Roman Legion composition?

[Atilius]

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]

...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]

Not sure if anybody still cares, 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

[Lanceari]

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]

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

[antisocialmunky]

No kidding.

[Lanceari]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

[anubis88]

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

That's true... Unfurtunatly it's impossible to tell the romans to create historical legions

[The General]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

...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]

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-]

That's true... Unfurtunatly it's impossible to tell the romans to create historical legions

It will be possible in EBII.

[Ludens]

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]

...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]

That's true... Unfurtunatly it's impossible to tell the romans to create historical legions

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]

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 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]

...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.