Suggestions for Roman Army Composition.

[LawL_LawL]

Not really. For a correct roman manipular consular legion including socii you need more than 70 units. Well, for a small imperial army (exercitus) based on cohorts, 40 slots is not that bad, and 20 works; only just.

However, Rome 2 vanilla is better in this department, than Rome 1 ever was. And with DeI it becomes better and better.

Those campaigns with the Socii numbering 2 or even 3 times or more the numbers of native Romans in the consular armies... You can't even do that with 80 units, and the game won't let more than that participate in a battle so everything past the first 4 stacks just idles for the battle, even auto-resolves.

That said, Rome 2 certainly does provide more canvas space to do things on, but a lot of it needs to be mended extensively before one can take a brush to it.

[squirel]

Actually, I was so far more interested in the late roman / imperial army, than the manipular legion of the mid-republic, but here I tried to calculate some ratios, based on common knowledge. Even if the sources differ and it is a safe guess, that even the manipular exercitus was more flexible than many people would assume.

A manipular legion was often (but not always) a double legion of 1 roman and 1 legion of the sociii
The composition of both legions was similar (but not always): 1200 per unit-type; triarii just 600)
However, depending on regions and traditions the socii legion was most probably pretty flexible and could include more special units and could have a more or less different structure.
The socii provided 3 alae of equites, the romans just 1.

That leads to a double legion of roughly 9600 men. Ingame we have to put these guys into 38 slots (+ 2 generals).
Sometimes such an army was reinforced by non-italian allies or mercenaries. You could call these guys the precedessors of the later auxilia. But now you have to recalculate the numbers below, because you have to put more than 9600 men with different percentages into 38 slots.


Unittype Number Percentage Slots (rounded)

Velites 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5) (wasn't it just 1000?)
Hastati 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Princeps 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Triarii 600 6,25% 2,4 (2)
Equites 300 3,13% 1,2 (1)

Velites soc. 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Hastati soc. 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Princeps soc. 1200 12,50% 4,8 (5)
Triarii soc. 600 6,25% 2,4 (2)
Equites soc. 900 9,38% 3,6 (3)


The naming velites soc., hastati soc., etc. for the socii is somewhat misleading. It just means units with the same type/role. And as mentioned above, socii were perhaps often not structured exactly the same like the roman part. A similar structure is just another more or less good speculation of historians.

Roman legions in the mid-republic were just numbered, because best case they were just recruited for one campaign (a few months) and disbanded afterwards. IIRC they had no cognomen, but I am not sure. I have no clue, how the "legion" of the socii was named. Surely not Ala, because this is the name of a cavalry unit only. Perhaps Legio sociorum (or samnitorum if all Samnites) or numerus sociorum or exercitus sociorum instead of legio, if legio was reserved for romans only.

You also have now 3 equites sociorum and just 1 unit of roman equites. So you have to move 1 equites sociorum into the roman legion.

I guess, this is as close as you can get to historical accuracy, imho. But remember, the romans were pragmatists and even the roman manipular legion, especially the part of the socii was most probably more flexible than some historians can imagine.

Therefore I always vote for very generous caps for roman armies, if we need caps at all.

This was interesting to read. This is pre-Marian reforms, right? And I was wondering about legion composition after marian reforms and perhaps augustan too?

[UsulDaNeriak]

Yes, this is manipular legion pre-Marius. Or better until the 2nd century BC, when a century of transition started. The change of equipment, the introduction of the cohort organisation, the change of the command structure and the change in the recruitemnt base happened step by step and somewhat independent from each other. Marius just consolidated everything and finally changed the recruitment base with his law, when he became a consul. Therefore the current solution in Rome 2 based on technologies is a chance for a more historical correct solution, because it enables such a step-by step approach better, than the single event mechanism of Rome 1.

The roman army of the late republic and early empire are actually not that much different, if we purely look to the structure of an army and how to compose a stack in Rome 2.

1. A legion never fought alone, aside from perhaps an emergency case, because it is more or less just heavy infantry.

2. The romans added auxilia units to the legion for light infantry, range units and cavalry.

3. If you combine roman legionary units and non-roman auxilia units you no longer have a legio (something like a regiment, batallion or division) but an exercitus (army) of mixed units. However I name it e.g. Legio I Italica, even if it is technically the Exercitus legionis I. The romans themselves were not very strict if it comes to naming, too.

4. The biggest exercitus we know of fought in the civil war and had 17 legions plus auxilia. The normal big exercitus was about 4-6 legions plus auxilia and sometimes a few praetorian cohorts. The smallest exercitus is 1 legion or less plus auxilia. If it is much less than 1 legion plus auxilia, you would rather call it a vexillatio (e.g. 4 legionary cohorts, 2 auxilia cohorts and 1 ala of cavalry). For Rome 2 I assume, that a stack represents such a small exercitus with roughly 1 legion as a core plus auxilia.

5. In the early empire the entire roman army, was about 50% legions and 50% auxilia (infantry cohorts and cavalry alae). But, if we look to campaigning armies on the battlefield the percentage of legionary units could be significantly lower or higher.

6. The amount of light infantry including archers without cavalry was roughly about 40-60% (in average 50%) percent of the heavy infantry. Some historians claim, that this was an eternal tactical rule.

7. The percentage of cavalry increased during late republic and early empire from 10% up to 15% of the exercitus in total. Until late empire it increased up to 20-25%. And in Rome 2, we face alternate history comparable to the late empire situation.

8. If the praetorians accompanied the emperor or his heir on a campaign, they never all left Rome, e.g. Germanicus exercitus had 4 praetorian cohorts, which was about 5-10% of his total numbers.

9. Mobile field artillery was unkown in the late reublic, and played probably no big role in the 1st century AD. In the 2nd century AD it became more usual and later a standard weapon of every centuria.

So my composition is usually:

1 General
1 First cohort
7-9 standard legionary cohorts (usually i try to have 9)
0-2 veterani or evocati (a legion had a vexillatio veteranorum; could be smaller or bigger than 1 cohort; I usually have 2 cohorts)
0-4 legionary cohorts as a vexillatio from another legion (such things happened pretty often). If the vexillatio is praetorian, it should be rather small (1-2).
4-6 non roman infantry cohorts (light infantry including archers and/or artillery); mercenaries possible
2-4 non-roman cavalry; mercenaries possible

As you can see, a roman army was very flexible, not that much standardized, and composed situationally.

[tomFoolery]

Yes, this is manipular legion pre-Marius. Or better until the 2nd century BC, when a century of transition started. The change of equipment, the introduction of the cohort organisation, the change of the command structure and the change in the recruitemnt base happened step by step and somewhat independent from each other. Marius just consolidated everything and finally changed the recruitment base with his law, when he became a consul. Therefore the current solution in Rome 2 based on technologies is a chance for a more historical correct solution, because it enables such a step-by step approach better, than the single event mechanism of Rome 1.

The roman army of the late republic and early empire are actually not that much different, if we purely look to the structure of an army and how to compose a stack in Rome 2.

1. A legion never fought alone, aside from perhaps an emergency case, because it is more or less just heavy infantry.

2. The romans added auxilia units to the legion for light infantry, range units and cavalry.

3. If you combine roman legionary units and non-roman auxilia units you no longer have a legio (something like a regiment, batallion or division) but an exercitus (army) of mixed units. However I name it e.g. Legio I Italica, even if it is technically the Exercitus legionis I. The romans themselves were not very strict if it comes to naming, too.

4. The biggest exercitus we know of fought in the civil war and had 17 legions plus auxilia. The normal big exercitus was about 4-6 legions plus auxilia and sometimes a few praetorian cohorts. The smallest exercitus is 1 legion or less plus auxilia. If it is much less than 1 legion plus auxilia, you would rather call it a vexillatio (e.g. 4 legionary cohorts, 2 auxilia cohorts and 1 ala of cavalry). For Rome 2 I assume, that a stack represents such a small exercitus with roughly 1 legion as a core plus auxilia.

5. In the early empire the entire roman army, was about 50% legions and 50% auxilia (infantry cohorts and cavalry alae). But, if we look to campaigning armies on the battlefield the percentage of legionary units could be significantly lower or higher.

6. The amount of light infantry including archers without cavalry was roughly about 40-60% (in average 50%) percent of the heavy infantry. Some historians claim, that this was an eternal tactical rule.

7. The percentage of cavalry increased during late republic and early empire from 10% up to 15% of the exercitus in total. Until late empire it increased up to 20-25%. And in Rome 2, we face alternate history comparable to the late empire situation.

8. If the praetorians accompanied the emperor or his heir on a campaign, they never all left Rome, e.g. Germanicus exercitus had 4 praetorian cohorts, which was about 5-10% of his total numbers.

9. Mobile field artillery was unkown in the late reublic, and played probably no big role in the 1st century AD. In the 2nd century AD it became more usual and later a standard weapon of every centuria.

So my composition is usually:

1 General
1 First cohort
7-9 standard legionary cohorts (usually i try to have 9)
0-2 veterani or evocati (a legion had a vexillatio veteranorum; could be smaller or bigger than 1 cohort; I usually have 2 cohorts)
0-4 legionary cohorts as a vexillatio from another legion (such things happened pretty often). If the vexillatio is praetorian, it should be rather small (1-2).
4-6 non roman infantry cohorts (light infantry including archers and/or artillery); mercenaries possible
2-4 non-roman cavalry; mercenaries possible

As you can see, a roman army was very flexible, not that much standardized, and composed situationally.

Spot on, but two things...

Weren't scorpions a standard in every legion, even from around the Marian reforms? Or were they just as popular as any other kind of artillery? You didn't make a single mention of them.
And do you know what the status of actual Roman cavalry was after the Marian reforms, composed of actual Roman citizens, both during the late republic and imperial period? Vanilla and DeI have the general "legionary cavalry" available. Did they ever happen at all or was it completely non-existent (if it did, it was of course extremely rare)?

[UsulDaNeriak]

Weren't scorpions a standard in every legion, even from around the Marian reforms? Or were they just as popular as any other kind of artillery? You didn't make a single mention of them.

Point 9 covers it. Afaik the romans used artillery in the republic just for sieges. So they were build onsite, if needed. But I may be wrong. The first time mobile fieldartillery aka carroballistae are mentioned in a pitched battle is in the early 2nd century AD iirc. Perhaps the less mobile scorpio was used earlier in open field battles, than the carrobalista. I don't know for sure.

Vegetius, writing around 400 AD, mentions 11 artillerists per centuria for his ancient fantasy legion, but Vegetius is heavily disputed and nobody knows, which time he is actually referring to. Most historians bleive, that if Vegetius' fantasy legion ever existed, it was in the 3rd century AD.

And do you know what the status of actual Roman cavalry was after the Marian reforms, composed of actual Roman citizens, both during the late republic and imperial period? Vanilla and DeI have the general "legionary cavalry" available. Did they ever happen at all or was it completely non-existent (if it did, it was of course extremely rare)?

After the Marius reforms, romans of equestrian or senatorial rank, were not longer obliged to serve as equites anymore. So they stopped doing so. From now on, they volunteered for tribune and during empire sometimes for centurio. And of course, it is a safe guess, that all these amici et clientes (later called comites) accompanying a proconsul were sitting on a horse. But they have been no official unit.

The alae of the late republic and the early empire were all supposed to be non-romans from the tribes of the provinces. But, latest after Claudius an auxilia soldier got citizen rights after 20/25 years of service. And if his sons now enter dads unit, which was pretty common, they are romans. Also some romans volunteered for auxilia units instead of a legion. Why not for an ala?

There are some auxilia cohortes ingenuorum, but that was all infantry.

An exception were the 120 Equites Legionis of a legion, which were afaik romans. But this was no fighting cavalry. They were mainly couriers and explorers. You could say, that these guys are represented by the generals bodyguards in Rome TW, even if this is not fully corrrect.

The Equites Singulares Consularis were usually the bodyguards of a proconsul or Legatus Augusti pro praetore and these guys were detached from the alae to the headquarter of a province. Thy did not belong to a legion but directly to the governors central staff and his provincial army (exercitus). Well, there are some hints, that some were romans, but not the majority.

So the only fighting roman cavalry was the praetorian cavalry, just if they really accompanied the emperor or his heir on a campaign

A unit of roman equites makes no sense to me after Marius until Caracalla. I never recruit them.

Well the auxilia cavalry ingame is a non roman standard ala from my understanding, even if recruitable in Italica, which is not correct, imho. Perhaps CAs intention was, that these guys represent the lower grade equites of a cohors equitata?

[Lord Damian]

To summarize all the Roman caps:

• Hastati and Hastati Late have a shared cap of 10. The cap is "shared", meaning that if you have 10 Hastati Early, for example, you will not be able to recruit any Hastati Late until you disband the former (because you already reached the cap of 10 for them).
• Socii Hastati works in the same exact manner, only that the cap is in plus the one of the main units, meaning you can have 10 Hastati + 10 Socii Hastati if you want.
• Principes and Principes Late have a cap of 5 and the same for the Socii Principes (Extraordinarii), that, however, as in the case of Socii Hastati are in plus to the main (for a total of 10 for all of them).
• Pedites and Pedites Late have a shared cap of 2, in addition to the cap of 10 of Hastati (for a max of 12 main Roman troops)

Thanks for taking this into consideration.

[tomFoolery]

Point 9 covers it. Afaik the romans used artillery in the republic just for sieges. So they were build onsite, if needed. But I may be wrong. The first time mobile fieldartillery aka carroballistae are mentioned in a pitched battle is in the early 2nd century AD iirc. Perhaps the less mobile scorpio was used earlier in open field battles, than the carrobalista. I don't know for sure.

Vegetius, writing around 400 AD, mentions 11 artillerists per centuria for his ancient fantasy legion, but Vegetius is heavily disputed and nobody knows, which time he is actually referring to. Most historians bleive, that if Vegetius' fantasy legion ever existed, it was in the 3rd century AD.

I was under the impression that scorpions were mostly a regular part of legions at around the time of the Marian reforms. Can anyone else comment on this?

And I wouldn't be surprised if (on very, very rare occasions) citizens would volunteer to form an actualy legionary citizen cavalry unit. Has anyone heard anything like this?

[LawL_LawL]

I was under the impression that scorpions were mostly a regular part of legions at around the time of the Marian reforms. Can anyone else comment on this?

And I wouldn't be surprised if (on very, very rare occasions) citizens would volunteer to form an actualy legionary citizen cavalry unit. Has anyone heard anything like this?

I remember having this impression before, when I was 10 or 12, and imagining the fire-power if a legion possessed scorpions as a Second World War battalion might possess mortars and machine gun supporting elements. I have a feeling this impression was due to the aforementioned Vegetius' works on the Roman army and its structure and composition, though I do not know for sure as I don't recall where I read this, it merely sounds like Vegetius' works now that I look back on it with more info on hand.

Extensive reading elsewhere would lead to be very skeptical regarding how widely employed field artillery really was by the Roman army, as most accounts mention them as a specialist corps only ever really seeing use in siege fighting. Even then they were relegated to a secondary arm as missile fire was inherently impossible to rely on in the ancient era to subdue the entirety of a fortified city. The real work was always down to the infantryman and his weapons.

As for "Legionnary Cavalry," the name has always had very misleading connotations for me. Everyone has probably memories of Rome 1's literal Legionnary Cavalry units, with horsemen clad in full lorica segmentata and what have you. I highly doubt Rome ever fielded horsemen armed and armoured exactly as their legionnaries were, but perhaps the name of "Legionnary Cavalry" could be used in reference merely to cavalry attached to the legion or ad-hoc situations with legionnaries called upon to mount to cross greater distances?

In most cases Roman history provides fairly clear sources on Roman cavalry being mostly sourced from elsewhere in Italy and later other parts of the Empire, as Rome and Italy seems to fail to meet the standards of most nations cavalry arms.

[UsulDaNeriak]

Remember, there have been always the Equites Legionis and the Praetorian Cavalry as an option for romans to serve as cavalrist.

The roman army in the 1st century AD was about 300.000-380.000 men strong. 10-15% or around 30-50.000 men were cavalry.
The Equites Legionis were 120 per legion. For 30 legions these are 3600 men. Add the Praetorian cavalry and you end up with about 4000 roman cavalrists. Thats a lot compared to republican times. And it is about 10% of the total cavalry number.

Now look to the population of the early empire. We know, that the roman census showed about 4-5.000.000 romans at this point of time. It is disputed, if this figure includes kids and women, but most probably this is the case. The total number of inhabitants of the empire is estimated about 40 - 60.000.000. And again romans are about 10% of the population. So the ratio of roman cavalrists matches pretty well to the ratio of the total population. And the general rule was: Romans serve in the Legions! The 10% cavalrists of the Equites legionis work pretty well.

We don't know, what the role of these Equites Legionis really was. There are some hints, that they have been explorers and couriers. And since CA introduced Line of Sight we received an impression, how badly a general needs explorers. However, we cannot preclude, that occasionally the Equites Legionis joined the fighting cavalry forces on the battlefield. Historians assume, that the about 500-1000 Equites Singulares joined the alae on the battlefield, because they were detachments of these alae. We also know, that the equites of the cohors equitata fought under command of an ala commander on the battlefield. So they joined them, too. Why not sometimes some Equites Legionis?

On the other hand, there was the option for a young roman rider to volunteer for an ala. A lot of decurions and NCOs of the ala were romans promoted from the legions anyways. Also a lot of provincials in the ala were roman citizens, because their father already served 25 years in this ala and became a roman citizen this way.

Just for the late republic from Marius to Augustus I see limitations for young romans to become a cavalrist. Of course you often could accompany your patron during his 1 year as proconsul or become a tribune. And remember in republican times cavlrist was closely tied to social rank. Eques means, you got the social rank of an eques, not that you just can ride pretty well.

Caesar once met a barbarian chieftain for negotiations. He thought, that it does look weird, if his guards are german cavalrists. So he asked some hundred legionaries of the 10th legion to jump on a horse and accompany him. The legionaries were joking: "We expected glory and loot from Caesar, but promoting us to Equites was more, than we ever could have expected". I am sure, the readers of Caesars's book had a good laugh about this scene.

Eques was more than just riding in the roman world if it comes to a roman citizen! Even if I am convinced, that this became less of an issue during the 1st century AD, when more and more provincials got roman citizen rights.

I just doublechecked the list of alae on wikipedia, which is perhaps not complete. There are some alae civium Romanorum (c.R.). But as far as I can say, after googling a bit more, these are all honorary titles. That means, that this ala was so brave, that all members got roman citizen rights after an heroic battle. But while the title stayed forever, the next recruit was again a non citizen.

Especially for the times, when the romans panicked (after Teutoburg Forest and during Marcomann Wars), they recruited a lot of fredmen (lower grade roman citizens), which often have been a slave the day before, into the auxilia. But I could not find an ala, made of roman citizens of whatever kind during these times.

[LawL_LawL]

Oh I was aware of the mounted arm of the Roman army, just never saw the mentions of their cavalry being anything impressive. Perhaps this is incorrect and they were merely overshadowed by the infantry. Though I recall something along the lines of the Praetorian cavalry being the first to rout in a battle? Though this was probably in the later empire, but it's still a little worrisome if one's top-tier cavalry is the first troop off the field, waning empire or otherwise.

[UsulDaNeriak]

Actually we don't know much about the praetorian cavalry. It is even unclear, if every cohors praetoriana was a cohors equitata or not and how many cavalrists actually existed. I was always under the impression that praetorian cavalry did not exist under Augustus reign and was added later. But I am not sure.

Sometimes praetorians were pretty busy, like during Tiberius reign, when they accompanied Germanicus and Drusus on campaigns, or during the civil war after Nero. And sometimes they never saw a battlefield for decades. So even if they had the best training, they often had no combat experience. But some legionaries had no experience either, because nothing happened during their 20 years of service. That was the downside of the Pax Romana.

And very often people mix up the roman praetorian cavalry and the Equites Singulares Augusti (named differently in the 1st century AD). They did not belong to the praetorians and were the inner circle of the emperors security forces (the real boyguards). All were german cavalry, initally Batavians.

[UsulDaNeriak]

I just started a campaign with Bactria. And I wonder, what would be the correct naming for a stack. And what does a stack represent in a hellenistic army of Alexander or his successors?

As we saw in the discussion above, the roman legion is not an army, it is just a very big infantry unit. The army composed of different unit-types (and this is what a stack represents) is called exercitus. It was composed of one or more legions plus other infantry and cavalry units.

For the greek armies I know the greek term tagma from late roman empire. But this usually means a unit of cohortsize. I only found the term stratega (or strateiga?), but it seems, this means just a big phalanx of infantry, which is just the core of an army. So how was a big campaigning army including all the different unit-types of let's say 10-20000 men called?

And how do you say Royal Guards in greek? I mean something like the praetorian cohorts or later the scholae palatinae. I found the term agema, but it seems this is only for the macedon guards. Or was that term also used for Ptolemaios' guards and Seleucos' guards?

[LawL_LawL]

I just started a campaign with Bactria. And I wonder, what would be the correct naming for a stack. And what does a stack represent in a hellenistic army of Alexander or his successors?

As we saw in the discussion above, the roman legion is not an army, it is just a very big infantry unit. The army composed of different unit-types (and this is what a stack represents) is called exercitus. It was composed of one or more legions plus other infantry and cavalry units.

For the greek armies I know the greek term tagma from late roman empire. But this usually means a unit of cohortsize. I only found the term stratega (or strateiga?), but it seems, this means just a big phalanx of infantry, which is just the core of an army. So how was a big campaigning army including all the different unit-types of let's say 10-20000 men called?

And how do you say Royal Guards in greek? I mean something like the praetorian cohorts or later the scholae palatinae. I found the term agema, but it seems this is only for the macedon guards. Or was that term also used for Ptolemaios' guards and Seleucos' guards?

I believe Agema extended to the Seleucids at the very least as they are mentioned as having the cream of their cavalry partitioned into two primary regiments, being the Hetairoi or Companions with Alexandrian ties, and a more generically termed Agema regiment. Both falling under the umbrella of being "Royal Guard" cavalry so it's within reason to assume the terminology is compatible as a direct term to identify a force of guards or guardsmen.

[Keyser]

"Royal guard" would be "basilikon agema" i think.

But the specific "Agema" was an honorary and picked force, usually 1000 men strong, from among the limited standing troops or "guards" units.

The antigonid agema was a unit of peltasts, the lagid one too, the seleucid one was a force of medes horsemen (although there may have been a 1000 strong elite argyraspides unit too).

Philip II agema was made of hypapists.

For the greek armies I know the greek term tagma from late roman empire. But this usually means a unit of cohortsize. I only found the term stratega (or strateiga?), but it seems, this means just a big phalanx of infantry, which is just the core of an army. So how was a big campaigning army including all the different unit-types of let's say 10-20000 men called?

Organisation
The basic unit of the Macedonian Phalanx was the syntagma, a collection of 256 men in a 16x16 strong square. Each column of the syntagma was known as a lochos and contained 16 men, the man at the front was known as the lochagos (captain) and the man at the back who guarded the rank's rear was the ouragos. Assuming rank number one is the rank first to the right when looking directly forward into the formation the 2nd rank contained a dilocus who was in charge of the two ranks and was superior to the other lochagos, the next lochos was controlled by a lochagos and the line after controlled by a tetrairach. The tetrairach controlled the first 4 ranks (64 men) but directly controlled his own lochos. This pattern is repeated except in the 8th rank the tetrairach is known as a taxitairch, and he so forth controlled 128 men. The leader of the 2nd group of 8 ranks and therefore the leader of the whole syntagma was the syntagmatairch. He controlled the whole group of 256 men and was entrusted with their control during the intense difficulties of battle. The syntagma were grouped into 32 regiments collectively known as a keras (wing) each keras containing about 8192 men. The two keras together formed a full army, or a phalanx. This was in itself commanded by a strategos (general)

There was also a subunit called "taxeis", composed of around 1600 men iirc.

[LawL_LawL]

"Royal guard" would be "basilikon agema" i think.

But the specific "Agema" was an honorary and picked force, usually 1000 men strong, from among the limited standing troops or "guards" units.

The antigonid agema was a unit of peltasts, the lagid one too, the seleucid one was a force of medes horsemen (although there may have been a 1000 strong elite argyraspides unit too).

Philip II agema was made of hypapists.

There was also a subunit called "taxeis", composed of around 1600 men iirc.

Taxeis were 6 syntagma in strength if referring to a component of the main phalanx, and I'm not sure how much real meaning a lot of the sub-divisions had within Hellenic armies as that was merely command structure in place for keeping the lines in order. Once on the field Diadochi and Alexandrian phalangists seem to be consistently deployed as a single body, at most a couple portions rather than a single body. Besides referring to the main body of troops it seems like taxeis was too large a division of troops to be used to refer to guardsmen, perhaps with the exception of the Antigonid hypaspist corps as this was numbered around 5000, with a 2000 strong Agema component within the 5000.

Actually looks to be generally moving away from cavalry and phalangists as it seems like most of the Diadochi had hypaspists as the core of their infantry guardsmen. With cavalry always reserving a position in the elite for aristocratic pomp if nothing else.

[Keyser]

As far as i recall (but honnestly i may be wrong, it was a long time ago that i read info about the hellenic army subdivision, that's why i had to check the wiki), the basic unit on the field was the taxeis, because they could operate separetely, the phalanx wasn't a single monolithic line, but much like the roman line divided in manipule, there were space between sub-units and the taxeis was one that could operate alone if needed.

I just gave the info regarding the OP question about hellenistic units, i didn't meant that the guards would be divided into taxeis.

By the way, the fact that the guard units don't conform to the 256 men syntagma system of the phalanx, makes me doubt they ever fought as pike phalangites as sometimes said.

[satrain18]

40 units

Early Republic:
1 General
10 Hastati
10 Principes
10 Triarii
4 Equites
5 Velites (or, with a mod, archers)

Post Marian
1 Legatus
2 Eagle Cohorts
28 Legionary Cohorts
4 Auxiliary Cavalry or Praetorian Cavalry
5 Auxiliary Syrian Archers (or any kind of archers available in the area)

[Barune]

40 units

Early Republic:
1 General
10 Hastati
10 Principes
10 Triarii
4 Equites
5 Velites (or, with a mod, archers)

Post Marian
1 Legatus
2 Eagle Cohorts
28 Legionary Cohorts
4 Auxiliary Cavalry or Praetorian Cavalry
5 Auxiliary Syrian Archers (or any kind of archers available in the area)

First of all, Dat Necrothread

Second of all, Most of your ideas don't work due to unit caps in armies. Also Not enough Auxila. :|

[satrain18]

That's for custom battles.

[zonks40]

You can have 40 unit armies in the main campaign, me and my boy have been playing a head to head with 40 unit armies marching around, it's quite good if your system can handle it, I don't have as many battles, but the ones I have are pretty epic.