Roman army

hi, i was wondering if anyone could help me concerning the roman army...

Historically, did the mix different legions for one army?

for example, i have legio X etruria and legio V apulia, now would they have both in one army or were they in separate armies, and each army only had legions from that specific place? and, did they mix "their" units (like hastati, triarii and so) with the others like hastati samnici and so?

and also abour retraining, or replenishing the legions, were they "retrained", and if they were, only at the specific place the legion is from or from anywhere?

sorry if my question is not understandable, english is not my native language :)

thanks!

I think that legions did "retrain", but in some cases, some barbarian leaders (like Cesar) did make a new legions rather than retraining the old ones. Also, Cesar did mix more legions in one army.

That was the "Marian" ones. People with way too much cash and ambition were raising and disbanding them all the time so there generally wasn't any shortage of out-of-job soldiers looking for a new employer, I've been given to understand.

The "premarian" levies were normally mobilised on rotation AFAIK, though I don't know how they handled geographic distribution. Would seem to make sense to take as much of the manpower as possible per batch from a given area, so the soldiers are already more or less familiar with each other (and regional dialects, quirks of custom etc.) and thus "knit" faster, but OTOH that's also "putting all the eggs in one basket" as casualties go - a mauled maniple would mean an entire village or small town losing a major chunk of its adult male "rural middle class" populace...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

"putting all the eggs in one basket" as casualties go - a mauled maniple would mean an entire village or small town losing a major chunk of its adult male "rural middle class" populace...

---

Don't forget that was still happening as recently as World War One.

an entire town's male populace in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia (can't rmemeber) got wiped out in ww1 and 2 i think.

I believe I remember Legion compositions varied from place to place. Especially after the Marian and Augustan Era, Legionnaries tended to be equipped according to the region tasked to defend. For example, legionaries in Dacia would generally be better equipped against the terrible Thracian falxes, while Eastern Legionaries would have other equipment, like "cheires" (armguards) IIRC.

Maion

The laminate armguard was AFAIK used by front-rankers in Dacia to help cut down on the rate of amputations... I'd imagine the Eastern legions would have been fond of scale cuirasses instead of mail, as it works better against arrows (which were something of an ubiquitous hazard in the region).

As for World War casualties, yeah well. At least French and English units were normally regionally based, which had the aforementioned benefits RE "knit" and general sense of togetherness but also the flipside that heavy combat casualties could have disproportionate effects on the demographics of smaller locales. There aren't too many towns in either country that didn't have their war dead remembered in a monument or few, I think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The laminate armguard was AFAIK used by front-rankers in Dacia to help cut down on the rate of amputations... I'd imagine the Eastern legions would have been fond of scale cuirasses instead of mail, as it works better against arrows (which were something of an ubiquitous hazard in the region).

---

Yep AFAIK Trajan introduced Lorica manica in Dacia for that reason.

http://www.reenactorline.de/rom/ruestung/manica.jpg

Good to know. Seems I mixed up the regions, after all.

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

I believe I remember Legion compositions varied from place to place. Especially after the Marian and Augustan Era, Legionnaries tended to be equipped according to the region tasked to defend. For example, legionaries in Dacia would generally be better equipped against the terrible Thracian falxes, while Eastern Legionaries would have other equipment, like "cheires" (armguards) IIRC.

Maion

---

They put an extra layer of mail on the shoulders or something, and reinforced the helmets because the falx could cut right through the regular one without ANY trouble. :) I love Falxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

They put an extra layer of mail on the shoulders or something, and reinforced the helmets because the falx could cut right through the regular one without ANY trouble. :) I love Falxes.

---

Who doesn't love falxes, they and rhompheias(I think that's how you spell it) just kill everything.:skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebivjetar

I think that legions did "retrain", but in some cases, some barbarian leaders (like Cesar) did make a new legions rather than retraining the old ones. Also, Cesar did mix more legions in one army.

---

Ceasar barbarian?? He is considered the greater roman in history not only becouse his ability in politics and in war, but also for what he did in roman justice system to create a balanced society at the time.
Also you must considerer. historicaly any roman army in a great campaing was composed by more then one legion and thousands of Auxliares. Speaking in marian times a legion was compose by 10 cohorts and respective auxiliares. An army was compose by various legions.
Also ceasar did raise new legions, but you must considerer "ambitions mans" or mans who hold important offices like a colsul office, he had the moral and lawfull right to do that. As far as roman law at the time says. Of course that didnt stop from the rest of the senatores and other triunviros to be afraid of him. i talking about the optimates and the populares.
In game is dificult to roleplay like it should, still i belive is up to you to create your own rules.

For ancient greeks, any non-greek was a barbarian, no matter if this particular barbarian held an empire or a village XD

That's correct. The term "barbaros" was used to describe any non-Greek people. It didn't have a demeaning nature, at least not the same nature as we understand the term "barbarian" today (unwashed, uncivilized, unsophisticted etc.). The name came from the fact that the Hellenes thought the non-Greeks use the words "bar-bar" a lot, hence it became barbar-os (the masculine form).

Maion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The laminate armguard was AFAIK used by front-rankers in Dacia to help cut down on the rate of amputations... I'd imagine the Eastern legions would have been fond of scale cuirasses instead of mail, as it works better against arrows (which were something of an ubiquitous hazard in the region).

As for World War casualties, yeah well. At least French and English units were normally regionally based, which had the aforementioned benefits RE "knit" and general sense of togetherness but also the flipside that heavy combat casualties could have disproportionate effects on the demographics of smaller locales. There aren't too many towns in either country that didn't have their war dead remembered in a monument or few, I think...

---

Of course the fallacy was that being close knit doesn't do anything againt massed artillery and machine gunfire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

That's correct. The term "barbaros" was used to describe any non-Greek people. It didn't have a demeaning nature, at least not the same nature as we understand the term "barbarian" today (unwashed, uncivilized, unsophisticted etc.). The name came from the fact that the Hellenes thought the non-Greeks use the words "bar-bar" a lot, hence it became barbar-os (the masculine form).

Maion

---

Interesting :beam:
i had that ideia, still that wasnt what i meant in the post :embarassed:

1)yes the Romans did fuse legions together to make one big army... for the siege of Jerusalem (70 BC) the emperor Titus brought together 4 legions (V Macedonica,X Fretensis, XII Fulminata, XV Apollinaris) against the zealots... in the Teutoburg disaster it was 3 legions + some change that got crashed (Legions XVII,XVIII, and XIX)... despite their autonomy in terms of infantry/auxilia/cavalry adequacy each legion still numbered only 6000 so banding them together for the needs of a great campaign became a necessity... i imagine though that even so legions maintained their autonomy and identity as distinct units within a greater Roman army... (esprit de corps stuff)...

2)During the REPUBLIC the legions were made up from Roman draftees+ Italian (or other) allies+the occasional mercenaries... after the Marian reforms the Roman army became FULLY PROFESSIONAL (no draftees anymore) ... these professional soldiers would serve under their general for a given time and upon their retirement they would be awarded land shares ... the professional army augmented the Roman military efficiency but on the other hand altered the spirit of the military (from honourable service to the Republic to a client relationship between the soldier and the Big Man) ... this shift was an underlying cause for the ensuing civil wars ...
In the IMPERIAL PERIOD the Romans recruited EVERYBODY (Greeks, Gauls, Iberians, Thracians etc etc etc)...the poorer classes were more common to enlist... thus the most backwards areas of the empire generated a proportionally larger number of troops (the blood-tax theory)... at that time legions were deployed at the periphery of the empire securing its borderline from the "Barbarian" threat... a chain of forts where the Legions were stationed extended from; Britain (not including Scotland), the Rhine, modern-day-Austria,the Danube,and into Anatolia ... the veterans after completing their service where granted land shares (usually along the borderline,not far from where they served) , they were also given FULL ROMAN CITIZESHIP (if their backgroud was not already Italic) ...thus around the forts emerged Romanised agricultural-military communities ... those communities generated income and trade and projected "Romanism" , so quite a lot of those forts developed into booming towns ...
It is logical to assume that those hardened veteran communities generated a considerable number of new recruits (the profession passing from the father to his sons) -especialy amongst larger & poorer families...
TRAINING in the Roman army was intense,constant and vigorous... the roman army drilled,marched,manouveured,oftenly conducted preemptive raids and was occupied with building and maintaining the defensive infrastructure (forts, massive walls and trenches at Britain and Dacia, roads,watchtowers,siege machinery, etc etc etc)... remember also that the sheer amounts of swords, armour (chainmail,helmets,shields,greeves,lances and the like X 6000) turned each fort into a minor manifacturing center ...

I hope all these have answered some of your questions... you should study those things on your own a bit you'll come up with all kinds of cool stuff :) :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Of course the fallacy was that being close knit doesn't do anything againt massed artillery and machine gunfire.

---

Not much you could do against either anyway, other than keep your head down in a pit and hope for the best. Ergo irrelevant. Unit cohesion and "knit" is, however, important for motivation, morale, cohesion and suchlike, all of which are very important for particularly infantry combat effectiveness, so you do the math.

it makes sense that people from the same region/town/villages would prefer to stick together... army life is harsh ,cruel and unpleasant so it would be nice to go through it along with some amigos... bear in mind that topicisms back then were infinitely stronger than today ,so people would be inherently suspicious to "anyone-not-them" and instantly welcoming to compatriots ( same customs,same gods,same dialects )...
I remember reading an article abt the French legion Etrangere ... supposedly amongst its ranks there are power feuds between the different ethnic groups ... it's up to the officers to channel all that violence into a common goal and build the "unit spirit"... how to do that???
Through psychological conditioning: recruits learn to hate and love the same things... they hate their drillmaster (=badass centurion) , the "barbarous" scum and so on... they love their "charismatic" commander, the youngest guy (=mascot) in the outfit etc etc... the use of totem-like-objects which everybody respects like flags,battle standards,eagles ,relics and ceremonial practices can also be very important in building unity and cohesion out of non-homogeneous populations ...