Roman Legion composition? [Archive]

Fluvius Camillus

05-27-2009, 11:05

My legion composition:

My Camillan Army
1x general
1x equites
1x campanian cavalry
4x hastati
4x principes
4x triarii
1x pedites extraordinarii
2x accensi
2x velites/mercenaries

My Polybian Army
1x general
1x equites extraordinarii
4x hastati
4x principes
4x triarii
2x pedites extraordinarii
2x velites
2x accensi

My Marian Army
2x general
2x Gallic auxiliary cavalry
2x First cohort
8x Legionary cohort
2x antesignani
2x evocata
2x mercenaries/archers/skirmisher/miscalleneous

My Augustan Imperial Army
1x Faction Leader/Heir
2x Praetorian Cavalry
2x Imperial cavalry wing
1x First imperial cohort
4x imperial cohort
2x praetorian cohort
2x antesignani
2x auxiliary cohorts
4x imperial archers

If you were interested:
Historical Camillan Compositions

15 groups leves (together with the hastati) : 300 men
15 hastati manipels : 900 men
15 principes manipels : 900 men
45 manipels (15 ordi) triarii, accensi and rorarii : 2.700 men
Total troop strength, without cavalry : 4.800 men

Augustan Army sizes and legion composition

1 Contubernium = 8 men
10 Contubernia = 1 Centurie (80 men)
2 Centuries = 1 Manipel (160 men)
6 Centuries = 1 Cohort (480 men)
10 Cohorten + 120 cavalry = 1 Legion (5240 men)*

*1 legion = 9 normal cohorts (9 x 480) + the first cohort (exists out of 5 manipels, so 5 x 160) + 120 cavalry, is a total of 5.240 men.

Hope that helps!

~Fluvius

everyone

05-27-2009, 13:18

In an ongoing campaign, I use the following composition for my legions (based on this post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=101787 ); I'm still the polybian period, and the composition has not changed much from the camillan period:

for a legion (halfstack); so a consular legion is two of these
1 general
1 hastati
1 principes
1 triarii
1 leves
+ alae:
1 allied skirmisher
2 allied infantry
1 allied cavalry
1 elite infantry (pedites/hoplite)

examples of allied skirmisher/infantry/cavalry sets:

Ligurian:
Ligurian cavalry
Ligurian infantry
Celtic Archers

Sicilian:
Hippeis
Syracusan hoplites (modded the EDB to allow recruitment)
Toxotai/peltastai

But I've yet to reach the Marian era, so I don't have the composition for a legion of that era, but you might want to refer to the link I posted above

miotas

05-27-2009, 13:35

My camillian/polybian armies are divided into two halves:

Roman legion:
General
1 triarii
2 principes
2 hastatii
1 roraii
1 accensi
1 velites
1 equites

Allied legion:
2 elite infantry
2 heavy infantry
2 light infantry
2 skirmisher
1 ranged
1 cavalry

My marian army is:

Roman legion:
General
6 cohors reformata
1 first cohort
1 cohors evocota
1 antisignai

Allied legion:
4 skirmishers
2 ranged
2 cavalry
2 cavalry/heavy skirmishers/light infantry

*edit* forgot the first cohort

Pode

05-27-2009, 14:52

I try to approach composition not so much from a view of forcing the historical composition into the game engine constraints, but from achieving historically important tactical goals within the limitations imposed by the engine. I want cavalry to screen the flanks and charge pinned enemies, so I keep 2 equites. When I can afford it, I want 2 jav cav in the form of Campanians to harass before contact, melee, and pursue routers (especially routed family member heavy cav, which they are faster than). I keep 2 triarii, 3 principes, and 4 hastati in a pyramid version of the triplex acies, as that preserves most of the tactical benefit of the 4-4-3 historical system for a 4 unit front while reducing the number of units from 11 to 9. In the Camillan era, I use 2 units of rorarii either on the flanks of the principes as a flanking cavalry sponge, or in a thin line in front of the hastati as a screen to pin infantry in place for the hail of pila. 2 units of leves and one of slingers deploy in front set to skirmish, and I keep a unit of archers in the back between the triarii and the general behind them. In Polybian, I'll use hastatii Samnitici in place of the rorarii and allied slingers in place of the accensi.
For an allied army, I'll use 4 medium infantry staggered up front, two heavy infantry and a pedites extraordinari as my second line, 2 heavies in reserveand a pair of spearmen on the second line flanks, with cav, skirmishers, slinger and archer per the above, and either a family member or an equites extraordinarii as general.
Haven't made it to the Marians yet, but am thinking 4 cohorts up front, 2 plus a first cohort in the second line, 2 cohorts in the 3rd as reserve, and an auxilliary spearman on each 2nd line flank with skirmisher and cav support.

Fluvius Camillus

05-27-2009, 16:42

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-27-2009, 17:38

Alae is Latin for Wing, the Socii were on the wings, so their contingents were alae. Later, because most cavalry was A: non-Roman and B: on the flank, it became customary to refer to a cavalry formation as an "alae".

Knight of Heaven

05-28-2009, 00:08

miotas

05-28-2009, 02:35

Realy well historicaly , i was thinking a polybian will be 5 hastati 5 princepes, 2 velites, 2 equites and 3 triari and the rest alies and auxiliares, this will be a full legion , on post marian units in each legion will be 10 cohorts with 1cohorth inc. , and the rest is auxiliares , inc.aleie cav wel at leats is what i read in the books :P well i try folowing this formation

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=101787 did you check this link out? Basically you should just do what you think is the most fun, but historically that would be too many romans in the army. I find it to be more enjoyable playing with an army that is more historical.

Knight of Heaven

05-28-2009, 05:40

well im saying that becouse how can you put one legion in chess formation (quintus) with only these cohorths, it doesnt make much sence, normaly what i read some time a go and saw on other forums was the core roman legion made by romans in chess formation and the alies on the flanks,alies army,infantary and cavalary. In post marian legion, 1 legion was compose by 10 cohorts, each,And each cohort had 500 to 900 plus man,maybe more sometimes of course the cohorts varius in type, evocata, veterani, praetorian, first cohort etc.As well Auxiliares wich number was arround thousands in the flanks. well in game you can put whatever you want truly :) whats more fun indeed, but game engine its diferent, maybe to represent that these formations were created.i belive its another way of putting things, to balance gameplay as for reaching more fun while playing the most historical possible. But that comes in manny forms, its important for each player have his on rules to achieve that. This guide show this i belive :P
What im saying is i made my own rules, i like playing historical too, but to do that i dont have exactly folow these rules. :)

Chris1959

05-28-2009, 13:16

I'd recommend Konny's Allied Legions mod in the unofficial mods section. It allows you to recruit Bruttians, Ligurians etc in Italic settlements, in fact you can only recruit high end latin troops in Rome.
Also give a nice description of Camillan/Polybian Consular Armies including the allied legions.
One of the best add on mods for EB I feel and I've found very stable.
In fact Bruttians are my favourite Roman unit!

paramedicguyer

08-07-2009, 02:40

Camillan

4 Hastati
4 principes
4 Triarii
4 Accensi/ Leves
3 Cavalry (any really)
1 general

My battle setup is traditional

Polybian

4 Hastati
4 principes
4 Triarii
4 Velites
3 Cavalry (any really)
1 general

My battle setup is traditional

I have been known to replace the velites with archers when dealing with eastern factions. My primary goal is always to capture crete to secure the archers.

Marian/Augustan

10 Cohorts
4 Cavalry (any, but generally auxilia of some sort)
5 archers (generally i will use cretan archers, but from attrition I generally have to recruit locals to replace losses)
1 General

I have two battle setups

C = Cohort
A = Cavalry
M = Archer

A C - C - C - C - C A
A C - C - C - C - C A
M M M M M

A C C C C C A
A C C C C C A
M M M M M

Generally I employ the former when fighting eastern factions where I have to manuever around a phalanx. the latter I employ so as to provide easy reinforcements when fighting the "barbarian factions". I have found this setup most effective especially when defending. Fighting on hard I have been able to destroy 25% of an army before they hit my legionaries (before they throw there pila). Again generally I use cretan archers, which are quite superior to most others, the effectiveness of the setup goes down when useing other archers

satalexton

08-07-2009, 03:33

There's already threads on Barbaropolis army compositions, try searching for them.

Your formations are not bad in terms of gameplay, though I think the composition and formation are more of a Late Roman variety.

Aemilius Paulus

08-07-2009, 04:01

There's already threads on Barbaropolis army compositions, try searching for them.
I know, we get these every month :no:. Just like the monthly LS threads of the good old days...

Celtic_Punk

08-07-2009, 04:21

Checker board was a Marian invention wasn't it?

Aemilius Paulus

08-07-2009, 05:02

Checker board was a Marian invention wasn't it?
If by that you mean the manipular formation it was the result of the Samnite Wars, which would be Polybian, not Marian reforms.

Dutchhoplite

08-07-2009, 07:31

Macilrille

08-07-2009, 08:37

I am no fan of Sata, in fact he is on my ignore list, but he does not actually do anything wrong here except possibly calling Rome some silly byname... be fair.
He is actually not for once screaming, "burn Barbaropolis!", merely saying what many others do to those recurring "once-a-month-questions" that the answer is around in abundance if one searches for it- especially in the AAR and gameplay guides section.

Be fair, go for the ball, not the man. No need for personal persecution, Sata as well as others has a right to contribute usefully.

When pointing a finger at others, how many is it that points at yourself? Who is attacking someone now? Were we not meant to stop and behave in a restrained way (though it evades me that we ever left it)?

I will shut my gob now, for I am no angel myself. Just saying, give him a break when he actually behaves himself.

satalexton

08-07-2009, 09:07

QS's guide (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=101787&highlight=Roman+guide) is extremely useful, though abit outdated.

Yes, even I find it useful :clown: How best to wipe them out Cannae style, for one.

paramedicguyer

08-08-2009, 00:29

I didn't make this thread, I was searching for somtehting like this thread, and this is wat I got.

I really don't want to listen to your petty personal fighting. I simply brough back a slightly older thread on a topic I wanted to talk about, I felt it would have been better than making anohter thread that others woul have to search for.

I always get excited when I see a reply on a thread to whic I just posted, and that feeling is always trashed when I have to see petty bickering.

Aemilius Paulus

08-08-2009, 00:59

At it again?? Tell me, what have you learned this week??
Well, I for one, agree with you. No matter how small a transgression is, it is a transgression. No Romaioiktonoi means no Romaioiktonoi, and not "no wasabi on Thursdays" or anything of that sort. You see, another thread is now derailed because of a single word.

People indeed, learn very little. But of course, punishment tends to speed up the learning process; you can tell a child all you want about the dangers of fire, but he/she will only learn once they got burned.

A Very Super Market

08-08-2009, 01:14

It wouldn't be that bad if you just ignored the "Barbaropolis" and read it as "Rome", would it? Overreacting tends to quicken derailment, doesn't it?

Wait a minute! Calling him out has effectively derailed the thread more than if you moved on! Aww, shucks.

When playing as the Romans, I immediately ditch the Equites. Wastes of mnai, those suckers. Campanians are more versatile, and since both aren't meant to charge, there's no sense in recruiting native Roman cavalry. The set-up tends to go like this.

3 Leves
3 Hastati
3 Principes
3 Triarii
3 Rorarii
2 Campanians
2 Accensi

And of course, the general. It's not terribly efficient, but the closest to historical I can get without resorting to those bloated aristocrats and their ponies.

DaciaJC

08-08-2009, 01:39

Could Pedites Extraordinarii fit anywhere? They are allies, no?

paramedicguyer

08-08-2009, 01:52

A Very Super Market

08-08-2009, 01:57

Romans don't need cavalry. And if they lose, there are always more men.

Roman cavalry isn't too great anyways. I wait for the auxiliaries before even attempting to use them.

I put the accensi at the front, anywhere else would be absurd. The rorarii are at the back with the Triarii, and the leves are placed directly in fron ot the hastati.

paramedicguyer

08-08-2009, 01:58

Could Pedites Extraordinarii fit anywhere? They are allies, no?

I've never really been a fan of "allied legions" in any sense. While they are interesting and spice up gameplay, I find that generally my factional troops are readily at hand and thus I have no need of allies (except for cavalry). I do make exceptions for the bruttian infantry, which i use as a replacement for hastati, but thats it. The main reason that I stay away from allies, is that the game engine just isnt designed to handle that sort of tactic. and as much as i'd like to roleplay, i always cop out for the bottom line. I want the most for my money and that generally leaves little room for allies and the lower class roman infantry

In this context I am refereing only to italy itself and to cammilan and polybian troops. Its a whole different ball game with imperials.

TKaz84

08-08-2009, 04:57

Equites Romani isn't a great unit, but I find that I still need some cavalry in order to act as a mobile reserve against enemy cavalry. As long as you use them in that role or to charge something in the back repeatedly, they do OK.

Macilrille

08-08-2009, 09:46

Ditching the Equites for Campanians is a good idea, I never thought of that. I like the Campanians and Ligurians.

johnhughthom

08-08-2009, 12:07

Could Pedites Extraordinarii fit anywhere? They are allies, no?

As far as I am aware they were under the personal command of the Consul, assuming there was one of course, and so while technically allies they would not necessarily have had to fight with the alae.

keiskander

08-08-2009, 19:16

Wasnt a legion made up by ten cohorts 9 plus first cohort under marius and augustan reforms? If so why not count one cohors reformata as a "cohort" in the stack and build 9 reformata and one first cohort? Would that be a wrong set up for a legion in EB?

Atilius

08-08-2009, 21:35

As far as I am aware they were under the personal command of the Consul, assuming there was one of course, and so while technically allies they would not necessarily have had to fight with the alae.Concerning the pedites extraordinarii, I think this is speculation on that part of some authors. I know of no support in the ancient sources for that claim. Some of the equites extraordinarii (Polybios 6.31) were quartered near the Consul's volones in camp and may have therefore been under his immediate control on the battlefield.

Polybios states (6.40) that when an army is on the march, the extraordinarii form the vanguard if the enemy is ahead of them and the rearguard if the enemy is behind. This indicates that when formed for battle, the extraordinarii would be positioned on the extreme right of the formation.

Aulus Caecina Severus

08-10-2009, 15:30

My singleplayer legion for my romani campaign:

Note: max 10 slot for make available a powerful thing... Double legion full stack :smash:
I always leave cavalry in one army following main army legion.
When i m in enemy field i leave main army in a fort, and second army (cavalry) around or in one other fort.

Camillan Legion:
1 general
2 astati
2 principi
1 triari
2 leve
1 accensi
1 rorari

Polybian Legion:
1 general
3 astati polibiani
3 principi polibiani
1 triari polibiani
2 velites

Italic Allied Legion:
1 imperator italicus/general
5 fanti pesanti straordinari
4 ausiliari italici (ligures, samnites, bruttian, lucanian)

Marian Legion:
1 general
1 coorte miliaria pesante(aquila)
4 coorti pesanti
2 coorti leggere (ausiliari)
2 artillery or mercenary

Imperial Legion:
1 general
1 coorte miliaria imperiale pesante(aquila)
4 coorti imperiali pesanti
2 coorti leggere
2 arcieri saggitari siriani

Praetorian Legion:
1 general
5 coorti della guardia pretoriana
4 coorti veterane (evocate)

TKaz84

08-11-2009, 05:05

How exactly does the game engine and mechanics distort how a legion is composed here vs. history? For example the initial Roman legions have one of each unit, however in gameplay terms that is not nearly large enough to take on the Eleutheroi, much less another faction.

Companion Cavalry

08-11-2009, 05:37

While pillaging and burning Roma I discovered a half-burnt scroll in the house of one of the fighters. I translated the barbarian's writing as best I could with my knowledge of their corrupted version of Greek.

Perhaps it may be of some use to you.

"Imperial Legionary Composition Section One: Infantry

One eagle-bearing first cohort
Nine units of standard legionary troops
Four divisions auxiliary spearmen
Two divisions of elite light javelineers
One ballista + handlers

Imperial Legionary Composition Section Two: Cavalry

Two cavalry regiments of Augustan cavalry wings
General's guard cavalry"

SwissBarbar

09-20-2009, 20:17

Most of your armies have 1 General. But in my Romani-Campaigns the young Roman nobles have to prove themselves in battle first, if they want to go the political way. So my amies (Camillan / Polybian) are Composed like this

Legatvs: The General of the amy is at least 35 years old and has fought at least 10 battles, 3 of them in the offensive on enemy territory and 3 have to have been sieges. He has been in Roma and was in a lower political position, and now aims for higher positions, like Praetor or Consul.

Tribvnvs Laticlavivs: A young man of at least 25 years, who still has to serve his 10 battles. After the Legatvs, he's the highest officer in the army. He has not much political experience yet. If the second Tribvnvs is younger than 20 years, he is the one, who leads the Socii Legion in battle. If not, he's the one who commands the Roman troops, while the Legatvs watches him and gives orders.

Tribvnvs: He's at least 16 years old and has no political experience at all. When he's 20 years old, he might lead a Socii legion into battle, under the watchful eye of his Legatvs.

1 army is composed of 2 Legions like this:

Roman Legion Camillan (C) /Polybian (P)

1 x Legatvs
1 x Tribvnvs
1 x Accensi
2 x Leves (C) / Velites (P)
2 x Hastati
2 x Principes
1 x Triarii

Socii (Italic/Greek example, of course the units descend from where the Legion is recruited.)

1 x Tribvnvs
1 x Akontistai
1 x Peltastai
1 x Toxotai
2 x Hastati Samnitici / Pezoi Brettioi / Gaemile Liguriae
1 x Pedites Extraordinarii / Samnitici Milites / Hoplitai Haploi / Hoplitai
2 x Eqvites Campanici / Liguriae Epos
1 x Eqvites Extraordinarii

(Notice that the Socii field the cavalry)

Weebeast

09-20-2009, 22:35

Not sure if mine is historically accurate but as I understand, Camillan and Polybian era had a pretty good even number of light and heavy infantry...probably had more light counting true missiles in game like Leves, Accensi and Velites. Since I'm too lazy to do the math in game I usually just use ratio especially since I don't always count a stack as one "legion."

My Camillan and Poly as follows (in ratio):
1x cavalry
1x heavy infantry (Triarii, Pedites)
2x medium infantry (Principes, Hastati)
3x lights (leves, rorarii, Akontistai, velites, regionals, etc.)
0.75x unique mercs like Thrakians, elephants (after I crush Carthage usually), and whichever fought for Rome but not on daily basis.

EDIT - It should be said that sometimes I use a totally different, likely better unit to represent promoted troops... for example like Pedites as Caetrati. This happens when I'm facing an impeding stack of doom and don't have time to get an actual Caetrati.... EB map is big you know.

Kevin

09-20-2009, 23:08

This is a stupid question, but how are you guys getting only 10 slots? :inquisitive:

DaciaJC

09-20-2009, 23:12

They simply don't fill the other ten slots? :clown:

Kevin

09-20-2009, 23:23

Uh, why ?:inquisitive:

DaciaJC

09-21-2009, 00:37

Ignore my previous post. It was meant as a joke.

From what I make of it, the first 10 slots in a stack are reserved for the core Roman units - Hastati, Principes, Triarii and the like. The second half is composed of allied troops. Each half comprise one legion, and so one stack is a consular army.

Again, this is my interpretation, and it can be wrong, as I don't restrict my stack-composition to historical ratios.

Reading the first post from this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=101787) thread may result in a greater degree of understanding.

SwissBarbar

09-21-2009, 14:01

It's simple: Romans are not meant to fight enemies by outnumbering them. You can make 1 legion with 4 Hastati, 4 Principes and 2 Triarii and some Pediets and heavy Cav. if you want, but you will beat the crap out of every other army ... and some - like me - do not consider this to be funny.

1 Legion = 10 Slots, inkl. General(s). An if you're going on a great campaign against the enemy, you can put together 2 legions (1 Roman and 1 allied legion) and get 1 army. Of course, if you fight a Ptolemaic or Seleukid half-world-empire, you will need more that 2 Legions to beat them. It's funny - later in the game - to start a 10 or 20 Legions - offensive.

It's difficult, but I try not to have war with more than 1 faction at once. And sometimes, if I am at war, I only try to defeat their main armies and then offer them (force them to) peace and make them pay. It's not funny just to conquer the world.

You will get very rich soon, with the Romans. The trick is not just to create one army after another. When I start the game, I use 2 legions (10 slots each) to secure my lands, and 2 units of Roarii per city to secure them. If I go to war with Epeiros I mostly put together the 2 legions and conquer Italy (incl. Bononia, Patavium and Segesta)... replacing units only when they get under 50 men. When I have conquered all of Italy and parts of Sicily (which I am going to do only, if Carthage declares war on me, which happenes when you play on VH/M quite soon), I create 2 more Legions, meaning I have 2 fullstacks then. One legion I station in Sicily, because I leave Syrakousai alone, if they are not conquered by Carthage before I put Carthage out of Sicily. Only if the Eleutheroi attack me in Sicily or southern Italy, I will consider it an attack from Syrakousai and conquer it. The other legion will secure the northern border to the Celtae, who very soon will attack too.

That's how I make the game more challenging and thereby interesting.

Lanceari

09-22-2009, 17:31

Historically, a Polybian maniple had about 120 men, while a post-Marian maniple would have a paper strength of 180 (typo: correct number is 80 x2 = 160)... A Polybian cohort had 360 men, while a post-Marian cohort had 480 men. A Polybian Legion had 3,600 legionaries, while a post Marian legion had 4,800 legionaires (plus supporting units).

I set EB to huge size units. EB Polybian units had 160 men, while EB post Marian units have 200 men.

I think of a legion as having a total of 40 units: 24 EB units of legionaries, plus another 16 supporting units. My legion has to be split in two stacks.

Atilius

09-23-2009, 04:21

..while a post-Marian maniple would have a paper strength of 180...
I don't know how you came up with that number. At the time of the professional armies of the Republic, the maniple had become largely obsolete as a tactical unit: Caesar never uses the word manipulus in De Bello Gallico and it appears only once in De Bello Civili. In contrast, the word cohors or cohortes appears dozens of times in those works. If the maniple continued to consist of two centuries it would have numbered about 160 men.

A Polybian cohort had 360 men, ...A Polybian Legion had 3,600 legionariesThe only way to divide a Polybian legion into cohorts is if you consider a cohort to be one maniple each of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii, plus 1/10 of the legion's Velites. That would normally come to 420 men, though it could be as many as 600. The Polybian legion normally had 4200 infantry and 300 cavalry, though infantry strength was commonly increased to 5200, and we know of at least one occasion (during the 3rd Macedonian War - Livy 44.21) when the infantry strength of two legions was raised to 6000.

Lanceari

09-23-2009, 23:00

I don't know how you came up with that number. At the time of the professional armies of the Republic, the maniple had become largely obsolete as a tactical unit: Caesar never uses the word manipulus in De Bello Gallico and it appears only once in De Bello Civili. In contrast, the word cohors or cohortes appears dozens of times in those works. If the maniple continued to consist of two centuries it would have numbered about 160 men.

The only way to divide a Polybian legion into cohorts is if you consider a cohort to be one maniple each of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii, plus 1/10 of the legion's Velites. That would normally come to 420 men, though it could be as many as 600. The Polybian legion normally had 4200 infantry and 300 cavalry, though infantry strength was commonly increased to 5200, and we know of at least one occasion (during the 3rd Macedonian War - Livy 44.21) when the infantry strength of two legions was raised to 6000.

180 was a typo. I corrected above. Marian centuries had 80 men. A maniple had two centuries. 80 x 2 = 160.

The smallest unit in the roman army was the contubernium. A contubernium was a squad of 8 men, who lived together, worked together, trained together and fought together.

During the Polybian era eight contubernia were grouped into a century: 8 x 8 = 64. Some historians believe that the Centurion, Optio, and Signifiers (the NCO's) were originally selected from among the 64 four men of century. But it seems this practice eventually change so that at least the Centurion was a senior member with more experience.

Sixty in latin is Sexaginta. It is possible that a Senturion (with S) may have been a person in charge of Sixtyfour men... And eventually the term century was adopted to mean a unit of sixty four men.

Centuries worked in pairs, two centuries formed a maniple. A Polybian maniple had 64 x 2 = 128 legionaries (except for triariis). The senior of the two centurions would lead the maniple. The maniple, not the century, was the tactical unit of the roman legion.

Triariis were different. Many historians think that the tirarii maniple had only one century, instead of two.

Polybian Cohorts had one maniple of hastati, one maniple of principes, and one maniple of triariis. Hence a Polybian cohort would have 2H +2P +1T = 5 centuries or 5 *64 = 320. A cohort would also have a number of velites attached to it. Sources are not clear as to the exact number of velites attached to each cohort. Furthermore, I am not sure whether velites were considered legionaries.

The legion had 10 cohorts, so if you account for the fact that Triarii maniples had only one century, you get 3,200 heavy legionaries per legion. This number does not include velites and other supporting units.

Marian centuries had 10 contubernia per century. Hence each century grew from 64 to 80 men. It seems that during the Marian era, centurions were senior soldiers drawn from other units. I do not know whether the other NCO's were drawn from the ranks or were senior soldiers drawn from other units.

In any event, a Marian century had 80 foot soldiers. Marian Centuries paired up to form Maniples of 160 men. At some point, triariis were eliminated, and thereafter a cohort was formed by three maniples of 160 men each: 160 x3 =480. A Marian legion had 10 cohorts. 10 x 480 =4,800 legionaries.

I understand Marian legionaries did not serve as velites. At some point after the Marian reforms light infantry and skirmishing was left to the auxilia, which were not Roman citizens. Not so for siege weapons. When a Marian legion was equipped with scorpions, a number of men were drawn from each century to man the scorpions. I think the same was true for other artillery/siege platforms, but my memory is not clear on this point.

Keep in mind that all the above numbers are paper strength only. Particularly for a Marian Legions, where men served at 16 years (or more depending on the time period), actual strength must have been substantially lower than paper strength.

Two thousand years ago, Maniples of 120 - 160 men were the tactical units of the Roman army. These maniples of 120-160 men, resemble EB's tactical units (EB cohorts) in large or huge setting.

...in this particular sense you may say I "consider a cohort to be a maniple". However, you could say that I consider a maniple to be maniple, while others consider a maniple to be a cohort. :rolleyes:

Atilius

09-24-2009, 06:07

The smallest unit in the roman army was the contubernium. A contubernium was a squad of 8 men, who lived together, worked together, trained together and fought together.
This is true of the professional army of the late republic through roughly the 2nd C AD. Later, Vegetius describes a contubernium of ten men:

The centuries were also subdivided into messes (contubernia) of ten men (decem militibus) each who lay in the same tent and were under orders and inspection of a Decanus or head of the mess (caput contubernii).

-De Re Militari, 2.13

But the term contubernium has no known connection to the Polybian army. Polybius does refer to cavalry officers (decuriones) who appear to have commanded 10 men, so if a subdivision of the century existed at this time it's odd that he didn't mention it.

During the Polybian era eight contubernia were grouped into a century: 8 x 8 = 64... Sixty in latin is Sexaginta. It is possible that a Senturion (with S) may have been a person in charge of Sixtyfour men... And eventually the term century was adopted to mean a unit of sixty four men.

That's just nonsense. I challenge you to cite a credible source for it.

What Polybius actually says is this (6.19-24, Shuckburgh translation):

But when they have selected the number prescribed,—which is four thousand two hundred infantry for each legion, or at times of special danger five thousand,—they next used to pass men for the cavalry...and they enrol three hundred for each legion...

The division is made in such proportions that the senior men, called Triarii, should number six hundred, the Principes twelve hundred, the Hastati twelve hundred, and that all the rest as the youngest should be reckoned among the Velites...

The Principes, Hastati, and Triarii, each elect ten centurions according to merit, and then a second ten each. All these sixty have the title of centurion alike,...Next, in conjunction with the centurions, they divide the several orders (omitting the Velites) into ten companies each, and appoint to each company two centurions and two optiones;..
To summarize: the standard Polybian legion consisted of 1200 Velites, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Principes, 600 Triarii, and 300 Equites for a total of 4200 infantry and 300 cavalry. The Hastati, Principes, and Triarii were each divided into 10 maniples - translated above as "companies". There were 2 centurions for each maniple which means centuries of Hastati and Principes had 60 men and centuries of Triarii had 30 men.

Many historians think that the tirarii maniple had only one century, instead of two.

If any historian makes this claim he's mistaken. Polybius clearly says the Triarii had the same number of centurions as the Hastati and Principes.

The legion had 10 cohortsFor the Polybian army this makes no sense. Where does this claim come from? Polybius mentions only that the different classes (H, P, and T) are divided into 10 maniples; he says nothing about the legion as a whole being divided this way. This is most likely an attempt to find a (non-existent) connection between Polybian and Marian organization below the level of the legion and above that of the century.

...in this particular sense you may say I "consider a cohort to be a maniple"...A maniple is two centuries. In the EB time period, a cohort is:

a) an allied contingent of roughly 500 men (e.g. Livy 21.17), or
b) a unit of six centuries in the army of the late republic and the principate

You can consider a cohort to be a maniple if you'd like, but that doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't make sense.

Dutchhoplite

09-24-2009, 08:39

From this topic:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=26432

...which makes a point valid throughout history, and one universally known to any who have served in the military. Below are some brief observations, including a personal anecdote that illustrates this universal truth.....

1. The ancients did not place the same value on "orbats" or organisation tables we do.....obviously for ration purposes, pay etc it was important to know how many were actually present at a given time, but apart from scraps of information on surviving papyri from Imperial times about ACTUAL strengths ( as opposed to 'table ones'), we have little or nothing to go on for the Republic.

2. The literary sources are obviously not those official beaureacratic forms set out above, and authors frequently have little or no Miltary experience, and, for example, an exact "4,850" in one source can easily become "5,000" in another, because the latter chooses to use round numbers. All too often too, numbers given exclude ‘supernumeraries’ for example a calculated strength for a late 1st C AD legion is often given as 5,240 ( 9x 480 cohorts plus 1st cohort 800 plus 120 horsemen) but if we add in ‘supernumeraries’ – say 1 Legate, 1 Tribunus Laticlavii, 1 Praectus Castrorum, 5 Tribuni angusticlavii, 1 Aquilifer, 53 Centuriones, 53 Signifers, 53 Tesserarii 54 Cornicens and 53 Optiones (N.B. the exact number is uncertain for some of these, and whether all of them are ‘supernumerary’ or not), the real “Table Number” may be as high as 5,514 ( aprox) .

3. Even in modern times, the "orbat" total is NEVER the actual number of troops on the ground.

For example, during my military service I commanded a platoon with a paper strength of 33. With recruiting shortages it never reached that number, and was frequently much lower, due to men on leave, on detachment, on courses, ill, injured and so on, so that in the field I usually had twenty something men to carry out the tasks allocated to a nominal 33. On one glorious field exercise, another platoon was understrength and it's commander absent on a course and for the duration of the exercise I had an overstrength platoon of 42 !
The surviving military returns reflect a similar situation in Imperial Roman Armies, and doubtless stretched back to the dawn of time !!

In ancient times, and up until the twentieth century, armies all too literally 'melted away' with large numbers deserting or dying from illness....we get glimpses of this from some of the numbers Caesar gives as a 'for instance'.

I would venture to suggest that not one Legion ever marched out of Rome with the exact number of men it was supposed to have.

However, accepting this, we can still try to determine how many men there should have been, for that information can be useful.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it should also be noted that over its thousand years or more of existence, the Roman army changed and evolved constantly, including its numbers.

Even the numbers over a short period could change, especially under the exigencies of War, as the following survey demonstrates:

Legions raised in 218 BC 4,000 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XXI.17 )

Legions at Cannae 216 BC: an unprecedented 5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry strong, as opposed to the standard 4,000 Infantry and 200 cavalry (Polyb III.107)

After Cannae; Legions of 'volones' : 4,000 Infantry, no cavalry (LivyXXII.57 )

Herdonea 212 BC ; Legions and Allies together; 18,000 - implying Legions of standard strength (Livy XXV.21)

Scipio’s Legions for the invasion of Africa 205 BC; 6,200 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XXIX.24) – though other authors ( e.g. Appian) imply 5.000 strong.

Italian North-West frontier/Liguria 182 BC; 5,200 infantry and 300 cavalry.(LivyXL.1&18)

Spain 184 BC ; Legions not to fall below 5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry (LivyXXXIX.38)

Spain 180 BC ; Legions not to fall below 5,200 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XL.36)

Macedonia 171 BC ; 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XLII.31)

Macedonia 169 BC ; 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry; Spain and Liguria 169 BC 5,200 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XLIII.12 )
– an example of different sized Legions on different fronts in the same year.

Polybius, in his detailed discourse on the Legion (VI.19) refers to “..anciently the custom to choose the cavalry; and to add 200 horsemen to each 4,000 infantry”.
He then goes on to describe the Legion in detail, presumably of his own day c. 160-150 BC as “ In the present times… 300 cavalry are assigned to every Legion…The number allotted to each Legion is 4,200 and sometimes 5,000, when any great or unusual danger is foreseen.

Even this short survey demonstrates the point that the numbers, even on paper let alone actuality, could vary depending on circumstance. A reading of Caesar also highlights just how low actual numbers could get on the battlefield on occasion.

Lanceari

09-28-2009, 18:23

The... term contubernium has no known connection to the Polybian army. Polybius does refer to cavalry officers (decuriones) who appear to have commanded 10 men, so if a subdivision of the century existed at this time it's odd that he didn't mention it....

That's just nonsense. I challenge you to cite a credible source for it.

A centurion must have had to detach his men into smaller groups to perform tasks. The Roman Army was a few centuries old by the time Marian Reforms were implemented. Long before Marian times a name must have come to use to describe the smaller detachments the centurion divided his men to work in camp, etc. The latin term "conturbo" means to confuse or to scatter. So the term "contubernia" may have related to the subgroups in which a century scattered when it had to perform different tasks in camp, or simply to sleep...

Albeit from a later period, barracks excavated suggest men were lived eight to a room (four bunk beds to a a room). We also know that legionaries formed in lines four men deep. Hence, if men were scattered into smaller groups, it would make sense to scatter them into groups of eight, or at least into a multiple of 4 (they fought 4 men deep), or a multiple of 8, (they slept 8 to a room).

Maybe Marius coined the term contubernium, but, I would be very skeptic about it. It seems misguided to assume the Roman army spent several hundred years before Marian times without ever coming up with a term to describe groups of men in which a century scattered to sleep, to patrol, to work, etc.

Polybius may have mentioned that cavalry was organized into 10 men because there was an officer (Decurion) formally encharged of the Decuria. His interest may have been in the officer (Decurion) and not in the organization. Since there was no formal NCO in charge of a contubernium, he may not have cared to mention it. Also, there were less cavalrymen, it was a scarcer and more expensive resource, manned by wealthier people... all of these may have been factors influencing Polybius to speak of the Decurion, a young wealthy officer which may someday be someone, while he may care a bit less about the details of the common infantryman.

...The Hastati, Principes, and Triarii were each divided into 10 maniples - translated above as "companies". There were 2 centurions for each maniple which means centuries of Hastati and Principes had 60 men and centuries of Triarii had 30 men.

I stand corrected, a Tirarii maniple had two centruries of 30 men each. However, my point was that a Triarii Maniple had 60 men. Whether this is so because it had two centuries of 30 men or 1 century of 60 men, the end result is still 60 men per Triarii maniple.

Polybius mentions only that the different classes (H, P, and T) are divided into 10 maniples; he says nothing about the legion as a whole being divided this way.

I will concede Polybus does not mention the term cohort. But there are a few things we know about Roman Army besides what Polybus tells us. For example, we know a Legion commander or Legate had 6 Military Tribunes. What was their command? Being aristocrats, maybe they were there just for the ride. However, my recollection from prior readings is that one tribune took command of the cavalry, and the other five tribunes took command of two cohorts each (or one fifth of the legion each).

The Military Tribunes provided some intermediate command structure between the Legate and the 30 maniples of heavy infantry, plus velites, plus cavalry. This structure may have been somewhat adhoc, but if the army was to wage war successfully for hundreds of years before Marius, it must have developed a moderately effective command structure.

Now, the existence of Military Tribunes prior to Marius does not prove the term cohort was used before Marius. In any event, a Military Tribune would have commanded the equivalent of two cohorts. A mismatch at first glance. Yet, Romans had a tendency to organize everything in pairs. Two cohorts form a maniple. Two consuls, two legions, etc. Hence, it would not be too out of line for a Military Tribune to command two cohorts.

In any event, my point is that Romans must have realized a Legate could not command 30 maniples, plus velites plus cavalry in the midst of battle. The existence of Military Tribunes supports such a hypothesis: that Romans recognized the need for an intermediate level of command.

Whether in battle or otherwise Legions must have regularly formed detachments long before Marius. And a name must have existed for such detachments. At some point, Romans adopted the term cohort to refer to such detachments. This practice probably evolved over time. At first, the size of a cohort may have been somewhat indeterminate. Subsequently it was formalized at 3 maniples. Maybe, Marius was responsible for formalizing the term cohort as a group of exactly 3 maniples. I would be a bit skeptic about this. But, even if he did, he probably was formalizing a term and practice that existed prior to his time.

Having said all of the above, it seems you missed the entire point of my prior post. Clearly my fault since you paid so much attention to the each and every detail. Allow me to explain where I was trying to get with all the above:

EB/RTW polybian legionary units have 40 men per unit in standard size. (80 in large, 160 in huge). EB/RTW calls these units cohorts. Now, a polybian century had 60 men, and a maniple had 120 men. My point is that the tactical units depicted by EB and RTW resemble maniples much more than they resemble cohorts.

Of course, you may argue these are scaled units, where 40 men represent 400 men. The problem with such "scaling" is that it distorts the depth of the line... If each EB man stands for 10 real men, what is the scaled depth of your 4x10 EB cohort?

bigmilt16

09-28-2009, 20:36

What is the harm in using a "full-stack" to represent a legion instead of a half-stack?

Lanceari

09-28-2009, 22:13

What is the harm in using a "full-stack" to represent a legion instead of a half-stack?

In real life, a Marian Cohort formed into a 4 x 120 men rectangle (4 x 120 = 480).

If you want to scale this formation by a factor of four, then you should form them in the battlefield into a 2 x 60 = 120 rectangle. i.e. you divide the depth and front by the same factor of two; 2x60=120 = 1/4th of 480. Only in this way you maintain the actual proportions of the formation.

If you don't reduce the depth in the same proportion that you reduce the width of the formation you are distorting the proportions of the formation. You miss the actual sense of how thin was the actual formation... unless...

...unless, we do not pretend that a rectangle of 4x50 men in normal settings (4 x 100 large settings) stands for a full cohort.

If we are not willing to reduce the depth of our EB/RTW line; if we want to keep a depth of 4 in our smaller size units; then we should accept we are not presenting a scaled model of the cohort. What we are representing has the width vs. depth proportions of a maniple, not a cohort.

Atilius

09-29-2009, 05:08

A centurion must have had to detach his men into smaller groupsThis does not imply the existence of an eight man unit of organization.

We also know that legionaries formed in lines four men deep.Do we? Cite a reference for that.

But there are a few things we know about Roman Army besides what Polybus tells us. For example, we know a Legion commander or Legate had 6 Military Tribunes. What was their command?
In fact, almost the first thing Polybius tells us about the Roman army in his discussion of the Roman army (6.19) is that six military tribunes were posted to each legion. Later (6.34), he states that rotating pairs of tribunes shared command of the legion:

They [the Tribunes] divide themselves in twos, and each pair is on duty for two months out of six; they draw lots for their turns, and the pair on whom the lot falls takes the superintendence of all active operations. The prefects of the socii divide their duty in the same way. At daybreak the officers of the cavalry and the centurions muster at the tents of the Tribunes, while the Tribunes go to that of the Consul. He gives the necessary orders to the Tribunes, they to the cavalry officers and centurions, and these last pass them on to the rank and file as occasion may demand.

During this period, when it was extremely rare for a Consul to command more than two legions, the Consul had no need of a legate: he commanded his legions through the two tribunes currently in charge of each. It's also difficult to see how, if a Polybian legion were divided into ten cohorts, the command of the cohorts would have been distributed among the remaining four tribunes.

Lanceari

09-29-2009, 18:53

During this period, when it was extremely rare for a Consul to command more than two legions, the Consul had no need of a legate: he commanded his legions through the two tribunes currently in charge of each. It's also difficult to see how, if a Polybian legion were divided into ten cohorts, the command of the cohorts would have been distributed among the remaining four tribunes.

Your refer to the period when it was "extremely rare for a Consul to command more than two legions."

You correctly state that for a long period of time Rome only had two legion. However, during this period, each legion was commanded by a separate consul. (There were two consuls.) And, during this period, it was most exceptional for both legions to work together.

The whole idea between the two consuls and two legion arrangement was based on the notion that no single person should ever command the entire army, so as to avoid a coup. As a result, there was no provision for both legions to work together under a single command. Christian Meier wrote a great book where he takes some time to explain the Roman Constitution and gives great insights into it. I strongly recommend it.

Combining both legions, as in Cannae, was truly exceptional. Roman ways did not provide a command solution for such an exceptional circumstance. In fact the whole idea between the two legion and two consul arrangement was to prevent a single command. At Cannae the two consuls marched together alternated command of the entire army, one day each. A rather counterproductive solution, and clearly an exceptional arrangement under exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, you state that "Polybius tells us... that six military tribunes were posted to each legion." Accordingly if you ever were to combine the two legions together, you would get 12 military tribunes for two legions. 6 +6 = 12.

In the very exceptional case where both consuls marched together in a combined army, at least one of the consuls would keep direct command of his legion while the other consul assumed command of the combined force. So only one legion, at most, was left without his consul commander. And, hence only in one legion needed to make special arrangements you cite. The other legion would retain its own consul plus its full staff of Military Tribunes.

The combined army would have 2 consuls and 12 Military Tribunes. One consul to exercise control of the entire army. One consul to command one Legion. 10 MT's would be available to assign 1 Military Tribune for each pair of cohorts. And you still have two Military Tribunes left. As per your suggestion, these two MTs could take operational command of the remaining Legion. Alternatively, one of them could take command of this remaining Legion, while the other MT took command of the cavalry.

Finally, we agree, if the consul (or legate) was missing, Romans most have provided a command solution where the military tribunes assumed temporary command in his absence. But this was a temporary solution in the absence of the consul (or legate). If the consul (or legate) was present, he was the commander of the legion.

Lanceari

09-29-2009, 20:52

...Even in modern times, the "orbat" total is NEVER the actual number of troops on the ground....

Even this short survey demonstrates the point that the numbers, even on paper let alone actuality, could vary depending on circumstance. A reading of Caesar also highlights just how low actual numbers could get on the battlefield on occasion.

I whole heartedly agree with your entire post.

bigmilt16

09-29-2009, 21:01

Your refer to the period when it was "extremely rare for a Consul to command more than two legions."

You correctly state that for a long period of time Rome only had two legion. However, during this period, each legion was commanded by a separate consul. (There were two consuls.) And, during this period, it was most exceptional for both legions to work together.

The whole idea between the two consuls and two legion arrangement was based on the notion that no single person should ever command the entire army, so as to avoid a coup. As a result, there was no provision for both legions to work together under a single command. Christian Meier wrote a great book where he takes some time to explain the Roman Constitution and gives great insights into it. I strongly recommend it.

Combining both legions, as in Cannae, was truly exceptional. Roman ways did not provide a command solution for such an exceptional circumstance. In fact the whole idea between the two legion and two consul arrangement was to prevent a single command. At Cannae the two consuls marched together alternated command of the entire army, one day each. A rather counterproductive solution, and clearly an exceptional arrangement under exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, you state that "Polybius tells us... that six military tribunes were posted to each legion." Accordingly if you ever were to combine the two legions together, you would get 12 military tribunes for two legions. 6 +6 = 12.

In the very exceptional case where both consuls marched together in a combined army, at least one of the consuls would keep direct command of his legion while the other consul assumed command of the combined force. So only one legion, at most, was left without his consul commander. And, hence only in one legion needed to make special arrangements you cite. The other legion would retain its own consul plus its full staff of Military Tribunes.

The combined army would have 2 consuls and 12 Military Tribunes. One consul to exercise control of the entire army. One consul to command one Legion. 10 MT's would be available to assign 1 Military Tribune for each pair of cohorts. And you still have two Military Tribunes left. As per your suggestion, these two MTs could take operational command of the remaining Legion. Alternatively, one of them could take command of this remaining Legion, while the other MT took command of the cavalry.

Finally, we agree, if the consul (or legate) was missing, Romans most have provided a command solution where the military tribunes assumed temporary command in his absence. But this was a temporary solution in the absence of the consul (or legate). If the consul (or legate) was present, he was the commander of the legion.

That is very interesting insight into the command structure of the legions. How would one simulate this in the game? It would be virtually impossible to conquer some areas of the map or defend Roman holding with merely two "legions" composed of two half stacks.

Besides, in Rome, were there not numerous legions throughout the republic/empire? Is one solution to place tribunes in charge of the "stacks" and have them answer to praetors/consuls in game?

I guess my question is more about how to simulate such a unique command structure through houserules considering that the game was never designed to appreciate this.

Lanceari

09-30-2009, 13:47

Polybius mentions only that the different classes (H, P, and T) are divided into 10 maniples; he says nothing about the legion as a whole being divided this way. This is most likely an attempt to find a (non-existent) connection between Polybian and Marian organization below the level of the legion and above that of the century.

Polybius uses the term cohort in reference to army detachments in Spain during the Second Punic War. See Adrian Goldworty's The Complete Roman Army (p. 87 et seq.)

...so term existed and stood for a detachement "below the level of the legion and above that of the century."

My interpretation on the Passage you cite is that Polybius main focus was on the Roman officer class. The modern audience may be more interested in the organization of the army. But, this may not have been the preferred point of reference in antiquity. It seems, back then people paid more attention to "who is who." Since cohorts had no formal officer in charge, Polybius probably saw no need to include them in the passage you cite.

That is very interesting insight into the command structure of the legions. How would one simulate this in the game?

I think EB is just great as it stands.

I would not refer to the Legionary units as "cohorts". I would simply call them legionaries. This would be consistent with EB's treatment of other units in the game (e.g. a "classical hoplite" unit is simply a "classical hoplite").

I do not know how to replicate the Military Tribunes within the RTW framework...

Atilius

10-01-2009, 09:44

Polybius uses the term cohort in reference to army detachments in Spain during the Second Punic War. See Adrian Goldworty's The Complete Roman Army (p. 87 et seq.)Goldsworthy is discussing the post-Marian army there - he's simply speculating that the word cohort might have been for a temporary formation in Polybian times. He says: "It may be that cohort was the term employed for any temporary unit larger than a maniple but smaller than a legion."

In his discussion of the Polybian army, Goldsworthy quite properly mentions the cohort only as a subdivision of an ala of Italian allies.

In his very detailed discussion of the organization of the Roman legion, Polybius entirely ignores the organization of the Italian allies. He uses a remarkable number of greek words for the Roman maniple: τάγμα, σπεῖραν, σημαίαν, and the very generic μέρη, while legion is usually just στρατόπεδον. Not coincidently, Polybius never uses his word for cohort (κοόρτις) in this section. In fact, the word is found only twice in the whole of his Histories. The reason is that during this period, the Romans used the word cohort (cohors) to refer to a unit of Italian allies, not of legionaries.

The first mention of the word is applied to the leading group of soldiers on the far right (and left) who begin the manuever from line into column at the battle of Ilipa. The far right and left were of course where the Italian allies were positioned, and the extraordinarii would have occupied the far right.

The second mention takes place during a small battle with Iberians, immediately after Scipio had suppressed a legion that had mutinied. The only heavy infantry mentioned are four cohorts, implying that Scipio did not wish place his recently disloyal legionaries in combat.

Lanceari

10-01-2009, 23:26

...The only heavy infantry mentioned are four cohorts, implying that Scipio did not wish place his recently disloyal legionaries in combat.

If I understand correctly, you propose Romans used the term cohort to refer to army detachments of their Italian Allies, and, from this assumption you conclude that when they used the term cohort it must refer to an Army Detachment of Italian Allies. This is a bit circular.

The Romans used the term Ala to refer to a Legion size contingent of Italian Allies. In the particular examples cited above, maybe the army detachments referenced were Allied Army detachments (though the record is unclear). However, even if in these particular instances the particular detachments cited were Allied detachments, it does not follow that the term cohort was exclusively used in reference to Allied detachments.

The instances you cite tell us that during the period Roman Generals found instances where they needed to detach substantial number of men from the main group. They had to create "army detachments". The instances you cite also tell us that they used the term cohort at least in reference to Allied army detachments. This begs the question: what would they call an army detachment consisting of several hundred Roman legionaries?

My point is that: (1) The term was in use before 100 B.C. when the Marian Reforms took place. (2) The term stood for a formation of several hundred men. (3) Rome manned armies of thousands of men for a long time prior to Marius. (4) During this period Rome must have found plenty instances in which they needed army detachments of a size between a maniple and a legion. (5) We know of no other term available for a formation of several hundred men. (6) If a culture has developed a concept, and, attached a name to that concept, if it has a need to communicate that concept, and it has no other word available for that concept, it will most likely use that word to represent that concept.

I already provided evidence of #1 and #2. #3 is a well documented fact.

Maybe we disagree on #4. Maybe you think Romans would never consider operating army detachments of intermediate size, even when tactical conditions demanded it - not even to guard camp, a baggage train, or a river crossing. And, not even when necessary to disperse a unit to gather food, etc.

We seem to agree in #5.

And, we again disagree in #6.

I will agree we don't agree.

anubis88

10-09-2009, 12:32

Not sure if anybody still cares:clown:, but this is how i make my Polybian army, and i hope it's at least 90% historical

I have
1x General,
2x Hastati
2x Principes
1x Triarri
1x Velites
1x Accensi
1x Cavalry (the roman equites, campanians or extraordinarii.

I usually fill the other slots like this
1x Pedites Extraordinarii
1x Hastati Samnici
1x Brutian hastati or whatever
1x Cavalry(ligurian, gallic itd...)
1x Ligurian spearmen, hoplites, gaeros, samnite milites,
1x Lucanians or sth... the army then looks like this...

.....VVVVVVVelitessssssssss.... AAAAAAAAcensiiiiiiiiii.............
Hastati Samnici.......Hastati....... Hastati........Brutians......
Samnite Milites.......Principes......Principes......Pedites Extra......
Cavalry wing...........Ligurian spearmen........................Triarii.........cavalry wing......
....General....

Is this the way the Quincux should work? I hope so, becouse if i find out now that i played ahistorically till this point i the campaing i will probably stop it:D:beam:

Lanceari

10-14-2009, 17:15

Not sure if anybody still cares... this is how i make my Polybian army...:

Most of the time I keep a large contingent of local inexpensive troops... since I can replace casualties locally.

However, I tend to have more than the historical share of triariis. I use triariis as a second (or third) line for both form my legionaries and my locally raised units.

During the Camillian Period I tend to recruit a lot of Roariis together with a lot of Triariis. By the time I reach Polybian I tend to have a lot of experienced Camillian Triariis which I use as a third line. (During the Polybian period I keep the old Camillian Roariis as a police force in cities and road crossing.)

I also tend to recruit mercenary archers (either horse archers or cretan archers). If storming a city, I will always have a few cretan archers mercenaries at hand. Out in the open, whenever possible I will have some horse archer mercenaries.

My stack will look something like this:

For cities without stone walls: 4 mercenary archers (cretan if possible), 4 local light infantry, 4 legionaries, 6 triariis, 1 general, 1 cavalry (preferably missile cavalry)

For cities with stone walls: 4 cretan archers, 6 pedites, 8 triariis, 1 general, 1 cavalry, (preferably missile cavalry). (This is the one exception to my rule to use locally raised units. I use pedites for wall fighting whenever possible.

Out in the open (flat terrain without woods): 2 local skirmishers, 4 local light infantry, 2 legionaries, 6 triariis, 1 general, 4 horse archer mercenaries or other missile cavalry, 1 shock cavalry.

In the woods: Mostly local skirmishers and local light infantry. A few triarris or legionariis to cover any place in the line where I fear a rout could occur. Little cavalry, but always keep one general.

In the mountains: More light infantry and missile units, less trairiis and less cavalry... but always keep one general.

anubis88

10-14-2009, 20:19

Most of the time I keep a large contingent of local inexpensive troops... since I can replace casualties locally.

However, I tend to have more than the historical share of triariis. I use triariis as a second (or third) line for both form my legionaries and my locally raised units.

During the Camillian Period I tend to recruit a lot of Roariis together with a lot of Triariis. By the time I reach Polybian I tend to have a lot of experienced Camillian Triariis which I use as a third line. (During the Polybian period I keep the old Camillian Roariis as a police force in cities and road crossing.)

I also tend to recruit mercenary archers (either horse archers or cretan archers). If storming a city, I will always have a few cretan archers mercenaries at hand. Out in the open, whenever possible I will have some horse archer mercenaries.

My stack will look something like this:

For cities without stone walls: 4 mercenary archers (cretan if possible), 4 local light infantry, 4 legionaries, 6 triariis, 1 general, 1 cavalry (preferably missile cavalry)

For cities with stone walls: 4 cretan archers, 6 pedites, 8 triariis, 1 general, 1 cavalry, (preferably missile cavalry). (This is the one exception to my rule to use locally raised units. I use pedites for wall fighting whenever possible.

Out in the open (flat terrain without woods): 2 local skirmishers, 4 local light infantry, 2 legionaries, 6 triariis, 1 general, 4 horse archer mercenaries or other missile cavalry, 1 shock cavalry.

In the woods: Mostly local skirmishers and local light infantry. A few triarris or legionariis to cover any place in the line where I fear a rout could occur. Little cavalry, but always keep one general.

In the mountains: More light infantry and missile units, less trairiis and less cavalry... but always keep one general.

Wow... You really don't seem to want to play historically:clown:

antisocialmunky

10-15-2009, 04:37

No kidding.

Lanceari

10-15-2009, 21:49

Wow... You really don't seem to want to play historically:clown:

MHM. True, however...

...at first, Roman fought alongside their Latin Allies. During this period, Latin Allies may have added as much as 50% of the Consular Army. Later on, as the Romans ventured further away from Italy, Romans recruited local allies. ... though clearly they were not trusted as much and not recruited in such large numbers (as compared to the Latin Allies).

I grant you I am rather aggressive in the use of none Roman units. But using 100% Roman stacks is not very historical either.

I certainly deviate from historical patters is my heavy use of triariis... This is strictly a gaming decision. Though I would probably use more legionaries if some of my recommendations in the thread Big Shields were adopted. ...that of course is an entirely different subject.

anubis88

10-15-2009, 22:10

MHM. True, however...

Historically... During the Camillian Period, Roman troops fought alongside their Latin Allies. During the late Polybian Period, as the Romans ventured further away from Itally, the Romans recruited local allies.

I am rather aggressive in recruiting none Roman units. So, yes, I deviate from historical practice. But using 100% Roman stacks is not very historical either.

I was refering more to your OVERUSE of Triarii and Pedites....
a Legion should have 1 of each velites, accensi, triarri, and and a cavalry unit, + 2 units of Hastati and Principes. The rest should be allies

Lanceari

10-20-2009, 17:47

I was refering more to your OVERUSE of Triarii and Pedites....
a Legion should have 1 of each velites, accensi, triarri, and and a cavalry unit, + 2 units of Hastati and Principes. The rest should be allies

While playing in the campaign map, I will use accensi and velites in Italy and the vicinity of Italy. However, as I move farther away from Italy, and, my Romanii skirmishers take losses... then I recruit local skirmishers.

My expansion outside Italy runs a lot faster than the historical roman expansion. During the polybian era my troops were fighting around the Baltic Sea, the Crimea, and westernmost Africa. When the Romans ventured that far away from Rome, they relied on local skirmishers... though of course, it took them a bit more time to get there.

So, I am left with three choices: don't expand as fast, use velites and accensi in very far away posts where you have no recruiting grounds (not historical), or, recruit local skirmishers in distant regions (like the Romans did when they got that far, during the Marian and Imperial period).

Captain Pugwash

10-20-2009, 18:36

anubis88

10-20-2009, 18:54

The General

10-20-2009, 20:21

One thing about this thread is the variety of units within a legion from a players perspective. However there appears little support for a pedite heavy stack. Its quite another from the AI. From what I have encountered playing Audei, Getai, and currently Cathage is that the roman stacks are predominantly pedites often 50% or more of the units, with a scattering of Sammite units, and then a token presence of the traditional Roman units.

Just a thought

AI tends to indeed spam Pedites/Triarii, but fortunately EBII will have means to restrict the recruitment of elite units.

While playing in the campaign map, I will use accensi and velites in Italy and the vicinity of Italy. However, as I move farther away from Italy, and, my Romanii skirmishers take losses... then I recruit local skirmishers.

My expansion outside Italy runs a lot faster than the historical roman expansion. During the polybian era my troops were fighting around the Baltic Sea, the Crimea, and westernmost Africa. When the Romans ventured that far away from Rome, they relied on local skirmishers... though of course, it took them a bit more time to get there.

So, I am left with three choices: don't expand as fast, use velites and accensi in very far away posts where you have no recruiting grounds (not historical), or, recruit local skirmishers in distant regions (like the Romans did when they got that far, during the Marian and Imperial period).

It has been repeatedly pointed to you now that people are criticizing your over use of Pedites Extraordinarii and Triarii, not the use of local skirmishers. Triarii were the oldest (or wealthiest) of heavy infantry, only to be used if needed. Pedites Extraordinarii made up even a smaller proportion of the army, and certainly were not line infantry either.

Lanceari

10-21-2009, 00:25

...It has been repeatedly pointed to you now that people are criticizing your over use of Pedites Extraordinarii and Triarii, not the use of local skirmishers. Triarii were the oldest (or wealthiest) of heavy infantry, only to be used if needed. Pedites Extraordinarii made up even a smaller proportion of the army, and certainly were not line infantry either.

In my very first post I stated:

Most of the time I keep a large contingent of local inexpensive troops... since I can replace casualties locally. However, I tend to have more than the historical share of triariis...

I use quinqux like formations when I deploy my units, except that I use my Triariis to back up both my Roman Legionaries and my non-Roman units. That is the main reason I end up having so many triariis. Again, in my fist post I said:

I use triariis as a second (or third) line for... my legionaries and my locally raised units.

From the very start I pointed out I was using more than the historical share of trariis. And, I pointed out the reason for it. You all want to share your thoughts on my choice. Thank you.

As far as pedites... Pedites make the tinniest fraction of my total army (less than 1% of all my units in the campaign map). However, I concentrate them all on the one stack I use for assaulting cities w/ stone walls.

In my first post I explained I use different stacks for different terrains (Woods, Open Country, Cities with Stone Walls, Cities W/out Stone Walls). Do you use the same unit composition to fight in each different type of terrain?

The General

10-21-2009, 11:07

In my very first post I stated:

I use quinqux like formations when I deploy my units, except that I use my Triariis to back up both my Roman Legionaries and my non-Roman units. That is the main reason I end up having so many triariis. Again, in my fist post I said:

From the very start I pointed out I was using more than the historical share of trariis. And, I pointed out the reason for it. You all want to share your thoughts on my choice. Thank you.

I'm not saying you did not acknowledge this at any point, however, since anubis88's comment on your army composition you posted twice defending your choice and on both occasions you said nothing about Triarii/Pedites but explained your use of local skirmishers, on which, I think, no one commented.

I doubt anyone's challenging Romans used local troops on their campaigns, but this is what you defended in your posts following your description of our army composition.

In my first post I explained I use different stacks for different terrains (Woods, Open Country, Cities with Stone Walls, Cities W/out Stone Walls). Do you use the same unit composition to fight in each different type of terrain?

In my opinion it would make sense that the core of the army would remain the same, imho. Roman army was quite flexible as the legions would/could be complimented with auxiliaries and with these auxiliary units you can support the heavy infantry core according to its needs. Crassus failed to do this, and we all know how he managed at Carrhae.

However, I would think it to be rather ahistorical to fundamentally change the legionary core of the armies to better suit the opponents, especially in Camillan/Polybian times. It's a game, though, and it may be played as one wishes.

anubis88

10-21-2009, 11:25

I completly agree with the General.
The main reason why the roman legions was so succesfull, was that it could be used in practicaly any enviroment... This was always Rome's strongpoint. No other nation had such an army, that could be used effectivly agains any opponent, and that's one of the reasons why rome achived what she did

Lanceari

10-21-2009, 18:11

...I doubt anyone's challenging Romans used local troops on their campaigns, but this is what you defended in your posts following your description of our army composition....

In my opinion it would make sense that the core of the army would remain the same, imho...I would think it to be rather ahistorical to fundamentally change the legionary core of the armies to better suit the opponents...

Since I had already acknowledged from the start I use more triariis than the historical proportion, I thought your concerns regarded my choice of other units...

On the second point, I agree. However, what I consider to be the "core" of my army may be smaller than what others consider to be the core of their army. In stack of 20 units, I think of my general plus my 8 most experienced triariis and legionaries as the core of my stack (roughly 45% of my stack). Everything else is non-core...and I will rebalance according to terrain and my opponent's army.

The General

10-21-2009, 20:06

Since I had already acknowledged from the start I use more triariis than the historical proportion, I thought your comments regarded my choice of other units. Furthermore, I should note many of the stacks cited in this thread are 100% roman... In fact, in this thread I seem to be an odd minority in openly acknowledging I use local troops heavily.

On the second point, I agree. However, it seems what I consider the "core" is smaller than what most of you would call your core. My core is 40%, not 80% of my army. In the campaign map, long before the Marian Reforms, too much of my fighting was taking place very very far away from Rome...

Before you get the Marian Reforms, EB leads you to rely on local troops to expand far away from Rome. That is one of the things I like so much of EB (over RTW).

History is written by the victor. Romans relied on local allies for their conquests. Romans acknowledged this fact to some extent. But, my guess is that Roman historians may not have given full credit to the contributions of their allies. They may have, perhaps unconsciously, overplayed the role of the Roman troops and downplayed the role of their allies. Such is human nature...

Firstly, I did not criticize your unit selection before I pointed out that it was your overuse of Pedites/Triarii that was under 'scrutiny', at which point I voiced my own support for the criticism. To expand on that, I might add, that I do not criticize the decision to use a large amount Triarii/Pedites, in itself, but the pretense of having 'historical' armies while using them to such a great extent (especially, apparently, in a Marian army) is on rather shaky grounds.

Secondly, I did not give a number or percentage to describe the minimum amount of factional units to be used. I think Rome, in particular, should gain victory through Roman arms though, as the national honor of Rome required this. Auxiliaries and allies complement the legions, but they shouldn't replace them.

Thirdly, I do not agree that EB tries to make player as Rome use local units over Roman heavy infantry. I think the legionaries should be raised in and shipped from Italy to conflict zones. While skirmishers could be replaced by locals as campaigns progress, I think heavy infantry should simply be reinforced with additional units raised in Italy. This simply player forces to realize the importance of logistics and limits (attempts to, at least) blitzing.

Also, just as a reminder for everyone, we're discussing a game, and specifically, we're discussing a game on an internet forum. So, no offence meant by all this.

-Praetor-

10-21-2009, 20:08

That's true... Unfurtunatly it's impossible to tell the romans to create historical legions :no:

It will be possible in EBII. :yes:

Ludens

10-21-2009, 20:50

It's technically possible in R:TW as well, by only allowing recruitment of a "legion unit" and using a script to place the actual legion on the campaign map once the unit has been trained. However, this system is unwieldy and inflexible, the A.I. won't understand it and is not obliged to use the legion as recruited.

Lanceari

10-21-2009, 23:17

...I do not criticize the decision to use a large amount Triarii/Pedites, in itself, but the pretense of having 'historical' armies while using them to such a great extent (especially, apparently, in a Marian army) is on rather shaky grounds.

...I think the legionaries should be raised in and shipped from Italy to conflict zones...

I made clear from the begining I was using more Triariis than the historical proportions call for. There was no "pretense" of this proportion being "historical".

As for Pedites, I should also make clear I recruit very few pedites. I find them too expensive. However, I find Pedites are the best wall fighters Romans can recruit. So I spare them for that one function. Pedites make less than 1% of my entire army. If you look back at my initial post, I describe 4 different stacks for 4 different types of terrain. Pedites only appear in my stack for assaulting cities with walls.

Moving on to your next point you speak of an "apparently" Marian army. The armies I was describing are Camillian/Polybian. Once I get the Marian Reforms I build Roman Barracks and recruit Marian legionaries away from Rome.

Finally, on the shipping of legionaries, I do quite a bit of that. The problem is that it takes too long to recruit them. Historically, legions were not recruited one maniple or cohort at a time. A legion was drafted all at once. Unfortunately, this is a far cry from the EB/RTW recruitment process where you have to slowly draft one unit at a time. And, particularly during the Polybian era, this affects your game too much (during the Camillian era you don't need so many troops, and during the Marian Era you have plenty places to recruit).

If I had it my way, I would allow a city like Rome to recruit in one single turn: 1 velite, 2 hastati, 2 principe, and 1 triarii (during the Polybian Era only).

Does any one know how long it took Rome to raise the legions that were slaughtered at Cannae? How long did Hannibal's campaign in Italy last? ...and, how many Legions Romans drafted (and Hanibal slaughered) during that period? And, just as important, how many cities were providing men for those legions? Can we model that rate of recruitment in EB/RTW?

Epimetheus

10-22-2009, 03:18

That's true... Unfurtunatly it's impossible to tell the romans to create historical legions :no:

I have to wonder about this a little. I suspect that the really low recruitment and upkeep costs for Roman units may be encouraging them to spam elites. If you raised the prices some, it might change the AI recruitment dynamic to something more realistic.

The General

10-22-2009, 17:00

I made clear from...
Reading your posts, seems you indeed did initially acquiesce to your armies being ahistorical, but only to go on to lengths to defend your army composition, which in turn lead to confusion on my part (hasty reading at some point, probably).

As for Pedites...
The "Pedites/Triarii" stuck from anubis88's post to my subconscious it seems, Triarii are the oh-so-huge "issue" here.

Moving on to your next point you speak of an "apparently" Marian army...
This confusion was brought about by your use of term "legionaries" this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2354162&postcount=64&highlight=legionaries) post.

Finally, on the shipping ...
It would simply ahistorical for Rome to be recruiting legionaries from noncitizen cities from faraway provinces in pre-Marian times, and R:TW mechanics limit the recruitment to one per turn, one over several turns (like ships) or as-many-you-can-get-to-the-queue per turn.

If I had it my way, I would allow a city like Rome to recruit in one single turn: 1 velite, 2 hastati, 2 principe, and 1 triarii (during the Polybian Era only).
It will be possible in EBII, thankfully, with M2TW mechanics you can recruit several turns each turn, just as it will be possible to control the amount of elite units available.

Finally, I think we've reached a point where we can recognize the futility of this "debate". There were a lot of misconceptions on both sides, and in the end, neither had or have much quarrel with the other. So, eh, truce?

Lanceari

10-23-2009, 23:13

...truce?

Truce.

I would like the opportunity to make some further comments on recruitment mechanics.

If it takes too long to recruit units, players will have to recruit fewer units... this in turn will lead players to overuse of elite units. It is not only a choice about the cost of the unit, but about the best use of a very scarce resource: the one and only production slot you available this turn in this city.

One solution maybe to allow Hastatiis and Principes to have twice as many men per unit than Triariis. My recollection is that, historically, Triarii maniples had twice as many men as Hastatii's and Principe's. For huge size settings, I would like to see Hastatiis and Principes units of 240 men while Triariis have only 120 men).

In my previous posts I never mentioned I recruit huge numbers of rorariis. I recruit more rorariis than the combined total of triariis, principes, and hastatiis. Besides being cheap, I like rorariis for two important reason: (1) they have 240 men per unit, and, (2) you do not need an advanced barrack for recruitment.

This brings me to my next point, perhaps we should make Hastatiis available in very low level barracks.

Finally, maybe EB should double the training period for Triariis and Principes. In short:

Hastatiis should have 240 men and take one turn to recruit. (Huge settings)
Principes should have 240 men and take two turns to recruit. (Huge settings)
Triariis should have 120 men and take two turns to recruit. (Huge settings)

If you adopt my recommendations, in the span of two turns you could recruit 480 Hastatiis, but only 240 Principes or 120 Triariis.