I deeply apologize in advance to the veterans of the forum if this topic has ever been discussed. I think it deserves more coverage.
With the release of ROR, we got a legionnaire unit for Rome, but I honestly don’t understand why, according to the banal logic, Byzantium didn’t get a legionnaire? After all, in the Sicily campaign we see that Byzantium uses this unit, but it is not in the technical tree. Why not add a legionnaire to the Byzantine line of militia?
Eastern roman or byzantines did not have legionnaire units in the middle ages.
Ideally western romans should not be in this game as dark ages start with the fall of rome.
3 Likes
Well, they had them in the Sicilian campaign
Thats not a reason to add them.crusader knights show up in the lithuanian campaign but we dont have that unit for teutons.
The last legion we know of, the V Macedonica, was destroyed by the Arabs, probably in Egypt around 636 AD. From then on what was left of the Eastern Roman comitatense field army was reorganised as the proper Byzantine army.
Outdated view of history.
this is a game not a historical simulation.romans added nothing to the game.
1 Like
I didn’t say they did.
romans added nothing to the game.
They added money at least, they are the most popular dlc civ by win rate.
I like them but I also liked when the Huns were added. I just like that era.
Wouldn’t be any more ahistorical than Joan’s army having Throwing Axemen imho
2 Likes
Do we really need a French civi when franks are already in game?
I’m talking about Legionaries in Byzantium, not about splitting the Franks 
That’s my point byzantines got split with romans why should we make both civis similar?both have dromons both have a cavalry uu both use the same buildings already.
2 Likes
It’s not that hard to understand, Franks cover the entire timeframe, they have the guy in your profile pic (which by the way looks almost exactly like a late Roman unit), Paladins and hand cannoneers. Byzantines, unlike Franks, are more focused on the mid to late phase. What they could have done is give them legionaries and call it a day but in the moment you have Goths and Huns in game and given the name recognition Romans have expecting them to not add them would be… Disingenuous?
They could have made a more interesting civ? Sure. Many other civs could have been better designed, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exist, it just means they can’t design good civs, Romans or not.
Blame the game for adding Spanish alongside Goths for this, neither are purely medieval, Spanish are actually completely anachronistic though I never see it brought up as with Romans. If you’re searching for a purely medieval game (castles, knights, crusaders, no gunpowders etc) that is aoe4 and it kinda stretches a bit too much into modernity but definitely not into late antiquity/migration period. How is Lepanto medieval? How is Koreans designed around a 1590s war medieval?
Gunpowder entered Europe and Middle East before the Crusader states fell.
The fixation on “no gunpowder in my medieval fantasy!!1” in various corners of the web is starting to be annoying. I get it, USAnians are so oversaturated in gun culture that they seek fantasy worlds without them, but the rest of the world suffers for it. In Poland we can’t imagine a medieval era without gunpowder as our most recognizable medieval battle, at Grunwald, utilized cannons. Our most famous knight, Zawisza the Black, fought with a gun.
2 Likes
If you look sharp enough you’ll notice it’s exactly the same thing as “no dark age in my medieval fantasy” but probably your take is the most popular and apparent, that’s why you hold it after all and that’s also why it’s always with Romans and never with Spanish for example which are an OG civ and are clearly designed with a post 1492 Spain in mind. But you never bring it up because nobody ever says it while everyone is very outraged at things like Romans and Huns.
As gunpowder was a thing towards the end of the middle ages late Roman warfare was still one in the Romano Germanic kingdoms and early Byzantine empire. To not speak about Sassanids who cross the borders of antiquity and middle ages and are in game, in Iranian history they’re actually considered purely ancient yet nobody brings that up and you know why, because Romans mean “ancient” in people’s “medieval fantasy” as you put it with no possible ambiguity while Sassanids meh whatever.
What I was proposing to mahazona who had a problem with Romans (how peculiar) was that if you want (stress on “if you want” so you don’t accuse me of being USAians and all the safe take that follows) you can make a game strictly focused on the medieval age cliché (stress on cliché) which is yes castle, knights, no Romans and no gunpowder. 800ish to 1300ish, give or take a century, Charlemagne to the end of the crusades. After 800 you start to have a properly medieval society and not just a post Roman world, before 1300 you don’t have proper gunpowder armies and national states/proto bourgeois rebellions against church/empire, geographic discoveries etc. Result is something very specific in the vein of Stronghold. You can get rid of Huns, Romans, Goths, Spanish, Portuguese, Bohemians and all things that don’t fit typical medieval cliché.
And given I need to stress it because otherwise you accuse me of spreading clichés about the middle ages (that you seem to notice only one way of the timeframe and not the other) this is a reply to mahazona having a very specific view and, as I myself said, outdated, of what the middle ages are. Not that it wasn’t obvious but apparently I need to specify it.
It’s not directed specifically at you (I apologize for wording it in an aggressive manner), I’m just screaming into the void about what I dislike in the popcultural discourse about what fits in the medieval era.
1 Like
History wise: Byz did not employ Legionnaires really, while they did employ for centuries medieval units, western knights like Two-handed Swordman & Champion.
Gameplay wise: Byz don’t need another infantry killer unit from Barracks, they already have enough. Instead they might need a new, complimentary to current roster and civ id, Castle unit, like Varangian or Cheirosiphon.
Devs should even mini-rework that Byzantine Castle skin, and swap positions of the Legionnaire & Cataphract shields; put that old Legionnaire shield in the shadow and bring that of Cataphract in front for everyone to see. It’s a Castle that makes Cataphracts devs!
2 Likes
Ok no worries then.
They technically did until Heraclius in the form or comitatensi which is how the game interpret legionaries but the same can be said for Centurions. Phocas, the guy that was overthrown by Heraclius is called a “Thracian Centurion” in the fonts. But again my point is Byzantines since 1999 are defined by their more medieval later incarnation as you say since now you have Romans anyway. Why making Byzantines their copy?
Spot on. I think the legionary shield should not even be there to begin with. Also the castle is kinda tiny compared to most of the others for some reason.
2 Likes
Instead of Legionary, how about the Skutatoi as a unique replacement to Halbs to complement Byz’s bonus?
1 Like
As cool as legions are the Byz are in such a good and almost dare I say perfect design that sells their game strategy so well I don’t want to touch it!
Dromon is one thing but it like was going to other civs so it feels like it’s okay