Trying to recreate an accurate Roman army setup. (my rome 2 ones at the end)

[theLargeCow]

Hey fellow nerds,
Im trying to make legion setups that as accurately as possible reflect the compositions of Western and Eastern Legions of the period, and would like the input of the rest of the total war community on helping me create an accurate setup.
In Rome 2 I had a historically accurate legion comp for each of the periods of Roman military makeup. for realism/emersion and because I love to make things as true to life as possible in historical games like total war. (if anyone wants them I'll list them at the end) So to get back on track I would like a general Idea of how to set them up and possibly tactics employed by the varying types of legions in this period. Currently using the custom battle army creator I made 2 variartions of a Limitanei and Comitatenses for both West and East, and also made a few setups of auxillia for both west and east with the west having mainly foederati mixed with some auxillia palatina(because i read in different sources that the palatina were used A as the royal guard and B used widespread in varying comitatenses to supplement them) and a Palatina Guard army made up of a healthy mix of the units that the attilapedia said were members of the imperial guard to defend rome/mediolanum in the West. For eastern rome I have the same thing, as mentioned early 2 generic but slightly different versions of Limitanei and Comitatenses that I created using a blog page about roman military, wikipedia and a website that listed details about the units. because of the latter I also made unique versions of limitatnei and comitatenses to be used in the Oriens doicese with camel troops for Palestine and Syria and beefy cav heavy setups (lots of cataphracts and the roman copy equites) for the frontier with the sassanids. I also made an army to defend Constantinople with the "bathhouse boys" as the main unit and the axe guards, pikemen and scholae cav.

Im not happy with the setups I have now, I feel that I may have overdone in some places(like this post ) and underdone in others. for example, I read that levis armaturae and funditores were widespread in all iterations of the roman legion, but couldnt find room to include a good mix of them and something with more range and ammo like sagittarii or ballistarii, so to make up for it the skirmishers I used in the capital guard armies were mostly elite ballistarii for the walls with the exception of including matiarii with the Palatina and Domesticii of that army. Another grievance I have was the differentiation between the different types of heavy swordsmen available to the romans, especially the easterm romans. That is to say, whats the difference between Cohors, Legio, Eastern Armored Legio, and Legio comitatenses? I think I ignored Cohors entirely and opted to use Legio in Limitanei armies and use Armored and Comitatenses Legio in Comitatenses armies. After doing more research I think that the Cohors were remnants of the principate system and were mostly resigned to walled cities and fortresses, whereas legio were out on the border on patrol and raiding, and comitatneses were professional well trained and disciplined main line versions.
One final thing before I overload you guys on info and questions, I opted to not use Exploratores, Exclutatores, Herculiani Seniores, Praevantores and Armigeri Defensores because of lack of information that I could find. If anyone can let me know their purposes and how to include them into my legions, where and how and how many, please let me know.


thanks hopefully for reading through my paragraphs of nerdy history buff questions and stuff, and thanks if you can answer any of them



for anyone who wanted to use my rome 2 setups, I have a link to an imgur of the text to make this post more concise and to the point I wanted to get across.
http://imgur.com/9JpoFFK
note: I sourced the steam guides called Early - Late Republican setup and Principate setup (thats roughly their names), as well as a post that I used on rome 1 that I dont remember the name of.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well the problem is that the Roman army wasn't organized predominately into Legions at this time. There were still legions, but there were more numeri and also cohortes and alae and cunei and equites and milites units. We can't even estimate the size of most of them.

During the

We know from the Strategikon in book 12 that Roman infantry units should be comprised of armored men in the first two ranks at least, typically four ranks of armored men which could be 2 in front, 2 in back, or 3 in front, 1 in back, or 4 in front. Depending on the engagement. The other four ranks were unarmored men with large shields and an array of missile weapons. 1/4 to 1/3 of them would be trained with a bow. The Roman army had always consisted of a ratio of about 50/50 armored to unarmored, with the number of armored men seemed to be a bit higher in the Principate army.

Now it's impossible to replicate this in RTW, because unarmored and armored units are separate in-game. So here's your best choice for setups:

Legio: 12 centuries totalling 960 men.
6 Armored infantry (Rome Total War can't replicate the fact that each Roman soldier used both a spear AND sword, so whatever works)
6 Unarmored infantry

Numerus: 8 centuries totalling 640 men.
4 Armored infantry
4 unarmored infantry

Cohors: 6 centuries totalling 480 men
3 armored infantry
3 unarmored infantry

Late Roman milites would have had typically about 5 plumbatae or 2 spicula in the front ranks, or some light javelins (verruta). They each had an 8-foot spear called a Contus and a Spatha, a large ovoid or round shield, and would have been armed in steel or bronze scale or maille. They had steel ridge helmets with gold, silver, or gilt sheathes. According to the Strategikon, file leaders had crests and plumes along with officers, and file leaders also wore steel greaves.

The mid-rankers i.e. light infantry would have had the same, except for missile weapons and armor. Vegetius complains about late Roman armies not wearing armor, but all the other sources contradict that: and looking at Vegetius he seems to be complaining specifically that archers were not wearing armor, not about the rest of the army. Mid-rankers usually were armed with a large number of light javelins or plumbatae, or with bows (again 1/4-1/3 of the army had bows, and in the Strategikon's time all troops were trained with the bow although the ratio of bowmen in the army remained about the same).

Cavalry were different, and that's where things get iffy because you have different types of cavalry unlike infantry units which were fairly uniform. You have Equites Sagittarii, Catafractarii, Clibanarii, Promoti, Scutari, and others. We're not sure what all the differences were, but we can guess at some: we're fairly certain that Catafractarii had a fully armored rider, while Clibanarii had fully armored horses (which Catafractarii did not). Scutari probably had medium sized shields or large infantry shields.

The issue comes into lance-and-bow warfare, and the introduction of the cursorses/defensorses system. Most historians say Belisarius introduced it, but there are marked mentions that suggest it came into use in the Western Roman army far earlier, probably under Constantius III or particularly Aetius. We know Aetius relied heavily on Alans for his cavalry recruits who would have known lance-and-bow tactics, regardless of their professional Roman training.

Cavalry were organized still into Alae, but also into the new Cuneus which may have been a 1/2 Ala mentioned by Arrian as the 256-man Tarantiarchia. Some mixed cohorts lingering on from the Principate still existed as well, the system wasn't clean-cut. Otherwise they would have been uniformly composed of one type of cavalry, until lance-and-bow tactics came into play.

Then you end up with a system of defensorses lancers and cursorses archers, both who switch between their lances and bows depending on where they are on the battlefield. Typically the cursorses would attack, then wheel out to the sides and back around to the defensorses who would be following up at a trot and hit the enemy pursuing the cursorses. There were also flank guards and outflankers too. There were so many different available maneuvers for cavalry, that you just have to buy a copy of the Strategikon. I couldn't possibly explain it myself, not without just typing the book into this post.
As for the names of the units of Attila like "Eastern armored Legio" etc. etc., they're all . They make up divisions where there weren't any.

The difference between Comitatenses and Limitanei was role, special privleges, and how much they had to file on their tax returns. Other than that they were largely the same, although Comitatenses units didn't have any cohorts. Comitatenses were the field armies (which included the Palatina) and the Limitanei were the border armies. Palatina were typically in Numeri or Legiones depending on whether they were Auxilia or Legio Palatina, Comitatenses in Legiones, and Limitanei could be organized into Legiones, Numeri, Milites, or Cohortes. We have no clue what a Milites unit was or how it was organized, the other three we can guess at.

The Herculani/Iovani were just one specific Legio Palatina unit.

It would help if I knew specifically what time period you were trying to represent. Exploratores and Exculatores were scout units tied to the main armies. I don't think anyone knows specifically how they were composed. The Praeventores were an Auxilia Palatina skirmisher unit according to Ammianus. The Armigeri Defensorses were a Pseudocomitatenses unit I believe, I would have to check the Notitia.

There are some units that seem to have been dedicated to purely one role, like Ballistarii, or the Lanciarii Lauriacenses.

What specific years are you trying to represent? This was an era of constant evolution and one setup only works for a certain timeframe at best.

[theLargeCow]

What specific years are you trying to represent? This was an era of constant evolution and one setup only works for a certain timeframe at best.

I didnt know that there was so much change in this period for the army, I knew that there was an upheaval when the whole system was changed from the Principate but I didnt know that it kept evolving after that.

Im trying to setup armies for the time the game takes place in (i think the start year on the grand campaign is 365AD) so I suppose the time frame of 365-476AD is the period im trying to recreate. Is there like a specific, or general way to compose armies for this period?
for example, in the Rome 2 setups I mentioned I had 1-3 setups for each period in Rome 2, the Pre Marian with Legions and Socii, late Republic with legionaries and local auxillia, and principate with legionary cohort armies and auxillia on the borders.
Thats what I'm trying if possible to do now. Are there multiple period styles of military composition during this period? because basically I wanted to make for say the Gaul diocese, a Comitatenses army back in the center of France with Limitanei on the borders, and wanted an idea for how to compose those armies in game. Maybe my whole Idea is fundamentally flawed from a historical standpoint and in that case could you suggest a way to as accurately as possible make my armies? I hope I'm making sense and not just repeating myself. Thanks again

[Linke]

I'd have a lot of non-fullstack armies based on infantry setup that is listed by Aetius. To each of them I'd attach cavalry alae as it would be absurd to have them as their own armies. The distinction between limitanei and Comitatenses is negligable for most of this period, just use those designs with whatever troops, a commander didn't care not to use limitanei as heavy infantry if nothing else was not avaible.

Then In your capital I would have one army full of elite units (or two if the ere), wich is the praesential army, and then you can also have a small elite army led by the emperor with guard troops. Although it is fine to have elite troops in normal armies, the comitatenses of Spain included only Praesential soldiers.

In my opinion it is the deployment of armies rather than exact composition that matters, there are maps of that.

[theLargeCow]

I'd have a lot of non-fullstack armies based on infantry setup that is listed by Aetius. To each of them I'd attach cavalry alae as it would be absurd to have them as their own armies. The distinction between limitanei and Comitatenses is negligable for most of this period, just use those designs with whatever troops, a commander didn't care not to use limitanei as heavy infantry if nothing else was not avaible.

Then In your capital I would have one army full of elite units (or two if the ere), wich is the praesential army, and then you can also have a small elite army led by the emperor with guard troops. Although it is fine to have elite troops in normal armies, the comitatenses of Spain included only Praesential soldiers.

In my opinion it is the deployment of armies rather than exact composition that matters, there are maps of that.

Ok thanks, what im going to do then is have limitanei heavy small armies on the frontiers and then have 1 comitatenses army back a bit with some limitanei depending on the region for the distinction.

Now one more question, what units would you reccomend in those praesential armies? The Attillapedia designated like 5 different units as "only the strongest guard Augustus" Im thinking of having a small army with Domestici, Herculi, Palatina and Matiarii and Scholae. Is that sufficient? So the main thing about this era is the lack of consitency in the legions is what Im getting the impression of, like there is no real way to set it up to a T like for example you could have a pre marian legion composed of equal amounts of Hastati, Principes and Triarii in a specific battle deployment.
Thanks again.

[Linke]

Ok thanks, what im going to do then is have limitanei heavy small armies on the frontiers and then have 1 comitatenses army back a bit with some limitanei depending on the region for the distinction.

Now one more question, what units would you reccomend in those praesential armies? The Attillapedia designated like 5 different units as "only the strongest guard Augustus" Im thinking of having a small army with Domestici, Herculi, Palatina and Matiarii and Scholae. Is that sufficient? So the main thing about this era is the lack of consitency in the legions is what Im getting the impression of, like there is no real way to set it up to a T like for example you could have a pre marian legion composed of equal amounts of Hastati, Principes and Triarii in a specific battle deployment.
Thanks again.

Use elite units in the praesential army, notitia dignitatum probably has the exact units listed.
No there was no real "standard" setup as in previous Rome (not that the Marian/Polybian legions were always dollowing that setup anyways, not mentioning the irregularity from the late 2nd century onwards). But it is really a historical exception to have such organised armies before modern period, you dont find it anywhere else, so maybe we shouldn't expect it.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Schola Palatina and the Protectores Domestici were their own things, in fact for 395-476 ignore the Protectores altogether as they were a placeholder unit for children of politicians earmarked for future promotion to office. The Schola Palatina were by and large a parade unit in the West, but still had combat functionality in the East (but were transitioning to a parade unit by the end of the 5th century).

The Auxilia and Legio Palatina were part of the Comitatenses.

[Aenima]

Unless you get some kind of mod which stops unit upgrades making previous ones obselete you won't be able to recreate the Liminatei/Comitatenses armies of the time. That said, the limes and comes in this game are simply 2 kinds of spearmen as opposed to the designation at the time which, as I understand, referred to entirely different armies suited for different roles as opposed to specific soldiers within armies.

Then there's also the issue of how poorly (ie not at all) a system of foederati has been worked into this game. You don't have much access to foederati units, and where you do they're either expensive and high level units, ie foederati noble skirmishers, or more expensive/not as strong foederati spearmen. I expected foederati to be strongly represented in the low tiers with one or two high tier units representing nobles, but I never felt the game represented it well. Unless I recruited mercs/made vassals purely for the sake of unit diversity I always felt very strongly like an Imperial Roman commander leading hordes of Roman legionaries into war, not at all like things were desparate.

That said, I think you can still find ways to try and work around this. For the most part your armies would need to be infantry; I played with stacks of 6-7 spears and swords each, along with 3 missile units and then the remainder cavalry. Cavalry were almost always, at least in the early stages, mercenary or levied cav. Likewise whilst the spearmen were Romans I'd try to make the sword units half and half Roman/barb to try and diversify things further.


Attila, at least Vanilla, isn't great for trying to recreate things and feel like you're doing an accurate job of it, but at the end of the day it's just a game and you can do your best to try. I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that 25-30% of the army was generally non-Roman, so with that in mind that 5-7 barbarian units you'd want to go for.