Roman Army

I've been reading 'The Making of the Roman Army' by Lawrence Keppie. There are some interesting passages I just thought I'd share.

'Livy's account must be derived from much later sources, especially Polybius, so that it's independent value is not great. Yet its very incongruitues may lend a certain measure of authority. Livy may have been attempting to reconcile patchy and discordant source material; but is difficult to imagine that the legion he describes ever existed in reality. The rorrari and accensi could be held to represent the Fourth and Fifth Servian classes now added to the other three and equipped in simple fashion. But accensi in the normal meaning of the word, should be servants rather than fighting soldiers. For the organised legion solid ground is only reached with Polybius himself'. -p20.

Keppie seems to suggest that accensi as you have them probably didn't exist.

'Antiochus had assembled a great army, comprising ... mounted archers, a camel corps and scythe-wheeled chariots.' -p43

An interesting description of some Selukid Units. These units were used at Magnesia.

Also the Urban cohort did exist but as a Roman town watch/ fire brigade.

'Several legiones urbanae , a sort of Home Guard, were formed from the old, the unfit and the under-aged for the defence of the city (urbs Romana).' -p32

The book is excellent. I wonder whether the team might create a sticky where sources might be discussed (on a fact only basis)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nic

'Livy's account must be derived from much later sources, especially Polybius, so that it's independent value is not great. Yet its very incongruitues may lend a certain measure of authority. Livy may have been attempting to reconcile patchy and discordant source material; but is difficult to imagine that the legion he describes ever existed in reality. The rorrari and accensi could be held to represent the Fourth and Fifth Servian classes now added to the other three and equipped in simple fashion. But accensi in the normal meaning of the word, should be servants rather than fighting soldiers. For the organised legion solid ground is only reached with Polybius himself'. -p20.

Keppie seems to suggest that accensi as you have them probably didn't exist.

---

Oddly enough I was thinking today about this matter as well, and I reached about the same conclusion. I found it odd that a weak, low-morale unit was placed in the last line of the Roman army, behind the triarii. What would be the point? If the triarii fled, they wouldn't hang around either, and they are too weak to serve as a support. I could only think of two possible functions: 1) providing something to distract the enemy cavalry from the fleeing triarii, or 2) as camp followers/servants that carry a weapon for the look of it, but are not supposed to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nic

Also the Urban cohort did exist but as a Roman town watch/ fire brigade.

'Several legiones urbanae , a sort of Home Guard, were formed from the old, the unfit and the under-aged for the defence of the city (urbs Romana).' -p32

---

So why should they be included? The mod already has vigiles, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nic

The book is excellent. I wonder whether the team might create a sticky where sources might be discussed (on a fact only basis)?

---

Previous historical discussions regularly ended with the thread being closed. While I would like to see such a thread as you suggests, there seem to be too many people with an axe to grind, or who like to argue just for the sake of it.

Also, this would distract the EB team from their modding work, and we cannot have that, can't we? Not when they should be working on the patch. ~D

There is of course the option that they were held in reserve behind the reliable troops and used to exploit weak points without messing up the 3 line formation. I don't think that being behind the triarii means they had to have the same role that they did. Just because they're in the 4th line doesn't mean they held the line after the first 3 collapsed. That is indeed highly unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

There is of course the option that they were held in reserve behind the reliable troops and used to exploit weak points without messing up the 3 line formation.

---

Possible, but the way you depict them, they armed with sling and knife. Not exactly the kind of troops you can use to exploit weak points. I agree that it is unlikely they had to cover the triarii's retreat, but they are basically armed as skirmishers (and poor skirmishers at that), and yet that wasn't their function. So from this I would conclude that they probably didn't fight at all, except as a last resort.

Could they not simply fight as skirmishers after the first lines have retreated behind the triarii? I think slings would be most effective against men tired from fighting, who now also have to face a fresh line of expert troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Possible, but the way you depict them, they armed with sling and knife. Not exactly the kind of troops you can use to exploit weak points. I agree that it is unlikely they had to cover the triarii's retreat, but they are basically armed as skirmishers (and poor skirmishers at that), and yet that wasn't their function. So from this I would conclude that they probably didn't fight at all, except as a last resort.

---

Humm, I should have read the other posts more carfully, I was talking about the rorarii. :embarassed:

Apparently the Accensi impersonnated the Triarii at Suessa and the word means "reserves" if memory serves. I would think they were some form of light spearman inteneded to attack weak points or plug gaps in the line. They could just have been used as mass.

As fo the Rorarii I believe it means skirmisher, so EB probably has them as right as possible. Ultimately you shouldn't be using either very often so it shouldn't be a huge issue.

As for Livy its unlikely he performed any original reseach and his early books are almost all invention.

About Triarii, I see that their units are of the same size as hastati and principes. Should't they be half the size? Everything I've read about early Roman armies (admittedly, not much :embarassed: ) says that their maniples were only half the size of hastati and principes, 60 men instead of 120. So it's not really possible to create a historical checkerboard formation with EB's current roster...
I'd half their numbers and then up their defense a couple of points, since they'd be more vulnerable to getting swamped, and it's justified IMO because they are supposed to be toughest guys in the pre-marian legions.

Just take 2 hastati (& 2 principes) for every 1 triarii in your stack. That will satisfy realism. Small units of spearmen in TW are a bad idea, IMO - you need both breadth and depth to stop cavalry. Also, I don't think they need their stats raising - they are combat monsters already (and I love 'em).

The camillan triarii are indeed well endowed...the polybians seem a lot weaker though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The camillan triarii are indeed well endowed...the polybians seem a lot weaker though.

---

Yes - I haven't got to use them yet (too many CTDs made me stop playing), but from the stats, there does seem to be a downgrade. This may be one case where I would favour gameplay over realism and like to see some fudge to make the reforms more worthwhile (like the one CA used to make chivalric knights better than feudal ones). This is probably a minority view given the spirit of this mod, though.

I believe they're to be rebalanced. And there's one crucial advantage for the later triarii- They're much more flexible than the earlier ones.

Well the way the phalanxes can just "wheel" around to face an attack from the back kind of negates the maneuverability of later versions of triarii. In 1.5, are phalanxes more vunerable from behind?