If you are like me, you are interested in history. Now KAP is anachronistic and that is totally fine, but at the same time, I am sure I am not the first guy who has looked at the Roman War and started thinking: how would this actually fit with the real history? Especially since GPC makes the mistake of having Theoderic take over AFTER the Roman War, when he actually dies at the beginning of it, historically (AD 526).

So, lets look at the real history of this puissant Ostrogoth King, Theoderic the Great:
493 Theoderic kills his rival, Odoacer, and takes control of the Italian peninsula and Rome, ruling (on paper) as a viceroy of the Emperor in Constantinople, but as an independent and equal monarch in fact.
520 Theoderic is at the height of his power, allied with the Franks (most of Gaul), Burgundians (Provence), Vandals (North Africa) and Visigoths (Spain) via dynastic marriages, and in the case of Visigoths, ruling as the regent of his grandson, Amalaric. Alas, this all starts unraveling from 522 onwards, and he dies in 526, whilst preparing a campaign to bring the Vandals back under his hegemony (the new Vandal king had imprisoned Theoderic's sister, the widow of the previous Vandal king).

However, in the interest of the GPC, it would be better to have Theoderic keep this hegemony over the Western Empire. Rather than have the envoys come from 'Emperor Lucius', you could have Theoderic issuing demands on Arthur: after all, all the rest of the Western Empire is under his hegemony, why not those pesky Brits, too? As it happens, the Battle of Saussy is in 526, and you can have Theoderic clash with Arthur, the latter being victorious. However, thanks to Theoderic's web of hegemony and alliances, the presence of Vandals and even Byzantine cataphracts in Theoderic's army is explained away: clearly, these are allies coming to help him.

(Speaking of allies: Ignore the presence of Arabs in Southern Spain two centuries beforehand, and Magyars in Hungary about three centuries before their historical time, in the map on p. 205 of GPC. Huns are a better match than Magyars, even though they were destroyed as a power in mid-5th century, and Hungary was occupied by Gepids, who are closer to Goths, after that. You might also wish to downgrade those Roman infantry a bit: these guys are armored as heavily as crusader knights and I don't know what they are doing with Great Spears... Those Cataphracts have way too high Lance skill and shouldn't be using Great Swords, grr. Maybe I will write a new enemy list for this thing...)

Anyway, with Theoderic gone, it is easy to see why the rest of the Roman War is a cakewalk. Without a strong leader, the Goths squabble amongst themselves, and their allies melt away ("Not our war, thanks!"). Arthur strolls into Rome and gets the defunct Senate of Rome vote him as the Emperor, which is just a symbolic thing anyway, since they don't actually have any power to grant such a title. Neither has the Pope who anoints Arthur and crowns him as the Emperor. Arthur probably appoints a new client Ostrogoth king amongst the many would-be claimants; historically, this would be Theoderic's son, Athalaric, who was only 10 years at the time, and his reign lasted until 534 when his cousin overthrew him. However, I think since we diverged from history and had Theoderic die and his Kingdom conquered, the child ruler would not last. So, someone else. The other barbarian rulers send tribute to Arthur in Rome to keep him from continuing his campaign and trying to make that title into reality again.

GPC has a rebellion in Rome in 529. I'd see this more like Arthur's appointee getting overthrown; the appointee king had been sending Arthur tribute, but the other barbarian kings probably stop doing that as soon as Arthur is back in Britain. I'd have the overthrow to be orchestrated by Amalasuntha (daughter of Theoderic the Great) and Theodahad (nephew of the same), with the idea of being co-rulers and having Amalasuntha's son, Athalaric, be the next king after Theodahad. With Athalaric reaching his 18th birthday (534), Theodahad has him and later Amalasuntha murdered, which then leads to the historical Gothic Wars 535 - 554. (Amalasuntha was actually murdered by Theodahad, who was appointed as the co-ruler in 534 historically.)

That fixes the Roman War from the Ostrogoths' perspective. I'll start another thread about Clovis and the Franks, since they are screwed up in GPC, too.

Post revision:

My apologies--I thought this was in another forum folder.

Please carry on.

This is a Game Play sub-forum, right? To talk about 'Your Campaigns, the GPC, and Story Line Questions'?

I have already 'wasted my time' to make it consistent, and in the case of the Roman War at least, I think I have hit on a possible way to make it work in the historical context (rather than having to revive the Western Roman Empire from 150 years ago). Now, that might not be your cup of tea, Greg, but why shouldn't I be allowed to talk about this with other people who might be interested in pondering these very questions? Isn't that the whole point of having a game forum like this, so that we can talk about the game that we like to play and bounce ideas back and forth?

Once your alternative GPC version 2 comes out, I will be more than happy to discuss that. Meanwhile, I will work what I have, which is GPC and real history, and if it amuses me (and hopefully others) to try and make a mash-up of those two, why not? People who don't care will not care, while those who like to play around with history, might actually find this thread helpful. And frankly, things have been a bit slow in this new forum, so if this gets some responses from interested parties, then it is surely a win-win, isn't it?

This is a Game Play sub-forum, right? To talk about 'Your Campaigns, the GPC, and Story Line Questions'?
Yep. See my comment above.
I am still getting used to the new forum and fumbled my roll here.
Please accept my apologies.

Yep. See my comment above.
I am still getting used to the new forum and fumbled my roll here.
Please accept my apologies.

No worries. Glad this got sorted out. :)

So, some modifications on the enemies...

Byzantine Cataphracts:
1) My main beef with these guys is their Godlike Lance skill of 27, which is higher than all the named characters mentioned, save Lancelot, Lamorak and Gawaine at the height of their skills. And there is an actual military unit of these guys!?!? They'd go straight through even most of the named Round Table Knights (Lance skill 20 +-3 or so). Like, no. Even at Lance 20, they would be a super elite unit.
2) By contrast, I don't have a problem with their armor (if anything, making the armor 16 would not go amiss for layered chain and plates/scale) nor their big horses (tempted to go with heavy scale barding for 10 points here). Both were really well armored historically, and the lack of a shield is understandable since they often used a lance two-handed (the kontos from BoK&L). In fact, their damage should reflect this, 8d6+1d6 with a lance.
3) They wouldn't be using Great Swords, but Maces and Swords. 18 in each should be well enough, and the maces especially should make them dreaded opponents in hand to hand. Horsemanship 15 should be a minimum, too.
4) So for defeating these nigh-invulnerable, 6d6 personal damage (+1d6 against chain), Lance 27 badasses on horses straight out of hell, you'll get 75 Glory? I don't think so. Even with the lessened skills, I would still give out at least 150 Glory each (100 for main skill of 20, +50 for being on big horses and personally strong, too; perhaps even additional +50 for sheer badassery & Glory). For KAP 5.1 Glory, I'd be tempted to treat these guys at least Renowned (around 6000 Glory), if not more. They are amongst the best fighters in Byzantium. This would lead to about 60+20+15+18 = 113. So something between 100 and 120 should be about right.

Roman infantry:
1) My first beef with these guys is that they are said to be equipped in the traditional Roman manner, but they have 12-point armor, which is as heavy as what the crusaders of Richard the Lionheart wore. The Roman chainmail tunic should be 8-points (even if you claim that the lorica segmentata would be 12-points, which I would strenuously object to, it had been phased out around two centuries ago). Having a big shield of 8 points is OK.
2) The second point is the Great Spear. No. They are not phalangites, nor could they use those big shields if they were. Spear I would accept, although not at 18. These are not elite troops. Veteran and skilled yes, but not the best of the best of the best. I'd give them Javelin, Spear and Sword all at 15. That makes them plenty badass compared to regular infantry, and about equal to Armored Infantry from BotEnt.
3) The Glory should be less to reflect those scale-backs. Glory 25 sounds about right, although if you are using the KAP 5.1 Glory, then probably easiest to peg it at 30 (Javelin throw followed by melee).

Goth cavalry:
1) More or less OK. I'd be tempted to make them 6d6 (basically, applying a Saxon template +3 SIZ & STR on a 5d6 knight), in which case I'd up their Glory to 75 or even 100, thanks to their high skills. But those skills are what you'd expect from a veteran knights, so assuming that is what these Goth cavalry would be, fair enough (same is true for many other opponents presented in Appendix A). The poor armor doesn't really matter in a battle system.

Huns (Magyars shouldn't exist yet, Gepids would be equivalent to Goth Cavalry):
1) Bow 23. Grr. So every Hun is a super-elite archer? Bow 18 I'd accept, grudgingly. Horsemanship 18.

Arab Warriors:
1) Islam doesn't exist yet. GMs need to decide whether they wish to embrace the anachronism of this or not. I wouldn't, nor is that religious aspect especially important during the Roman War. I don't really see how they could be inspired by Allah in a battle whilst not fighting a jihad, even if they'd be Muslim already.
2) Described as having bows and scimitars, but do not have a Bow skill. Changing Lance 18 to Bow 18 would address this issue. Skill 18 clearly makes them more veteran than most.
3) Funnily enough, they don't appear in the Saussy Enemy list, so you'd never use these guys in the Roman War in the first place!

Ethiopian Warriors:
1) These guys sound more like Zulus, save for the long spears. Anyway, if tower shield is 8 points, so is a long shield. Also, if you are not using two hands on your spear, it is not Great Spear (sarissaphoroi of the Macedonian Phalanx did use two hands, their shields were strapped on), so Spear 18.

Poor Quality Infantry:
1) Spear 10, not 13.

Italian Crossbowmen:
1) No. The Italian city states, especially Genoa, who were famous for their crossbowmen do not exist yet.
2) Replace with run-of-the-mill archers with Bow 12 from BotEnt. (The Bow 18 Archers from KAP 5.1 are a bit too skilled for 'regular troops', IMHO.)

Moor Cavalry:
1) OK. Moors are pretty close to Bedouins themselves, who were not Arabs at this time, but lets not split hairs.


Conclusion:
Clearly, the foreign elements in the 'Roman Army' are veteran troops sent to help them. This can be explained away by pointing out that surely the enemy would use his own best troops to counter Arthur's best (the knights) wherever they can. So even if you'd have poor Bedouin cavalry, they would be keeping their distance from the knights.

So, then the list of enemies at Saussy. Given that the whole point was to make this more historical, we need to up the numbers of the Ostrogoth elements and downplay the Roman & the more fantastical ones.



1d20
Enemy


1
Bowmen (Use Archer stats from KAP 5.1, with Bow 12)


2-3
Poor Infantry


4
Roman Infantry


5-7
Ostrogoth Infantry (Use Saxon Raider stats from KAP 5.1)


8
Frank Infantry (Use Saxon Raider stats from KAP 5.1)


9-10
Frank Cavalry (Use Goth stats.)


11-13
Ostrogoth Cavalry


14-15
Visigoth Cavalry (Theoderic is the Regent of Visigoths.)


16
Hun Cavalry


17
Vandal Cavalry


18
Moor Cavalry


19
Byzantine Cataphracts


20
Leader and bodyguard (+2 to Skills & Armor, roll 1d20 again, rerolling 20s)



The 'overabundance' of cavalry comes from the fact that both sides would try to match cavalry to cavalry, rather than allow the enemy heavy horse chew through some poor infantry line or bowmen and cause a rout. Hence poor infantry (and to lesser extent, the bowmen), while making up the bulk of the men on the battlefield, is so 'rare' in the enemy list. On the gameplay side, allowing the players to collect 'easy kills' against poor infantry rather than test their mettle against the best of the enemy is simply not cricket. :)

If you'd like to add a 'quality' modifier to the cavalry (note, Cataphracts are always Veteran or Leader, so no need to roll for them):


1d6Quality


1-3 Mediocre (-3 to skills, i.e. skill 15 usually)


4-6 Veteran (use stats as is)

I think the Book of Knights and Ladies does rectify the position of Theodoric - it has Theodoric (under his German folklore name Dietrich of Bern) conquer Italy in 493, die, and then Lucius takes over, then Arthur kills him and places Athalaric in charge, who proceeds to drink himself to death over being a Cymri puppet, after which Italy's history follows the real world (Albeit with more advanced technology).

Thanks for that reminder, jmberry. I haven't used BoK&L in my campaigns, so I am less familiar with it. The Italian character generation lists the Italian rulers, p. 100, and summarizes the history (which you paraphrased in your answer) on page 104.

I was thinking of going the Usurper Lucius way, but frankly, I can't see it happening. The Ostrogoths are in firm control of Italy. Why would they follow a mere Roman senator? Furthermore, why would any of the other kingdoms follow this usurper? Secondly, there is a problem with the timeline: The Roman Envoys arrive in 525, not 526, starting up the war whilst Theoderic is still alive. Lucius dies in 526, not 527, as is claimed in BoK&L, p. 104. I don't think this gives enough time for Lucius to organize the coalition that we see in GPC, while Theoderic actually had something very close to that historically. Hence, from the history perspective, he is the obvious, better choice to be Arthur's opponent in the Roman War.

The attempt in BoK&L is a good one to interweave history and Malory's Roman War, but I personally prefer to use Theoderic all the way. Also, I thought that it would be better to not use Athalaric, but someone else, due to the butterfly effect of Arthur killing Theoderic and conquering Italy. Then I had the rebellion mentioned in GPC 529 to be a coup to oust Arthur's appointee and be replaced with the 'legitimate dynasty'. Of course, you could ignore the rebellion of 529 and use Athalaric from 527 onwards as in BoK&L. I don't think he even has time to become a drunkard, as he is killed in 534. This would be very easy to portray as Theohadad promising to restore the Ostrogoth greatness, rather than being stuck with a Woman and a Boy, bowing to a foreign king, as their rulers...