Experienced Pre-Marian vs. "Green" Post-Marian units

[Wismer]

The last time I played RTR a few years ago I remember looking at the stats and traits of a Princepi unit against the stats of the Post Marian (cohorts, were they called? Can't remember) and it seemed that the much more experienced Princepi (maybe even Hastasti) unit was much better than the cohort that was freshly trained and was also cheaper to upkeep.

I'm far away from reaching the Marian reforms in my own SPQR campaign of RTRVII so I was wondering if anyone who has gotten that far to enlighten me on what to expect.

I tried searching for this but didnt have any luck finding it.

Thanks!

EDIT: whoops, didnt think to try custom battle.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Principes were the prototype for the later Roman infantry, roughly equal.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

^This.

Don't think that the post-Marian troops were in any way better than their Camillan/Polybian counterparts. They were the same soldiers, just with a more uniform look and a different recruitment method.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The more "uniform" look stemmed from the method of recruitment anyway. Yet wou would still see troops with different armor in the same unit.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Yep.

(btw, Roach, gtf on skype)

[Iguanaonastick]

Well, one big difference is that the units served for longer consecutive periods of time and would have trained together more than the more temporary armies of the Republic.

In Republican times Roman armies could be very effective if their general took his time to train and drill them, but if they were rushed off to the front lines they could perform quite poorly.

Then again, early Marian armies were still fairly ad-hoc and even in imperial times we've plenty of incidents where training fell by the wayside and armies needed considerable attention to be forged into a cohesive whole before a major campaign. So I agree that the overall quality wouldn't have varied that much. Not to mention that the later armies were a lot more mutinous than the militia forces from the Republic.

[DarthZipacna]

In Republican times Roman armies could be very effective if their general took his time to train and drill them, but if they were rushed off to the front lines they could perform quite poorly.

Not to speak of running away (thinking of the Livius account of the Battle of the Allia here... "oh, look they're in front of us!" "Nonsense, they're behind us!" "Good God, they're both! RUN HEADLESSLY IN ANY DIRECTION! And don't waste your time closing the city gates..." ).

[El_Saracen]

In Republican times Roman armies could be very effective if their general took his time to train and drill them, but if they were rushed off to the front lines they could perform quite poorly.

I'm reading The Fall of Carthage by Goldsworthy at the moment and just last night read about the battle of Ilipa (206BC, 2nd Punic War). One of the biggest factors in the battle was the discipline and coordination of the Roman soldiers, which was the payoff of a rigorous training programme over the winter by Scipio. So it's arguable that the most important factor is the quality of training, which was obviously more consistent for post-marian armies. I think an average post-marian army would always have the advantage against an average republican army, but two well trained armies from each era would probably be evenly matched. Although I'm basically stating the obvious ("no sherlock").

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

training (...) which was obviously more consistent for post-marian armies.

Why? For the Early Empire (Principate), sure, but Late Republic? The armies were still recruited by individual generals. What if some of these generals didn't bother to train their troops like Scipio did? I don't see how it would've been more consistent. Not saying it wasn't or shouldn't have been, of course.

[El_Saracen]

Why? For the Early Empire (Principate), sure, but Late Republic? The armies were still recruited by individual generals. What if some of these generals didn't bother to train their troops like Scipio did? I don't see how it would've been more consistent. Not saying it wasn't or shouldn't have been, of course.

Good point. I guess it would just be down to the training of a particular army. Although the average post-marian soldier would most likely have more experience due to it being more of a profession than a national duty. The general himself is such a huge factor as well....too many variables.

[Vindictus]

Generally people have grown accustomed to post marian are stronger than pre-marian. Realistically, however, post marian was just the change in taking poor people and sticking them into an army to be trained professionally, then given land once they've done their bit. It depends on the training of the soldier. Lots of things were remade during the reforms. The soldier inside however, is always the same unless disciplined.

[Sphere]

Experience and training were more important than "pre/post Marian".

Marian did not introduce sweeping and revolutionary changes as is often portrayed. Roman soildering was kept rather consistent with gradual changes along the way to equipment, organization, training and recruiting. We like to put a firm date on it to make things easy, but in reality, some of the things in the "Marian reforms" had been done before (e.g. the equipment was not new, just more standardized), while other things took quite a while to become the norm (e.g. the system of recruiting from landed citizens continued after Marian, recruiting from the mob only slowly became acceptable practice.)

[Sureño]

Sorry to barge in but I think you guys are looking at it wrongly.

The essence of the Marian reforms (the reform didn't happen overnight, and was already evolving into this direction before Marius' reform), is professionalism. Soldiering was now a career path , and although a very dangerous career path, it was a path with a lot of upside. Where armies used to consist of levies that went home after their campaign, it was now a career. This means that soldiers post Marian would have the opportunity to gather a lot more experience, because of their prolonged time in service.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

The essence of the Marian reforms (the reform didn't happen overnight, and was already evolving into this direction before Marius' reform), is professionalism. Soldiering was now a career path , and although a very dangerous career path, it was a path with a lot of upside. Where armies used to consist of levies that went home after their campaign, it was now a career. This means that soldiers post Marian would have the opportunity to gather a lot more experience, because of their prolonged time in service.

That goes without a doubt. The topic says Green Post-Marian troops, after all, not Veteran Post-Marian troops

[Sureño]

That goes without a doubt. The topic says Green Post-Marian troops, after all, not Veteran Post-Marian troops

Tatatataaaaa tatata taaaaaaaaa Cptn Obvious to the rescue!!

[Maurits]

Please keep it nice guys, it's just a discussion

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Tatatataaaaa tatata taaaaaaaaa Cptn Obvious to the rescue!!

I hope that was aimed at yourself, then, since you were the one pointing out how Marian troops would become veteran over time...
...which is not what this thread's about. Which I was pointing out

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

And pre-Marian armies usually enlisted the same men anew, not all fresh recruits all the time. By the later stages the system evolved so that your rank was based on experience not social class (you are a hastatus for the first time, but become a princeps, and then a triarius) ensuring better performance of the heavier troops, and quicker accumulation of experience.

[Sureño]

Yeah it looks mean, I should've posted a " " thingy.