Whyte

Hello. Like all military history geeks, I have a bit of a love affair with the Roman Legions. And it is always good fun to imagine what kind of pseudo-Legion you might come up with... Partly the motivation is my own roleplaying campaign world which, like most home-brew fantasy worlds, has a Rome-analog.

I welcome comments on the names (they try to retain the Roman feel, although I will use some differently from the historical context) and pretty much everything, to be honest. I don't claim to be Gaius Marius and I would be happy to be corrected if I have some blindspots.


ORGANIZATION

1 contubernium (tent group) = 8 men + 2 decurions = 10 men

1 maniple (handful) = 3 tent groups + tesserarius (guard commander) = 31 men

1 centuria = 3 maniples + centurion + optio + doctor + master carpenter + armourer + signifier (standard bearer) + cornicen (horn blower) = 100 men

1 cohort = three centuriae + tribune = approx. 300 men (might be some supernumeraries, like engineers)

1 vexilatio (detachment) = three infantry cohorts + cavalry centuria + prefect + signifier (for the vexilum) + cornicen = approx. 1000 men

1 legio = 10 vexilationes + legate + camp prefect + 2 prefects of the horse + aquilifer (eagle standard bearer) + lots of others = approx. 10 000 men

As you can see, the progression is roughly logarithmic, and I haven't bothered to nail everything down at larger formations.

Vexilatio is basically a 'mini-legion' in its own right, and can be used to garrison a place, or even fight small skirmishes on its own, respond to raiding parties and so forth.


EQUIPMENT

One vexilatio has three infantry cohorts and a cavalry centuria.

I cohort: heavy infantry, equipped with lorica hamata, scutum, gladius, 2 pila, but also trained in the use of a pike

II cohort: heavy infantry, equipped with lorica hamata, scutum (w/ folding spike), gladius, 2 pila, and a sling

III cohort: light infantry, equipped with leather armor, bow, gladius, scutum (with a folding spike to jam it upright into the turf, when need be), pike (probably no more than basic training).

I cavalry centuria: might be subdivided into 1 maniple of heavy cavalry and two maniples of light cavalry. Although I am tempted to make them medium cavalry and keep true heavy/light cavalry as auxilia. If they are medium, then something like shield, lorica hamata, sword, lance and, I am tempted to add, crossbow, might be their equipment.


TACTICS (or rather, how these legions are supposed to use their weapons)

1. Facing infantry
Cohorts I and II fight as Roman legionnaires did. Cohort III would act as archers and might provide a flanking force with shields and swords.

2. Facing (heavy) cavalry
Cohort I would trade the javelins to the pikes from Cohort III and form a phalanx. Since pikes take two hands, they would need to discard those heavy scutum shields. The first rank might retain shield and sword combo, instead, to provide more protection against frontal missile attacks. (Does this sound it would work?) The phalanx might be rather thin, like 5 ranks, but solid. Cohort II would be throwing javelins over the heads of Cohort I and protect the flanks, while Cohort III would be mostly archers but use those javelins as spears and/or to throw if the cavalry manages to get to them.

3. Facing light cavalry / skirmishers
With their big shields and relatively good armor, the legionnaires would probably be able endure a lot of arrows and such from skirmishers. In addition, Cohort II would start using their slings, while the archers would likely get the better of their opponents thanks to the shelter of their shields. Cohort I would act as a infantry moving fort, behind which the other elements can take shelter if need be.

4. Combined army
This is of course the more realistic option. It would be up to the general to estimate what is the best combination of weapons. For example, one centuria of Cohort I might be armed with pikes in a thin (2-3 man?) formation in front of the other two centuriae to discourage a cavalry charge. But if the infantry advances, the pike centuria could fall back behind the other two.

What about their own cavalry?
Unlike the classical Roman legions, these troops would have a rather substantial cavalry arm, too, 10% of the army. This cavalry might be used to contest the enemy's cavalry, or threaten the flanks of the infantry, or chase the skirmishers off the field, depending what they are facing. They wouldn't be expected to outskirmish the horse archers or face off against knights with lances, but they might do well in peppering the knights with crossbow bolts and/or flank knights already engaged by infantry, or to keep enemy light cavalry from having free reign in the rear of the legions.

Labienus

Unlike popular thoughts, the equites which were the roman cavalry before it was replaced by auxilias, seems pretty effective cavalry. There is evidence that the equites routed cataphracts Macedian companions and Thessalian cavalry in battle.

People think that they are weak because of Cannae were the Numidian cavalry, which is as light as cavalry can get, outmaneuvered and beat them. But then, very few cavalry could stand and beat the Numidian cavalry.

But overall, equites were really solid.

Whyte

I was not making any comment on the combat effectiveness of the equites in the Roman army, simply pointing out that the fraction of cavalry is much higher in this pseudo-Roman legion (10%) than in the classical one (120 from about 5000? = ~2%). Hence, they might play a more pivotal role in an infantry battle as well.

Just a quick note about Cannae... Didn't the Numidians outnumber the equites by quite a large margin, too?

Labienus

also

Frank81

Very interesting, i like the way you use to balance the units but at the same time defined for a specialized purpose.

Some comments:

1. I can't support our fellow Labienus because i think that the roman cavalry was generally weak. You must understand that in the time of early roman army the Legion was a complete army, with it's cavalry and light infantry force supporting the heavy infantry. But with time, romans needed more cavalry, and helping the legionary cavalry were great quantities of italian allieds cavalry or from other allieds (for example numidian cavalry in Zama); at the time Augustus they used to deploy great quantities of light infantry and cavalry in support role of the traditional legion, and they formed their own units. I think is a good idea to increase the cavalry detached to the legion, but if you want a well balanced army you need too independent units of cavalry. Althought, this depend of the enemy you are fighting. You don't need too much cavalry for combined tactics, they were never more than 10-20% in the armies of Alexander.

Byzantines used to think that you need one light infantry for two heavy infantry, very well done Whyte.



2. Certainly the basis of your army sub-units is the Mongol example, and you have showed a Tumen Infantry units of more than 6000 men are usually considered too much heavy, but you have the example of the succesful Macedonian phalanx which was nearly 16000. Think it in this way, your unit would be less agile than the roman legion, but more than the Macedonian phalanx. Your proportions of the cavalry unit can be good, byzantines (again!) said that the ideal proportion was two light cavalry for each heavy.

3. You have a problem with the Pikes. Phalangites soldiers like those of Alexander had a small shield with them, this protected in some degree and then they had their fellows of rear ranks with their pikes over the heads deflecting projectiles. But in your formation as you said, your men must take out the scutums, and if it's as tiny as 5 men deep the rear men can't cover the other fellows. You can try to have a deeper formation or... to replace the pike with a typical spear, an hasta of the roman times, your Cohort I can be in fact Triarii cohorts. Hoplites and triariis could fight with cavalry forces of their time, and men at arms with no very different equipment could do so with medieval knights althought they always needed the presence of the friend cavalry to win.

4. The main roman tactic was the Triplex Acies, this allowed then to refresh the battle line permanently; in times of Caesar they did this deploying the legion in the following way: for cohorts in the rear, three in the middle, three in front. Your army can be deployed in two lines, that worked perfectly for romans in several battles so no problem. But your vexillatio are double than the roman cohorts so probably if you put one vexillation behind the other... it would be impossible to refresh one with another, the vexillatios behind would act as a rear guard for critical moments.
Well you should look for more complex formations and situations, for example again light cavalry, probably it wouldn't be a good idea to group people, Caesar in Ruspina was rounded by this kind of cavalry and in the middle of the battle he suddenly ordered to extend the line so he could break in two the enemy army. Romans used to put their best cohort in the right flank, and their best legion in the extreme right too, they tried to umbalance the battle in this way, breaking by that side.

okamido

Thank you, I needed a good chuckle today.

richardnhassett

Hey I have this ring that was passed down to me.. it looks to be a roman military ring that i know nothing about. Any ideas? I have found similar rings but none like the one i have. Thanks

Labienus

I read that the equites routed seleucid cataphracts at Magnesia, Thessalian cavalry at Heraclea and for the Companion, I don't quite remember at which battle. When I will find the sources, I will bring them here.

Here I just found the sources, Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare from Philip Sidnell

Isoroku295

I had been under the impression that despite the common place belief the Centuria was 80 Men

okamido

This is a good book you referenced.

Atharcus, Cynoscephelae, and Pydna are the skirmishes and battles, with Mr. Sidnell stating that the Macedonian horse was not outclassed by the Roman horse.

At Atharcus, a minor skirmish, there was no clear victor, a push so to say.

The defeat at Cynoscephelae had the Macedonian horse turn after their Infantry was defeated.

At Pydna, the Macedonian horse collapsed when Numidian Elephants engaged them, not Roman Cav.

I don't believe it is offered up anywhere that the Equites ever outclassed Macedonian light or heavy cavalry.