Roman Legion composition?

[Lanceari]

I don't know how you came up with that number. At the time of the professional armies of the Republic, the maniple had become largely obsolete as a tactical unit: Caesar never uses the word manipulus in De Bello Gallico and it appears only once in De Bello Civili. In contrast, the word cohors or cohortes appears dozens of times in those works. If the maniple continued to consist of two centuries it would have numbered about 160 men.

The only way to divide a Polybian legion into cohorts is if you consider a cohort to be one maniple each of Hastati, Principes, and Triarii, plus 1/10 of the legion's Velites. That would normally come to 420 men, though it could be as many as 600. The Polybian legion normally had 4200 infantry and 300 cavalry, though infantry strength was commonly increased to 5200, and we know of at least one occasion (during the 3rd Macedonian War - Livy 44.21) when the infantry strength of two legions was raised to 6000.

180 was a typo. I corrected above. Marian centuries had 80 men. A maniple had two centuries. 80 x 2 = 160.

The smallest unit in the roman army was the contubernium. A contubernium was a squad of 8 men, who lived together, worked together, trained together and fought together.

During the Polybian era eight contubernia were grouped into a century: 8 x 8 = 64. Some historians believe that the Centurion, Optio, and Signifiers (the NCO's) were originally selected from among the 64 four men of century. But it seems this practice eventually change so that at least the Centurion was a senior member with more experience.

Sixty in latin is Sexaginta. It is possible that a Senturion (with S) may have been a person in charge of Sixtyfour men... And eventually the term century was adopted to mean a unit of sixty four men.

Centuries worked in pairs, two centuries formed a maniple. A Polybian maniple had 64 x 2 = 128 legionaries (except for triariis). The senior of the two centurions would lead the maniple. The maniple, not the century, was the tactical unit of the roman legion.

Triariis were different. Many historians think that the tirarii maniple had only one century, instead of two.

Polybian Cohorts had one maniple of hastati, one maniple of principes, and one maniple of triariis. Hence a Polybian cohort would have 2H +2P +1T = 5 centuries or 5 *64 = 320. A cohort would also have a number of velites attached to it. Sources are not clear as to the exact number of velites attached to each cohort. Furthermore, I am not sure whether velites were considered legionaries.

The legion had 10 cohorts, so if you account for the fact that Triarii maniples had only one century, you get 3,200 heavy legionaries per legion. This number does not include velites and other supporting units.

Marian centuries had 10 contubernia per century. Hence each century grew from 64 to 80 men. It seems that during the Marian era, centurions were senior soldiers drawn from other units. I do not know whether the other NCO's were drawn from the ranks or were senior soldiers drawn from other units.

In any event, a Marian century had 80 foot soldiers. Marian Centuries paired up to form Maniples of 160 men. At some point, triariis were eliminated, and thereafter a cohort was formed by three maniples of 160 men each: 160 x3 =480. A Marian legion had 10 cohorts. 10 x 480 =4,800 legionaries.

I understand Marian legionaries did not serve as velites. At some point after the Marian reforms light infantry and skirmishing was left to the auxilia, which were not Roman citizens. Not so for siege weapons. When a Marian legion was equipped with scorpions, a number of men were drawn from each century to man the scorpions. I think the same was true for other artillery/siege platforms, but my memory is not clear on this point.

Keep in mind that all the above numbers are paper strength only. Particularly for a Marian Legions, where men served at 16 years (or more depending on the time period), actual strength must have been substantially lower than paper strength.

Two thousand years ago, Maniples of 120 - 160 men were the tactical units of the Roman army. These maniples of 120-160 men, resemble EB's tactical units (EB cohorts) in large or huge setting.

...in this particular sense you may say I "consider a cohort to be a maniple". However, you could say that I consider a maniple to be maniple, while others consider a maniple to be a cohort.

[Atilius]

The smallest unit in the roman army was the contubernium. A contubernium was a squad of 8 men, who lived together, worked together, trained together and fought together.

This is true of the professional army of the late republic through roughly the 2nd C AD. Later, Vegetius describes a contubernium of ten men:

The centuries were also subdivided into messes (contubernia) of ten men (decem militibus) each who lay in the same tent and were under orders and inspection of a Decanus or head of the mess (caput contubernii).

-De Re Militari, 2.13

But the term contubernium has no known connection to the Polybian army. Polybius does refer to cavalry officers (decuriones) who appear to have commanded 10 men, so if a subdivision of the century existed at this time it's odd that he didn't mention it.

During the Polybian era eight contubernia were grouped into a century: 8 x 8 = 64... Sixty in latin is Sexaginta. It is possible that a Senturion (with S) may have been a person in charge of Sixtyfour men... And eventually the term century was adopted to mean a unit of sixty four men.

That's just nonsense. I challenge you to cite a credible source for it.

What Polybius actually says is this (6.19-24, Shuckburgh translation):

But when they have selected the number prescribed,—which is four thousand two hundred infantry for each legion, or at times of special danger five thousand,—they next used to pass men for the cavalry...and they enrol three hundred for each legion...

The division is made in such proportions that the senior men, called Triarii, should number six hundred, the Principes twelve hundred, the Hastati twelve hundred, and that all the rest as the youngest should be reckoned among the Velites...

The Principes, Hastati, and Triarii, each elect ten centurions according to merit, and then a second ten each. All these sixty have the title of centurion alike,...Next, in conjunction with the centurions, they divide the several orders (omitting the Velites) into ten companies each, and appoint to each company two centurions and two optiones;..

To summarize: the standard Polybian legion consisted of 1200 Velites, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Principes, 600 Triarii, and 300 Equites for a total of 4200 infantry and 300 cavalry. The Hastati, Principes, and Triarii were each divided into 10 maniples - translated above as "companies". There were 2 centurions for each maniple which means centuries of Hastati and Principes had 60 men and centuries of Triarii had 30 men.

Many historians think that the tirarii maniple had only one century, instead of two.

If any historian makes this claim he's mistaken. Polybius clearly says the Triarii had the same number of centurions as the Hastati and Principes.

The legion had 10 cohorts

For the Polybian army this makes no sense. Where does this claim come from? Polybius mentions only that the different classes (H, P, and T) are divided into 10 maniples; he says nothing about the legion as a whole being divided this way. This is most likely an attempt to find a (non-existent) connection between Polybian and Marian organization below the level of the legion and above that of the century.

...in this particular sense you may say I "consider a cohort to be a maniple"...

A maniple is two centuries. In the EB time period, a cohort is:

a) an allied contingent of roughly 500 men (e.g. Livy 21.17), or
b) a unit of six centuries in the army of the late republic and the principate

You can consider a cohort to be a maniple if you'd like, but that doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't make sense.

[Dutchhoplite]

From this topic:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...p?f=17&t=26432


...which makes a point valid throughout history, and one universally known to any who have served in the military. Below are some brief observations, including a personal anecdote that illustrates this universal truth.....

1. The ancients did not place the same value on "orbats" or organisation tables we do.....obviously for ration purposes, pay etc it was important to know how many were actually present at a given time, but apart from scraps of information on surviving papyri from Imperial times about ACTUAL strengths ( as opposed to 'table ones'), we have little or nothing to go on for the Republic.

2. The literary sources are obviously not those official beaureacratic forms set out above, and authors frequently have little or no Miltary experience, and, for example, an exact "4,850" in one source can easily become "5,000" in another, because the latter chooses to use round numbers. All too often too, numbers given exclude ‘supernumeraries’ for example a calculated strength for a late 1st C AD legion is often given as 5,240 ( 9x 480 cohorts plus 1st cohort 800 plus 120 horsemen) but if we add in ‘supernumeraries’ – say 1 Legate, 1 Tribunus Laticlavii, 1 Praectus Castrorum, 5 Tribuni angusticlavii, 1 Aquilifer, 53 Centuriones, 53 Signifers, 53 Tesserarii 54 Cornicens and 53 Optiones (N.B. the exact number is uncertain for some of these, and whether all of them are ‘supernumerary’ or not), the real “Table Number” may be as high as 5,514 ( aprox) .

3. Even in modern times, the "orbat" total is NEVER the actual number of troops on the ground.

For example, during my military service I commanded a platoon with a paper strength of 33. With recruiting shortages it never reached that number, and was frequently much lower, due to men on leave, on detachment, on courses, ill, injured and so on, so that in the field I usually had twenty something men to carry out the tasks allocated to a nominal 33. On one glorious field exercise, another platoon was understrength and it's commander absent on a course and for the duration of the exercise I had an overstrength platoon of 42 !
The surviving military returns reflect a similar situation in Imperial Roman Armies, and doubtless stretched back to the dawn of time !!

In ancient times, and up until the twentieth century, armies all too literally 'melted away' with large numbers deserting or dying from illness....we get glimpses of this from some of the numbers Caesar gives as a 'for instance'.

I would venture to suggest that not one Legion ever marched out of Rome with the exact number of men it was supposed to have.

However, accepting this, we can still try to determine how many men there should have been, for that information can be useful.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it should also be noted that over its thousand years or more of existence, the Roman army changed and evolved constantly, including its numbers.

Even the numbers over a short period could change, especially under the exigencies of War, as the following survey demonstrates:

Legions raised in 218 BC 4,000 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XXI.17 )

Legions at Cannae 216 BC: an unprecedented 5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry strong, as opposed to the standard 4,000 Infantry and 200 cavalry (Polyb III.107)

After Cannae; Legions of 'volones' : 4,000 Infantry, no cavalry (LivyXXII.57 )

Herdonea 212 BC ; Legions and Allies together; 18,000 - implying Legions of standard strength (Livy XXV.21)

Scipio’s Legions for the invasion of Africa 205 BC; 6,200 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XXIX.24) – though other authors ( e.g. Appian) imply 5.000 strong.

Italian North-West frontier/Liguria 182 BC; 5,200 infantry and 300 cavalry.(LivyXL.1&18)

Spain 184 BC ; Legions not to fall below 5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry (LivyXXXIX.38)

Spain 180 BC ; Legions not to fall below 5,200 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XL.36)

Macedonia 171 BC ; 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XLII.31)

Macedonia 169 BC ; 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry; Spain and Liguria 169 BC 5,200 Infantry and 300 cavalry (Livy XLIII.12 )
– an example of different sized Legions on different fronts in the same year.

Polybius, in his detailed discourse on the Legion (VI.19) refers to “..anciently the custom to choose the cavalry; and to add 200 horsemen to each 4,000 infantry”.
He then goes on to describe the Legion in detail, presumably of his own day c. 160-150 BC as “ In the present times… 300 cavalry are assigned to every Legion…The number allotted to each Legion is 4,200 and sometimes 5,000, when any great or unusual danger is foreseen.

Even this short survey demonstrates the point that the numbers, even on paper let alone actuality, could vary depending on circumstance. A reading of Caesar also highlights just how low actual numbers could get on the battlefield on occasion.

[Lanceari]

...Even in modern times, the "orbat" total is NEVER the actual number of troops on the ground....

Even this short survey demonstrates the point that the numbers, even on paper let alone actuality, could vary depending on circumstance. A reading of Caesar also highlights just how low actual numbers could get on the battlefield on occasion.

I whole heartedly agree with your entire post.

[Lanceari]

The... term contubernium has no known connection to the Polybian army. Polybius does refer to cavalry officers (decuriones) who appear to have commanded 10 men, so if a subdivision of the century existed at this time it's odd that he didn't mention it....


That's just nonsense. I challenge you to cite a credible source for it.

A centurion must have had to detach his men into smaller groups to perform tasks. The Roman Army was a few centuries old by the time Marian Reforms were implemented. Long before Marian times a name must have come to use to describe the smaller detachments the centurion divided his men to work in camp, etc. The latin term "conturbo" means to confuse or to scatter. So the term "contubernia" may have related to the subgroups in which a century scattered when it had to perform different tasks in camp, or simply to sleep...

Albeit from a later period, barracks excavated suggest men were lived eight to a room (four bunk beds to a a room). We also know that legionaries formed in lines four men deep. Hence, if men were scattered into smaller groups, it would make sense to scatter them into groups of eight, or at least into a multiple of 4 (they fought 4 men deep), or a multiple of 8, (they slept 8 to a room).

Maybe Marius coined the term contubernium, but, I would be very skeptic about it. It seems misguided to assume the Roman army spent several hundred years before Marian times without ever coming up with a term to describe groups of men in which a century scattered to sleep, to patrol, to work, etc.

Polybius may have mentioned that cavalry was organized into 10 men because there was an officer (Decurion) formally encharged of the Decuria. His interest may have been in the officer (Decurion) and not in the organization. Since there was no formal NCO in charge of a contubernium, he may not have cared to mention it. Also, there were less cavalrymen, it was a scarcer and more expensive resource, manned by wealthier people... all of these may have been factors influencing Polybius to speak of the Decurion, a young wealthy officer which may someday be someone, while he may care a bit less about the details of the common infantryman.

...The Hastati, Principes, and Triarii were each divided into 10 maniples - translated above as "companies". There were 2 centurions for each maniple which means centuries of Hastati and Principes had 60 men and centuries of Triarii had 30 men.

I stand corrected, a Tirarii maniple had two centruries of 30 men each. However, my point was that a Triarii Maniple had 60 men. Whether this is so because it had two centuries of 30 men or 1 century of 60 men, the end result is still 60 men per Triarii maniple.

Polybius mentions only that the different classes (H, P, and T) are divided into 10 maniples; he says nothing about the legion as a whole being divided this way.

I will concede Polybus does not mention the term cohort. But there are a few things we know about Roman Army besides what Polybus tells us. For example, we know a Legion commander or Legate had 6 Military Tribunes. What was their command? Being aristocrats, maybe they were there just for the ride. However, my recollection from prior readings is that one tribune took command of the cavalry, and the other five tribunes took command of two cohorts each (or one fifth of the legion each).

The Military Tribunes provided some intermediate command structure between the Legate and the 30 maniples of heavy infantry, plus velites, plus cavalry. This structure may have been somewhat adhoc, but if the army was to wage war successfully for hundreds of years before Marius, it must have developed a moderately effective command structure.

Now, the existence of Military Tribunes prior to Marius does not prove the term cohort was used before Marius. In any event, a Military Tribune would have commanded the equivalent of two cohorts. A mismatch at first glance. Yet, Romans had a tendency to organize everything in pairs. Two cohorts form a maniple. Two consuls, two legions, etc. Hence, it would not be too out of line for a Military Tribune to command two cohorts.

In any event, my point is that Romans must have realized a Legate could not command 30 maniples, plus velites plus cavalry in the midst of battle. The existence of Military Tribunes supports such a hypothesis: that Romans recognized the need for an intermediate level of command.

Whether in battle or otherwise Legions must have regularly formed detachments long before Marius. And a name must have existed for such detachments. At some point, Romans adopted the term cohort to refer to such detachments. This practice probably evolved over time. At first, the size of a cohort may have been somewhat indeterminate. Subsequently it was formalized at 3 maniples. Maybe, Marius was responsible for formalizing the term cohort as a group of exactly 3 maniples. I would be a bit skeptic about this. But, even if he did, he probably was formalizing a term and practice that existed prior to his time.

Having said all of the above, it seems you missed the entire point of my prior post. Clearly my fault since you paid so much attention to the each and every detail. Allow me to explain where I was trying to get with all the above:

EB/RTW polybian legionary units have 40 men per unit in standard size. (80 in large, 160 in huge). EB/RTW calls these units cohorts. Now, a polybian century had 60 men, and a maniple had 120 men. My point is that the tactical units depicted by EB and RTW resemble maniples much more than they resemble cohorts.

Of course, you may argue these are scaled units, where 40 men represent 400 men. The problem with such "scaling" is that it distorts the depth of the line... If each EB man stands for 10 real men, what is the scaled depth of your 4x10 EB cohort?

[bigmilt16]

What is the harm in using a "full-stack" to represent a legion instead of a half-stack?

[Lanceari]

What is the harm in using a "full-stack" to represent a legion instead of a half-stack?

In real life, a Marian Cohort formed into a 4 x 120 men rectangle (4 x 120 = 480).

If you want to scale this formation by a factor of four, then you should form them in the battlefield into a 2 x 60 = 120 rectangle. i.e. you divide the depth and front by the same factor of two; 2x60=120 = 1/4th of 480. Only in this way you maintain the actual proportions of the formation.

If you don't reduce the depth in the same proportion that you reduce the width of the formation you are distorting the proportions of the formation. You miss the actual sense of how thin was the actual formation... unless...

...unless, we do not pretend that a rectangle of 4x50 men in normal settings (4 x 100 large settings) stands for a full cohort.

If we are not willing to reduce the depth of our EB/RTW line; if we want to keep a depth of 4 in our smaller size units; then we should accept we are not presenting a scaled model of the cohort. What we are representing has the width vs. depth proportions of a maniple, not a cohort.

[Atilius]

A centurion must have had to detach his men into smaller groups

This does not imply the existence of an eight man unit of organization.

We also know that legionaries formed in lines four men deep.

Do we? Cite a reference for that.

But there are a few things we know about Roman Army besides what Polybus tells us. For example, we know a Legion commander or Legate had 6 Military Tribunes. What was their command?

In fact, almost the first thing Polybius tells us about the Roman army in his discussion of the Roman army (6.19) is that six military tribunes were posted to each legion. Later (6.34), he states that rotating pairs of tribunes shared command of the legion:

They [the Tribunes] divide themselves in twos, and each pair is on duty for two months out of six; they draw lots for their turns, and the pair on whom the lot falls takes the superintendence of all active operations. The prefects of the socii divide their duty in the same way. At daybreak the officers of the cavalry and the centurions muster at the tents of the Tribunes, while the Tribunes go to that of the Consul. He gives the necessary orders to the Tribunes, they to the cavalry officers and centurions, and these last pass them on to the rank and file as occasion may demand.

During this period, when it was extremely rare for a Consul to command more than two legions, the Consul had no need of a legate: he commanded his legions through the two tribunes currently in charge of each. It's also difficult to see how, if a Polybian legion were divided into ten cohorts, the command of the cohorts would have been distributed among the remaining four tribunes.

[Lanceari]

During this period, when it was extremely rare for a Consul to command more than two legions, the Consul had no need of a legate: he commanded his legions through the two tribunes currently in charge of each. It's also difficult to see how, if a Polybian legion were divided into ten cohorts, the command of the cohorts would have been distributed among the remaining four tribunes.

Your refer to the period when it was "extremely rare for a Consul to command more than two legions."

You correctly state that for a long period of time Rome only had two legion. However, during this period, each legion was commanded by a separate consul. (There were two consuls.) And, during this period, it was most exceptional for both legions to work together.

The whole idea between the two consuls and two legion arrangement was based on the notion that no single person should ever command the entire army, so as to avoid a coup. As a result, there was no provision for both legions to work together under a single command. Christian Meier wrote a great book where he takes some time to explain the Roman Constitution and gives great insights into it. I strongly recommend it.

Combining both legions, as in Cannae, was truly exceptional. Roman ways did not provide a command solution for such an exceptional circumstance. In fact the whole idea between the two legion and two consul arrangement was to prevent a single command. At Cannae the two consuls marched together alternated command of the entire army, one day each. A rather counterproductive solution, and clearly an exceptional arrangement under exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, you state that "Polybius tells us... that six military tribunes were posted to each legion." Accordingly if you ever were to combine the two legions together, you would get 12 military tribunes for two legions. 6 +6 = 12.

In the very exceptional case where both consuls marched together in a combined army, at least one of the consuls would keep direct command of his legion while the other consul assumed command of the combined force. So only one legion, at most, was left without his consul commander. And, hence only in one legion needed to make special arrangements you cite. The other legion would retain its own consul plus its full staff of Military Tribunes.

The combined army would have 2 consuls and 12 Military Tribunes. One consul to exercise control of the entire army. One consul to command one Legion. 10 MT's would be available to assign 1 Military Tribune for each pair of cohorts. And you still have two Military Tribunes left. As per your suggestion, these two MTs could take operational command of the remaining Legion. Alternatively, one of them could take command of this remaining Legion, while the other MT took command of the cavalry.

Finally, we agree, if the consul (or legate) was missing, Romans most have provided a command solution where the military tribunes assumed temporary command in his absence. But this was a temporary solution in the absence of the consul (or legate). If the consul (or legate) was present, he was the commander of the legion.

[Lanceari]

Polybius mentions only that the different classes (H, P, and T) are divided into 10 maniples; he says nothing about the legion as a whole being divided this way. This is most likely an attempt to find a (non-existent) connection between Polybian and Marian organization below the level of the legion and above that of the century.

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.)

...so term existed and stood for a detachement "below the level of the legion and above that of the century."

My interpretation on the Passage you cite is that Polybius main focus was on the Roman officer class. The modern audience may be more interested in the organization of the army. But, this may not have been the preferred point of reference in antiquity. It seems, back then people paid more attention to "who is who." Since cohorts had no formal officer in charge, Polybius probably saw no need to include them in the passage you cite.

That is very interesting insight into the command structure of the legions. How would one simulate this in the game?

I think EB is just great as it stands.

I would not refer to the Legionary units as "cohorts". I would simply call them legionaries. This would be consistent with EB's treatment of other units in the game (e.g. a "classical hoplite" unit is simply a "classical hoplite").

I do not know how to replicate the Military Tribunes within the RTW framework...

[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.