RS 2.6

[5th Lieutenant]

As something of a Roman aficionado, I would probably suggest that the 'Generic' cohort ought to have worse stats than the Polybian it replaces. Happy to discuss why I think that in a new thread if you wish.

Possibly, but that would be something of a 'quick fix'; there is little evidence that Marius' reform was an overnight, sweeping change and it is perfectly possible that the 'new' formations had a large number of experienced personnel in their ranks, reflecting the adoption of what had become quite a standard practice during the on-going wars in North Africa prior to the Germans turning up in the north

Since you lose the benefits of organic spearmen, there is already something of disadvantage to them...

[jus2121]

If I may, because it's relevant to an ongoing discussion - can I ask why should the Marian Reforms result in any bonuses?

I'll also note that the Marian Reforms do nothing at all to the Economy - simply affecting the Units you can recruit. Phase 2 of those Reforms does something else (changed in v2.6 coming soon).

As something of a Roman aficionado, I would probably suggest that the 'Generic' cohort ought to have worse stats than the Polybian it replaces. Happy to discuss why I think that in a new thread if you wish.

The big main advantage from the marian reforms in my opinion are that not only the citizen were enlisted who could affort equipment but regular/poor citizen could be enlisted. They were chosen because of their fightingskill and not based on their wealth. The marian reforms made a soldier of rome actually a job for living. That means that the romans had the first professional armies in the history of men. Also, according to wiki, the pre-marian armies were recruited hastily. You could say that the condition of the army was relative poor because they were only needed in times of war. The post-marian armies trained when they were not at war, so a improvement?

Maybe a better attackskill and def skill and a higher morale for the post-marian units would be reasonable!

[Sertorio]

The advantage of the Marian Legion was that it was permanent. It's training as a unit wouldn't get lost, it's soldiers were better suited for long campaigns abroad because they relied in the army for living. The pre-marian soldier was a militia man keeping his duty to the state but eager to get back to is farm as soon as the campaign ended. As to experience and skill i would put my money in a Scipio's veteran at Zama over a newly recruited Marian soldier.
Anyway and i will not stray far off the topic, wathever the stats are, when we get to recruit the Marian Legion, they are never as good as the Polybian veterans loaded with silver chevrons that are expanding our territory at the time. And the same happens with the named Legions. So in this i believe RS2 touches reality admirably.
Also about the upkeep, Marian legions were equipped by the state, opposed to the militia soldier equipping himself, so it was more expensive to the state.

Jus2121, the Early Republican armies were recruited with campaigns in mind, they were levied every consulship so i wouldn't say "hastily", except in situations like Cannae, when an unprecedented number of eight legions were levied or post Cannae when due to the lack of immediate available manpower, even slaves were offered freedom in return for military service.
But it's true that Roman defeat were usually suffered by newly levied Legions.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Dear old Wiki can be used for many things - but for some things it isn't very reliable.....

The Roman legions of the Early Republic (and I use that to describe pre-Marian Polybius-described armies) and their Socii allies can be thought of as an outgrowth of Greek City-State militias. They were called up (having always been trained and equipment to hand) and organised ready to fight. Analogies are always tricky, but a regularly used National Guard (US) would come close. The troops are fighting to defend their homes and farms.

Post-Marian (Late Republic in these terms), one of the major reasons for the changes seems to be that the 'Empire' was getting bigger; conflicts were happening much further afield and permanent garrisons were needed. That no longer suited the citizen farmers and legion recruitment was opened to the general 'poor' and thus the army could be filled with those for whom it represented a real long term job that was paid. Either way, you effectively have to 'start again'. You will need to recruit and train a new army to take over. There is no need for the base stats to change. As a note - I've stopped even using Triarii and don't even recruit spearmen until the Late Auxilia come along and then it's mostly for flavour.

After the Augustan-Reforms (transition to the 'named & numbered') you are now establishing the permanent long term legions of the Principate. Many of the older 'raise once and mostly stay together for 'life'' legions move to their initial permanent areas and recruitment for replacement starts once more.

So, happy to discuss more (perhaps indeed in a thread to discuss this fully), but there's no reason for any stats to improve throughout those changes. I'm currently arguing that 'increasing stats for no reason' is something we should stay away from.

[MDT]

If I may, because it's relevant to an ongoing discussion - can I ask why should the Marian Reforms result in any bonuses?

I'll also note that the Marian Reforms do nothing at all to the Economy - simply affecting the Units you can recruit. Phase 2 of those Reforms does something else (changed in v2.6 coming soon).

As something of a Roman aficionado, I would probably suggest that the 'Generic' cohort ought to have worse stats than the Polybian it replaces. Happy to discuss why I think that in a new thread if you wish.

I don't think there is a 100% loore friendly solution to this.

On the one hand Marian Reforms should definitly be an upgrade because they were a neccessary improvment.
On the other hand what historically improved was in the first place availability, which seems to be difficult to implement in R:TW, here would the M2 recruitment system make more sense.

My first reaction would be to give them overal al least the stats from their predecessors and let the transition phase represent the problems. Also I don't see why new pre marian units should generally have an advantage as their quality was quite situation-dependent I guess.

[Sephiroth88]

The Roman legions of the Early Republic (and I use that to describe pre-Marian Polybius-described armies) and their Socii allies can be thought of as an outgrowth of Greek City-State militias. They were called up (having always been trained and equipment to hand) and organised ready to fight. Analogies are always tricky, but a regularly used National Guard (US) would come close. The troops are fighting to defend their homes and farms.

What is your source for this? Both under camillian and polybian reforms the legion were basically formed by civilians (mostly volunteers and farmers as you said) recruited and trained hastily in times of war to face the enemy. Under the polybian reform, which is the one included in the mod time frame, soldiers would be recruited according to wealth and then sorted into velites, hastati, principes and triarii according to age. Auxiliares were provided by Rome's allied state according to the contracts they had in place but not trained nor equipped by Rome, so they were rarely relied upon. At this time the legion was basically an army of conscripts.

Post-Marian (Late Republic in these terms), one of the major reasons for the changes seems to be that the 'Empire' was getting bigger; conflicts were happening much further afield and permanent garrisons were needed. That no longer suited the citizen farmers and legion recruitment was opened to the general 'poor' and thus the army could be filled with those for whom it represented a real long term job that was paid. Either way, you effectively have to 'start again'. You will need to recruit and train a new army to take over. There is no need for the base stats to change. As a note - I've stopped even using Triarii and don't even recruit spearmen until the Late Auxilia come along and then it's mostly for flavour.

So, happy to discuss more (perhaps indeed in a thread to discuss this fully), but there's no reason for any stats to improve throughout those changes. I'm currently arguing that 'increasing stats for no reason' is something we should stay away from.

A law was introduced in the 2nd punic war that conscripts could not be required to serve for more than 6 years consecutively (because of increasing unrest among the farmers that could not work their land for long times while at war). During the Jugurthine war Marius needed to raise new legions to end the war after the poor job of Metellus and also to face the threat of the Cimbri and Teutons invasion, but there were no people eligible to be recruited. That is what caused Marius to reform the military system.

The main benefit was obviously the greater manpower for roman war machine, but it wasn't the only one. Rome moved from a conscript army to standing army required to serve 16 years. This army was better trained, more disciplined than the previous and the longer serving time allowed veterans to perform better in new wars than a newly levied army. The manipular tactics with the formation of the 3 defensive lines were also abandoned in favor of cohorts that could act independently and flank enemy lines. Marius also reformed the equipment and logistics of the legion, legionaries weren't required to buy their own equipment anymore but it was provided for them and they were required to carry it along with food rations. This greatly improved the army mobility thanks to the reduced baggage. Legionaries were kept in peak physical condition and discipline by constant training and employed to build roads or forts during peace time to avoid them becoming lazy.

Now it is obvious that all these changes didn't just increase the number of soldier available, but also improved the performance of the army overall. The new legion could march faster and longer distances in shorter time, they were constantly trained and ready to fight at all times. They also had higher morale due to them being paid volunteers with the prospect of gaining citizienship and land for their services, rather than conscripts forced to fight away from home for lenghty time with the risk of losing the land they possesed since they couldn't work it. Basically there was no army in the entire world at the time that could match the roman legion's standards.

So in the end I don't see how one could possibly say legionaries shouldn't have better stats than polybian's cohorts.

[CrayonVonCaesar]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The main benefit was obviously the greater manpower for roman war machine, but it wasn't the only one. Rome moved from a conscript army to standing army required to serve 16 years. This army was better trained, more disciplined than the previous and the longer serving time allowed veterans to perform better in new wars than a newly levied army. The manipular tactics with the formation of the 3 defensive lines were also abandoned in favor of cohorts that could act independently and flank enemy lines. Marius also reformed the equipment and logistics of the legion, legionaries weren't required to buy their own equipment anymore but it was provided for them and they were required to carry it along with food rations. This greatly improved the army mobility thanks to the reduced baggage. Legionaries were kept in peak physical condition and discipline by constant training and employed to build roads or forts during peace time to avoid them becoming lazy.

Now it is obvious that all these changes didn't just increase the number of soldier available, but also improved the performance of the army overall. The new legion could march faster and longer distances in shorter time, they were constantly trained and ready to fight at all times. They also had higher morale due to them being paid volunteers with the prospect of gaining citizienship and land for their services, rather than conscripts forced to fight away from home for lenghty time with the risk of losing the land they possesed since they couldn't work it. Basically there was no army in the entire world at the time that could match the roman legion's standards.

So in the end I don't see how one could possibly say legionaries shouldn't have better stats than polybian's cohorts.

Well said.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

What is your source for this?

A great deal of intense study over the last couple years, particularly focussing on Polybius and Livy and ~40 odd years of interest in Roman history.

Both under camillian and polybian reforms the legion were basically formed by civilians (mostly volunteers and farmers as you said) recruited and trained hastily in times of war to face the enemy. Under the polybian reform, which is the one included in the mod time frame, soldiers would be recruited according to wealth and then sorted into velites, hastati, principes and triarii according to age. Auxiliares were provided by Rome's allied state according to the contracts they had in place but not trained nor equipped by Rome, so they were rarely relied upon. At this time the legion was basically an army of conscripts.

There were no 'Camillan' or 'Polybian' Reforms. Secondly, I believe rather strongly that you misunderstand completely the Army of Rome of the Early Republic - they were certainly not conscripts. All men trained for (and equipped themselves) war. The 'ordinary' soldiers were indeed farmers - farmers who were well used to hard work, long hours, fit and hardy. Moreover, not only were they highly motivated as they were defending their own lands and interests, but had a sense of civic duty that was second to none. They were most certainly not 'conscripts'. The best of them were hand-picked to serve each time to make up the legions; they required no training; they were ready for war each campaign season (on the understanding that they had sown their crops and would be back in time to harvest them). It's the need to farm that brought about the changes - exactly as I described, but you do mention the right law that covered it initially.

The Socii allies fought alongside the Romans on a one-for-one basis in almost all cases and under similar circumstances. There is no evidence that they weren't equally as good and fought just the same.

A law was introduced in the 2nd punic war that conscripts could not be required to serve for more than 6 years consecutively (because of increasing unrest among the farmers that could not work their land for long times while at war). During the Jugurthine war Marius needed to raise new legions to end the war after the poor job of Metellus and also to face the threat of the Cimbri and Teutons invasion, but there were no people eligible to be recruited. That is what caused Marius to reform the military system.

Amongst other things, yes, but in general it was simply the need to fight further and longer from Rome itself (hence away from farms) and supply permanent garrisons.

The main benefit was obviously the greater manpower for roman war machine, but it wasn't the only one. Rome moved from a conscript army to standing army required to serve 16 years. This army was better trained, more disciplined than the previous and the longer serving time allowed veterans to perform better in new wars than a newly levied army. The manipular tactics with the formation of the 3 defensive lines were also abandoned in favor of cohorts that could act independently and flank enemy lines. Marius also reformed the equipment and logistics of the legion, legionaries weren't required to buy their own equipment anymore but it was provided for them and they were required to carry it along with food rations. This greatly improved the army mobility thanks to the reduced baggage. Legionaries were kept in peak physical condition and discipline by constant training and employed to build roads or forts during peace time to avoid them becoming lazy.

The main benefit was the availability of a whole section of the population that had never before been considered for serving, for they were not suitable. Moreover they were paid (and yes equipped, for they had no money to do so) and thus it became a permanent job, but they now had no particular love for Rome, focussing much more on the man that raised and paid for them. When raised (as in recruited as a new unit in our terms), they were much less ready and trained - years would pass before they should attain the same status (getting chevrons for us). Oh yes, veteran legions were prised, but they also tended to be much reduced in actual strength as they were slowly whittled away - not much evidence of any recruitment back to strength.

Apart from the single reference by Caesar to deploying legions by cohorts in a 4-3-3 structure, there is no other evidence that the triple-acies, let alone manipular tactics, was ever 'abandoned'. I would agree, however, that cohorts became the prime tactical and operational unit (which is why they were apparently brought to and maintained at their full 6-century size). Yes, discipline was required and regular work needed - for these were the previous dregs of Roman society.

Now it is obvious that all these changes didn't just increase the number of soldier available, but also improved the performance of the army overall. The new legion could march faster and longer distances in shorter time, they were constantly trained and ready to fight at all times. They also had higher morale due to them being paid volunteers with the prospect of gaining citizienship and land for their services, rather than conscripts forced to fight away from home for lenghty time with the risk of losing the land they possesed since they couldn't work it. Basically there was no army in the entire world at the time that could match the roman legion's standards.

So in the end I don't see how one could possibly say legionaries shouldn't have better stats than polybian's cohorts.

I think you over-empasize the apocryphal 'Marius' Mules' - there's no evidence that they could march 'faster and longer distances in shorter time' that I'm aware of. 'Higher Morale'? After many years perhaps, not initially. 'Prospect of gaining citizenship' - that's rubbish - they were already citizens (I think you are thinking of much later and for the post-Augustan auxiliaries). Finally I think you need to re-evaluate Greek City State 'militias' - none could ever be considered 'conscripts'.

Now, did the Roman army become the first 'professional' and then arguably the most powerful military machine at the time - yes - but it sure as hell took time.

Overall - the pre-Marian and post-Marian forces were equipped (shield, sword, pilum, etc) the same and could attain the same abilities. One could argue that the 'Polybian' units should start with much greater experience, however that won't work within the simulation, for if things were 'accurate' then armies would appear for 6 months and then be disbanded - but players won't do that (sensibly). The only way to get close is to give the flavour of the units, but we have standing 'professional' armies from the start. There's certainly no reason for their stats to be different. A player who wants to represent Caesar's 10th at the time he went over to Eqypt after all those years - sure, a Gold Chevron or two, but it will be only 2 'cohorts' strong as a maximum!

[Sephiroth88]

There were no 'Camillan' or 'Polybian' Reforms. Secondly, I believe rather strongly that you misunderstand completely the Army of Rome of the Early Republic - they were certainly not conscripts. All men trained for (and equipped themselves) war. The 'ordinary' soldiers were indeed farmers - farmers who were well used to hard work, long hours, fit and hardy. Moreover, not only were they highly motivated as they were defending their own lands and interests, but had a sense of civic duty that was second to none. They were most certainly not 'conscripts'. The best of them were hand-picked to serve each time to make up the legions; they required no training; they were ready for war each campaign season (on the understanding that they had sown their crops and would be back in time to harvest them). It's the need to farm that brought about the changes - exactly as I described, but you do mention the right law that covered it initially.

The Socii allies fought alongside the Romans on a one-for-one basis in almost all cases and under similar circumstances. There is no evidence that they weren't equally as good and fought just the same.

So you deny Marcus Furius Camillus reformed the army equipment and introduced the hastati princeps triarii system after the battles against the gauls (battle of the Allia) and the second Samnite war? You also deny that this system was later improved during the punic wars to sort the soldiers by age rather than by wealth and replacing hastae (spears) with swords?
Isn't a civilian (farmers are civilians in my book) who's recruited to serve in the army, regardless they wanted to and their motivation (I doubt every single man was eager to go to war) a conscript? May be there's a better word to describe them, but the point is they weren't there by choice (volunteers) and since most roman wars were aggressive and for conquest they weren't there to protect their own land.
When a new legion was raised, they were trained for 3-4 months. At first they were put under a period called probatio to assest their medical condition and stamina. Then they were trained in marching, combat training, weapon handling (correct use of gladium, shield and pila), battle formations, digging ditches, building barricades and fortification, taking care fo equipment, giving first aid. Now imagine the benefit of doing this all year long for marian legions.

The main benefit was the availability of a whole section of the population that had never before been considered for serving, for they were not suitable. Moreover they were paid (and yes equipped, for they had no money to do so) and thus it became a permanent job, but they now had no particular love for Rome, focussing much more on the man that raised and paid for them. When raised (as in recruited as a new unit in our terms), they were much less ready and trained - years would pass before they should attain the same status (getting chevrons for us). Oh yes, veteran legions were prised, but they also tended to be much reduced in actual strength as they were slowly whittled away - not much evidence of any recruitment back to strength.

Apart from the single reference by Caesar to deploying legions by cohorts in a 4-3-3 structure, there is no other evidence that the triple-acies, let alone manipular tactics, was ever 'abandoned'. I would agree, however, that cohorts became the prime tactical and operational unit (which is why they were apparently brought to and maintained at their full 6-century size). Yes, discipline was required and regular work needed - for these were the previous dregs of Roman society.

When new marian legions were raised they followed the same training process that polybian legion underwent, only difference is they would keep training during peace time while polybian didn't since they returned to be civillians. The reduced strenght doesn't mean much as understrenght legions were often merged (Legio X you mention later is an example), and new recruits were obviously recruited in existing legions or it wouldn't explain how some numbered legions existed for centuries. There's also evidence of this in book 6 chapter 1 of Commentarii de bello gallico. Manipular formations were abandoned in favor of cohorts, the very fact cohorts existed is proof of that. You either arrange them in maniples or in cohorts, you can't have both.

I think you over-empasize the apocryphal 'Marius' Mules' - there's no evidence that they could march 'faster and longer distances in shorter time' that I'm aware of. 'Higher Morale'? After many years perhaps, not initially. 'Prospect of gaining citizenship' - that's rubbish - they were already citizens (I think you are thinking of much later and for the post-Augustan auxiliaries). Finally I think you need to re-evaluate Greek City State 'militias' - none could ever be considered 'conscripts'.

Now, did the Roman army become the first 'professional' and then arguably the most powerful military machine at the time - yes - but it sure as hell took time.

Overall - the pre-Marian and post-Marian forces were equipped (shield, sword, pilum, etc) the same and could attain the same abilities. One could argue that the 'Polybian' units should start with much greater experience, however that won't work within the simulation, for if things were 'accurate' then armies would appear for 6 months and then be disbanded - but players won't do that (sensibly). The only way to get close is to give the flavour of the units, but we have standing 'professional' armies from the start. There's certainly no reason for their stats to be different. A player who wants to represent Caesar's 10th at the time he went over to Eqypt after all those years - sure, a Gold Chevron or two, but it will be only 2 'cohorts' strong as a maximum!

Logistics is a big part of war and a very very important one back then as it is now. The great mobility of roman legions is described very well by Julius Caser as he always was very impatient to get where he as going and forced marched his legion very often. Fist example that comes to mind is the 27 days march from Rome to Spain during the civil war that I believe it would have been impossible without the reform. The citizienship part was my mistake they were indeed already citizien, what I meant was status since their family would gain an estate with and possibly slaves and loot from the capaign. You keep comparing veterans experienced polybian legions with newly recruited marian legion. You either compare them on the same level or you don't. I agree the game mechanics can't reflect the fact that armies before marian reforms were temporary and should be disbanded after the war. I agree it took time for the transition and this also can't be really reflected in game other than making the generic temporary legions the same as polybians in terms of stats and only buff the actual numbered legions. What I don't agree on is that according to you the only advantage of marian reforms is more soldier to recruit (while historically it wasn't) and that they on avarage weren't better soldier than their predecessors (while they were, the more so as time passed during their serving time). Not to mention all the other advantages the the marian reforms gave outside the actual military strenght that are not reflected in game(more farmers farming the land, retired legionaries settling in conquered regions 'romanizing' them, etc.). If the game can't reflect the historic advantages, some compromise must be done in some way.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Sephiroth',

This is indeed rather interesting, but I don't think it belongs here - would you like to engage in a separate thread to discuss?

Are you getting information from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastati

and here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structu...Roman_military

Because they're really not very good.

The Early Republic Farmers & Equestrians were already trained - they campaigned for the 4-5 months of their service - they were not training. Such training was much later.

A standard cohort consists of 3 maniples each of 2 centuries (retaining their old titles as can be seen in the later Centurion titles). What source says they stopped fighting in maniples? And there are lots of ways you can fight in both styles - they are completely harmonius.

Some numbered legions existed for centuries - yes, after Octavian/Augustus created the permanent army following the big Civil Wars - not before. In the Republic legions were disbanded/settled (en masse) after their service. And Caesar's 10th was only some 1,500 strong when he went to Egypt, so I made my statement deliberately.

Overall, however, the post-Marian legions are new troops, who've never before fought - it's up to the player to train them and get them experienced. They fight no differently. The reforms are not an 'upgrade'.

[CatoTheYounger]

Wow...cool thread.

I do recall however Livy mentioning that the soci were not as well disciplined as the Roman Branch of the matching armies. The battle of Trebia i beleive he mentiones they were the ones responsible for routing while the Romans stayed disciplend and held their ground much better. So i think the Soci stats and morale being slightly lower then the Roman Cohorts is reasonalbe.

Also i remember livy mentioning that Tiberius longus had rushed his men instead of letting the newly recruited men drill and get some training under them. So i think they may have usualy got some quick drilling at least. I might be off on some details but i Read Livys account of the second Punic War and this is my recollection on the subject.

But as always ill defer to Lord Tedric as he seems to specialize in this area.

[5th Lieutenant]

As an aside to this very interesting discussion, for a lot of the late 20th Century, (advised by a contemporarily left-wing view of ancient history), the narrative of the Marian ‘event’ was that greedy landowners were buying up the farms of serving citizens resulting in destitute families moving to Rome and swelling the ranks of the urban plebs. The Gracchi, Marius, Caesar etc. took the side of these unfortunates with a mixture of changes to the recruiting system and relocation of the ager publicus. Interestingly, however, while this was then and remains now a powerful (and neat) story I have noticed it has been increasingly challenged by recent histories (Rome and the Sword - Simon James, Marius and the Crisis of Rome - Gareth Sampson, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic - Erich Gruen). These stress that there is actually very little evidence that this occurred beyond the speeches of certain leading figures (mostly recorded by Plutarch in his very particular history) but through calculations of Italy's growing wealth and populations, the suggestions is more that there were simply too many famer's sons to inherit the available land and hence many headed to Rome. Their enlisting in the Legions in an ad-hoc fashion pre-dated the 'Marian' reform, but the change to recognising the role that could be played by plebeians came from this surplus unemployed manpower was driven first by the long and costly Jugurthine wars and then then the German crisis.

Given the inherent conservative outlook of Rome, I have always been very doubtful that there was a rapid and overnight change in this manner and that it was a growing adoption de jure of what had in any case been occurring for a while. The appellation ‘Marian’ reflects the man who was at the centre of this process but it seems unlikely that – even with his record both political and military – he single-handedly changed the Roman military overnight

Overall, however, the post-Marian legions are new troops, who've never before fought - it's up to the player to train them and get them experienced. They fight no differently. The reforms are not an 'upgrade'.

I’m not sure I agree with this – I suspect the new Marian units had their fair share of experienced campaigners given the campaigns that had been occurring prior to the Cimbrian War. Despite the losses suffered in the defeats at Arausio and Noreia, the number of men who would have served prior to this and remained a source of manpower for the rebuilt Roman forces is likely to have been considerable (though not sufficient to remove the need for the available Plebeians to make up numbers). It seems unlikely, despite making good Hollywood fodder, that a general with the experience of Marius had no old campaigners left over on which to call but simply took a collection of undernourished city-dwellers and built a new army on sheer force of personality

[Legion_IX]

So you deny Marcus Furius Camillus reformed the army equipment and introduced the hastati princeps triarii system after the battles against the gauls (battle of the Allia) and the second Samnite war? You also deny that this system was later improved during the punic wars to sort the soldiers by age rather than by wealth and replacing hastae (spears) with swords?
Isn't a civilian (farmers are civilians in my book) who's recruited to serve in the army, regardless they wanted to and their motivation (I doubt every single man was eager to go to war) a conscript? May be there's a better word to describe them, but the point is they weren't there by choice (volunteers) and since most roman wars were aggressive and for conquest they weren't there to protect their own land.
When a new legion was raised, they were trained for 3-4 months. At first they were put under a period called probatio to assest their medical condition and stamina. Then they were trained in marching, combat training, weapon handling (correct use of gladium, shield and pila), battle formations, digging ditches, building barricades and fortification, taking care fo equipment, giving first aid. Now imagine the benefit of doing this all year long for marian legions.




When new marian legions were raised they followed the same training process that polybian legion underwent, only difference is they would keep training during peace time while polybian didn't since they returned to be civillians. The reduced strenght doesn't mean much as understrenght legions were often merged (Legio X you mention later is an example), and new recruits were obviously recruited in existing legions or it wouldn't explain how some numbered legions existed for centuries. There's also evidence of this in book 6 chapter 1 of Commentarii de bello gallico. Manipular formations were abandoned in favor of cohorts, the very fact cohorts existed is proof of that. You either arrange them in maniples or in cohorts, you can't have both.



Logistics is a big part of war and a very very important one back then as it is now. The great mobility of roman legions is described very well by Julius Caser as he always was very impatient to get where he as going and forced marched his legion very often. Fist example that comes to mind is the 27 days march from Rome to Spain during the civil war that I believe it would have been impossible without the reform. The citizienship part was my mistake they were indeed already citizien, what I meant was status since their family would gain an estate with and possibly slaves and loot from the capaign. You keep comparing veterans experienced polybian legions with newly recruited marian legion. You either compare them on the same level or you don't. I agree the game mechanics can't reflect the fact that armies before marian reforms were temporary and should be disbanded after the war. I agree it took time for the transition and this also can't be really reflected in game other than making the generic temporary legions the same as polybians in terms of stats and only buff the actual numbered legions. What I don't agree on is that according to you the only advantage of marian reforms is more soldier to recruit (while historically it wasn't) and that they on avarage weren't better soldier than their predecessors (while they were, the more so as time passed during their serving time). Not to mention all the other advantages the the marian reforms gave outside the actual military strenght that are not reflected in game(more farmers farming the land, retired legionaries settling in conquered regions 'romanizing' them, etc.). If the game can't reflect the historic advantages, some compromise must be done in some way.

Fully agree with you. Also this thread is the very first place where I read the polybian armies were better in terms of discipline, logistics and the overall ability than late-republic legions.

[Sertorio]

By the time Marius, acting as Consul, called for volunteers among those who did not own property and so did not qualify for the legions, it´s quite possible that the resulting legions were no better. Why? Because a Early-Republican Legion would count men that would have fought in several campaigns for a maximum of 16 years. They would have served as velites, then hastati, principes and triari. After enrolled they subjected themselves to a rigorous training program as described by Polybius. They would then go on campaign, the survivors being discharged at the end of the consulship, IF the Senate did not extend the powers of the Consul for a longer period. At one time of the 2º Punic War, Polybius gives a number of 21 servicing legions in the Italian theatre (or so i recall, those might include the Iberian legions. So we have plenty long time servicing man on those legions, if we assume a regular number of 4 legions being raised each year.
Farmers indeed.
By comparison the new Legions of Marius were filled by man who had never fought, never had been trained to fight and had no military experience whatsoever generally speaking.
Of course the permanent status of the Marian Legions, brought a better gathering of experience and training, as time went by,because now the legions were not fully discharged and a capital of military skills was kept. Caesar comments on one legion being very good but not as good as his older legions. Apart training, the battlefield, the campaign was the ultimate harsh teacher.
As for tactics, Caesar was a genius, Scipio was a genius, but most Roman general seem to have relied on a standard triplex acies approach on the battlefield.
Having no comanding officer, no standard to follow, makes, in my opinion, a cohort unsuitable for anything over holding the line and act on trumpet commands to perform frontal assaults, but not performing complex manoeuvring on its own.
Cohorts existed in the Early-Republic, Scipio is said to have taken "with him six centuries, wich the romans call cohorts", at a point of the spanish campaign.

[Agrippa19]

Overall, however, the post-Marian legions are new troops, who've never before fought - it's up to the player to train them and get them experienced. They fight no differently. The reforms are not an 'upgrade'.

I'm sure 5th Lieutenant is right in not agreeing with this either. The reforms didn't suddenly encourage thousands of volunteers to sign up, many of Rome's citizens were still drafted into the army and many would have had previous experience of war. I think Lord Tedric that you are comparing a Veteran Polybian Legions strength to a newly organised post marian legion too much to show the real advantages of the reforms. Maybe the two fought the same but it would be realistic I feel to boost discipline and morale stats in game to account for the professionalsim and higher level of discipline the new legions would have had.

I think in game if Polybian legion's morale and discipline stats were kept lower than the Post-Marian legions it would represent well how the Marian legions were maintained as a permanent professional army compared to the old style legions who were often disbanded.

[Sertorio]

I think in game if Polybian legion's morale and discipline stats were kept lower than the Post-Marian legions it would represent well how the Marian legions were maintained as a permanent professional army compared to the old style legions who were often disbanded.

You have just put yourself in the hands of a team who is always trying to make the game more challenging...you actually suggested to lower stats ?? May the wargods have mercy on the roman players. Have you seen what Celtic champions can do to a cohort ?

[jus2121]

You have just put yourself in the hands of a team who is always trying to make the game more challenging...you actually suggested to lower stats ?? May the wargods have mercy on the roman players. Have you seen what Celtic champions can do to a cohort ?

Instead of lowering the stats of the polybian cohorts it seems more logical to just "improve" the stats of the post-marian legions!!!! Its a bit a gamebreaking reform if there is no improvement to me.

[Sertorio]

It's not game breaking, and i was humouring on your quotation, historically the reforms occurred because there was need of a permanent army that could not be demanded to the militia army. The outcome was better? Yes but not immediately.

[Silius Saurus]

Some interesting arguments here; I am learning quite a bit from you chaps. I understand the dissenting opinion- that the Marian Legion would not necessarily be radically better at it's job than the Polybian one.

There should be something in it for the Roman player however; to get a mere skin change for your infantry would defeat the original intention of the mod itself, IMO.

[High Fist]

Thing about the game is, you can't really train up your legions up in battle because they can be trained up to two silver chevrons right off the bat. It is, indeed an interesting argument and I'd agree with m'Lord Tedric. Shame that the game mechanics limit us in this regard.