What Would Your Legion Look Like?

[here4thehax]

We all have our own favorite military build ups when it comes to Rome Total War & our own distinct playstyles.
But I know I, aswell as some of you guys here would like to recreate a Historically accurate representation of what a Legion should and would look like.
I know the numbering would be off as a Legion is approximately 4800 soldiers.
So let's just assume that 1 Legionary Unit = 1 Cohort
How would you create your Roman Legion? How do you justify it's accuracy?

The way I would build it out of a stack (20 units) would be:
1 Legatus (General)
1 Eagle Cohort (1st Cohort)
9 Legionary Units (as a Legion had 10 Cohorts to it)
3 Cavalry Units
2 Archer Units
3 Skirmishing Units
1 Artillery Piece

How would you change it? I'm looking for efficiency with a touch of historicity

Also, what type of Legion would be your favorite to use?
My personal favorites is:

Legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix (For my Cold-Climate Conquests)


and

Legio XX Valeria Victrix (I take these bad boys to my Eastern Provinces and clean out Rebels etc while on the way)

[here4thehax]

.

[tungri_centurio]

my favorit army's are:

the one for the emperor! not realy historical but so powerfull(marching against parthia)

the one with the longest history and the most fighting(defending my crimmian lands)

old legion that is defending the rhine border(note the blue square is the light batavian cav that i now use more common than the heavy cav
marked in the red square,the lght roman cav is as good at charging enemy infantry at their backs as the heavy ones+they have javelins to throw )

and my all time favorit


composition is mostly the same------------------composition when fighting parthia or sarmatians
1general ---------------------------------------------1general
1eagle cohors----------------------------------------1eagle cohors
8cohors------------------------------------------------8cohors
3/4 auxillia infantry--------------------------------- 5archers
4cavalry----------------------------------------------- 4cavalry(heavy)
2archers----------------------------------------------- 1onagers

[ur-Lord Tedric]

I've pretty much stuck to the organisation(s)I detailed here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...quot%3Bbe+like at Post #3.

The whole idea being based upon the 20-unit army being scaled to represent a Consular Army of the Early-Middle republic and/or the 2-legion standard force of the Early Empire.

[here4thehax]

I personally have my unit sizes set to Huge
so as to re-enact battles that happened back then (where thousands of soldiers would meet against thousands of others)
Bigger Battles = Better Battles in my opinion, but that's just me

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Remember scale - 1 sprite <> 1 'man'.....

Huge units sometimes seems to bring some issues - I'd recommend Large personally.

[Lt.Speirs]

1 General with cool ancillary
1st Cohort
13 Cohorts
2 celtic warband archers or any other retrainable units on foot
2 cavalry (allied germanic cavalry, paleoveneti noble cavalry etc)
1 siege balista

or as with the imperial reforms and "official" auxiliary units I tend to have 2 archers from syria and the other one I forgot. And 2 praetorian cavalry or the local trainable cavalry.
The auxiliary infantry I tend to make a smaller stack of those with a general to support the real legion.

But always 14 infantry, even with polybians. 10 cohorts, 4 triarii. Works perfect and is awesome imo.

[century x]

My favorite is Legio III Gallica ....



1 General
1 1st Cohort
9 Cohorts
6 Auxilia Units(4 Light Infantry Cohorts, 2 Light Auxilia Infantry(Missle)
1 Archer Auxilia
2 Legionary Calvary

[GurneyMan]

I had been toying with the idea to ask a similar question for a while so thanks 'Here4thehax' for starting it.

My general legion composition is:

General
1st Cohort
8-10 Cohorts
2-3 Cav
2 Archers
0-1 Antesignanii
0-2 Auxilliaries
1-2 Slingers (is this cheating?)
1 Scorpion

Always run the artillery even though I don't think it is that effective (except against elephants) but I just love the little suckers.

On a slightly different note, how many named legions do people run, i.e I try and raise as many of these guys I can. Do others limit the number of legions they raise? I'm at 770 AUC and I've got about 23 legions and raising another two.

[here4thehax]

.... On a slightly different note, how many named legions do people run, i.e I try and raise as many of these guys I can. Do others limit the number of legions they raise? I'm at 770 AUC and I've got about 23 legions and raising another two.

I personally raise only the Segmentata Legions because they look the best
and only raise Hamata Legions when the Empire is in danger. I also try to place them where they were stationed historically, with the exception of
Legio IX Hispana (my only standing Hamata Legion) being in Northern Britannia because that's where they mysteriously disappeared so I'm just waiting for them to get ambushed by like 4 stacks of Caledonians one day
All in all, I limit myself to 15 Legions max because excess soldiers isn't good for revenue (I wouldn't wana debase my currency and rocket my taxes skyhigh like caligula did )
Also more legions = harder to manage them all efficiently and less emotional attachment to each one

Also, your very welcome for the thread, I've always wondered myself how other people went about making their Legions based off actual Roman ones, because once you beat the actual Campaign a few times and become a chiseled veteran at the TW series, you opt for more than just playing to win, that's why we download these extremely detailed and in-depth mods to add to our role-play experience

[ur-Lord Tedric]

...................... with the exception of
Legio IX Hispana (my only standing Hamata Legion) being in Northern Britannia because that's where they mysteriously disappeared ..................

^This is no longer the currently accepted view - it being more likely that IX Hispana was lost in Armenia in 161AD.

Other than that - no evidence that segmentata was otherwise better, nor universally adopted (before being de-adopted!)

[Lt.Speirs]

^This is no longer the currently accepted view - it being more likely that IX Hispana was lost in Armenia in 161AD.

Other than that - no evidence that segmentata was otherwise better, nor universally adopted (before being de-adopted!)

Indeed. It seems that the segmentata was a more popular variant due to less weight compared to the chainmail hamata. Also because it was cheaper to produce.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Indeed. It seems that the segmentata was a more popular variant due to less weight compared to the chainmail hamata. Also because it was cheaper to produce.

Plate armour is much more effective against: stabbing; hacking; slicing; and blunt force (clubs, blunt weapons and even overhand axes/falxes, etc) over the area it protects. Segmentata only covered the upper body.

Hamata/mail, however, tended to be worn in larger amounts covering much more of the body (I'm not specifically aware of the weight difference between the standard segmentata cuirass and the hamata coat) and thus is much more efficacious against random and less targeted long range arrow fire.

Given the current spread of finds and the enemies faced, it does seem reasonable to positively suggest that in the 'West' there were much fewer arrows about, but in the 'East' there were many. That in the 'West' the fighting was much more up close and personal (where the covering shield and front facing stance was all important), whereas the 'East' was much more long range in general.

Now, if only RTW/RSII could reflect that..........