Lion.Kanzen

Constantine's Colossus This was the news article in FB. 31 January 2024 logoImperium Romanum SearchMenu Home » Roman discoveries » Reconstruction of colossus of Constantine the Great RECONSTRUCTION OF COLOSSUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT This post is also available in: Polish (polski) Fragments of the original Colossus of Constantine Fragments of the original Colossus of Constantine 12 February 2023 In Milan, you can admire the full-size, reconstructed colossus of Constantine the Great until the 27th of February. One of the elements of the Recycling Beauty exhibition, it is the result of a collaboration between Musei Capitolini, Fondazione Prada, and Factum Foundation, with scientific supervision directed by Claudio Parisi Presicce, the Capitoline Superintendent of Cultural Heritage. The 12-meter colossus is considered one of the most important sculptures of ancient Rome. The exposed parts of the body were carved in marble, while the other parts were made of bricks and a wooden framework covered with bronze. This huge statue was erected after Constantine’s victory over Maxentius in 312 and survived until the late Middle Ages. Today, only fragments of this monumental work remain intact. The sculpture is on display at the Fondazione Prada in Milan. You can also see the foot and right hand from the original colossus, which is displayed for the duration of the exhibition. Photos of the colossus and a video showing fragments of the replica’s construction process can be found on the website fondazioneprada.org.

Nero's Colossus.

Perhaps this is where the ideas of monuments and wonders of the world can be drawn from.

The solar corona (crown) is missing.

Several big statues. They are rebuilding one of Constantine in Italy.

How I would like to see a Colossus of Rhodes or the one Nero had. Sorry off topic.

More Antesignanus info. ANTESIGNANI This post is also available in: Polish (polski) The Antesignani were excellent soldiers facing heavy infantry. There is a lot of controversy related to this unit. Vegetius defines this formation as “light infantry”, not reflecting its importance as a combat unit (Vegetius, De re militari, p. 34.). In the “Civil War” of Caesar we meet the most sensible description of a unit that they were selected light infantrymen of assault troops. Marian Plezia, on the other hand, in his book “Słowniku łacińsko-polskim” probably most aptly calls this formation “commandos“. These soldiers were armed with a spear, a few javelins(spears in the original), a sword, lighter armour (a simple bronze breastplate instead of lorica hamata), a coolus helmet and a small oval shield (instead of a heavy scutum). During the march, the task of antesignanii was to protect the marching columns and secure the area. In combat, these units protected/supported the legion attacked enemy skirmishers or accompanied in cavalry combat. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-army/units-of-roman-army/antesignani/amp/ Original Polish source. https://imperiumromanum.pl/wojsko/jednostki-armii-rzymskiej/antesignani/amp/

All AoE franchise February 23 2024.

The antesignarii or antesignarius were each one of the soldiers in charge of defending the flags in the Roman armies, for which they were grouped around them. In Caesar's time this name was given to the chosen soldiers who did not carry the heavy equipment of the legionaries and were armed with light weapons, serving as guides and fighting at the front and on the flanks of the cohorts outside the classical order of the time. They were the instructors of the cohorts. https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antesignano (Spanish) Europa Barbarorum https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Antesignani_(Post_Marian_Elite_Legionary_Light_Infantry) Armed with spears, several light javelins, and a gladius they are more lightly armoured with a simple bronze breastplate instead of lorica hamata, a new Coolus bronze helmet, and carry smaller oval shields instead the heavy scuta to increase their agility. On march, the duties of the Antesignani are to cover the columns as well as to scout and secure the area in front of the army. In a battle they can be used to screen the legions advance, to counter enemy skirmishers, or to support the cavalry if no specialised auxiliaries are available. Historically, the organization of the legion began to change at the end of the 2nd century BC and in the early 1st century BC all but the heavy infantry had disappeared. The Hastati, Principes and Triarii were now all equipped in the same manner and only their names remained. Three of their maniples, each increased in size to 160 men, now formed one cohort, the new main tactical unit of the Roman infantry, besides the now 80 men strong centuria. These changes offered much more tactical flexibility to the legion. Instead of being limited to a three line battle formation, the soldiers could be positioned as easily in one, two or even more lines. A cohort was big enough to operate separated from the main army, to perform smaller tasks independently. After the social war the former socii received Roman citizenship and were now recruited into the legions. However, the disappearance of the Velites and Pedites Extraordinarii reduced the legion's abilities and made it dependent upon external light infantry support. In the 1st century BC it became common to train some elite legionnaires as Antesignani to fill this gap. The problem of the late republic was to find enough men who fulfilled the property requirements to serve as heavy infantry in the many and continuous wars the masters of the Mediterranean world now had to fight. This was one of the main reasons that reforms in the army had become inevitable. Earlier attempts to increase the number of suitable small farmers through land reforms by the Gracchi were blocked by senate, as many senators owned great latifundia now sprawling all over Italy. So all property requirements were abolished and volunteers from all social classes were welcomed as well as the conscripts, while the state or their generals paid for their equipment. The senate had refused to bear the incalculable able costs for the veterans so that the generals had to take care of them. The loyalty of these men shifted more and more to charismatic leaders that they were now depending on, preparing the ground for many bloody civil wars of the 1st century BC. https://kingsandconquerors.fandom.com/wiki/Antesignani Historically, by the early 1st century BC the Roman army had no infantry outside the heavy infantry formation. The velites had disappeared after the Marian reforms and the pedites extraordinarii had received Roman citizenship and became regular infantry after the Social War. As a result some of the legionaries were trained to fill this gap and fight as antesignani.

Lanciarius...is like 3rd Century AD.

Yes. The units should have a whole level of practice and development a tactical techniques in a form of technology. Sometimes we forget technology with respect to military doctrine.

There should be more than one unique technology per faction.

These people have everything to succeed and yet they still fail to pull this game off, it seems to be a soulless generic game with good ideas and concepts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliorcetica English word https://www.worldhistory.org/Huns/ The Huns had learned a great deal about siege warfare from their time serving in the Roman army and expertly put this knowledge to use, literally wiping whole cities, such as Naissus, off the map. Their offensive was all the more successful because it was completely unexpected. Theodosius II had been so confident that the Huns would keep the treaty that he refused to listen to any council that suggested otherwise. Lanning comments on this, writing: Attila and his brother valued agreements little and peace even less. Immediately upon assuming the throne, they resumed the Hun offensive against Rome and anyone else who stood in their way. Over the next ten years, the Huns invaded territory which today encompasses Hungary, Greece, Spain, and Italy. Attila sent captured riches back to his homeland and drafted soldiers into his own army while often burning the overrun towns and killing their civilian occupants. Warfare proved lucrative for the Huns but wealth apparently was not their only objective. Attila and his army seemed genuinely to enjoy warfare, the rigors and rewards of military life were more appealing to them than farming or attending livestock. (61) Theodosius II, realizing he was defeated but unwilling to admit total defeat, asked for terms; the sum Rome now had to pay to keep the Huns from further destruction was more than tripled. In 445 CE Bleda vanishes from the historical record and Kelly cites Priscus of Panium on this: "Bleda, king of the Huns, was assassinated as a result of the plots of his brother Attila" (129). Other sources seem to indicate that Bleda was killed on campaign but, as Priscus is considered the most reliable source, it is generally accepted that Attila had him murdered. Attila now became the sole ruler of the Huns and commander of the most powerful fighting force in Europe.

They may therefore have been familiar with poliorcetics and advanced technology from China and central Eurasia over several centuries. By all accounts, in the age of Attila they had certainly been in contact with the Persians and Central Asian polities skilled in siege warfare for over a century. This would infer that they not only used captured and deserted Roman engineers to build their siege engines, but had their own native siege engineers. As the skill necessary to make their fine composite bows was arguably even greater than that necessary to make a siege tower, this is by no means impossible to imagine. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/11015/why-were-the-huns-so-successful-at-siege-warfare-but-the-goths-were-not There are mixed opinions with siege techniques.

I don't found anything.

Gameplay: From all I read: Siege Huns are OP Siege Rams Helepolis Scorpio engine Han Catapults (That trebuchet like) Unique tech: Hun Bow a tech that are very slow to reach +(I'm not sure a good range number) more range for all range bow units.

The Huns in combat. In campaign they were fearsome. They attacked in dense and disorderly formations and it is estimated that each rider had several horses for refreshment, which allowed them, if necessary, to move at a much higher speed than other armies of the time. In addition, the horses -if necessary- acted as a mobile dispatcher, providing them with meat, blood, milk from the mares, etc. They wore pants and gaiters, curved hooves and shapeless moccasins made of badly tanned leather. They used lassoes to capture and knock their enemies off the horse, swords for melee, spears, etc. To their extraordinary mobility and ferocity in combat they added their secret weapon: the Hun bow. It was an asymmetrical compound bow that could reach a length of 1.60 meters. It was much longer at the top, which made it more practical to use while riding. The helmets and armor were not very different from those of their enemies and as they increased in power and wealth the cavalry went from being a light cavalry, protected with felt caftans and leather to be a cavalry composed of riders protected by loricas of chainmail or scales. The horses were also protected with felt breastplates, frontera( horse protection) , etc. reinforced with metal plates. In battle they formed a great mass, organized in three lines of attack that they tried to be as compact as possible. A considerable part of the warriors were left as reserves. The refreshment horses and provisions were left at a certain distance from the battle, sometimes protected behind a lager or circle of wagons protected by a strong contingent. To this fearsome army must be added their facility for the siege and conquest of strongly walled cities. In Priscus or San Aniano we are told how they habitually used helepolis, assault towers with wheels, portable bridges to cross rivers, ladders to assault walls, etc. As for the units, according to the Strategicon (612 apox.), the Huns adopted a formation known as cuneus. It was a type of formation already mentioned by Amianus Marcellinus, 200 years earlier. It had a tribal nature and its number of members was variable (from several tens to several hundreds of horsemen) under the command of a chief called cur. Besides this detail on that formation, we only know that they were organized tribal and that from 411 to 444 after the appearance of more powerful kings (Shan yu) the grouping of the different hordes in two large bodies of at least 10,000 warriors each, under the authority of two monarchs takes place: one located in the Pannonian Plain and another in the Lower Danube, subordinate to the previous one. It is estimated that at that time the Huns could count about 30,000 horsemen, to which should be added numerous contingents of light and heavy infantry that increased as the process of expansion of their territory and the number of vassal peoples progressed. Given the logistical limitations of Antiquity and despite having a much larger number of warriors, they could not mobilize more than 60,000 men in total for a single campaign.

@Genava55 Ritual Scars? Any idea , like Amerindians?

Huns before Attila. (Spanish source). https://historiayromaantigua.blogspot.com/2023/10/los-hunos-antes-de-atila-el-pueblo-que.html?m=0&fbclid=IwAR0o4hjH9Us2M-bZ2BTYelgzqGKep5b7_PG-QPEyG9D_GGzSOZV_xyCcElE The people that surpasses all the limits of cruelty" (Histories, XXXI.2.1). With this phrase, Amianus Marcellinus, a seasoned officer of the fourth century, refers to the people that burst into the Roman limes after subduing or putting to flight the tribes that previously inhabited the immense territory between the Don River(Russia) and the Danube. [...] The Romans had been fighting barbarians of different kinds (Germanic, Celts, Sarmatians, etc.) for centuries and were not prepared for the novelty of contact with the Huns, the first Turco-Mongolian people with whom the Romans had to deal. Something similar happened to the Goths, the Slavs or the Iranians, who reflected in their folklore the impact that the contact with the Huns had on them (for example, The Song of the Nibelungs). Their short period of domination was enough to fix the civilization-Hun antithesis in the European collective consciousness. So much so that the term Hun has historically been considered an insult related to extreme savagery. For example, it was used by the conflicting powers in the First and Second World Wars to disqualify each other. The Hun people were the product of the fusion of several nomadic groups from Central Asia. They stood out as excellent archers and for their skill in warfare and ability on horseback. Under the leadership of great warlords such as Charaton, Ruga (Rugila) or Attila, they forged a vast empire that extended from the shores of the Caspian Sea to those of the North Sea. THE ORIGIN AND BEHAVIOR ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Who were these nomads and where did they come from? On the exact origin of the Huns there is controversy. There are numerous authors who defend that the origin of the Huns must be sought in the conglomerate of steppe peoples called Hsiung-Un, the Xiung-Nu mentioned in Chinese sources. These people became the worst of enemies for the Chinese rulers of the Qin and Han dynasties for almost 200 years. They founded an empire that eventually split into two large groups: the southern one that continued to harass the Chinese until the 4th century and the northern ones that were subdivided between those who took Mongolia as their base and those who migrated to the West, towards the steppes of the Aral Sea and Lake Baljash. This second group that migrated to the west is the one that, when it crosses the Volga riverbed and subdues or displaces the Alans, Sarmatians, Greutung Goths and Tervingians, will provoke an earthquake without precedent in European history. In favor of this theory there are several factors such as the coincidences found between the Huns' cauldrons and the cauldrons belonging to the Hsiung-Un culture, the historical and phonetic concordance found in the Roman, Chinese, Persian and Indian sources that refer to these nomads, and that recent genetic studies have shown (in the later case of the Avars) that it is perfectly possible and much faster than we might think the displacement of an entire people from Mongolia to the banks of the Danube. There are other factors such as the fact that, unlike other barbarian peoples of their time, the Huns demonstrated a perfect mastery of polyorgetics (siegecraft). They used all kinds of machinery, catapults, battering rams, hellepoles. According to some recent studies, they even used some types of catapults that even the Romans did not know. That knowledge could come from the centuries of struggle that their ancestors the Hsiung-Un maintained against the civilized empires of China, Persia or India. The lack of archaeological concordance in the burials and above all the fact that no elongated skulls have been found in the tombs attributed to the Hsiung-Un people, while in the Huna culture and in some of the peoples of the Hsiung-Un people, the Hsiung-Un people were the only ones to have found elongated skulls in their tombs. In any case, this discussion must always be made thinking that we are talking about their elites, even of their real clans, since the nomadic peoples of the steppes have a very variable composition that changes constantly with the addition of the elements contributed by the people that they subdue as they pass through. In any case, for the Romans the Huns were something totally new and the discourse they constructed from the beginning was based on otherness, on the discourse of civilization against savagery and vileness. Amianus Marcellinus and experienced officer experienced in several campaigns against Alamans, Saracens and Chionites called them "two-footed beasts" (History, XXXI.2.2) says that they are "the people that surpasses all the limits of cruelty" (Histories, XXXI.2.1). The Romans were frightened by their flat noses, typical of a people of Turkic-Mongolian origin, their bowed legs from living on horses, their large heads and in many cases their elongated skulls. The beard of the men was scarce, due to the fact that they disfigured their faces with ritual scars practiced since childhood. Their clothing was strange, based on linen, marmot skins that were never changed until they rotted on them. In their long journeys they could drink the blood of their horses, they ate raw or half-cooked meat by putting it under their saddle while riding. They did everything on horseback (negotiating, sleeping, eating, etc). Related https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugila https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaton

The problem is that with what we replace the troops, we have problems with the replacements of the Velites and Extraordinarii.

A mix of Centurion and early Imperial look can work with Elite troops, using Iron Helmet(cools) with Lorica hamata late + republican Marian legionnaire style. Pompeyan Evocqtus.

May be replace a extraordinarii with Evocatii. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evocatus https://www.honga.net/totalwar/rome2/unit.php?l=en&v=rome2&f=rom_rome&u=Rom_Evocati_Cohort