Infantry and Battle Tactics Thread

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I'm still relatively new to EB2, but I've been reading some of the Guides session and would like to discuss with other players what's their favorite tactics on the battlefield regarding mostly infantry, cavalry and skirmishers/archers.

Let me be very clear: I had some deep ingrained habits back from EB1, which I still found quite successful when playing a Romani campaign in EB2. I think the often overlooked key to victory, especially for factions centred on infantry, rests upon a few essential concepts:

1 - A fierce enough charge.
2 - Attrition.
3 - Reserves.

In other words, while it's possible to engage all your forces at once, using a flanking tactic which - Cannae style - keeps your lightest troops in the center while your heaviest troops flank, I don't use it most of the time.

Instead, with Arvernoi, Aedui, Boioi, Pritanoi, and the likes, thanks to the fierce charge of barbarian infantry, I often rely on masses of infantry deployed in very thin lines and using the charge as a strength. And I've done that since EB1, with great success.

BUT when that's not successful, and since I tend to not rely much on a hammer and anvil strategy (I like to conserve my cavalry as much as possible for pursuit and skirmishing roles), the best tactic consists in using Attrition and Reserves.

Ever since EB1, every time I've played Romani, I've always up to the Marian period used reserves with great success. And it's not a big mystery, let's suppose you have 4 hastati, 4 principes, 1 triarii, deployed in a classical two line or maniple formation.

The hastati will fight and wear down the enemy, but with no chance of ever beating them decisively. Then when they're Fatigued, I withdraw them and unleash the Principes, who'll have an over advantage over their worn out foes and can take and give far more of a beating.

Usually this strategy works even outside the Roman Camilian and Polybian armies: it works with post-Marian Cohortes, and it also works with Koinon Hellenon and other barbarian factions I tended to play a lot with.

The key to attrition and reserves is: you don't need the best army in the world to pull it out. You also don't need to buy and replace your expensive cavalry every time. No, a basic line of medium and light infantry + skirmishers will do the job very well - all you have to do is to make sure is that you're capable of rotating your worn out and demoralized front troops with fresh and eager reserves, keeping a close eye to their stats during battle.

I've won tons of heroic victories simply by doing that - keeping a lot of troops in reserve, throwing in the light infantry first, and then rotating them. Eventually, the enemy will be at a constant disadvantage, and will rout 90% of the time after a prolongued fight.

Roman Armies and the Use of Reserves

AND IIRC, in heavy discussions I've used to have on the Roman Army with EB1 fans back in the day, it's my knowledge that the stats in EB2 are realistic given the limitations of the legionary army in the first place.

TW Games, like most games in the market, tend to suppose legionaries - even the average grunts on the mainline - tended to be kinda like superheroes. So they grant them huge stats.

While EB has always recognized them as that: an average force of grunts, not an elite.

It reminds me of Rome, the TV series, and how after 10-20 minutes of fighting or less, the first line of legionaries in a cohort would always swap with the other lines in the rear, which were in a far better shape to fight.

The thing is: while the average Roman soldier probably didn't have the best physical conditioning or the best skills in fighting, it was the constant discipline and a skillful use of reserves which in a macro scale tended to make a difference on the battlefield. The main bonus of the legionary formation scheme was that up to Imperial times it afforded large reserves, which could be swapped constantly in order to give the enemy a constant stream of fresh troops. This is a deal breaker: very tired elite troops, in-game, will suffer fighting against the lightest fresh infantry.

And it's not something exclusive to Rome, as several barbarian factions like the Getai, the Sweboz and the Keltoi can use reserves very effectively in a similar fashion.

The main point being: you don't need the best soldiers in the world, you don't need an army composed solely of elites, you don't need hordes of expensive heavy cavalry - by focusing on flexible, easy to replace medium infantry, with the right tactics, you can beat much better foes.

There are many examples of this happening in history: in Cynoscephalae and Magnesia, the Roman army was technically inferior, yet their flexibility was greater, which tended to give them victory in the first place.

[Septentrionalis]

Thank you for taking the initiative and making this thread. I have been wanting to do the same for some time now without actually getting around to writing.

You make some excellent points, and I am happy to hear that playing historically and by using reserves is actually working. I suck at doing that, tending to end up committing all my troops quite soon, but I have found a different and working philosophy instead. I will first write a post about my tactics to get the thread going without insanely long individual posts, and I may follow up by commenting your tactics in a separate post.

The principle I employ does not seem to have a good translation into English, but I could call it "local superiority" or "locally superior numbers". It means that troop placement and movement should attempt to create situations in which our numbers are greater even if the full armies are of equal size. To simplify, maneuver so that you can have for instance four of your units facing two of the enemy. The idea is to cause one unit to rout at a time, after which you send cavalry to pursue the routing enemy and commit the newly freed up units to cause another local superiority somewhere close by. This approach is in principle geared towards having as many units engaging as possible at all times. Whenever a unit is not fighting or doing some kind of maneuver, I am sacrificing my ability to create local superiority.

My cavalry (3 to 5 units in a stack plus the Roman general(s)) typically moves in one large pack in the beginning of the battle to scout out a single skirmisher or cavalry unit in order to rout it. It does not succeed very often, but it puts the AI into interception mode and I can lure aside some of the enemy. This is particularly important in a battle against a superior enemy that relies on their ability to just swarm you. If you can get one third of the attacking enemy distracted, the remaining two thirds is no longer such a formidable force against your infantry. If the enemy has a strong cavalry presence, sometimes it happens that the cavalries fight each other away from the infantry forces.

I almost always use a wedge formation for my army so that it forms a triangle with skirmishers in the middle and cavalry on the outside doing their things independently. That is very effective because the enemy is not able to flank, and they won't be able to create substantial local superiority anywhere. If the enemy is on par with me, I keep the triangle open in the rear and generally abandon the shape at some point when spreading out will increase the proportion of my men fighting against the proportion of the enemy fighting. Granted, this way my army becomes very exhausted and sometimes too spread out; if the enemy brings reinforcements later into the battle, I may have a very hard time handling that. Your method is probably much better for a longer battle.

If the enemy army is stronger than I am, I may make the triangle closed on all sides and stationary and try to have spears pointing in each direction. The good thing is that the enemy cavalry cannot do anything to me, as they have to charge against a wall of spears and the skirmishers are protected inside the triangle. The downside to this is that typically my cavalry is busy fighting enemy cavalry or leading away stray enemies from the main confrontation and will not be able to harass the enemy's skirmishers. I get crazy casualties when the enemy skirmishers pummel away at my stationary and fairly dense triangle of fighters, many of whom have their shields turned away from enemy fire.

I must say that I love the slow and grinding battle of EB2 as opposed to the RTW battles. One of the best things is that now cavalry is not so overpowered. In RTW it almost ruined my experience when I realized that I hardly need any infantry, as a large pack of cavalry can rout almost anything in no time. My infantry was getting little to no action. EB2 is so much more balanced and enjoyable. And terrifying at times.

[Sar1n]

I tend to rely on reserves in my own way. First line is usually cost-effective medium infantry and few heavy spearmen or phlangitai drawn in thin line to wear down the enemy, while reserves are mostly high quality multi-purpose units, like Thureopherontes Toxotai or Peltenai, who support the main line with their ranged attack before committing at breaking point.

However, this is not universal tactic. Especially with hellenic factions, I like to build an elite army and inducing a decisive battle by sieging (but not assaulting) a major city with it. There, I prefer fixing the enemy with phalangitai and tearing their infantry to pieces with artillery, while cavalry and ranged units are set on containing flanking attempts and enemy cavalry.

[Rad]

My method:

Most of my army (I'd say 60%) forms the main line. The main line consists of infantry and archers mixed in together, so that the archers can shoot freely while being protected by infantry.

Skirmisher units are placed slightly in front of the main line infantry to act as cannon fodder.

My reserves are elite units, and I usually place them behind the archers to give any opportunistic enemy unit a nasty surprise.

Cavalry is placed on the flanks... to do what cavalry does.


All being well, the enemy will be lured into attacking me and will have to suffer a hail of missiles. After my troops expend their missiles, I charge, flank and rout.

[Septentrionalis]

The key to attrition and reserves is: you don't need the best army in the world to pull it out. You also don't need to buy and replace your expensive cavalry every time. No, a basic line of medium and light infantry + skirmishers will do the job very well - all you have to do is to make sure is that you're capable of rotating your worn out and demoralized front troops with fresh and eager reserves, keeping a close eye to their stats during battle.

Now that I read your post again, I find your system impressive and it sure makes me want to try it. Before I start experimenting in my campaign, please give me a couple of pointers.

How do you manage to keep your units successfully fighting an equal or superior enemy in open terrain while not committing so many of your units? Or is that a way of fighting an inferior enemy and minimizing your own casualties by maximizing good performance of your troops on the field? Or can you somehow afford keeping reserves against an AI superstack with 22 units?

I have successfully used "attrition and reserves" (thank you for presenting a useful expression for the concept) when invading settlements. There we have confined spaces with only so many soldiers being able to engage at a given time; keeping reserves is a great and easily implemented tactic.

It reminds me of Rome, the TV series, and how after 10-20 minutes of fighting or less, the first line of legionaries in a cohort would always swap with the other lines in the rear, which were in a far better shape to fight.

I feel obligated to point out that we do not really know if Romans did that. There is some implication somewhere that they might have, but we do not know for sure. If they did, that would neatly explain the superior morale and success of their infantry against less organized forces. The thing in ancient warfare that I find the most difficult to fathom is how would someone be able to deal with being put into the front line indefinitely, having very slim chances of surviving the confrontation.

If the Romans indeed had rotation, that would be a great advantage over "barbarian" enemies. Knowing that no matter where you are, you can do your best and then retire for a while. The well-known fact that one in five men in the army had a support role gives the theory credence. It would make perfect sense that the soldiers getting back from the first line would be tended to, given water etc.

In any case, if they did rotate the lines, the time in between rotations would have to be much shorter. Probably just a few minutes. I have no issue with the rest of your historical points. The Romans were very good in maintaining morale in the army throughout much of the republic and empire, having for instance the best health care available at the time and later in history pension (such as land grants) for those discharged because of injury.

[Baharr]

I think it speaks to the strength of EBII as a mod that everyone's tactics are quite distinct, but all of them are real and historical approaches to warfare (I think "local superiority" was even explicitly mentioned by Basil Hart in some of his writings, actually, and of course "rotating attrition" was the heart of the Roman checkerboard formation).

My tactics are similar to some of the ones posted in this thread in that I rely on reserves as well, but mine aren't roving reserves or attrition-based rotational units. My approach is basically a somewhat more flexible version of the Alexandrian hammer and anvil - aka grab 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the balls

Essentially the core of my force is always some kind of solid line-of-battle - either rock-hard professionals or enough levies to tarpit the enemy (phalangites or levy phalangites, legionaries, or as many hellenic mercenaries + spear levies as I can get my hands on when playing e.g. Parthia). The wings contain my "strike reserves" - these should be hard-hitting or mobile, and ideally both (examples would include hetairoi, Roman auxiliary cavalry, or cataphracts, but also thureophoroi or uazali).

The essence of battle, for me, consists of finding a way to force the enemy to commit themselves. This can be achieved by using siege weapons to "encourage" them to advance, by using a superior skirmish line to force them to engage or be whittled down to nothing (horse archers in particular excel at this), or - if I feel I can pull it off - by a mass charge that causes the battlefield to dissolve into a colossal melee. My strike reserves, critically, must never be committed during this phase - the art of this approach lies in using your heavy line-of-battle to fully engage the enemy. This includes their reserves - or, alternatively, engaging in such a manner that what reserves he has left cannot locally defeat my strike reserves on the wings once I decide to commit them.

Once the vicious brouhaha is underway my hammer falls - either a javelin barrage followed by an envelopment, resulting ultimately in annihilation (thureophoroi are excellent at this), or more efficiently and dramatically, a ground-shaking thunderous rear/side charge that breaks the enemy's morale immediately and lets me run them down (cataphracts, hetairoi, and general's bodyguards are the units of choice here).

For reference, I play on huge unit size, and by the end of a full-stack-on-full-stack battle my individual cavalry units have between 50-100 kills and 200-400 captured prisoners to their name. Each.

Ultimately the trick is to force the enemy to commit to a clash of lines-of-battle while ensuring my strike reserves always have enough local superiority to brush aside enemy reserves, stragglers, and roving interceptors and be able to bring down the hammer on the main engagement.

[Lusitanio]

Since I play mostly with Carthage my tactics follow much of Hannibal tactics in Zamav(but with some differences). However, I rarely use Elephants or siege weapons.
My battle line almost always follows the same system with three lines of units.
First, the Skirmishers at the front (slingers and javelineers) and when I have archers, then they usually stay behind all the other units since they have very good range.
Second, medium infantry (preferably units that you have plenty of when recruiting), they must be tough enough to handle the missile fire and the other units attack (depending on the battle, sometimes I put them in guard mode to not disrupt the battle line).
The third line is composed of the more strong and some elite units distributed around the field to help as reserve with always one spear unit on each flank to defend incoming cavalry attacks or to help my cavalry on the flanks when they are engaging other cavalry units. Because the spear units normally help the cavalry, the cavalry can go around and start attacking the enemy from behind with several charges.
My general actions will depend on the type of unit he commands. If it is cavalry, he will either support other cavalry attacks or go after routing units. If it is a Greek general (I love to use them) I send him to the worst part of the battle in order to help defeating the enemy.

Normally, my cavalry goes after the skirmishers that are left and after destroying them they start going after the engaged enemy units, around that time the enemy general usually dies and the enemy infantry starts a general rout.

Note: Because I find to easy the general routes I'm planning on playing the next campaign on Very Hard and with Huge units (I play on hard and with large units)

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Thanks all for their inputs. I'm going to reply gradually, as my time is short, but let's just talk this point in here:

Now that I read your post again, I find your system impressive and it sure makes me want to try it. Before I start experimenting in my campaign, please give me a couple of pointers.

How do you manage to keep your units successfully fighting an equal or superior enemy in open terrain while not committing so many of your units? Or is that a way of fighting an inferior enemy and minimizing your own casualties by maximizing good performance of your troops on the field? Or can you somehow afford keeping reserves against an AI superstack with 22 units?

It's not that hard to do it. Using an actual Quicunx formation actually increases the overall coverage of your armies, making your first line of engagement larger and capable of engaging most of the enemy line. I had custom formations in EB, but I have to remember if they're available for EB2.

In EB2, I usually just line my hastati ahead of the principes, place my auxiliary non-Roman troops in alae along the flanks, and then, depending on the size of the enemy line, engage all the hastati plus 50-100% of the alae to pin down the enemy. Let's suppose you have 4 hastati, 2 barbarian mercenaries, 4 principes. The enemy has 12. Well, save for cavalry, if you engage the whole enemy line with your hastati, even at a numerical inferiority for yourself, the AI enemy will be pinned down fairly easily because they'll opt into the localized engagements at a numerical superiority.

This way you can just sit your Principes behind at Guard mode, and leave the remaining alae in the flanks as a precaution against stray enemy units or flanking cavalry. Then when it comes the time to circle, order -W- or Withdraw (the white flag), the Hastati will run, take the Principes out of Guard mode, charge them into the fray where the hastati pinned your foes down. Tvrm Pes Rasna acts as an excellent alae and flank guarder, because of their boni against cavalry, early on during a Romani campaign.

I feel obligated to point out that we do not really know if Romans did that. There is some implication somewhere that they might have, but we do not know for sure. If they did, that would neatly explain the superior morale and success of their infantry against less organized forces. The thing in ancient warfare that I find the most difficult to fathom is how would someone be able to deal with being put into the front line indefinitely, having very slim chances of surviving the confrontation.

If the Romans indeed had rotation, that would be a great advantage over "barbarian" enemies. Knowing that no matter where you are, you can do your best and then retire for a while. The well-known fact that one in five men in the army had a support role gives the theory credence. It would make perfect sense that the soldiers getting back from the first line would be tended to, given water etc.

In any case, if they did rotate the lines, the time in between rotations would have to be much shorter. Probably just a few minutes. I have no issue with the rest of your historical points. The Romans were very good in maintaining morale in the army throughout much of the republic and empire, having for instance the best health care available at the time and later in history pension (such as land grants) for those discharged because of injury.

Well my point is precisely that: the key aspects for Roman victories were often 1) superior discipline and good morale 2) plenty of reserves 3) flexibility in rough terrain.

The Roman system of Cohortes and the previous Quicunx formation were explicitly made in order to make sure the largest number of reserves could be rotated in the quickest fashion during lulls in the fighting. As such the Rome TV series is actually realistic: you wouldn't have the first line of a Cohors fight on forever while the rest just watched, rather they swapped pretty often like Musketeers did later on. Plus if a Cohors was badly damaged, they were still deployed in a checkerboard that allowed them plenty of room to retreat as well as for another fresh Cohors to move on and seal the gap.

Believe me, battles are like soccer matches. Run for 20 minutes, and you're on your best. Run for 90 minutes, and you'll be tired before a third of that time passes on. As such, having always fresh men on the front was always a significant asset to any commander, and the Roman armies were some of the best in the world in capitalizing that. And that was the deal breaker, when you think of it, especially when your enemies relied on short term shock and intimidation tactics (such as the Keltoi) or phalangitai that weren't very flexible in terms of maneuver and replacement.

[Rad]

The thing is: while the average Roman soldier probably didn't have the best physical conditioning or the best skills in fighting

I get the feeling that you consider the ancient Romans to be less capable fighters than most of their enemies on the individual level. If am wrong, I alopogize
If am right in my assumption, I must say that I disagree.

The Romans were a very martial people who valued heroic deeds both on the collective and on the individual level. For example, consider spolia opima and corona civica - to my thinking, those military decorations existed to praise individual valour.

Also, the Romans were nearly constantly at war.

Those things combined would create generations of capable and agressive fighters. And all that was true even before the Army went pro.

Superior equipment, unit formations and discipline, logistics, tactics etc - those are force multipliers that helped make the Empire happen. However, I would never consider the average Roman to be a worse combatant than his hairier/smelly counterparts.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Well, let's remmeber that before and after the Reform, most Romans were also normal people who did their own trades and strived to survive in agriculture, etc... just like the Hellenic Kleurochoi. They didn't train 24/7 and were not a permament force.

Similar to post-Marian Romans. While they were a permanent professional force, many of them were of average or conscript quality at best. They often needed brutal discipline, which was as intense as it could get because the creme de la creme, the officer cadre of the Roman army, had to find effective ways of controlling the men at their disposal, esp. the fresh conscripts. That was the strongest element in the Roman army ever since the beginning, and the one that actually impressed Polybius - and this far more than the individual fighting prowess of the legionary himself, which was average at best. In peacetime, things tended to be quite lax too, which tended to degrade their quality in the longterm.

[Wulfburk]

My Epeirote strategy most of the time:


2 phalangites, the body of the army, in the center. 1 hoplitai or mercenary to their right flank, 1 mercenary to their left flank. Behind them, the 4 or so other infantry units in the army as reserve (can be machaiporoi, thureoporoi, hoplitai or mercenaries), plus the 3 or so ranged units (spendonetai, toxotai and skirmishers) Behind all those, in reserve of the reserve, the Hypaspistai, Thorakitai or/and the spartiatai hoplitai.

The main cavalry body is to the right flank. The moloson agema, thessalian cavalry and so on. Usually my armies have 4 of them, including family members.

In the left flank i may leave some 2 skirmish cavalry units to assist that side against enemy cavalry.

To keep up with hellenistic tradition, i usually attempt to pin the enemy to my front units, the 2 phalangitai and the 2 infantry by their side (and if the enemy line is so much bigger than mine, most often i bring 2 units of the reserve infantry to the front, so that in total i have 6 units in the first line), while prioritizing the destruction of the enemy cavalry, through a massive charge with my own cavalry in the right flank. If succesful, i sweep down the enemy line with my cavalry, taking out all their skirmishers and ranged units. And if that is succesful too, there enters my reserve units and the elite, the hypaspistai and the thorakitai, enveloping the enemy.


What happens most often though is that during my cavalry attack the enemy attempts to flank my own front line, as the size of the AI line is bigger and they dont keep much of reserve. When that occurs im forced to deploy my reserve units, and have to leave the flanking manouver just for the hypaspistai. Which they usually handle.


I find that with such army compositions as in here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The only times i have real difficulty in battles, is when the enemy cavalry is so much superior to mine. When that occurs, and the enemy manages to flank my own infantry, charging into their backs, is when i lose battles. In contrast, if the enemy has got no cavalry, even with a great infantry army, i most of the time deal with them without much effort.

That may be why i had more trouble fighting the Armenians, the parthians and the Getae than all other hellenistic factions and the romans and carthage.

Also my cavalry attack on the right flank, with the general leading them, as so often done in the wars of the diadochi and the wars of alexander, is why my faction members have quite a high mortality rate from death in battles.

[Domaje]

This way you can just sit your Principes behind at Guard mode, and leave the remaining alae in the flanks as a precaution against stray enemy units or flanking cavalry. Then when it comes the time to circle, order -W- or Withdraw (the white flag), the Hastati will run, take the Principes out of Guard mode, charge them into the fray where the hastati pinned your foes down.

So the key of this tactic resides in using the Withdraw option, as your men caught during the retreat will be taken prisonners and not killed ?
And how do you manage the infantry that are also equipped with javelins ? Do you allow auto-fire for your first line, or second line ? Those weapons are very effective but tend to desorganize your men, whether you receive a charge or order one.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Hi Domaje,

First of all thank'ya all for your inputs! We gotta make the discussion around here more interesting.

Now, to answer your specific query, in an improvised two line "quicunx" the principes stay just behind the hastati, and when the hastati begin to retreat and disengage, you engage the principes soon after in order to prevent the enemy from pursuing your hastati. Then you regroup your hastati behind your own triarii. Simple, but effective.

[tentaku]

I see people talking about rotation here I must agree. Soldiers in this mod cannot recover stamina by resting, so managing fatigue becomes more important.

For me I like to use the oblique order with infantry. The best infantry engage first, and the weaker ones hang further back.

I also group my infantry into groups of 3, and have these groups spread up. Once engaged, one of these groups form a triangle and let as many enemy units surround them. The other groups move up to flank.

[QuintusSertorius]

Soldiers in this mod cannot recover stamina by resting, so managing fatigue becomes more important.

Yes, they do. It takes a while, but they do recover, though not back to "Fresh".

I don't tend to see it in field battles, which are usually over in about 20 minutes, but I've used resting to good effect in sieges.

[Rad]

Well, let's remmeber that before and after the Reform, most Romans were also normal people who did their own trades and strived to survive in agriculture, etc... just like the Hellenic Kleurochoi. They didn't train 24/7 and were not a permament force.

Just like... everyone else they fought?

Similar to post-Marian Romans. While they were a permanent professional force, many of them were of average or conscript quality at best. They often needed brutal discipline, which was as intense as it could get because the creme de la creme, the officer cadre of the Roman army, had to find effective ways of controlling the men at their disposal, esp. the fresh conscripts. That was the strongest element in the Roman army ever since the beginning, and the one that actually impressed Polybius - and this far more than the individual fighting prowess of the legionary himself, which was average at best. In peacetime, things tended to be quite lax too, which tended to degrade their quality in the longterm.

OK, so in your opinion, professional Roman soldiers - people who made a living of from constantly training for and marching to (in heavy armor + rest of their kit) war were the equal or inferiors to their enemies, who were mostly semi professionals and levies?
On what do you base this?
I am sorry, but I believe that your thinking is based on traditional RTS games' attempts at creating balance - X is good at doing one thing, but for balance's sake, X is not good at the other thing.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Yes, they do. It takes a while, but they do recover, though not back to "Fresh".

They do get back to Fresh.

I just won a Heroic Victory. Then the game suffered an unspecified error (ouch!). I had some of my units in the Reserve get from Exhausted to Fresh.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

OK, so in your opinion, professional Roman soldiers - people who made a living of from constantly training for and marching to (in heavy armor + rest of their kit) war were the equal or inferiors to their enemies, who were mostly semi professionals and levies?
On what do you base this?
I am sorry, but I believe that your thinking is based on traditional RTS games' attempts at creating balance - X is good at doing one thing, but for balance's sake, X is not good at the other thing.

What would set a legion apart in professionalism up to Imperial times was battle hardiness and battle experience. Both of them were the clear receipts that made a difference.

Romani legions usually were drilled since 'polybian' times up to 4 months per year only. This is not the standard of professionalism that, say, was applied to elite units even in Antiquity, let alone to professional armies of later periods.

Polybius was right in that Roman discipline was good, but here's the catch: while the average Roman legionary in Post-Marian times was better than the standard grunts of most barbarian and *other* enemies, it certainly wasn't up to the elite levels that they could field.

This is not bias but a simple attestation of history. Many legions during peacetime would not get the same level of training, and during the civil wars of the 1st century, many freshly conscripted legions were deemed worthless against more hardened and experienced legionary troops from eg. Caesar and the likes which had actually seen battle and not just training.

Besides that, we must not forget that even from Marian times (107 B.C.) on, battles such as Arausio, Carrhae or Teutoburger Wald, many of them fought against supposedly inferior but fierce barbarian enemies, ensued in crushing defeats to Roman armies.

Overall, this is hard to quantify in exact terms, but the quality of the average legionary is perhaps up there with the quality of the average Machimoi or Kleurochoi of Hellenistic armies, and perhaps justifiably. A leader with great amount of tactical skill and a knack for organization, capable of boosting morale with traits, etc... will still give them large boni, which represents the fact that even the hardiest troops when badly led tend to suffer, while the inverse is also true.

[Rad]

What would set a legion apart in professionalism up to Imperial times was battle hardiness and battle experience. Both of them were the clear receipts that made a difference.

Battle hardiness? Is that that when soldiers are drilled and marched constantly? Read my posts above.
Battle experience? Does one attain it by constantly being in a state of war? Read my posts above.

Romani legions usually were drilled since 'polybian' times up to 4 months per year only. This is not the standard of professionalism that, say, was applied to elite units even in Antiquity, let alone to professional armies of later periods.

One needs to make a distinction between Roman armies that consisted of conscripts and Roman armies that consisted of paid professionals.
While conscripts would receive basic instruction in arms from members of their family during peace time and training in the Legion during wartime, professionals would drill all year long.

Polybius was right in that Roman discipline was good, but here's the catch: while the average Roman legionary in Post-Marian times was better than the standard grunts of most barbarian and *other* enemies, it certainly wasn't up to the elite levels that they could field.

An army does not need to be "elite". An army made up from capable fighters will beat an army made up mostly from subpar fighters accompanied by a small numbers of elites, if all other things are equal. It's a simple numbers game.

This is not bias but a simple attestation of history. Many legions during peacetime would not get the same level of training,

What you are saying about peace time training makes no economic sense. If your paid soldiers aren't fighting/going to a fight/getting ready for a fight, you are not getting your money's worth. Of course, one must mention that the Romans used their paid soldiers to build roads, bridges etc. Demanding physical labor kind of helps build muscles and stamina, no? That's a good way to get the soldiers fit, instill discpline and prevent iddle thought.

and during the civil wars of the 1st century, many freshly conscripted legions were deemed worthless against more hardened and experienced legionary troops from eg. Caesar and the likes which had actually seen battle and not just training.

Yes... but I fail to see your point. No, really, I cannot see it. I never argued that trained fighters would beat trained fighters with combat experience. I'd never be that silly. Ok, maybe if I had a bottle of wine first...

Besides that, we must not forget that even from Marian times (107 B.C.) on, battles such as Arausio, Carrhae or Teutoburger Wald, many of them fought against supposedly inferior but fierce barbarian enemies, ensued in crushing defeats to Roman armies.

You forgot Gergovia. I probably forgot a few more. Four defeats we can easily recollect in a period of 110 years? Buddy... The defeats at Gergovia, Carrhae and Teutoburg were due to reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the opposing forces. Arausio? I have no idea what the hell happened there...

Overall, this is hard to quantify in exact terms, but the quality of the average legionary is perhaps up there with the quality of the average Machimoi or Kleurochoi of Hellenistic armies, and perhaps justifiably. A leader with great amount of tactical skill and a knack for organization, capable of boosting morale with traits, etc... will still give them large boni, which represents the fact that even the hardiest troops when badly led tend to suffer, while the inverse is also true.

Comparing legionnaires to machimoi? You went too far. Now, the fanboys will be after you.

[Sar1n]

Comparing legionnaires to machimoi? You went too far. Now, the fanboys will be after you.

He's got a point though. Machimoi were not, as some fanboys seem to think, medieval style levies. Like Kleruchoi, Machimoi were a social class that was expected to join army when necessary and often served as guards or peacekeepers, and therefore did have some training and preparedness for combat from early age. Most societies of antiquity did have some kind of class or caste that was more prepared for war than general population, and drew majority of their armed forces from them.

Marian reforms allowed into frontline service large body of troops that were, until joining, totally unprepared, both physically and psychically. While the year or two of intense training they usually got before their first battle did a lot to harden them, it takes longer to instill some degree of psychical resilience to combat and willingness to kill, and I dare to say that in this matter, legionnaires were on average less prepared than most Celts or even Machimoi that were in military sevice.