Blades seem a little out of place

[Skolhamarr]

well I like where this is going, alot very good points and comments. Yes, anything can be imperial, but what comes to mind first? Me for it is Rome... Cyrodill and Roman Empire, more in common than just the imperial name. They way they have both conquered a lands of many races and cultures building this melting pot of an empire.

 

 

 

dezdimona

Lack of fancy armor, was not what I meant. The fancy armor is for show ponies of empire the palace guard, they are in the public eye so to speak. The fact there is not a undertone of a uniform for professional army. Yes, agree their job limits them to most armors while undercover, but chain mail would at least link them to legion. While at cloud ruler inn, they should have armor/uniform of elite soldier.

 

Bben and Jaysus prefect points on the Swiss and Varangian guard..

They where Rus, overland trade with Byzantine Empire lead to Varagian guard. They were different in combat, than their Byzantine counterpart, difference in armor? Yes... armors had general flow to them, to match the bulk military of that nation. Byzantines wear, chain mail, lamellar armor, and metal strap as did much of Europe at the late 900s-1100s. To jump from, plate and chain mail of legion, to an armor of padding and Lorica Segmentata more out date armor compared to legions plate. its seem a little odd, that the common soldier has better armor than your elite?

 

I am speaking very general, I know this fantasy game. How I might explain the Imperial Army, different aspect of it an enriching the background of Cyrodilian Military Complex

 

Imperial Legion

the core of the might of empire, standard army I would include the battle mages with this lot..Being apart of this legion one could forward his path into the blades. As said before, in unfinished post there should be some type of citadel, for legion IC prison district doesnt cut it.

 

Order of Talos

Reminds me more of Papal or monastic Orders, as look at a little closer. Person has choice to be monk, or a warrior. Grand Master yes, it is just name but normal points to some sort of papal order. This order would draw and recruit from the legion, then member of order of talos intern would be able to become a blade

 

 

Cyrodillan Intelligences

Seem like there should be some sort of Intelligences group (secret police) separate organization from the Legion. As legion is loyal to the emperor, empire and to its people Cyrodillan Intelligences for interest of empire, give some sort of balance. This organization would draw and recruit from the legion, then member of CI intern would become a blade time. IC prison district should be under control of CI not the Legion..

 

Blades

the elite of Empires military might drawing it recruits from the different sect that make up of the Imperial armed forces. To be recruited as blade one would have to be of some sort of rank within said sect. That would give the blades the strength it would need to guard the emperors. Drawing from 3 very different place to make a elite unit...

 

The blade should look like the High C. 1250

Town guards is doing as it should, that was right in the game.

[jaysus]

mmh legion indeed as a word is the invention of the romans to describe a group of 10.000? soldiers (i might be wrong here about the number)

 

well ya you can say 10k is not much compared to the rest of the army but compared to an elite group like lets say the KSK, SAS or SEAL they still made up quite a high percentage of the army... in todays terms id compare em to the Foreign Legion as part of the French Army... not realy the topnotch elite but not the common soldier either (not to say a Legion Etrangere unit is less effective than a seals unit but you get the idea... excuses excuses i know... i just want no trouble :P)

 

that story about esmeradis and his bro sounds interesting will have to read abit about it :)

 

afaik the blades are the intelligence service at least in morrowind... thy somehow changed to personal guards in oblivion... (maybe they were before too but i cant say since i never played DF or arena... foolish me lol)

 

the japanese used the improved form of lorica segmenta or lammelar armor till the introduction of blackpowder where they changed to fullplate which at least in the begnning offered protection vs musket bullets... and thx god they didnt change it earlier or we wouldnt have beautiful katanas but ugly maces...

 

but ya i agree so far lol

[GenghisKhanIT]

Compared to the rest of the Imperial Army, the blades just seem out place. They are the Praetorian Guard, but have very strong far east feel to them. At I would think they keep that follow of Late western Roman armor design throughout the imperial army. I know I am being picky, but they are Praetorian guard......Palace guards look better than the blades do...

 

 

Blades' armor is strongly inspired to the eastern-like Akavir realm. This is taken from Imperial library, Akavir section :

 

The Blades are secretive order of knights sworn to protect the Emperor. Their armor was based on Akaviri designs. The first Blades are likely to have been Akaviri captives in the service of Emperor Reman. The armor is very ornate and also quite heavy. Nevertheless it suits the order in its role to protect the Emperor. Furthermore, the Blades also emulate the Akaviri in their choice of weapons and banners.

 

 

I hope that some day Bethesda will give us the possibility to see (and fight) Akaviri soldiers, both men and snakemen.

[Ihoe]

mmh legion indeed as a word is the invention of the romans to describe a group of 10.000? soldiers (i might be wrong here about the number)

 

well ya you can say 10k is not much compared to the rest of the army but compared to an elite group it's a high percentage.

1. Legion of rome was a formation of 6000-5000 men.

 

2. well, immortals started of in the age of Cyrus the Great, as 1000 men, then they got to the number of 10,000 in the age of Xerxes the Great. you know, not 10,000 men at the same time can get the type of training that is the Lighter version of the spartan training!

[jaysus]

for 1000 men you need somin around 50 to 100 trainers/veterans to make em a fighting force to be reckoned with

thus if you fought one war or another and you have 1000 veterans that are at least slightly able you could easily train 10k... (and 10k basicly aint that much... we had nearly exactly 1k on my school and if i imagine 10 of my schools spread out over an empire like that of persia, well thats not much)

 

but in regards to spartan training i doubt they were that crazy lol... i mean that 300 movie is kinda funky fiction but the training in the beginning is kinda cheap compared to what the books tell... their whole society was formed around creating the perfect warrior and nothing less... if you were just a bit out of line you wouldnt even have seen the second day of your life... true the immortals were trained from childhood but the spartans were trained from the day they started their life in their momies womb :P

[Ihoe]

for 1000 men you need somin around 50 to 100 trainers/veterans to make em a fighting force to be reckoned with

thus if you fought one war or another and you have 1000 veterans that are at least slightly able you could easily train 10k... (and 10k basicly aint that much... we had nearly exactly 1k on my school and if i imagine 10 of my schools spread out over an empire like that of persia, well thats not much)

Well their training took about 25 years, and if we take that every month a single Trainer takes about 30 Darik's (ancient persian Currency) and about 10 Schools with 500 Darik's of monthly cost, it will take 74400 Darik's every year and 2350000 Darik's Entirely, that was too much for that time of persia.

 

but in regards to spartan training i doubt they were that crazy lol... i mean that 300 movie is kinda funky fiction but the training in the beginning is kinda cheap compared to what the books tell... their whole society was formed around creating the perfect warrior and nothing less... if you were just a bit out of line you wouldnt even have seen the second day of your life... true the immortals were trained from childhood but the spartans were trained from the day they started their life in their momies womb :P

Yup,

the training was not anything Great Compared to The Dramatic Spartan training, I Read that they slashed swords to themselves, cut their wrists to endure wounds, carried a 100 lbs boulder stone and chased steps together and many more, that's why they were the best Heavy infantry of their time.

that shows in 300 in bluffing, first: they were the finest warriors of middle east and asia so how could they be beaten up like that, second: persians were mostly tall and bearded, but lacked in Armor protection and military intelligence compared to greeks, third: immortals would beat up a phalanx of 50,000 men, but there was none when alexander invaded persia.

[jaysus]

did the spartans even fight in a phalanx? shieldwall techniques yes but a phalanx? seems like wasted talent to me as in a phalanx you cant actually fight but stand and move forward...

btw as to 100lb stones... thats kinda few if one takes in count what a full bronze armor would weight, but then again im unsure if the spartans even wore such stuff (mmh i should read on that lol)

 

mmh you cant really say the persians lacked in armor- they more or less invented armored horsemen and the like (or was that much later? at least the romans encountered them and they existed at least 100 yrs before that), they probably didnt wear armor as heavy as the greek bronze stuff tho

as to 300 well its history... these few dudes indeed held the line long enough for the greeks to counter xerxies assault or at least to make him pay dearly since he had to care for a whole bunch of men which needed food etc... his losses were so heavy that in the end he hurled em with missiles until none were left so he could actually get past em without loosing all of his men... but well thats the greek side of the story (ya sure... 300 vs 1million or so lol.. whoever believes it) i dunno about any persian records regarding that sadly... do you have any info on how the persians recorded the event?

alexander is way past the battle at the thermopylen and afaik he fought immortals... and smashed em lol... but i could be wrong again... i really dont know many sources regarding persian history... there is even more about turks for some reason...

[Ihoe]

did the spartans even fight in a phalanx? shieldwall techniques yes but a phalanx? seems like wasted talent to me as in a phalanx you cant actually fight but stand and move forward...

 

nooo!

I Was Talking about greeks! or maybe athenians!

 

btw as to 100lb stones... thats kinda few if one takes in count what a full bronze armor would weight, but then again im unsure if the spartans even wore such stuff (mmh i should read on that lol)

 

spartans wore a Squire mail Cuirass with a hem and a large shield with a long pike.

 

mmh you cant really say the persians lacked in armor- they more or less invented armored horsemen and the like (or was that much later? at least the romans encountered them and they existed at least 100 yrs before that), they probably didnt wear armor as heavy as the greek bronze stuff tho

 

the persian cavalry were the finest in the ancient world because:

1-Persians were the first ones to tame horse.

2-Horse first appeared in Persia.

3-mostly, the government and military focused on horsemen.

4-they invented the horse treadle.

5-and many more that I forgot.

 

the persian foot soldiers weren't that armored and mainly consisted of non-Persians.

 

as to 300 well its history... these few dudes indeed held the line long enough for the greeks to counter xerxies assault or at least to make him pay dearly since he had to care for a whole bunch of men which needed food etc... his losses were so heavy that in the end he hurled em with missiles until none were left so he could actually get past em without loosing all of his men... but well thats the greek side of the story (ya sure... 300 vs 1million or so lol.. whoever believes it) i dunno about any persian records regarding that sadly... do you have any info on how the persians recorded the event?

 

well, I read the story writen by one of the remaining spartans, the one that killed the traitor Aphilias. by his numbers Spartans were not alone, they were along with 7000 Hoplites and 20 Catapults and 200 Javelineeres. and persians were 700,000 units consisting of everything that could be found in a totally ready for war army. persians killed the hoplites with median soldiers from the back with 3000 men under the command of Tisaphernes, destroyed the catapults and moved on to spartans.

the main problem were the spartans, because they were the 300 royal guards men of King leonidas, why he did not bring more than that was because: the senate of both athens and sparta Decided to not Rebel against the persian forces, so leondias could not recruit the normal soldiers into his army and was forbidden to do it. But, he could do anything with his Royal guards men only if it's not against sparta, so he did take them to repel the persian army.

and because they were Immortal guardsmen of king leonidas, and were much more powerful than persian soldiers, they repeled them for a few days.

 

alexander is way past the battle at the thermopylen and afaik he fought immortals... and smashed em lol... but i could be wrong again... i really dont know many sources regarding persian history... there is even more about turks for some reason...

 

Where did you get that from?

anyway it is great to comment here about this.

cheers mate,

 

IE

[jaysus]

the immortals are thought to have been disbanded by alexander after he conquered the empire and since they always stood by the king (xcept after the battle at the thermopylae where they stood in greece while the king went home) i assume they faced alexanders troops in one battle or another...

 

btw they didnt get wacked by the 300 spartans... it was both who wacked each other... the 300 wacked em on one day but in the end the immos were the unit that destroyed em

 

http://books.google.de/books?id=rohp7lMyCa...result#PPA35,M1

 

the above link is kinda interesting... nice to read and theres alot about ancient eliteunits... didnt read it all yet thus cant say if its infact all right but so far it seems reasonable

edit: pity lol that damn google preview ends with the theban sacred band...

[Skolhamarr]

I like where this going,but a little off topic..

Athenians where better known for their archers, than hoplites....

 

 

no the "Greeks" did not fight with a phalanx system. The hoplite used a thrusting spear and not pike, it was bronze tipped. Yes, a shield wall was used but not in what you are thinking of Jaysus. The spear was used to thrust, retreat behind the wall of shields, the hoplite spear was heavier than the pike counterpart and much short 7 feet or so. Much as the movie 300 shows right way the hoplite fought with their with thrusting way.

 

Alexander (not the great, but his great uncle) (369-8) formed the "foot companions" Palanx / alternative, the elite of the Macedonians infantry. He sought and won the good will of Thebes, then at the height of its power, and sent as a token of good faith, his nephew, Philip, to be held as a hostage/trainee (in this position, Philip mastered the new tactics and strategies developed by the Thebans). It is difficult to assess Philip correctly. His son clearly surpassed him, Demosthenes, his enemy, misrepresents his intentions and achievements and we have no alternative to that account. Still, Alexander would have gone nowhere had not Philip created the means (the army) and the system of government (really the first national state in European history) which Macedonia had in 336

 

King Philip build on this idea of the hoplite fighting style, Longer spears, will make its own wall, reduce the size of the shield. Where the man could grip the pike with both hand give the user more power. With this greater range, you could keep your enemy at bay while you attack. The strongest element in King Phillips was his horseman, the agility to quickly change the out of a battle. Attack phalanx or Hoplite from the side you will destroy it...

 

I pulled up an old report I did about 10 years ago, I started to read up to get back, in grove of this history we are talking about. Jaysus, I was some what wrong about comparing The Tiber's Empire to Rome. The age on how it regressed is a lot like Roman Empire, how they deal with day to day operation is much like Rome. But how they came to be is much like Macedonia. Jaysus when you look at it, Akavirain would be something like the Persians. Imperials would be a budding Macedonia power.

Here is how I am going to back up this claim, what said report.

 

The Emergence of Macedonia as a "Great Power ( or in our case now Tiber's Empire)

To understand the process by which in the course of 25 years (between the battles of Mantinea and Chaeronea, 338 BC), one must understand the several concepts

1.) The 'Imperial' states no longer had the resources (human and fiscal) or the leadership to contest for hegemony.

2.)To deal with revolts within the Persian Empire, the Great King was hiring an increasingly large number of Greek mercenaries, and no longer able/ ready to subsidize instability in Greece.

3.)Macedonia had long had the resources (gold and silver mines; timber; population) to become a major player in the Aegean world. What was missing was a national identity (such as had come into being in the Greek city states) or an charismatic leader of energy and insight to harness the potential. With the accession of Philip, the latter too was granted.

 

outline of Macedonia

Geography: lower Macedonia has good agricultural land and a flat coast; upper Macedonia is predominantly pastoral. Both, however, have "continental" or "Balkan" climates that are wetter and colder than the Mediterranean. Though there is a continuous mountain barrier, there are clear invasion routes from both the west and the north. Macedonia was vulnerable to barbarian attacks from north, northwest, and northeast, and to the Greeks in the south.

 

Population: The proportions and numbers were probably similar in the 4th C. Macedonians were a racially mixed group: the lower orders belonging to the old Bronze Age population, the aristocracy to the Dorian invaders. The Macedonians considered themselves to be a unique folk with an independent government. The Athenians considered even the aristocrats to be uncultivated: one was not considered a "man" until, for example, he had killed a bear by himself.

 

Cities: developed in the lowlands, but were not "city- states" in that they ever had autonomy; rather, they were royal administrative centers. The Macedonian "identity" was created out of pressure from the Balkans and from Greek expansion on the coast

 

Early history is characterized by periodic invasions from the Balkans (Macedonia often had to pay the Illyrians "tribute"), by intense dynastic competition (the extermination of all the mature males in the royal house was a regular feature of royal life, mitigated only by the polygamy allowed the king). In so far as the Greeks were concerned and they are the ones who wrote history), the early kings were notoriously inconstant and treacherous, making and breaking treaties in a completely unacceptable manner by international standards.

 

The most important early king was Archelaus (413-399), who, because he changed sides so often, incensed both Spartans and Athenians...in his defense, he had little choice, but to act in the best interests of himself and Macedonia. He was, however, the first to create an army on the Greek model (as distinct from the Homeric mob plus warrior king). This suggests that Macedonia was beginning to enjoy the material conditions that had made possible the hoplite revolution. He was the first to built forts and construct roads both of which stabilized Macedonian life. In his reign, Macedonia begins to expand along the Aegean coast. To "civilize" his aristocracy, he imported Greek teachers and intellectual figures. Euripedes wrote his last play, the Bacchae, at his court

 

Government: on the "heroic" or "Homeric" model. The kingship was hereditary in one family (the Argead House) but was elective by folk. The king himself was the owner of all land, supreme judge, supreme commander, high priest and the personification of the state. The bonds between ruler and ruled were all based on personal, mutual service. Essentially Macedonian kingship was charismatic and unstable.

 

Aristocracy: the nobles from each tribe. Comparable in values and behavior to the "princes" of the Iliad; that is, they could be controlled only marginally by the king. The members of the nobility were the "companions" of the king and, in manner of dress and speech, his approximate equals. Resembles the situation in many Greek cities in the 8th and 7th centuries

 

THE RISE OF PHILIP: he is truly over shadowed by Alexander. He is the guiding light of Alexander, how to be a king, political and military elements he learned from Philip.

#

Elected regent in 359, but faced with the usual problems. Note that each change of power offers these elements new opportunities.

1. His three half-brothers were rivals, potential and actual not only to the regency, but for the kingship. Moreover, the nobles seek further independence from the crown.

2. Balkan invaders, Paeonians and Illyrians, who had been checked only by paying tribute, now ravage western and northern Macedonia.

3. The Chalcidian League (re-constituted since Sparta had dismantled it in the 380's)

Trained and experienced in the intricacies of dynastic struggles, Greek culture and diplomacy and possessed of sound judgement and energy, Philip immediately achieved some notable successes employing methods he would use regularly thereafter:

1. kept enemies divided by marriage alliances (it helps to be a polygamist!) and by "grants" (some may call this bribery) to both individuals and states which might undermine his leading enemies.

2. clear recognition of strategic and tactical possibilities and a willingness to change his goals to maximize his opportunities --strategy of the indirect approach.

3. rapid deployment on inner lines. His enemies regularly arrive too late.

4. use of Pavlovian diplomatic techniques.

5. In victory he was always moderate

 

The choice is widely discussed in Greece. Philip did not claim that he wished to conquer Greece, but, rather he openly sought an alliance with himself as the hegemon (or "leader"). In return he would help to secure the peace and lead a campaign against Persia. Should one accept the offer or fight to retain freedom? The Athenians, under the guidance of Demosthenes, resolve to oppose. It should be noted that the Athenians had the will, but lacked the means (material and human resources) to oppose effectively.

( there is more, but its a little long an mindless..)

 

The Battle of Chaeronea, August, 338.

1. the two sides were roughly even in size, 30,000 infantry and 2,000 in cavalry.

2. Philip had already completed the reform of his army. In particular, he took the deep formation from the Thebans, but placed the individuals somewhat more loosely (at three- foot intervals), making his phalanx more flexible, and then devoted particular attention to the training in weapons including a longer spear. Moreover, the phalanx was not designed to attack or to defend in the traditional Greek manner, but to hold and exhaust the line of the opponents until the heavy cavalry, attacking in wedges on the flanks, could overwhelm the enemy.

3. Philip attacked obliquely, engaging the Thebans and the Sacred Band first, chrushing it (the latter died to a man; Philip, who must have known many in the Band from his days in Thebes, wept about the loss), and then rolling up the rest of the line. Philip's right flank retreated strategically.

4. Alexander distinguished himself in this battle leading the decisive cavalry charge.

 

1. Toward Athens, Philip was remarkably generous --suggesting how much weight Philip attached to public opinion at Athens. No Macedonian was to be stationed in Attica. The Athenians were to become the allies of Macedonia and dissolve their alliance.

2. Toward the rest of Greece, Philip assigned garrisons to the key cities of Corinth, Chalcis, Ambracia and Thebes. The latter, in particular, he treated harshly, by dissolving the Boiotian League and confiscating the property of his enemies.

3. League of Corinth --most Greek states compelled to join.

1. Observe general peace and act together for collective security.

2. Respect 'freedom and autonomy' of each member under own constitution.

3. Refrain from executions, re-distribution of property and other subversive measures.

4. Creation of executive council with powers of war/peace, taxation, justice and arbitration. States participate in proportion to contribution of naval and military contributions.

5. Philip appointed hegemon for war against Persia. 4. The league did not fulfill the hopes of Isocrates or Philip. Unity depended totally on Philip's dominant position, the older forces, though now more hidden, continued beneath the surface.

It is difficult to assess Philip correctly. His son clearly surpassed him, Demosthenes, his enemy, misrepresents his intentions and achievements and we have no alternative to that account. Still, Alexander would have gone nowhere had not Philip created the means (the army) and the system of government (really the first national state in European history) which Macedonia had in 336

 

It is said that "Greek liberty perished on the field of Chaeroneia".

1. True? Yes, in the sense that the Greek states, Athens and Thebes included, did submit to Philip and to Macedonia and that the surrender was complete. It is also true that the Greek states would never again be in a position to assert their liberty.

2. In another sense it is false. Athens, Sparta and Thebes had all tried to dominate Greek states and, for a period, each had succeeded.

3. Too many atrocities had been committed in the name of "freedom". Had the Greek states had sufficient resources and greater statesmanship, they might have brought about a more enduring nation.

4. The Greek polis had, on the whole, been a very successful experiment in communal life. It was limited especially by the perception of membership in the civic body (everyone must know everyone else; only by this means could behavior be controlled) and because it its very success had ultimately led to a kind of inflexibility. Indeed the very success of very success of the polis as a result of inclusion and compromise, may paradoxically have been the reason why the Greek poleis were not ready to extend the same courtesies to the fellow Greek states.

 

 

 

 

quick reply hmmm 3 hours typing this yeah thats a quick... why did type it, because scanning it in would lose the effect I was going for... If did get me an A....