Roman Legion composition?

[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.

[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.