(History Corner) - History of Imperial Roman Legions - New Article in Organization Section

[dvk901]

Minas Moth, I'd like to thank you also for this. It's well done, and I can see you put a lot of work and 'heart' into it.

I would like to remind people that 'history', especially involving this very distant era, is by nature sketchy, full of speculation, disputed by some sources and not others, and danged difficult to piece together. In developing this mod I recall we discussed a LOT of issues regarding what was 'fact' and what was not...as in it was 'believed', or speculated' or supposed, or this guy says that, and another says this. That did not stop us from calling RS2 a 'historical' mod, because it was our intent to offer that as far as humanly possible on our parts.

A very good example of how historical fact can perhaps 'warp' reality is this:

There is only one surviving record of the Roman government purchasing clothing for Legionaries, and it was something like 10,000 white tunics. I don't recall the source, or even the exact number of tunics, but I do know this is the only known record of such a thing. If we were to extrapolate this fact and apply it wholesale, one might be forced to reach the conclusion that ALL Roman legions wore white tunics because of this fact. A conclusion I would hardly agree with. But the point is, 'facts' can be deceiving if they are falsely or too broadly applied as a norm or a strict practice.

When I was researching the Legions in RS1.6 and RS2, the information I had available to me, and the vast differences of opinion and conclusion forced me to really kinda pick a 'middle road' when describing the Legions or briefly stating their history. But, over time, this statement by Minas Moth became very evident for me:

"to me, History is ever in motion and never set, just like a future... who knows what we may find out tomorrow."

For example, I have always had a fascination with the Romans from when I was a kid. But believe me, how we understand the Romans now, considering modern discoveries and archaeological evidence is a light year different from the 'respected genius sources' of the early 20th and 19th centuries. People used to speculate and wonder how the Romans did some of the things they did in their un-enlightened state of advancement, only to discover that the so-called crude Romans had nearly as good a knowledge of engineering and mechanics as we do. In fact, it wasn't until the age of Leonardo and such that man regained the technological know-how the Romans had. But this was not believed even in the 1960's.

The Nemi Ships, built by the Roman emperor Caligula in the 1st century AD, are a good example of how new discoveries completely change our view of what the Romans could do. These were floating places with statues on ball bearings that rotated on the deck, pumps that provided running water both hot and cold, through bronze spigots that are shockingly similar to ones you can go and buy in a hardware store today!

Likewise, the discovery that the Pantheon sits on what was once a swamp, and was apparently sinking out of plum like the Leaning Tower of Pizza, and how the Romans fixed this is enoguh for one to do a 'double take' and say "WHAT?!!". They jacked this massive pile of cement up, whose weight I cannot imagine (the bronze doors alone weigh 20 tons, and the dome all by itself is estimated at 4,535 metric tons), and built a massive cement 'ring' under it for it to sit on so that it in essence 'floated' on this huge stone ring.

These are just a couple examples of how 'history' and what we know of it have changed only in the last 60-70 years. I also recall reading recently that archaeologists in Germany had found gobs of Roman armor and artifacts that likely represent the end of the 17th, 18th and 19th Legions, and that satellite imagery as well as aerial photography have found what was very likely the location where these Legions were ambushed, and how it was done. Who knows, maybe someone will stumble on the remains of the 9th someday.

[TheDarkKnight]

The size of my "legions" is normally about 3,400 men full strength, and is broken down by:

1 general
1st Cohort
8-9 Cohorts
3-4 auxilia
4 archers
2 Cavalry Auxilia.


So I have a question. When looking at the size of Roman units it seems like you scaled down the size of a standard legion by about half when it comes to a full stack on huge unit settings, given from what I have learned as the typical size of a Roman legion being 4,000-6,000 legionaries plus an equal number of auxilia. Is this what you intended? If I were to play a little more true to history, would a legion be more like 2 stacks, one all legionary and then one all auxilia?

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Would've been nice if we could have 40 slots rather than 20 to represent that.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

The size of my "legions" is normally about 3,400 men full strength, and is broken down by:

1 general
1st Cohort
8-9 Cohorts
3-4 auxilia
4 archers
2 Cavalry Auxilia.

So I have a question. When looking at the size of Roman units it seems like you scaled down the size of a standard legion by about half when it comes to a full stack on huge unit settings, given from what I have learned as the typical size of a Roman legion being 4,000-6,000 legionaries plus an equal number of auxilia. Is this what you intended? If I were to play a little more true to history, would a legion be more like 2 stacks, one all legionary and then one all auxilia?

It's probably because of a long background thinking of 'figure-based' war-games, but I'm more comfortable with thinking of scale (1:20 being common back in the day, so a 480 Cohort was 24 figures).

Your breakdown is therefore still fairly accurate, however, except that the proportion of archers is 'historically' too high. I've been trying only 2 units and that's working quite well. 2 of my cohorts are Antesignanii and I changed the 2 archer slots for Cavalry (so 2 Heavy & 2 missile). I also play on Large as it gives a better battlefield I believe and places way less strain on the graphics.

[5th Lieutenant]

There is only one surviving record of the Roman government purchasing clothing for Legionaries, and it was something like 10,000 white tunics. I don't recall the source, or even the exact number of tunics, but I do know this is the only known record of such a thing. If we were to extrapolate this fact and apply it wholesale, one might be forced to reach the conclusion that ALL Roman legions wore white tunics because of this fact. A conclusion I would hardly agree with. But the point is, 'facts' can be deceiving if they are falsely or too broadly applied as a norm or a strict practice.

The same is also true of the 'Marian' reforms, for which only fragments of evidence survive but which have been fashioned into existence by historians in to a powerful tale about greedy landowners ruining small farmers, the flooding of Rome with land-less poor and a demagogic champion refashioning an effective but amateur army in to a professional force. In about 4-odd years.

Seriously?

[dvk901]

The same is also true of the 'Marian' reforms, for which only fragments of evidence survive but which have been fashioned into existence by historians in to a powerful tale about greedy landowners ruining small farmers, the flooding of Rome with land-less poor and a demagogic champion refashioning an effective but amateur army in to a professional force. In about 4-odd years.

Seriously?

Indeed, the reforms of Marius could hardly have been the abrupt change that many perceive.....nor, it is my guess, were they done purely for the glory of Rome and love for the Republic. Marius had his ulterior motives, and must've felt strongly about them since he violated a law that could've gotten him executed. I suspect strongly that this change was about only one thing...power. That, and the fact that the previous system of only allowing landowners and the wealthy to fight for Rome was killing off all the landowners and wealthy. Not so good for the landowners and the wealthy. So why not have the riff-raff do the fighting. Pay them decent so they're loyal. Train them well so they're so good no one can beat them. My guess is that it took a century to really transform the military in this way.

[5th Lieutenant]

DVK, don’t know if you've read it but this (http://www.amazon.com/CRISIS-OF-ROME-Jugurthine-Northern/dp/1844159728) is an interesting discussion of Marius' career, the sheer paucity of evidence for the reforms and the confused nature of the landowner versus caput census mixture that might or could have existed. The short answer seems to have been that the only major break was the destruction of consular armies during the Cimbri / Teutones conflict, otherwise there was a relatively slow evolution from the 3 distinct battle line groupings to the uniformly-armed, state-sponsored solider.

The other interesting debate is the notion of small farms destroyed by long absences of the father and being absorbed in to Latifunda. The alternative argument is that the success of the republic since Zama had lead to a significant increase in births and hence a glut of adults with no spare land to sustain them; it was this that resulted in a swelling urban plebian population and the efforts of the Gracci (though the 'greedy landowner' was a useful political myth / weapon). The evidence is not conclusive for either side, but I had not seen this before.

[TheDarkKnight]

It's probably because of a long background thinking of 'figure-based' war-games, but I'm more comfortable with thinking of scale (1:20 being common back in the day, so a 480 Cohort was 24 figures).

Your breakdown is therefore still fairly accurate, however, except that the proportion of archers is 'historically' too high. I've been trying only 2 units and that's working quite well. 2 of my cohorts are Antesignanii and I changed the 2 archer slots for Cavalry (so 2 Heavy & 2 missile). I also play on Large as it gives a better battlefield I believe and places way less strain on the graphics.

I'm aware I have too many archers. But I have yet to encounter an enemy where I need more auxilia or legionaries. So I throw in more archers. Especially since in one area of the map one of my legions is just guarding a bridge....I don't need more heavy units because only so many can be fighting at the bridge at once.

[rory o'kane]

Or, if we could have true-to-life-sized units. But neither option is open to us, as both are hard-coded.

[rory o'kane]

I'd be prepared to believe it was a combination of both, and perhaps Marius simply legitimised what had been ongoing before, in increasing incidence, over the previous century or so.

[Sertorio]

I'd be prepared to believe it was a combination of both, and perhaps Marius simply legitimised what had been ongoing before, in increasing incidence, over the previous century or so.

I also chose grey .

[5th Lieutenant]

I'd be prepared to believe it was a combination of both, and perhaps Marius simply legitimised what had been ongoing before, in increasing incidence, over the previous century or so.

There are a repeal of laws in 109 BC concerning restrictions on military service and after the disaster at Arusio, Marius' co-Consul has the state pay for military equipment and conscripts Gladiators to supervise close-combat training for the newly-levied infantry. Given the degree of overstretch (the tribal war was about the 4th conflict if you count Africa as yet to be entirely at peace following Jurgatha's capture), it is suggested that the new armies raised further loosened previous restrictions on un-landed manpower.

The 'Marius' element to all of this is likely emphasised due to his new-found fame as conqueror of Africa and subsequent saving of Rome from the Cimbres and Tutones.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

There is also a case for natural evolution to occur, based upon the changed circumstances...

Rome's military system from ~500-200BC came straight from the original Greek City State system. The populace was always expected to help defend the city when threatened and thus grew the citizen army that Rome was able to raise. As an aside, the Spartans, of course, took this to the logical extreme and trained their soldiers constantly so that the army element became the dominant one.

For Rome, however, it became the norm to raise 2 consular armies almost every season, both as a defence as others attacked, and ultimately to conquer (or perhaps the more gentle 'subdue'). But it was accepted that the manpower was released back to their farms for the later harvesting season and the onset of Winter, before sowing in spring and the next campaign season.

Even in the 200's BC, however, they started to leave garrisons permanently in place, albeit small ones, and they started to need to be paid, let alone the corollary of them losing their farms. After the Punic wars the lands that then came under Roman control needed larger and permanent garrisons. By the time of Marius (and perhaps before) people were now always serving and some for a long time. Those who had to return home would have become more and more vociferous - and they were landowning citizens.

The obvious solution was to enrol 'professional' soldiers and that became their career; and this would appeal much more to the landless and second and third sons. Hence the Reforms in all their linked legal glory - and the rise of an Army who really existed to take and hold ground/lands. Eventually, of course, expecting not only pay but the opportunity to RL&P as and when they could - and support Generals who would.

[dvk901]

"There is also a case for natural evolution to occur, based upon the changed circumstances..."

That has always been my view. When you consider all the things going on during those times, change would've been forced slowly and circumstantially. Even the changes in the pre-Marian armies between 390-217BC happened very slowly based on what worked and didn't in the military sense.

[5th Lieutenant]

The obvious solution was to enrol 'professional' soldiers and that became their career; and this would appeal much more to the landless and second and third sons. Hence the Reforms in all their linked legal glory - and the rise of an Army who really existed to take and hold ground/lands. Eventually, of course, expecting not only pay but the opportunity to RL&P as and when they could - and support Generals who would.

Many authors of the time warned (though obviously some with the benefit of hindsight) was that the Republic was enrolling an army of perfidious mercenaries who lacked the loyalty to the Republic that serving in the legions required. Using 'professionals' in this sense did not carry the same meaning then as it does to us, of course.The number of candidates, though, suggests that the argument about rising birthrates may well have something to it.

That has always been my view. When you consider all the things going on during those times, change would've been forced slowly and circumstantially.

It seems the move towards a state-sponsored Consular army began before Marius owing to the degree of over-stretch from the Pergamon inheritance onwards. Let's call that 50-odd years for this to become increasingly common. Interestingly, it occurs during the period of internal ructions at Rome concerning the power (and true purpose) of the Tribunate. I doubt a major army reform was undertaken without an eye to domestic politics and auctoritas. My views is that Marius' name is linked with this owing to his wider achievements but also the victory he then achieved with some (and it may have been only apart) of a 'new' Army composed of prols. Unfortunately, I cannot find evidence of how long after 100 BC the continued raising of traditional Legions occurred. It seems unlikely to have died off overnight given the likely hostility from the Senate and at least some of the yeomanry classes may have resented being 'pensioned off' as a source of military manpower. Maybe the years from Arusio to the Social War was enough to wear away the old system of arming and deployment, such that the Triarii no longer existed in sufficient numbers to justify their different arming and status and their place increasingly taken by the rising, free-borne urban poor.

Am about to buy Syme's Roman Revolution to see if it cast and light on this

[SakyaIllidan]

Wow, it's amazing. Great work