Realistic Camillian time army?

I am currently playing roman campaign at Pre marian times.

My army/armies consists of:

2 Triariai
6 Principles
5 Hastati
2 Equites
1 General
4 For different mercs out there, mainly for archers or javeliners since romans were more kind of slinger people than those.

What I am missing from historical view in this army as 200BC - 270BC is timeline I have not too much learned about, "yet":book: ?

Thanks ahead for everyone who gives critical feedback/suggestions.


PS. If you want, you can always post your own armies here. They don't need to be realistic or anything. Just explain a bit your army and why did you chose units inside it. It doesn't matter if it's fun based, historical, power or between them. :2thumbsup:

I take:

6 Hastati
6 Principes
3 Triarii
2 Acensi
1 Rorari
1 Equites

I try to get the proportions right, but of course math is hard, so I'm not exactly sure if this is accurate :dizzy2:.

That's pretty much accurate yeah... But am i right in thinking that the Romans relied heavily on their allies on the Italian Peninsula for troops and cavalry...? So shouldn't there be a couple more simple sword/spear armed infantry/cavalry that we can recruit to fight alongside the proper Roman troops?

Anyway i'm currently at 241BC and my Roman armies consist of 4 hastati, 4 principes, 4 triarii, 3 rorari, 3 accensi, a general and some cavalry... Not always equittes, sometimes i recruit leuce epos or greek hippeis... Of course this is what my army looks like when it's all shiney and new and not yet tested in battle... After the first battle there is usually very little hastati left and currently i'm fighting in north africa and my reinforcements have to come all the way from the peninsula so most armies over there usually end up being whittled down to 6 or 7 rag tag units before they recieve reinforcements... But that's what my armies look like at the moment anyway.

When i get the next reform i'm planning on using 5 hastati, 5 principes, 3 triarii, 2 of whatever long range missle units will be available to me, 2 or 3 more other kinds of light infantry, a cavalry and a general...

I use this setup because it's as realistic as i can get and also it works very well... The earliest Roman infantry though is actually pretty weak compared to what everybody else is recruiting... Carthage with their elite african infantry which look like imitation leginaires and the barbarians with their naked fanatics and usually superior infantry...

I think you are correct for the cavarly part, that most Roman cavarly were mercenaries from north. I just find it too "hard" to run one hero to north( rebel terrain in beginning of the game), recruiting all cavarly, bring em back to southern armies for fighting for sicily,southern part of Italy and some Carthagian cities. After taking northen Italy to gain access to gaul cavarly I think I will began to use them.

As I said I don't know too much of this period.

So the Romans used mercenaries from northen Italy and Samnites as "elite" swordsmen and spearmen for their army correct?

I just always tought that before Marian reforms Rome didn't trust so much of their army to mercenaries/auxilaries as they did after reform.

Thanks very much for your feedback. It seems I have some studying to do regarding this soon :embarassed:

There are some good online sites about the topic, I think the EB website may even have a link to a couple.

Also, a great book to get is Soldiers and Ghosts by J.E Lendon...:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

I think you are correct for the cavarly part, that most Roman cavarly were mercenaries from north. I just find it too "hard" to run one hero to north( rebel terrain in beginning of the game), recruiting all cavarly, bring em back to southern armies for fighting for sicily,southern part of Italy and some Carthagian cities. After taking northen Italy to gain access to gaul cavarly I think I will began to use them.

As I said I don't know too much of this period.

So the Romans used mercenaries from northen Italy and Samnites as "elite" swordsmen and spearmen for their army correct?

I just always tought that before Marian reforms Rome didn't trust so much of their army to mercenaries/auxilaries as they did after reform.

Thanks very much for your feedback. It seems I have some studying to do regarding this soon :embarassed:

---

That gives me an idea...

What if your DIPLOMATS, or SPYS, could do recruiting???

that would be awesome, and I'd imagine fairly realistic.

You'll have to lobby CA for that one, not us.

A typical pre-marian army should consist of equal numbers of Hastati and Principi, with half as many Triariai, so something like

4 Hastata
4 Principi
2 Triariai

Add 2 Velites next.

Then add to that a general's unit and one other unit of cavalry only, anything will do.

Then the rest of the stack (assuming the army is a full stack army) should be made up of allies only, ie Italians for example. Historically these armies were at best 50% Roman.

Under no circumstances should an army be totally made up of Romans, unless of course one is symbolising a double legion with no supporting troops, which kind of defeats the realism aspect of the composition.

Unfortunatly most of the italian troops aren't in the game yet. It is also good to remember that a lot of them fought in the roman manner, especially as time goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

I think you are correct for the cavarly part, that most Roman cavarly were mercenaries from north. I just find it too "hard" to run one hero to north( rebel terrain in beginning of the game), recruiting all cavarly, bring em back to southern armies for fighting for sicily,southern part of Italy and some Carthagian cities.
So the Romans used mercenaries from northen Italy and Samnites as "elite" swordsmen and spearmen for their army correct?

I just always tought that before Marian reforms Rome didn't trust so much of their army to mercenaries/auxilaries as they did after reform.

---

Not at this time, only after they had begun to fight wars across the alps in the late Republic. In a standard army of the middle republic around 1/3 of the cavarly were Roman 2/3s from the Socii, other italian people subdued by Rome, that also provided 50 % of the infantry. Their troops were not mercenaries and had to be enrolled whenever the consuls demanded it from them, and received less pay than citizen troops.

Later we will have some Pre Marian units to represent them.

Anyone know what ratio you should include rorarri, levees, accensi and cavalry to be "historic"? I read from Adrian Goldsworthy's book on Roman generals that the ratio of other troops in a pre-Marian legion was:
2 velites: 2 hastati: 2 principes: 1 triari

Should it be one levee for one hastati or just one for two? (Bearing in mind the different units sizes in EB). How common were rorarri? I read that they were phased out and looking at the stats, I can see why - they don't seem cost-effective, when you can get a much beefer hastati or principes to do the same job much better for roughly the same upkeep. Should I include them just to be authentic?

A current full stack for me would be:

4 levees
4 hastati
4 principes
2 triari
2 accensi
2 equites
1 general

But I suspect I am under-representing the heavy infantry (and rorari).

Also, anyone got any ideas about a plausible scale for RTW armies? How many legions did Rome have in the period? Is it best to think of half a stack as a legion? Or something else?

Well, my armies tend to be pretty lightweight for Rome too, but it works. Besides, the losses are easier to replace. And I managed to get 8 "roman" units to glod chevrons - the most experienced army I've ever commanded.

So, down to numbers:

1 gen: I only tend to have one "proper" army in the field and, if it is a war of conquest, then another stack of "garrison" troops, but this would be my best (read most promising) general

2 accensi: cheapo llight troops for taking of enemy's skirmishers.
2 Boatroas (northern archers): same job as the accensi, usually a bit more specialised.

3 hastati: with 1 golden chevron each. As I said this is my core army.
4 princies: some with 1 , one with 2 gold chevrons. If they can't do it, its hopeless.
2 triarii: both have 1 golden chevron although I don't use them extensively.

1 equites: 2 golden chevrons too. These guys alone have broken Gaesatae. Which is no small thing.

Then there are usually a couple of units of Lugoas, to do the sapping, push rams, absorb charges, etc. These are recruited for each campaign and are not a part of the standing army.

1 Leuce Epos: Well... they are not fantastic but come handy from time to time, and they are usually so massacred after a campaign I just disband them.

The last 3 units depend on who am I fighting. For instance, after I conquered Sicily I tend to fill them with Lybian infantry as they are pretty solid troops good for supporting my infantry and storming walls even. Usually though, for my northern campaigns I use heavy barbarian ingantry, with pretty much the same purpose, storming walls, charging the flanks, etc.

I reckon I probably got close to that 50% ratio for Roman-non roman units... Whaddaya think?

Rorari aren’t bad troops. You have to take into account that they have a heck of a lot more man in the units that Hastati. I use them as reserves, as long as you don’t throw them up against something nasty they will hold. Plus when on campaign they make good garrison troops due to their number of a cheap cost, plus if an attack does come they can hold their own.

I normally have 1 Rorari for each Hastati and I keep the regular troops numbers historic. Although after a few towns the Rorari are left to hold towns unless I can make some cheap troops in the town to do the job for them in.

I havent ahd time to trian up more men yet, im goin got romanize the entire penisular, take 2/3s of scicily and then il think about my armies, maybe someon should write an article about historical armies in all of the periods,

and this is a bit off-topic, but in a late republican army, how many of those lighter leigonaries should you have in a legion compared to regular legionaries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spitful

maybe someon should write an article about historical armies in all of the periods

---

I agree. I really could use a guide for creating historically realistic armies. I wish that some people who have researched this matter could start a new thread regarding this.

So all of you ancient warfare historics, open those dusty braincells and perhaps book or two to give us some accurate information :coffeenews:

Hehe...read Soldiers and Ghosts by J.E Lendon...:book:

Also take a look at this:

The Early Legion (4th century BC)
In abandoning the phalanx, the Romans showed their genius for adaptability.
Though much of the credit might not be due to the Romans alone. For Rome was a founding member of the Latin League, an alliance initially formed against the Etruscans. The development of the early legion therefore might well be seen as a Latin development.
There were now three lines of soldiers, the hastati in the front, the principes forming the second row, and the triarii, rorarii and accensi in the rear.
At the front stood the hastati, who were most likely the spearmen of the second class in the previous organization of the phalanx. The hastati contained the young fighters and carried body armour and a rectangular shield, the scutum, which should remain the distinctive equipment of the legionary throughout Roman history. As weapons they carried a sword each and javalins. Though attached to the hastati were far more lightly armed skirmishers (leves), carrying a spear and several javelins.
The soldiers of the old first class now appear to have become two types of units, the principes in the second line and the triarii in the third line. Together they formed the heavy infantry.
The principes were the picked men of experience and maturity. They were similarly, though better equipped than the hastati. In fact the principes were the best equipped men in the early legion.
The triarii were veterans and still much looked and functioned like the heavily armed hoplites of the old Greek phalanx.
The other new units, the rorarii, accensi (and leves) represented what once had been the third, fourth and fifth class in the old phalanx system.
The rorarii were younger, inexperienced men, and the accensi were the least dependable fighters.

At the front the hastati and principes each formed a maniple of about 60 men, with 20 leves attached to each maniple of hastati.
At the back the triarii rorarii and accensi were organized into a group of three maniples, about 180 men, called an ordo.
As the historian Livy quotes the main fighting force, the principes and the hastati, at a strength of fifteen maniples then the following size could be assumed for a legion:

15 groups of leves (attached to the hastati) 300
15 hastati maniples 900
15 principes maniples 900
45 maniples (15 ordi) triarii, rorarii, accensi 2700
Total fighting force (without horsemen) 4800


The tactics were thus;
The hastati would engage the enemy. If things got too hot, they could fall back through the lines of the heavy infantry principes and re-emerge for counter attacks.
Behind the principes knelt a few yards back, the triarii who, if the heavy infantry was pushed back, would charge forward with their spears, shocking the enemy with suddenly emerging new troops and enabling the principes to regroup. The triarii were generally understood as the last defence, behind which the hastati and principes could retire, if the battle was lost. Behind the closed ranks of the triarii the army would then try to withdraw.
There was a Roman saying 'It has come to the triarii.' which described a desperate situation.


Hastati + Leves in front

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Principes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Triarii


Rorarii


Accensi


The famed Fluvius Camillus made some significant changes to the armament of the legion according to traditional Roman view. As the bronze helmets proved to be inadequate protection against the long swords of the barbarians, the Romans credited him with the issue of helmets made of iron with a polished surface to cause the swords to be deflected. (Though bronze helmets were later re-introduced.)
Also the introduction of the scutum, the large rectangular shield was attributable to Camillus, the Romans thought. Though in fact, in is doubtful for both the helmet as well as the rectangular scutum to have been introduced by Camillus alone.

In the early third century BC the Roman legion proved a worthy adversary against King Pyrrhus of Epirus and his well-trained Macedonian phalanx and war elephants.
Pyrrhus was a briliant tactician in the tradition of Alexander and his troops were of good quality.
The Roman legions might have been defeated by Pyrrhus (and only survived due to a near endless resource of fresh troops) but the experience gathered by fighting such an able foe was to prove invaluable for the great contests that lay ahead.
In the same century the first war against Carthage steeled the Roman army yet further, and towards the end of the century the legions defeated a new attempt by the Gauls to launch themselves southward from the Po valley, proving that now the Romans were indeed a match for the Gallic barbarians who had once sacked their capital.

At the outset of the Second Punic War, the historian Polybius tells us in his formula togatorum, Rome possessed the largest and finest army of the Mediterranean. Six legions made up of 32'000 men and 1600 cavalry, together with 30'000 allied infantry and 2'000 allied cavalry. And this was merely the standing army. If Rome called on all her Italian allies she had another 340'000 infantry and 37'000 cavalry.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

It's difficult to make a realistic army yet because they haven't included the allied and socii infantry and cavalry for us... But you can make a realistic one from the information in this thread..

4 hastati
4 principes
2 triarii
2 rorari
2 accensi
4 mercenaries to make up for the lack of allies/socii
cavalry
general