking at the Wikipedia article for the Ostrogoths, I was particularly interested by this bit:

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Theodoric sought to revive Roman culture and government and in doing so, profited the Italian people.[12] It was in both characters together that he set out in 488, by commission from the Byzantine emperor Zeno, to recover Italy from Odoacer. By 493 Ravenna was taken, where Theodoric would set up his capital. It was also at this time that Odoacer was killed by Theodoric's own hand. Ostrogothic power was fully established over Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia and the lands to the north of Italy. In this war the Ostrogoths and Visigoths began again to unite, if we may accept the witness of one writer[citation needed] that Theodoric was helped by Visigothic auxiliaries. The two branches of the nation were soon brought much more closely together; after he was forced to become regent of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, the power of Theodoric was practically extended over a large part of Gaul and over nearly the whole of the Iberian peninsula. Theodoric also attempted to forge an alliance with the Frankish and Burgundian kingdoms by means of a series of diplomatic marriages. This strengthening of power eventually led the Byzantine emperor to fear that Theodoric would become too strong, and motivated his subsequent alliance with the Frankish king, Clovis I, to counter and ultimately overthrow the Ostrogoths.

...

The Ostrogothic dominion was now again as great in extent as and far more splendid than it could have been in the time of Hermanaric; however it was now of a wholly different character. The dominion of Theodoric was not a barbarian but a civilized power. His twofold position ran through everything. He was at once national king of the Goths, and successor, though without any imperial titles, of the West Roman emperors. The two nations, differing in manners, language and religion, lived side by side on the soil of Italy; each was ruled according to its own law, by the prince who was, in his two separate characters, the common sovereign of both.

One way to represent this might be to allow the Ostrogoths to build a set of buildings in Rome that would represent imperial administration. These buildings would be a large drain on Ostrogothic finances, but would allow them to train certain WRE units and construct "civilized" buildings in the city of Rome. Outside of Rome, they could build a similar set of buildings representing provincial administration that would enable recruitment of a smaller selection of units and construction of a smaller set of buildings. This way, they would be able to "civilize" - but at a price.


One other thing that we might want to do to represent the nature of the two Gothic tribes is to make the Ostrogoths and Visigoths shadow each other - in other words, any Ostrogothic characters or cities that rebel would join the Visigoths and vice-versa. It could be that the two tribes had diverged too far culturally for this to be realistic, but if not it could be an interesting gameplay mechanic.

This way, they would be able to "civilize" - but at a price.

I like that idea. First we don't want to make them too Romanized, then we allow them to Romanize, but with a price instead of just giving it to them.

The "mutual rebellion" idea seems awesome, and fun too: you might find yourself owning an extra army/ stronghold in the midst of Spain, or a Visigothic client kingdom in Italy.

And welcome back, Mythic.

RE: Romanisation

Theodoric, at least, was very pro-Roman (and indeed, scholars now lean towards the theory of barbarians wishing to join Rome and accidentally toppling it, rather than Gibbon's invasion theory) until the last few years of his reign. What changed it is unknown. He built Roman buildings, propagated Roman laws... I'm pretty sure he was Roman Consul, too.

I was also under the impression that Italy was reasonably rich, until the Romans decided to kick out their past allies in the mid 6th century.

Furthermore it seems that the words 'Goth' and 'Roman' may have become interchangeable, Goth signifying military, Roman clergy. Families named their children according to their presumed destiny, or they changed later. I've said this all before at somepoint, but in another thread.

So my theory is that the Ostrogoths should have an essentially Roman economy, but a Gothic military. The first arena, some limited plumbing, Romanic-looking temples and administrative buildings, perhaps... maybe even paved roads.

I agree with this for the infrastructure. Roman culture had long been admired by those barbarians who eventually brought her down.

I would not agree to this with military units/buildings though. The Goths conquered the Romans- thus they would think their military ways superior to those they defeated.

But at the same time many of these 'barbarians' would have served in Rome's armies at the time of the Ostrogothic conquest in 493.

That said, I do agree - you'll note I said Gothic military, although I would also like to see it ever so slightly more Roman than say, the Franks.

The Goths conquered the Romans- thus they would think their military ways superior to those they defeated.

A good point, but perhaps too hasty a conclusion. Did the Romans not adopt numerous warmaking ways and tactics from many of their long list of enemies?

Quoted from Wiki:

Initially Roman troops were armed after Greek and Etruscan models, using large oval shields and long pikes. On encountering the Celts they adopted much Celtic equipment and again later adopted items such as the gladius from Iberian peoples. Later in Rome's history, it adopted practices such as arming its cavalry with bows in the Parthian style, and even experimented briefly with niche weaponry such as elephants and camel-troops.

Rome met and defeated most of the above-mentioned peoples except maybe the Parthians. So why can't others who defeat her do the same with her extensive arsenal?

Like Drakontos said, the "barbarians" liked to have the protection of rome and it's luxury and riches, but one of two things mostly happened:
1 The romans denies them access and they fought themselves a way in or
2 they served Rome, but were not always loyal. They were usually granted pieces of land who would no longer pay taxes to rome.

Alaric served as Roman commander of a gothic mercenary army. He switched service between the two empires and eventually attacked the west which was the weakest, but only after the romans refused some of his terms. At least the leading goths would by now be properly educated in tactics and other things, though perhaps still less so than "romans".

Quoted from GKA:

And welcome back, Mythic.

Thanks.


Regarding the Gothic military, I definitely see your logic, Terikel, but from a gameplay perspective, Romano-Gothic troops are a bit too awesome to pass up. They certainly should not replace the existing Gothic military, but two or three auxiliary units - say, City Guard, old-style Comitatenses, and Caesarian Auxiliaries (spearmen - worse morale and training than Comitatenses but better equipment) would represent the civilian population becoming more Romanized.

GKA- that was one of the things that made Rome special, and her existence last so long. Rome's adaptability was legendary, others could not, or if they did (like the Seleucids copying legionaries) it was too late to matter.

Consider it this way, Terikel. The Roman Empire stood for a good few hundred years, during which she constantly fought and repelled barbarian tribes, whose long string of defeats at the superpower's hands must have taught them at least something about warmaking, and honed the barbarian way until they eventually became strong enough to topple the Empire from whom they learnt a bit from. It's a theory by Peter Heather, written in his book The Fall of the Roman Empire.

The Germans living between the Rhine and the Elbe must be so different from what they used to be a few centuries earlier. Even if the barbarians did not directly or openly adopted parts of Roman tactics, engineering or equipment, their prolonged exposure to all these should have contributed to their indirect and partial "Romanization", in terms of an improved focus on body armor, weapons quality, formations and perhaps even discipline.

The bottom line must be that Goths were fundamentally barbarians, and they should never be as administratively Romanized as the Romano-British, and much less so in the military aspect.

"Romanizing with a price", as suggested by Mythic, seems the right idea here.

I guess the question comes down to what extent we are representing the 'barbarian' Ostrogoths or the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy, which was very much full of Romans doing their thing as normal.

I almost think using the religion mechanic as culture like XGM could give us better solutions to such issues.

although it isn not historical accurate i am in favor of making the Ostrogoths more "barbarian", and the visigoths more Roman. On that way there is still a difference in playing style for both factions.

@Seneca: Why not the other way round?

Wiki article on Theodoric the Great
Like Odoacer, Theodoric was ostensibly only a viceroy for the emperor in Constantinople. In reality, he was able to avoid imperial supervision, and dealings between the emperor and Theodoric were as equals. Unlike Odoacer, however, Theodoric respected the agreement he had made and allowed Roman citizens within his kingdom to be subject to Roman law and the Roman judicial system. The Goths, meanwhile, lived under their own laws and customs.

Sounds like the Italian Romans and Goths were kind of segregated, in administrative terms, if not quite in physical terms.

[This message has been edited by GeneralKickAss (edited 01-11-2011 @ 00:52 AM).]

I read somewhere about hispanic-romans suporting the visigoths during the battle. But trying to find that frase again i saw indeed that the Ostrogoths are a better choise.

But:
493-526 Theodoric the Great. He keeps Romans and Goths separated. (Intermarriage was forbidden) The Goths get 1/3 of the existing land for their service as warriors. Civil government and the economy stays in the hands of the Romans. Also religious differences prevent a Goth-Roman approach.
Although Theodoric was an Arian Christian, he tolerated the Catholic religion and even the Jewish and other faiths.

[By 325, the controversy (arianism) had become significant enough that the Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius' doctrine]

This shows that although they lived in the same country, they did not live with each other. Gothic law applied to Goths, Roman law to Romans. The Romans who were catholic, didn't like the arianism of the Goths, it was condemned allready a few ages ago. All this together, as said before, prevent a Goth-Roman approach.

Further on a sidenote: since the Eastern Roman Emperor licensed (or accepted) Theodoric as king of Italy, should thay start with an alliance? Or start with war in the hope it would simulate the wars of Justinian I?

[This message has been edited by Seneca Monachus (edited 01-13-2011 @ 04:55 AM).]

I should say start in alliance or neutral. They cooperated a bit and both had other issues that were more important.

This might sound a bit vague but is there a way to simulate a gradual increase in antagonism and friction between the ERE and the Ostrogoths? Kind of like how the ERE can be programmed to go after a city in Italy - Rome, Brundisium, for instance. We could start the two of them out as allies, then eventually one side's going to attack the other - preferably with the ERE making the first move and hence starting the Justinian Wars.

Or are there better ways?

If you look at the map from the Original Discussion, you will see that war between the two is inevitable. Ostrogoths settled not only Italia, but also a large chunk of the Balkans, separating Greece from Byzantium. I am quite sure one of the first AI moves as Byzantines is to reunite their split realm. That will bring war between the two, but thereafter as the Balkans fall, they may make up.

Kind of like what really happened- the Italian Goths made a kingdom in Italia and the others 'went away' with the inlux of other peoples into the Balkans.

I see. Then, to simulate the Justinian Wars, perhaps we can program the ERE to go after key regions around the Mediterranean, such as Rome, Cordoba, Carthage, Sicily and Sardinia?

We can set the faction ownership and victory reqs, both of which I believe can affect the AI's development, but otherwise we're rather powerless. The odds of the ERE ever reaching Spain or even Africa are really quite slim; they are more likely to balloon across the Balkans than march through the desert.

Then it's a discussion for another day.

Shall we move back to the Gothic military? Are we still agreed on a basically Gothic roster with three or so Romanized units recruitable upon building certain expensive buildings?

A series of proposals:

Hording: Remove all horde units and horse archers.

Spears: add a spearman at roughly militia or slightly stronger level (removing the slave chaps, and adding a cheap garrison force with no combat abilities whatsoever which sounds less... hordish. Maybe even call it Urban cohort, as a native Italian police force...) and then also improve the Gothic Spearmen, making them something that does actually stand a chance against a Frankish cavalry charge.

Swords: add an heavy sword unit (dismounted Gothic Nobles, essentially), some limited siege equipment, and an expensive small size double hitpoint banner unit with the local morale bonus ability. Perhaps called Gothic Purebloods or something, historically ridiculous as the concept is.

Romans: A couple of legion-esque units available upon romanisation?

Navy: give them biremes and triremes, not boats and large boats.

I would also suggest we have them start at war with the Vandals, with the aim of some early squabbles over Sicily.
Furthermore, leave them with limited cavalry, because that gives us something to use as a distinguishing factor between Visi and Ostrogoths - my understanding is that Iberian horses were superior across the western mediterranean. The Visigoths won't be the Franks, of course, but better cavalry and weaker boats, say, does give them some form of differentiation (which we can add to later)

::EDIT:: (With : because I can't find the asterisk key on this keyboard) Really, the Ostrogoths weren't pirates at this point like they were all that time ago on the Black Sea. That image, I think, would better be preserved for the Saxons, Norsemen and Vandals.

[This message has been edited by Drakontos (edited 01-15-2011 @ 03:23 PM).]

I agree that the goths were no longer the pirate raiders of the past, but you could still see effects of that lifestyle in their land/naval units. In any case, I think that biremes and triremes or any remes at all were out of use by the time of this mod.

Missile

Govt Building
Peasants

Infantry
Gadrauhts (Levy Spearmen)
Gothic Spear Comitatus
Hairus Gadrauhts (Swords Comitatus)
Gothic Axe Comitatus
Dismounted Gothic Nobles

Missile
Skirmishers
Gothic Archers (Chosens)

Cavalry
Gothic Lancers
Gothic Nobles
Gothic Cavalry [Elite, Centers of Power] (<- We can give this to the Visigoths)
Warlord

Navy
Boats
Dromons?

Romanizers
Plumbata Infantry (missile attack slightly weaker than the Frankish Angon Heerbann, but stronger melee)
Elite Eagle Warriors (standard-bearing, morale-boosting bastions)

AoR
Suevi Spearmen
Burgundian Cavalry (generic chase cav)
Lombard Archers (you guys like?)
Urban Cohort (Dark Age Italian Police)

I have no particular opinion concerning the Vandal-Ostrogothic war topic. Seems like a nice idea.

Comments on the updated draft please

Gothic Cavalry [Elite, Centers of Power] (<- We can give this to the Visigoths)

Fine by me.

I don't know about the Elite Eagle Warriors, sounds a lot like a WRE elite army. Make it just Eagle warriors (or does that sounds to mutch lik Aztecs?) with standard, but further less good stats than the Hairus Gadrauhts (Swords Comitatus).

Quote from McKay: a history of Western Society
During the Ostrogothic conquest of Italy under Theodoric, warrior-nobles also sought to aquire land as both a mark of prestige and a means of power. As land and wealth came into the hands of a small elite class, social inequalities emerged and gradually grew stronger. These inequalities help explain the origins of the European noble class.

Give the Ostrogoths an infantry unit called Land Nobels (or something like that) as elite-unit replacement. An expensive small size double hitpoint and something to throw (Pila? Darts?).

[This message has been edited by Seneca Monachus (edited 01-16-2011 @ 05:25 AM).]

Quoted from Thompsoncs:

In any case, I think that biremes and triremes or any remes at all were out of use by the time of this mod.

Ah, culpa mia, poor phrasing - the idea was a 'civilised' not 'barbarian' navy, not any exact unit list. I do agree, updating the names of the various naval units could be a good idea.

Quoted from Senaca Monachus:

I don't know about the Elite Eagle Warriors, sounds a lot like a WRE elite army. Make it just Eagle warriors (or does that sounds to mutch lik Aztecs?) with standard, but further less good stats than the Hairus Gadrauhts (Swords Comitatus) ...
Give the Ostrogoths an infantry unit called Land Nobels (or something like that) as elite-unit replacement. An expensive small size double hitpoint and something to throw (Pila? Darts?).

Eagle Warriors sounds far too Aztec for me. I stand by my double HP half unit size Gothic Purebloods - if we're trying to stress the Gothic side of the military, what better way than through a unit dedicated to war and being Gothic?

AoR wise, sure, although I do think those units really should be available for pretty much everyone.