Roma Surrectum II Presents: The Roman Legions

[Darkside]

lol it certainly appears so.

[bucellarii]

Nice preview

It is worth pointing out, however, that further to the brief discussion on page 13 between NomAnor and dvk901 about the 'Marian reform' Plutarch probably goes too far when he states “Contrary to law and custom he enlisted many a poor and insignificant man” (Mar. 9). As far as I’m aware there is no corroborative evidence suggesting that the proletarii (men below the minimum property qualification for military service) were excluded by statute from legionary service. Rather Marius’ actions should be seen as contrary to mos maiorum (the customs of the forefathers); a point emphasized by Sallust (Iug. 86.2) and Valerius Maximus (2.3.1).

In total Marius may have enlisted between three and five thousand legionarii - “a rather greater number than the senate had decreed” (Sall. Iug. 86.4) - when he was authorised to raise a supplementum (supplement) for the two legions in Numidia. The enrolment of proletarii volunteers, however, was on a limited scale and did not lead to a sudden change in the social structure of the army. Marius subsequently took over the legions of the outgoing consul P. Rutilius Rufus to prosecute the war against the Cimbri (Front. Strat. 4.2.2). These legions were probably reinforced by selected veterans from the Numidian campaign.

The property qualification for military service was not abolished by Marius and subsequent levies probably continued to be restricted to assidui (men above the minimum property qualification for military service) until the demands for manpower imposed by the bellum Sociale (War of the Allies) and the civil war of 83- 82 doubtless resulted in the renewed call up of the proletarii, either as volunteers or conscripts. These years may have marked a turning point and the minimum property qualification was probably not enforced or abandoned altogether during the post-Sullan era (The Supposed Roman Manpower Shortage of the Later Second Century B.C: Rich, 1983). The qualification had, in any case, already become nearly meaningless by 107, since the difference between the assidui members of the fifth and lowest class of citizens and the proletarii was likely to have been very slight.

[HUN_antonius]

You should try to watch it in "printable version". There are the links of the pictures and you can open them singly.

[NightEye]

Will these guys all have First Cohort versions of their units?

[saxdude]

yes.

[dvk901]

Nice preview

It is worth pointing out, however, that further to the brief discussion on page 13 between NomAnor and dvk901 about the 'Marian reform' Plutarch probably goes too far when he states “Contrary to law and custom he enlisted many a poor and insignificant man” (Mar. 9). As far as I’m aware there is no corroborative evidence suggesting that the proletarii (men below the minimum property qualification for military service) were excluded by statute from legionary service. Rather Marius’ actions should be seen as contrary to mos maiorum (the customs of the forefathers); a point emphasized by Sallust (Iug. 86.2) and Valerius Maximus (2.3.1).

In total Marius may have enlisted between three and five thousand legionarii - “a rather greater number than the senate had decreed” (Sall. Iug. 86.4) - when he was authorised to raise a supplementum (supplement) for the two legions in Numidia. The enrolment of proletarii volunteers, however, was on a limited scale and did not lead to a sudden change in the social structure of the army. Marius subsequently took over the legions of the outgoing consul P. Rutilius Rufus to prosecute the war against the Cimbri (Front. Strat. 4.2.2). These legions were probably reinforced by selected veterans from the Numidian campaign.

The property qualification for military service was not abolished by Marius and subsequent levies probably continued to be restricted to assidui (men above the minimum property qualification for military service) until the demands for manpower imposed by the bellum Sociale (War of the Allies) and the civil war of 83- 82 doubtless resulted in the renewed call up of the proletarii, either as volunteers or conscripts. These years may have marked a turning point and the minimum property qualification was probably not enforced or abandoned altogether during the post-Sullan era (The Supposed Roman Manpower Shortage of the Later Second Century B.C: Rich, 1983). The qualification had, in any case, already become nearly meaningless by 107, since the difference between the assidui members of the fifth and lowest class of citizens and the proletarii was likely to have been very slight.

No doubt you are right...which only proves the point that the so-called 'Marian Reforms' were not an overnight shift of Rome's military, but a process he started that took many years to develop into the 'Legion' we are all most familiar with. However, I don't think I said that Marius 'abolished' the property requirements. In fact, I recall saying that he 'illegally ignored them'. Regardless, it set a precedent that would change Rome forever...eventually.

[bucellarii]

As you rightly suggest it is quite misleading to speak of the ‘Marian Reforms’ as a single event in time. For example, contrary to popular opinion, C. Marius was not responsible for the creation of the cohort although his re-organization during the years 104–103 institutionalized existing trends. Marius extended the practices of Q. Caecilius Metellus in Numidia (Sall. Iug. 45.2) and reduced the baggage train by making the milites (soldiers) carry their own food and equipment, hence the sobriquet ‘muli Mariani’ or Marius’ Mules (Festus 149M, Front. Str. 4.1.7; Plut. Mar. 13.1). He also continued the weapons training introduced by the consul of 105, P. Rutilius Rufus (Val. Max. 2.3.2; Front. Str. 4.2.2.), and oversaw a modification to the pilum (Plut. Mar. 25.1-2). The adoption of the aquila (eagle) as the sole standard of the legion was also attributed to Marius (Plin. HN 10.16).

In actual fact the earliest certain reference to a Roman cohort is under L. Marcius in Spain during the bellum Hannibalicum (Liv. 25.39.1), which suggests the unit may have been introduced by the elder Scipios. P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus and his successors also deployed the cohort (Polyb. 11.23.1, 11.33.1; Liv. 27.18.10, 28.33.12, 34.14.10, 34. 34.19.10; 34.20.3 etc; Vell. Pat 2.5.2; Front. Strat. 4.1.23). Whilst originally the formation may have been a temporary expedient, it seems that the cohort became the regular tactical sub-unit in the Spanish theatre of operations, where the nature of the fighting and the supply difficulties in a countryside dotted with thousands of hill-forts necessitated both tactical concentration and strategic dispersion (Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army: M. J. V. Bell, 1965).

The military humiliations experienced during the closing years of the second century, which culminated in the introduction of a eventually non-timocratically organised Roman legion of ten heavy infantry cohorts, may also have precipitated the obsolescence of the citizen cavalry turmae (squadrons). Whilst there is no direct evidence about when cives Romani (Roman citizens) ceased to serve as cavalry, the efforts of C. Marius to recruit horsemen from the Latin and Italic allies (Sall. Iug. 84.2, 95.1) suggest the bellum Iugurthinum was a watershed, from which point the regular deployment of equites Romani (Roman cavalry) was either halted, or phased out.

Regards

[Megasalexandros]

Can anyone confirm if, historically the legions were equipped with a certain type of armaments , as the mod suggests?

I mean were the legion Macedonica had a specific combination of equipment different fro Rapax etc?

[rory o'kane]

Can anyone confirm if, historically the legions were equipped with a certain type of armaments , as the mod suggests?

I mean were the legion Macedonica had a specific combination of equipment different fro Rapax etc?

That's NOT what the mod is implying. We're simply trying to show the different types of equipment (helmets, swords, etc) that were used by the legions of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and the only way for us to do that is to give each legion different equipment, as the RTW engine prevents us from having mixed equipment within units, which is most likely to have been the case. Plus, this way, it makes it easier to tell the legions apart - they aren't just cloned copies with different shields. Don't be so literal, young Padawan!
Incidentally, we know that their shields were painted differently by legion, and possibly even by Cohort too, but sadly we can only represent the difference between legions, not individual cohorts, due to RTW engine limitations.

[Drowsy]

Can't wait to take mine into the field, +rep!

[dvk901]

As you rightly suggest it is quite misleading to speak of the ‘Marian Reforms’ as a single event in time. For example, contrary to popular opinion, C. Marius was not responsible for the creation of the cohort although his re-organization during the years 104–103 institutionalized existing trends. Marius extended the practices of Q. Caecilius Metellus in Numidia (Sall. Iug. 45.2) and reduced the baggage train by making the milites (soldiers) carry their own food and equipment, hence the sobriquet ‘muli Mariani’ or Marius’ Mules (Festus 149M, Front. Str. 4.1.7; Plut. Mar. 13.1). He also continued the weapons training introduced by the consul of 105, P. Rutilius Rufus (Val. Max. 2.3.2; Front. Str. 4.2.2.), and oversaw a modification to the pilum (Plut. Mar. 25.1-2). The adoption of the aquila (eagle) as the sole standard of the legion was also attributed to Marius (Plin. HN 10.16).

In actual fact the earliest certain reference to a Roman cohort is under L. Marcius in Spain during the bellum Hannibalicum (Liv. 25.39.1), which suggests the unit may have been introduced by the elder Scipios. P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus and his successors also deployed the cohort (Polyb. 11.23.1, 11.33.1; Liv. 27.18.10, 28.33.12, 34.14.10, 34. 34.19.10; 34.20.3 etc; Vell. Pat 2.5.2; Front. Strat. 4.1.23). Whilst originally the formation may have been a temporary expedient, it seems that the cohort became the regular tactical sub-unit in the Spanish theatre of operations, where the nature of the fighting and the supply difficulties in a countryside dotted with thousands of hill-forts necessitated both tactical concentration and strategic dispersion (Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army: M. J. V. Bell, 1965).

The military humiliations experienced during the closing years of the second century, which culminated in the introduction of a eventually non-timocratically organised Roman legion of ten heavy infantry cohorts, may also have precipitated the obsolescence of the citizen cavalry turmae (squadrons). Whilst there is no direct evidence about when cives Romani (Roman citizens) ceased to serve as cavalry, the efforts of C. Marius to recruit horsemen from the Latin and Italic allies (Sall. Iug. 84.2, 95.1) suggest the bellum Iugurthinum was a watershed, from which point the regular deployment of equites Romani (Roman cavalry) was either halted, or phased out.

Regards

Thank you for that info. It validates our use of the 'Polybian Cohort' as an issue of 'formation' rather than the unit's composing it. The unit description portrays them as a mixture of Hastati and Principe, and in fact, when you click on the unit in battle it will identify itself as either one, suggesting that both compose the unit.

[frontier-auxilia]

Oh me lord!!!!! This is beyond any kind of praise i can muster with this rudiment control of the english language. So the only thing i have to say is...ITS ###king awesome.

With Rome coming out now, does that mean we get the mod some time this year?

[Megasalexandros]

That's NOT what the mod is implying. We're simply trying to show the different types of equipment (helmets, swords, etc) that were used by the legions of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and the only way for us to do that is to give each legion different equipment, as the RTW engine prevents us from having mixed equipment within units, which is most likely to have been the case. Plus, this way, it makes it easier to tell the legions apart - they aren't just cloned copies with different shields. Don't be so literal, young Padawan!
Incidentally, we know that their shields were painted differently by legion, and possibly even by Cohort too, but sadly we can only represent the difference between legions, not individual cohorts, due to RTW engine limitations.

Oh thank you very much for your answer, cause i did wonder if the legions had a specific type of armaments , different from each other, that is indeed a very clever choice to choose different equipment combinations .
Ive read alot of books concerning the issue of roman army equipment and organization and i came to the conclusion that there was a mixture of equipment that had certain changes according to the era .

[bucellarii]

Thank you for that info. It validates our use of the 'Polybian Cohort' as an issue of 'formation' rather than the unit's composing it. The unit description portrays them as a mixture of Hastati and Principe, and in fact, when you click on the unit in battle it will identify itself as either one, suggesting that both compose the unit.

That sounds like a clever compromise to save a model slot

Of course, outside of Spain the three line manipular legion continued to dominate the battlefield during the second century and it was only the military humiliations at the hands of the Cimbri and Teutoni, the Scordisci and the Numidian king Iugurtha during the closing years of the century that illustrated the need for a more fundemental tactical re-organisation. For example, the Cimbri and Teutoni in particular may have exposed the limitations of the non-continuous manipular battle line (Polyb. 15.9.7;.Liv. 8.8.5), which as already demonstrated in Spain, was vulnerable to a massive charge by an enemy concentrated into a wedge shaped formation (Liv. 39.31.3, 40.40.2).

Regarding the subject of demographic pressure on the Roman manpower resources the position is more complex than commonly thought. Modern scholarship is divided between the low and high head count models, both of which are simply too complex to summarize here. You may, however, find the following extract of interest:

The principle aim of the foregoing discussion has been to show that there is no firm evidence to support the theory that Roman manpower resources were eroded by a demographical decline from the late 160s bc onwards. In fact, the few clues available (mainly the high census figures for 124 and 114 bc) suggest that the period 163–133 bc witnessed a considerable increase in the number of adult male Roman citizens. At the same time it seems clear that the continuing demographic expansion of the mid-second century bc was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in the amount of land available for cultivation by country dwelling cives. In this respect, there was a marked contrast with the period 200–170 bc, when many citizens had benefited from colonial foundations and viritane distributions. The inevitable outcome was an increase in rural poverty that pushed an ever-growing proportion of the adult male citizen population below the threshold for military service. We are therefore faced with the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that the perceived manpower shortage that seems to have worried several politicians of the Gracchan age was caused not by a contraction of the citizen body but by a continuing process of demographic expansion. The main significance of this new interpretation is that it provides us with a better understanding not only of the Gracchan land reforms but also of the steady proletarianization of the Roman army during the last two centuries of the Republic.

Roman Manpower Resources and the Proletarianization of the Roman Army in the Second Century BC: De Ligt, 2007

[dvk901]

That sounds like a clever compromise to save a model slot

Of course, outside of Spain the three line manipular legion continued to dominate the battlefield during the second century and it was only the military humiliations at the hands of the Cimbri and Teutoni, the Scordisci and the Numidian king Iugurtha during the closing years of the century that illustrated the need for a more fundemental tactical re-organisation. For example, the Cimbri and Teutoni in particular may have exposed the limitations of the non-continuous manipular battle line (Polyb. 15.9.7;.Liv. 8.8.5), which as already demonstrated in Spain, was vulnerable to a massive charge by an enemy concentrated into a wedge shaped formation (Liv. 39.31.3, 40.40.2).

Regarding the subject of demographic pressure on the Roman manpower resources the position is more complex than commonly thought. Modern scholarship is divided between the low and high head count models, both of which are simply too complex to summarize here. You may, however, find the following extract of interest:

The principle aim of the foregoing discussion has been to show that there is no firm evidence to support the theory that Roman manpower resources were eroded by a demographical decline from the late 160s bc onwards. In fact, the few clues available (mainly the high census figures for 124 and 114 bc) suggest that the period 163–133 bc witnessed a considerable increase in the number of adult male Roman citizens. At the same time it seems clear that the continuing demographic expansion of the mid-second century bc was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in the amount of land available for cultivation by country dwelling cives. In this respect, there was a marked contrast with the period 200–170 bc, when many citizens had benefited from colonial foundations and viritane distributions. The inevitable outcome was an increase in rural poverty that pushed an ever-growing proportion of the adult male citizen population below the threshold for military service. We are therefore faced with the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that the perceived manpower shortage that seems to have worried several politicians of the Gracchan age was caused not by a contraction of the citizen body but by a continuing process of demographic expansion. The main significance of this new interpretation is that it provides us with a better understanding not only of the Gracchan land reforms but also of the steady proletarianization of the Roman army during the last two centuries of the Republic.

Roman Manpower Resources and the Proletarianization of the Roman Army in the Second Century BC: De Ligt, 2007

Well, yes and no. It's very true that RS2 is incredibly 'model limit challenged', shall we say, but the modfoldered campaigns gave us a lot of leeway in terms of what we could do for various factions. And it will in the future, I imagine. For example, in the Roman Campaign, the 'Free barbarians' were converted to the 'Roman Rebels' who shadow the Romans. That left a couple unique units they had that were of no use in that campaign because only they recruited them, so we converted them to 'Roman Legionaries' so that we had a more seamless and 'flowing' system of reform. At the time we did this, the subject came up of the 'Hastati, Principe' thing again, and again, even though we 'could have' put them in, we decided not to. The Beta testers in general stated that they liked the way the campaign was set up as it was, and I think a good part of that is that it removes the impetus to rush to the reforms because you want 'legions'. I know a lot of players enjoy playing with the 'hastati, principe, triarii' combination, but on some subliminal level, playing with the Polybian Cohorts which are a mixture of the two, and the Trarii 'seems' like the same thing, and yet satisfies the whole 'I want Legions' thing. Even I find it more enjoyable playing the early part of the game and not being 'saddled' with the generally viewed 'cannon fodder' Hastati whom you get so frustrated with that you don't even want them anymore.

Regarding the whole population thing...very interesting. I've often wondered what effect the fast expansion of the Republic had on the ability of the Romans to field armies. It makes a lot of sense that as population in one area is 'thinned' by people moving to newly conquered lands it would be more difficult just to find men to serve.

[bucellarii]

Good points

Of course, I’m sure ancient observers would be rather bemused by the fact that so many people today appear to hold the army of the late Republic and the principate in higher esteem than the great citizen armies of the Roman Republic.

He himself distributed his troops in winter-quarters through the neighbouring country of Persia, not as he chose, but as the will of his soldiers obliged him; for the phalanx of Alexander the Great, which had over-run Asia, and subdued the Persians, desired, in consequence of their established renown, and also through long-continued license, not to obey their officers but to command them, as our veterans now do. There is danger, therefore, lest ours should do what those did, and, by their insubordination and excessive licentiousness, ruin all, not less those whom they have supported than those whom they have opposed. And if any one reads the acts of those veterans, he will find the proceedings of ours like theirs, and be of opinion that there is no other difference between them but that of time.

Nep. Eum. 8.2

All these things impaired military discipline, and the soldiers thought that they were not so much serving in the army as lending assistance, by their own favour and judgment, to leaders who needed them for their own personal ends.

App. BC. 5.17

…the generals of this later time, however, who won their primacy by force, not merit, and who needed their armies for service against one another, rather than against the public enemy, were compelled to merge the general in the demagogue, and then, by purchasing the services of their soldiers with lavish sums to be spent on luxurious living, they unwittingly made their whole country a thing for sale, and themselves slaves of the basest men for the sake of ruling over the better.

Plut. Sull. 12

The strictness once so commended, and celebrated in the praises of the army, was galling to troops who rebelled against the old discipline, and who had been accustomed by fourteen years' service under Nero to love the vices of their emperors, as much as they had once respected their virtues.

Tac. Hist. 1.5

[KLAssurbanipal]

Excellent as always Great legionaries!

[Paedric]

bucellarii, was insubordination happening a lot in Romans armies? Or did the strict discipline kept it to a minimum? Also, was desertion relatively usual?
I know I'm a bit abusing of your time, but since you seem to be quite knowledgeable, I've got one more question, rather open and long. How was stewardship working in the army, and did it change? I've heard of the Marian's mules, but I don't think a whole army could sustain a long campaign on its own, without people to "help" it.

Thanks.

[bucellarii]

Blimey whole books have been written about these subjects

If you are really interested I would recommend the following:

Roman Military Service: Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate; Phang, 2008

The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.-A.D. 235); Roth, 1998

Whilst deserters, especially deserters to the enemy, were commonly executed during wartime, deserters in peacetime might have been treated more leniently. Moreover, as Phang explains Most of the customary sanctions against desertion, mutiny, and insubordination broke down in the civil wars of the late Republic. Desertion to the other side was extremely common; the treatment of deserters as public enemies was not possible.

You may care to check out Val. Max. 2.7.12-14 for further information

As for the question of logistics here is an extract from Roth’s study:

While the Romans used the term “impedimenta” to refer to their train, both the troop-train and army-train that accompanied Roman forces were better organized than those of any previous army, and indeed of all subsequent armies until modern times. The question of the nature and role of the military servants—the calones and lixae—is a difficult one, but Josephus’ claim that “[they] may properly be included in the category of combatants whose military training they shared” ought not to be dismissed lightly. Whatever their exact status, the Romans’ military servants were certainly much more than mere attendants and reflect the Roman army’s professionalism in matters of logistics.

I apologise for the brevity of my response. However, I am rather busy at present....

[dvk901]

Excellent info! I appreciate it.