Italy should have more cities to represent Roman manpower

[bobbin]

she lost her last battle, outnumbering the Romans almost at 100:1

I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority.

3:1 or 4:1 would be more likely.

[antisocialmunky]

Yes, Caesar's army numbered 80.000, including auxillaries and allies. The number of Gallic warriors is generally estimated to 200.000 or more. However, I have my doubts about this: 80.000 seems to have been the upper limit for Roman armies, so how the hell did the far less sophisticated Gauls cope with the logistics of 200.000 men in one place? 200.000 men isn't an army, it's a 30 km tailback. And that's not including the ox-carts, armourers, servants, priests, etc. that would have accompanied it.

Also, keep in mind that the only records we have are those of Romans or Greeks working for Romans. From periods in history in which do have records of both sides, it appears that most chroniclers count every enemy twice, and include cooks, stable boys and servants in that number. The obsession of Romans with enumerating their victories probably would have contributed to that. Lastly, battles like Alesia and Watling Street were last-ditch efforts at throwing the Romans out. The majority of combatants would have been levies, not warriors.

Well, most decentralized tribal societies can raise a ridiculous amount of troops seemingly out of nowhere by just sending out the runners with muster notices and having every ablebody person from the country side show up in one place with a small supply of food, some sort of weapon to go fight some enemy within a few days before going back home with all the loot they carry.

So you have a crapton of hardy random guys join the core of the professional warriors and march off to battle.

No ability to of course for a prolonged conflict but still capable of rapid mobilization of the population for a battle or two.

@That Celtic Lady - She managed to beat several isolated Roman armies in quick succession by using numbers and surprise. So what?

[Prussian to the Iron]

I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority.

3:1 or 4:1 would be more likely.

absolutely true. just like how herodotus numbered the persians at Thermopylae at 5,283,220! lol

[antisocialmunky]

"Good odds for any Spartan!!!"

[Prussian to the Iron]

Ha-ooh! Ha-ooh! HA-OOH!

...Immortals. We put their name to the test.

[Alsatia]

I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority.

3:1 or 4:1 would be more likely.

The 100:1 was unlikely indeed. They are, most unfortunately, the only sources we can get. The supposed 100k warriors on the field would of been the size of a province or two in the same place. Supposedly, by the time of Augustus, Rome had the same population of Modern day Sydney (seemingly impossible).

[Prussian to the Iron]

how many people does modern day sydney have?

[Azathoth]

4,399,722 , according to Wikipedia.

So it really is impossible for Rome to have had as many people as modern-day Sydney.

[antisocialmunky]

Depends if you count only those living in the city proper or in the surrounding country side and travelling though. The estimates for the size of Rome at its zenith places the population between 5Mil and 10Mil.

Modern cities sizes are inflated because of all the suburbs and things growing in between cities.

[Blxz]

Depends if you count only those living in the city proper or in the surrounding country side and travelling though. The estimates for the size of Rome at its zenith places the population between 5Mil and 10Mil.

Modern cities sizes are inflated because of all the suburbs and things growing in between cities.

I always thought that Rome never got much bigger than say Brisbane is nowadays (to continue the Australia references). That would make it somewhere around 1million people. I find it hard to imagine an ancient city that can sustain 5 - 10 million people. Its hard enough these days with all our transport and sewers and water pipes. How do you move enough food in every day to feed those people when everything moves at the speed of an ox cart? And how do you move an equal amount of human crap out? I know they tended to dump it on the streets but even so they didn't swim/wade through crap after 3 days so it must have been going somewhere.

Maybe you are exaggerating slightly? If not please link me to your sources. I love to know about this kind of stuff, especially if I have been getting it wrong all these years. And what year/time period was this population reached?

[Cyclops]

I think we will see Roman manpower well represented by higher replenishment rates for certain categories of troops. This M2TW mechanism has so much potential, I can't wait to see how it pans out in EB2.

Hypothetically (I know this will never happne but bear with me) you could have extremeley limuited use units avaible only once every 200 turns or so, so we could have flaming pigs arrive in time for Zama, and then never become available again! Likewise Hannibals torch bearing bulls and other quirky (possibly imaginary) units from eccentirc historians accounts.

EG if they decide to include the Irish or Spanish super-heavies (I know they're out, but bear with me) they could be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

I think we'll see players hoarding uber units at the rear of the battle line "saving them for a rainy day", like napoleon with e guard at Borodino, not flinging them into the teeth of battle at every opportunity 'cause they are quickly replaceable.

Still no way round the FM refresh glitch though. Its realistic there's an elite bodyguard for princes and the like, just not that they came for free.

[Elzeda]

My antiquity teacher was saying the other day that the roman empire, at it's greatest extention, only had an army of 300 000 men. Not the biggest army ever, especially considering the territory they had to cover.

The assyrians (i believe they had the biggest army of Antiquity, not sure though) had an army approximated at 500 000 men. This useless bulk was part of their downfall too, as i recall. Too many for the empire to support.

Now, both infos are out of the time frame, but we were talkin bout the size of the roman army, so.

[The General]

My antiquity teacher was saying the other day that the roman empire, at it's greatest extention, only had an army of 300 000 men. Not the biggest army ever, especially considering the territory they had to cover.

The assyrians (i believe they had the biggest army of Antiquity, not sure though) had an army approximated at 500 000 men. This useless bulk was part of their downfall too, as i recall. Too many for the empire to support.

Now, both infos are out of the time frame, but we were talkin bout the size of the roman army, so.

Rome had a standing army exceeding 300,000.

This is very different from actual manpower and troops that could be raised/levied. For example, prior to the Second Punic War, Polybius claimed Rome to be able to raise 770,000 sodiers (though some estimate the real number to have been maybe 90% of that).

(More) Ancient states, such as Assyria, often relied on the use of huge (usually poorly armed and armored) levies to gain the benefit of numbers.

[Dunadd]

Atilius wrote

I don't have any great objection to the general thrust of your argument, but you're mangling the facts here. The Gallic army that invaded Etruria in 222 BC numbered 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry (Polybios 2.23).

On the Roman side (Polybios 2.24) there was an Etruro-Sabine army of 50,000 foot and 4,000 horse and two consular armies, each of 25,400 foot and 1,600 horse. One of these two consular armies was evidently in Sardinia when the Gauls began to move. I ought to point out that that both the Shuckburgh and Paton translations are defective here: each Consul had only two legions, not four, and the 32,000 allies were split between the two consular armies (see e.g. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius). Finally, a large reserve force of 50,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry was stationed at Rome. A number of smaller forces were scattered about Italy and Sicily.

So, far from being outnumbered by every Roman army, the Gallic army was significantly larger than all of the individual Roman forces.

Ah ok - thanks - either WRG had it wrong then or else (at least as likely) i've misremembered what the WRG book said (while since i read it - i'll check it again)

Bobbin wrote

I highly doubt she outnumbered them by that much, Tacitus and Dio were prone like most ancient writers to vastly inflating the enemies numbers and even they only claim 10:1 or 20:1 superiority

I think i read somewhere that most modern historians think Roman authors often added in the numbers of non-combatants to enemy armies' strength, as Celtic women and children sometimes turned up to battles to feed the warriors and to cheer them on.

The General wrote

Now that we've established that SPQR was one state, I'd be curious why you insist on having 2-4 of those precious, precious faction slots used to make one faction (collective) expand more, thus creating a very, very ahistorical geopolitical situation in Italy, in a very much history/realism driven mod?

You could argue it either way on whether it'd be more or less historical. It might make the Romans more powerful than they were at the very start of the period, but closer to their actual strength and behaviour 20 years later.

The General wrote

In EBI, SPQR can easily field several fullstacks while owning only Italy (not even Sicily, Mediolanum, Corsica or Sardinia), the problem is that the campaign AI of R:TW all too often fails to put them into good use (as those Pedites Extraordinarii/Triarii stacks do obliterate the opposition).

As has been pointed out already, however, M2:TW makes the AI moddable so it should be possible to make the factions behave more realistically (hopefully not just more aggressively, in EBI the AI factions are just suicidal as they can't resist picking a fight with the player, no matter the situation...).

If that works, i've no problem with it and since i'm not one of the modders obviously i can only make suggestions and if most modders disagree (as they seem to) it won't be done that way.

I just thought two Roman factions might get the same effect with less modding work/ difficulty with AI.

You may well know better as you're one of the modders who understands the code etc - i don't.

@various people on Boudicca

Yes, Boudicca almost certainly outnumbered the Romans in her final battle and what i was saying, like most generalisations, doesnt hold good in every case. In the wars with Pyrrhus, the Po Valley Celts and Carthage the Romans had an advantage in manpower. From the Marian reforms on smaller numbers of Romans did beat larger enemy armies due to better training and organisations.

At Alesia (i think?) Caesar had built fortifications facing inwards to besiege Alesia and outwards to stop the relieving force breaking the siege, so it was his legions training in field fortifications that was decisive. If he'd fought the same number of Gauls in an open field battle it might have gone differently - and he relied heavily on dividing and conquering the Gauls, with many of his cavalry being Gallic allies.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Yeah, it's Alesia

[Ludens]

Rome had a standing army exceeding 300,000.

This is very different from actual manpower and troops that could be raised/levied. For example, prior to the Second Punic War, Polybius claimed Rome to be able to raise 770,000 sodiers (though some estimate the real number to have been maybe 90% of that).

I wonder how he calculated that. The senate had to suspend property-requirements for levying and recruit slaves after Cannae, so I am guessing Rome's manpower reserves had been seriously depleted at this point.

Furthermore, according to Goldsworthy, conscription was very unpopular by the time of Augustus (as evinced by the trouble the emperor had in recruiting soldiers after the Teutoburg disaster), so the Roman army could not count on the endless reserves it had during the middle Republic.

@ Dunadd
Please don't double post. Use the multi-quote or edit functions to reply to multiple posts.

[The General]

I wonder how he calculated that. The senate had to suspend property-requirements for levying and recruit slaves after Cannae, so I am guessing Rome's manpower reserves had been seriously depleted at this point.

Furthermore, according to Goldsworthy, conscription was very unpopular by the time of Augustus (as evinced by the trouble the emperor had in recruiting soldiers after the Teutoburg disaster), so the Roman army could not count on the endless reserves it had during the middle Republic.

@ Dunadd
Please don't double post. Use the multi-quote or edit functions to reply to multiple posts.

Here's Polybius's account. (That's before the Second Punic War.)

Also, while it's possible (well, quite likely actually, since legions were being positioned on the frontiers, far from home for most soldiers...) that conscription got unpopular by the time of Augustus Rome also had a population that numbered in tens of millions by that point.

[Prussian to the Iron]

no. just...no. Romes population is less than 4 million today, and it has had from the dark ages untl now to grow, so over a thousand years to grow and it has gone down by tens of million? I don't think so.

[Azathoth]

no. just...no. Romes population is less than 4 million today, and it has had from the dark ages untl now to grow, so over a thousand years to grow and it has gone down by tens of million? I don't think so.

He's clearly talking about the territory under Rome's direct control at the time of Augustus, not the city itself.

[antisocialmunky]

no. just...no. Romes population is less than 4 million today, and it has had from the dark ages untl now to grow, so over a thousand years to grow and it has gone down by tens of million? I don't think so.

Sorry, population doesn't work like that. Average city sizes plummeted after the fall of the Roman Empire and its massive network of trade. It was only in the 1800s that average city sizes got even close to what they were back then.

Rome itself pretty much lost several million in emmigration after the fourth century and hasn't tried getting back to that size anytime since. Rome at its zenith was producing massive amounts of food by peasants and slaves, shipping it from all across the known world to Rome via a massive complex network of trade. Once that was gone - a system that took 700+ years to put together, everyone just went somewhere else like Constantinople or went to the country side.

However, I will take my claim that 5mil+ was the population of Rome, most estimates seem to indicate a size of between .5-1.5mil permenant residents so I'm not sure about my geography professor's source on his claim of 5mil+. It is worth mentioning that ancient Rome was smaller and modern Rome only has ~2.67mil

[Atilius]

For example, prior to the Second Punic War, Polybius claimed Rome to be able to raise 770,000 sodiers.

To clarify for everyone: Polybios' figure of approximately 770,000 is the total number of men, Roman and Allied, subject to military service in 225 BC. It would have been impossible to mobilize them all at the same time since these same men constituted most of Italy's farmers.

During the 2nd Punic war, the size of the Roman army peaked in 212 BC with 26 legions in service, totaling roughly 250,000 men, Roman and allied. In the same year, the Consuls were having difficulty raising recruits, so two pairs of triumvirs were assigned to "inspect all free-born males in every country district, market town, and local centre, and to enlist for service any who seemed fit to bear arms even though not yet of military age" (Livy 25.5). That's a pretty clear indication that Rome was reaching the limits of its available citizen manpower. This is in substantial agreement with demographic studies (e.g. Scheidel) estimating that Roman citizen mobilization peaked at about 30% on three occasions: the mid-4th century, the 2nd Punic War and the Social War.

[The General]

This is in substantial agreement with demographic studies (e.g. Scheidel) estimating that Roman citizen mobilization peaked at about 30% on three occasions: the mid-4th century, the 2nd Punic War and the Social War.

That's a pretty large number, though, for an agriculture based society.

And yes, I was, obviously enough I thought, talking about the population of the state, not the city itself.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, during the Second Punic War, they raised two massive armies in Italy itself, invaded Illyria, and then Spain while the Emprie was Italy proper and Sicily. I can't speak about the Social War, but the Crisis of the 4th century saw Hispania, Gaul, and Palmyra declare independence and barbarians invade. It was a miracle that they were able to hold it together for another 200 years. Really, the 4th century marked the turning point in Rome's power against the Gauls.

Anyway, at all 3 periods the existence of the Empire was in great jeopardy so the massive mobilization of the upper and middle class was not surprising(you have to remember, 30% of all citizens doesn't account for all foreigners or slaves - slaves that made up the majority of the Roman population). You also have to remember that citizenship was gotten through military service or you were born into it. So in reality all that happened was veterans were called back to active service and new legions were raised.

[Cyclops]

In that quote Polybius mentions the 770,000 as the manopower pool yes? And they had about 250,000 under arms at that time. Thats a fair effort for a state that basically covers the Italian peninsula and a few extras.

I read in a neat little history of Makedonia that the ruler of Pella typically raised a force of about 20,000 men for his army, with a reserve of another 20,000 in times of crisis: thats over the period from about 350-BC to the 160's or whenever they were sbnuffed out. Just ballpark, but that shows you the massive advantage Rome's colonae and socii gave them.

I believe in the later republican period there were about 200-300,000 legionaires and an equal number of auxilliaries: doubling and tripling the territory did not double or triple the manpower because those territories were often friends of Rom,e rather than directly administered territories..

I think at the height of the civil wars there were about a million Roman and allied combatants running amok, but that was a heavy overload on the econmoy and Augustus halved it.

[Prussian to the Iron]

if it was during the civil wars, then technically they were private armies, not roman (belonging to the roman state) correct?

[Cyclops]

if it was during the civil wars, then technically they were private armies, not roman (belonging to the roman state) correct?

Weeeell, according to the winning side, Octavian did what was required for the good of the state. After the fact it became legal

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...a bit like the American revolt. "We, the people (who are breaking our oaths of loyalty to his Majesty)..."

The "senate and people of Rome" (including those people intent on overthrowing the senate) were capable of fielding those large armies. Certainly the Roman state was enlarged by new system of recruitment, but it meant the hands on the tiller were changed.

[Atilius]

I can't speak about the Social War, but the Crisis of the 4th century saw Hispania, Gaul, and Palmyra declare independence and barbarians invade. It was a miracle that they were able to hold it together for another 200 years. Really, the 4th century marked the turning point in Rome's power against the Gauls.

I ought to have clarified this point: mid-4th century means 4th century BC - the time period of the Latin War.

Anyway, at all 3 periods the existence of the Empire was in great jeopardy so the massive mobilization of the upper and middle class was not surprising(you have to remember, 30% of all citizens doesn't account for all foreigners or slaves - slaves that made up the majority of the Roman population).

Slaves were definitely not a majority of any population in Italy until after the mid 2nd century BC and there is no clear evidence they ever were. There was no significant "foreign" population (as I undestand the term) in Italy during the three periods in question.

You also have to remember that citizenship was gotten through military service or you were born into it.

Citizenship was not offered for military service until well after the Social War.

[antisocialmunky]

Like I said, I thought you said 4th century AD so I ended up focusing on the later period when refering to all three. So thanks for pointing out the problems with what I said. I also should have stated taht slaves made up one of the largest segments of population.