Marian Legions?

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but I think the Marian Reform is slightly misrepresented. It was my understanding that the pre-Marian squad (decury) was renamed the octet and reduced from its traditional 10 soldiers to 8 legionaries and 2 non-combat personel during the reforms. This would bring the total number of soldiers in a century down to 80 legionaries instead of 100. My question is why this seems to have been reversed in EB- the Camillian and Polybian units have 80 troops and the Marian and Augustan cohorts have 100.

IIRC - and since the numbers in the RTW engine do not represent the actual number of soldiers in a real life units - the EB team did this to represent the larger pool of manpower that became available by the Marian reforms.
The added manpower makes the Marian legionaires by far the best and most versatile rank and file unit in EB.

First welcome.

Second, the Marian Legions kick sooooo nicely enemy behind ;-)

Anyone gotten the Imperials? They even better?

Imperials are exactly the same. But they get powerfull Cavallery too.
Still, Pedites and equites extraordinarii are better units. Just not flexible.

By the way...
Did the republic or empire ever field as much legionaries as in the 2nd punic war?

Originally Posted by seienchin

Did the republic or empire ever field as much legionaries as in the 2nd punic war?

Including both legionaries and allies, the strength of the Roman army during the 2nd Punic war peaked at about 250,000 men in 26 legions. The standing army of the early Principate numbered about 30 legions totalling about 300,000 men when auxilia are included. And this was only about half of the total manpower of the opposing armies during the late civil war period.

Including both legionaries and allies, the strength of the Roman army during the 2nd Punic war peaked at about 250,000 men in 26 legions. The standing army of the early Principate numbered about 30 legions totalling about 300,000 men when auxilia are included. And this was only about half of the total manpower of the opposing armies during the late civil war period.

Mind boggling. The sheer military power of Rome after the conclusion of the Punic war must have been terrifying to the Greeks and Macedonians who were in their sights (had they known?).

Well Rome was concurrently campaigning in Illyria, conquering Spain, and denying battle to Hannibal. If memory serves me right, I think the Macedonians were actually kinda contemplating a proxy war by supporting Carthage and Hannibal in Italy so they wouldn't have to deal with the Romans themselves. Afterall, Rome was on the other side of the Balkans to 'put down Pirates.'

Shortly there after, the Romans started supporting the Southern Greeks to undermine Macedonian power in Greece.

Someone else can probably do the issue some more justice, as this was when Rome transitioned from an Italian league to an Empire.

Well, wy not trying to give Cohors Reformata and Cohors Imperatoria 80 men strength, and discount their cost and upkeep as well? I actually found with their 100 men strength, just order them to attack any barbarians, and they'll emerge victorious because of their sheer numbers...

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Well Rome was concurrently campaigning in Illyria, conquering Spain, and denying battle to Hannibal. If memory serves me right, I think the Macedonians were actually kinda contemplating a proxy war by supporting Carthage and Hannibal in Italy so they wouldn't have to deal with the Romans themselves. Afterall, Rome was on the other side of the Balkans to 'put down Pirates.'

Shortly there after, the Romans started supporting the Southern Greeks to undermine Macedonian power in Greece.

Someone else can probably do the issue some more justice, as this was when Rome transitioned from an Italian league to an Empire.

Did that in another thread about a week ago.

And in fact the Macs did support the Carties in a small proxy/brush war against the Roman allies and holdings in the Balcans. Then in 201 BC KH asked for help against the Macs and a theoretically exhausted Rome chose to do so, leading to Kynoscephelai.

Originally Posted by Atilius

Including both legionaries and allies, the strength of the Roman army during the 2nd Punic war peaked at about 250,000 men in 26 legions. The standing army of the early Principate numbered about 30 legions totalling about 300,000 men when auxilia are included. And this was only about half of the total manpower of the opposing armies during the late civil war period.

So Rome while only in Italy had almost as much soldiers as the Empire at its height?

All the more reason for me to like the "old" Rome of Hastati, Principes and Triarii more.

Behold the Polybians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L41MJLXJAYI

This is their best video when they are fighting some Gauls: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nefrit3#p/u/3/kSRy-z3J7Vc

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

So Rome while only in Italy had almost as much soldiers as the Empire at its height?

All the more reason for me to like the "old" Rome of Hastati, Principes and Triarii more.

Goldsworthy argues that the Empire (and the late Republic) did have manpower issues. Their legions were far more professional than the old citizen levies, but they could not raise new ones in a hurry and conscription had become very unpopular.

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

So Rome while only in Italy had almost as much soldiers as the Empire at its height?

I wouldn't put it quite like that. The 26 legions serving in 212 BC were as many as Rome could manage at that time. Soon after, Rome was forced to conscript soldiers who were underaged, and 12 of the 30 Latin colonies sent word that they were out of military manpower. In the late 3rd C BC to early 2nd C BC, Rome generally fielded 8-10 legions with alae which would be approximately 100,000 men.

Originally Posted by Quintus Cicero

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but I think the Marian Reform is slightly misrepresented. It was my understanding that the pre-Marian squad (decury) was renamed the octet and reduced from its traditional 10 soldiers to 8 legionaries and 2 non-combat personel during the reforms. This would bring the total number of soldiers in a century down to 80 legionaries instead of 100. My question is why this seems to have been reversed in EB- the Camillian and Polybian units have 80 troops and the Marian and Augustan cohorts have 100.

No.

The pre-Marian Century was 60 men, not 100. Arguably, the century had not been 100 men since the Hoplite Army of the Late Regnum. Presumably, the century was divided into six tens, rather than ten sixes, though I am not sure.

The increase in the size of centuries has it's origin in the "over-size" Legions of the Macedonian Wars and after, where the numbers of Princepes and Hastati were increased by one third.

First I want to say thank you for such a quick and verbose reply- I am amazed at the number of people who responded since yesterday.

The pre-Marian Century was 60 men, not 100. Arguably, the century had not been 100 men since the Hoplite Army of the Late Regnum. Presumably, the century was divided into six tens, rather than ten sixes, though I am not sure.

Six tens would make more sense, as they were called decuries.

The increase in the size of centuries has it's origin in the "over-size" Legions of the Macedonian Wars and after, where the numbers of Princepes and Hastati were increased by one third.

So the century was 60 soldiers from the development of the legion in the first Samnite War to the subjugation of Macedonia, where it was increased by a third?

Were centuries actually a military unit until the Marian Reforms? I thought that maniples were the subdivision of the cohort until Marius decided that the maniple was too large to effectively maneuver.

By the way, how do you go about getting those cool Romani banners?