You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Rome: Total War Discussion
Moderated by Terikel Grayhair, General Sajaru, Awesome Eagle

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.25 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Rome: Total War Discussion » Expanding Your Legion
Bottom
Topic Subject:Expanding Your Legion
DustyAceAlright
Legionary
posted 04 February 2005 15:06 EDT (US)         
Hey guys, usually when you start off the most you can have in one legion is 41 soldiers (Hasati, Principi)..I was just wondering if I can make it where instead of having only 41 soldier, I can have 81 soldiers per legion. How would you go about doing this?
AuthorReplies:
The Crazy Person
Legionary
posted 04 February 2005 15:16 EDT (US)     1 / 25       
Options > Video Settings > Unit Size (small(20), normal(40), large(80), huge(160)

Note that changes will only take effect in custom battles or the start of a new campaign and will also effect unit cost.


Generalissimo TCP | FREE SYRIA!
Xaph's Forumer of the Year '08, Best Thread and Most likely to be sigged, '08
"I think George W. Bush is closer to being the single greatest president in US history" - Merai
DustyAceAlright
Legionary
posted 04 February 2005 16:30 EDT (US)     2 / 25       
Thank you very much for the answer..I realized it was also answered in the FAQ thread so I apologize for asking again.

A quick question though, what is the amount commonly used amongs players here. 81 seems like a good amount although I am very thinking about maybe trying the highest amount. What do you setting do you usually use? (I'm playing as the Bruti.)

The Crazy Person
Legionary
posted 04 February 2005 16:38 EDT (US)     3 / 25       
I use large because it is a fun size for massive battles, but the units aren't so large that they become difficult to handle. Plus its a reasonable size to keep my computer from dying.

Generalissimo TCP | FREE SYRIA!
Xaph's Forumer of the Year '08, Best Thread and Most likely to be sigged, '08
"I think George W. Bush is closer to being the single greatest president in US history" - Merai
Makaan
Legionary
posted 04 February 2005 16:46 EDT (US)     4 / 25       
I like large as any lower it is a waste of my computer's specs as I can handle 2 full armies excellently with normal
DustyAceAlright
Legionary
posted 05 February 2005 15:20 EDT (US)     5 / 25       
Yeah, I suppose 81 soldiers sounds like a good amount of soldiers per Legion. Anyone here use 121 soldiers in their campaigns?
ali_hurricane
Legionary
posted 05 February 2005 15:23 EDT (US)     6 / 25       
I use 160 all the time, well i bought a brilliant computer so it can handle about 8000 men until it goes red so i always have 160.
Ferret
Legionary
(id: The_Ferret)
posted 05 February 2005 15:26 EDT (US)     7 / 25       
Wasn't it:

80 legionaires to a cohort (+1 centurian)
10 Cohorts to a century
6 Centuries to a legion
1 Legion= roughly 4000 men, plus about 2000 auxilaries (mercenaries) as cavalry.

reason was that Romans weren't too hot on Cavalry. Therefor mercenaries were required to fill this hole. As a result, early on in the empire, cavalry wasn't important to Rome.


POSTER NUMBER ONE IN HOLY ROMAN PARTY XV
"Live forever, or die trying!"
TWH Baths Forumer of the Month - November 06
DustyAceAlright
Legionary
posted 05 February 2005 15:26 EDT (US)     8 / 25       
So I take it, you must have a smooth running computer to run with more then 81 soldiers in your legion? How many soldiers were usually in a legion historically?
DustyAceAlright
Legionary
posted 05 February 2005 15:29 EDT (US)     9 / 25       
Wasn't it:
80 legionaires to a cohort (+1 centurian)
10 Cohorts to a century
6 Centuries to a legion
1 Legion= roughly 4000 men, plus about 2000 auxilaries (mercenaries) as cavalry.

reason was that Romans weren't too hot on Cavalry. Therefor mercenaries were required to fill this hole. As a result, early on in the empire, cavalry wasn't important to Rome.


Ha, yeah that sounds about right..I am not to sure exactly how the number breaks down in terms of words (legionaires, cohort.)

Hikari
Legionary
(id: echowinds)
posted 05 February 2005 15:38 EDT (US)     10 / 25       

Quote:

Wasn't it:
80 legionaires to a cohort (+1 centurian)
10 Cohorts to a century
6 Centuries to a legion
1 Legion= roughly 4000 men, plus about 2000 auxilaries (mercenaries) as cavalry.

I always thought it was 80 to a Century, 10 Century to a cohort, 6 cohorts to a legion.


Ferret
Legionary
(id: The_Ferret)
posted 05 February 2005 15:49 EDT (US)     11 / 25       
Mabye, but I know the numbers are right, its just there are too many words to remember on top of everything else you need to remember in everyday life. (basically I may have mixed the words)

POSTER NUMBER ONE IN HOLY ROMAN PARTY XV
"Live forever, or die trying!"
TWH Baths Forumer of the Month - November 06
Apollo315
Legionary
posted 05 February 2005 21:14 EDT (US)     12 / 25       
this is what it was, after the Marian reforms:
8 legionaries per contubernalis
80 legionaries (or 8 conbernalia) per century
6 Centuries per cohort (making 1 cohort 480 legionaries)
10 Cohorts per legion

In addition, by the time of the Empire, 120 Cavalry (Equites Legionis) were tied to the legion (not 2000 mercenaries), making the theoretical strength of a legion 4800 infantry and 120 Cavalry. However, later in the first century, the first cohort was expanded to include 800 legionaries, bringing the legion up to 5120 legionaries and 120 Cavalry.

For the Marian legion, there was no set amount of allies and auxiliaries attached to it; it varied considerably. But a commander would rarely fight with a single legion, prefering 2,3, or 4 (more was rare) and at least 1000 good cavalry. It is a myth that the Romans never had good cavalry with their armies; they'd rely on their allies' good cavalry to do the trick.


His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono:
Imperium sine fine dedi.
(P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneid I. 278-79)
We are all, so far as we inherit the civilisation of Europe, still citizens of the Roman Empire, and time has not proved Virgil wrong when he wrote nec tempora pono: imperium sine fine dedi.
(T.S. Eliot)
Sleeper2
Legionary
posted 05 February 2005 21:51 EDT (US)     13 / 25       
ya.. the romans basically 'took' the numidian cavelry from hannibal around 200 BC. this was shortly after he left the italian peninsula and went to africa, then back to carthage
Draigh
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 05:41 EDT (US)     14 / 25       

Quote:

this is what it was, after the Marian reforms:
8 legionaries per contubernalis
80 legionaries (or 8 conbernalia) per century
6 Centuries per cohort (making 1 cohort 480 legionaries)
10 Cohorts per legion

That's about it. A contubernalis shared a tent and marched, slept, ate and fought together. Actually, a century should theoretically have 100 soldiers in them, but that was almost never accomplished due to lack of new soldiers and losses in battle. The cohorts usually consisted of 500 men, except for the first cohort, that counted 800 men, the finest soldiers and officers. In total that made up for about 5300 men (officers included), with 150 cavalry and messengers, and some auxilaries - making it 5500 to 6000 men in an imperial legion.


Outoi sunechthein,
Alla sunphilein ephun
- Antigonè

Not to hate,
But to Love I was born

[This message has been edited by Draigh (edited 02-06-2005 @ 05:41 AM).]

The Crazy Person
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 15:40 EDT (US)     15 / 25       
1 Contubernium = 8 Men
10 Contubernia = 1 Century = 80 Men
2 Centuries = 1 Maniple = 160 Men
6 Centuries = 1 Cohort = 480 Men
10 Cohorts + 120 Horsemen = 1 Legion = 5240 Men *

*1 Legion = 9 normal cohorts (9 x 480 Men) + 1 "First Cohort" of 5 centuries (but each century at the strength of a maniple, so 5 x 160 Men) + 120 Horsemen = 5240 Men

Together with non-combatants attached to the army, a legion would count around 6000 men.
The 120 horsemen attached to each legion were used as scouts and dispatch riders. They were ranked with staff and other non-combatants and allocated to specific centuries, rather than belonging to a squadron of their own.

http://roman-empire.net/army/army.html


Generalissimo TCP | FREE SYRIA!
Xaph's Forumer of the Year '08, Best Thread and Most likely to be sigged, '08
"I think George W. Bush is closer to being the single greatest president in US history" - Merai
1ArCHeR1
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 17:56 EDT (US)     16 / 25       
Well, my comp is a little under the requirements in a few areas, and when setting up a custom game the total unit number goes red around 20,000 or so (I could be off a decimal) so I stick with normal.

"You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word." -The Coolest New Yorker (Robert DeNiro)
<A><R>
Darth Utilizer
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 20:13 EDT (US)     17 / 25       
TCP said it best. large works b/c it provides "fun size" and keeps the comp from slitting its wrists.

i also think its the more reasonable sizes. its close to a hundred and provides historically accurate army size.


"You know, Moms and Dads these days are like the Democratic Party: lame, spineless and not holding up their end of the equation. And kids are like the Republicans: drunk with power and out of control." -Bill Maher
DustyAceAlright
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 20:24 EDT (US)     18 / 25       
"TCP said it best. large works b/c it provides "fun size" and keeps the comp from slitting its wrists.
i also think its the more reasonable sizes. its close to a hundred and provides historically accurate army size."

Yeah I've started a campaign with large unit cards, enjoy it a lot more..bigger battles..seems a bit more realistic. I was not to sure on what amount of soldiers a Century or Cohort contained but after this thread...woo..I think I more less have a really good idea. But yeah, I enjoy large size, everything plays well...anyone play with huge army sizes?

Roman General
Guest
posted 06 February 2005 20:26 EDT (US)     19 / 25       
to answer the unit # question:

LEGIONS (legio):

The legion was the basic unit of Rome's standing army of career soldiers, the legionaries, who were all Roman citizens and fought primarily as foot-soldiers (infantry). The number of legions under arms varied in different time periods (there were, for example, 28 legions under Augustus in 25 BCE), and each legion had both a number and a title, though some numbers were duplicated (we know, for example, of III Augusta, III Cyrenaica, III Gallica, III Italica, III Parthica).

Though the exact numbers of men in a legion varied, the basic pattern of organization remained the same. The smallest unit was the tent group (contubernium), composed of 8 men who shared a tent, a mule, and eating equipment. These were organized into a disciplinary unit called a century (despite the fact that a century typically had 80 rather than 100 men), under the command of a centurion. The basic fighting unit was a cohort, composed of six centuries (480 men plus 6 centurions). The legion itself was composed of ten cohorts, and the first cohort had many extra men—the clerks, engineers, and other specialists who did not usually fight—and the senior centurion of the legion, the primipilus, or “number one javelin.”

this info came from http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romanarmy.html


׺°”˜`”°º×
(¯`·._.·[ ]·._.·´¯)
Oº°¨¨°ºO Roman General Oº°¨¨°ºO
––––•(-• •-)•––––
R.I.P. Kayla Renee Winterfeldt; born 28th of October 2004, died 28th of October 2004
In peace, sons bury thier fathers; in war, fathers bury thier sons. -- Herodotus
Faulty Toaster
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 22:28 EDT (US)     20 / 25       

Quote:

8 men shared a mule...

hmm...

someone said there were 6000 men in a legion.
that's an amazing 750 mules! some baggage train eh

The Crazy Person
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 22:41 EDT (US)     21 / 25       
There were 6000 men in a legion yes, but 5240 were legionaries. The rest were non-combatants. And if you think of the considerable size of a legion, of course they'd have quite the large baggage train. Look at a modern army: You have the soldiers and officers and then you have all the tanks, trucks, aircraft, equipment and supplies that goes with it. And army is a military unit designed to be self sufficient, no?

Generalissimo TCP | FREE SYRIA!
Xaph's Forumer of the Year '08, Best Thread and Most likely to be sigged, '08
"I think George W. Bush is closer to being the single greatest president in US history" - Merai
Faulty Toaster
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 22:54 EDT (US)     22 / 25       
the romans were one of the first to be so, yes.
unorganised armies weren't, so in foreign lands, barbarians would have scavenged from the surroundings (like the early WW2 russians, and late napoleonic french)
Dco2US
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 12:34 EDT (US)     23 / 25       
Keep in mind that we have been talking only about the number of soldiers.
Before the Marian reforms, when legions were made up of citizen landholders (farmers), each man was allowed to, and likely to, bring his own slave! The baggage trains were huge! And miles long. This is what Marius was really reforming. Oh sure, he had ideas about doing the fighting in a new and better way, but logistics were just as important and were in desperate need of reform.
I believe that after the reforms each century was allowed just 20 slaves. Plus all the mule skinners, wagoneers, blacksmiths, etc. were basically civilian contractors.
If a roman army had 4 legions of abot 20,000 actual soldiers, the total size of the army was probably around 30,000 people (don't forget the women camp followers!) at least.
lars573
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 12:58 EDT (US)     24 / 25       
In modern armies there is a 3:1 ratio of support ot combat troops. So for every one combat soldier there are 3 support soldiers.

Quote:

8 men shared a mule...

Quote:

hmm...


For carring their stuff gutter mind. Just because you like to have your way with farm animals doesn't mean everyone does, jeez . Also I read on a roman history site that a centuria might well have had 100 men just that 80 were the combat legionaries and 20 were the non-combat troops.


Your monarchist friend Lars

VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

I came, I saw, I kicked ass

Apollo315
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 22:09 EDT (US)     25 / 25       
yes, quite right. A century numbered 80 legionaries and 20 non-combatants, who were not slaves but rather men hired to work with the army, so, if you include non-combatants, a legion around the time of Caesar numbered 6000 men, theoretical strength. And yes, there would be slave merchants, 'women', and other people who would profit from the legions' work hanging in the rear of the army, including the personal slaves of the centurions and legates.

His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono:
Imperium sine fine dedi.
(P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneid I. 278-79)
We are all, so far as we inherit the civilisation of Europe, still citizens of the Roman Empire, and time has not proved Virgil wrong when he wrote nec tempora pono: imperium sine fine dedi.
(T.S. Eliot)
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames