Consular to Imperial Legions

[ptg]

Hi, just out of interest, seeing as I've bnever played RS past the Consular Named and Numbered Legions (keep tweaking and restarting!) - are they still available to recruit after the Marian/Imperial reforms?

[rory o'kane]

all named-and-numbered legions (like III Gallica) are available after the Reforms.

[Oli]

i thought the named and numbered legions only come after the reforms :hmmm:

Actually arent there some available only in italy, the ones in the chainmail? unless i making that up completely they are available afterwards

[Nellup]

Some early republican legions are available in certain settlements when the highest level barracks is built there before the reforms.

[Spartan 666]

the paradoxal thing is that you use early legions (with angled shield and lorica harmata) together with imperial legions (with square shield and lorica segmentata)......

[rory o'kane]

not paradoxal - those legions were around for just as long as the imperial legions - and you've gotta remember, lorica segmentata was never universal - many legionaries still used lorica hamata (chainmail)even in the 2nd century AD.

[ptg]

Thanks for the responses guys, that answers my questions nicely. Actually, rory, that’s the reason I was asking – mail was around for a long time, and came back to prominence in the later Empire.

Another reason I was asking is because, whereas most of the legions we know about are represented in RS, some are available under ‘Consular N&N’ and the rest as ‘Imperial N&N’. It would have been a shame for say, XIII Gemina to be recruitable as a Consular N&N and then disappear after the reforms, as it was raised in 41 BC and was still mentioned in the 5th Century AD! So anyway, thanks again.

[Sandrus Castus]

not paradoxal - those legions were around for just as long as the imperial legions - and you've gotta remember, lorica segmentata was never universal - many legionaries still used lorica hamata (chainmail)even in the 2nd century AD.

Even more. Under (I think) Septimius Severus the lorica segmentata wasn't used any more. All soldiers got back to the lorica hamata and the lorica squamata.

[Spartan 666]

not paradoxal - those legions were around for just as long as the imperial legions - and you've gotta remember, lorica segmentata was never universal - many legionaries still used lorica hamata (chainmail)even in the 2nd century AD.

really? i have always thought that around half of the 1st century AD the harmata was replaced by the segmentata because it was cheaper,easier to produce and repair and it gave more protection...

Even more. Under (I think) Septimius Severus the lorica segmentata wasn't used any more. All soldiers got back to the lorica hamata and the lorica squamata.

the lorica squamata is the one worn by III Cyrenaica and XXI Rapax?

[Blackshamrock.]

I love history. This good to read thanks guys.

[Dark_horse_spirit]

Learn something everyday, Thnx

DHS

[rory o'kane]

yes, Spartan 666, that's right. and yes, the segmentata was all those things (except cheaper), but it wasn't universally issued!

[Spartan 666]

yes, Spartan 666, that's right. and yes, the segmentata was all those things (except cheaper), but it wasn't universally issued!

well,if it was all those things i cant understand why it was not universally used!

[rory o'kane]

standardisation was impossible given the limits of transport and communications...

[Faridus]

i don't believe that the romans just got rid of thousands of hamatas to replace them by thousands of segmentatas. i'm sure older equipment was passed down from may be elite legions to guarrison troups or something like that. if a hamata was no longer usable, they may have replaced it with newer armor. so with that being said, i find it quite difficult to observe a strict standardization of all the roman troups.

[rory o'kane]

quite. from archaeological evidence, it seems that the romans kept a piece of equipment in service for as long as possible, even if it was passed on to a lower-grade unit when surpassed...

[Faridus]

my thought exactly...

[pseudocaesar]

OK, a short summary. VERY short summary.
I myself, am disapointed with the proportion of Segmentata wearing legions. Far far too many, Hamata was the most dominant type. With Segmentata falling into the 10-20% of legionaries range. Segmentata wasnt superior to Hamata, wasnt radically cheaper, and as Hamata was well established, it was not worth the cost to overhaul.
Now i hear you thinking what about Trajans column, every legionary is an LS demigod, and every Dacian wields a Falx. Both are un realistic, and HIGHLY stylised. They had to put this in Rome dont forget, who love drama and dreaming of Roman glory, but none would have ever seen a proper legion, or a Dacian warrior. So they portrayed the Romans as easily distinguishable. Check out other Trajanic monuments and you will see far more Hamata displayed (IE Tropaeum Traiani, where NO Segmentata is shown at all). Hamata was in use for hundreds of years, Segmentata was only around from about 6 BC to 100 or so AD, and never in significant quantities.
Whole legions did not wear Segmentata, just a few individual legionaries, same deal for Squamata but on even less of a scale.

[pseudocaesar]

Another point too, we dont even know what the Romans called Lorica Segmentata, that term is a modern name applied to it. The Romans themselves never bothered writing about it, so that also tells you about its use.

[Faridus]

i think LS is a Holywood thing.
i haven't read any source that tells exactly what the proportions were, i did read that LS might not be that superior to LH. but i did read somewhere that LS was cheaper and easier to produce...i don't remember where i read it and i don't know of the reliability of the source.
and as far as Trajan's column, i have no problem with it being more of a propaganda than a true depiction of facts, our own modern news tend to be quite biased.