ahowl11 asked me to comment on the Roman unit roster....
I would say that broadly speaking the proposed roster is fine depending on the team’s vision of the mod. However, here are some episodic and fairly random observations:
1) The ‘Polybian’ roster more accurately reflects the late third century/early second century army of the Roman Republic rather than that the early third century, which is when the mod opens.
2) It is reasonable to conclude that the changes in the equipment and organisation of the Roman hoplite army can be dated, under Samnite influence, to the end of the fourth century BCE (Diod. Sic. 23.2, Sall. Cat. 51.37-8, Ath. 6.273F, Ined. Vat) and consequently call into question the major military reform, or series of reforms, supposedly instigated by M. Furius Camillus (Liv. 4.59, Dion. Hal. 14.9.1-2, Plut. Cam. 40.3-4). For example, Roman tradition put the blame for the great Roman defeat at the Allia in 390 BCE on religious flaws, not tactical weakness (Cass. Hem frg. 20; Cn. Gell. Frg 25 – Macrob. Sat. 1.16.21-24; Verrius Flaccus ap. Gell. NA 5.17.2) Liv 6.1.12) and this is one of the factors that counts against an early fourth century reform. Moreover, Camillus is said to have effected reforms which involved the adoption of the scutum to counteract the Gallic attack of 367; but the authenticity of the details of this episode are most doubtful….Certainly there is no reason…(to) argue for a Camillan reform of the army: Oakley S, P. A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X, Volume II: Books VII-VIII (Oxford, 1998)
3) Livy believed that an early Roman manipular legion compromised thirty maniples of antepilani (front columnists), fifteen each of hastati and principes (with twenty leves attached to each maniple) and fifteen ordines (units) of pilani (columnists), each ordo divided into three vexilla (banners or detachments), one each of triarii, rorarii, and accensi (Liv. 8.8.5-14). However, It would seem impossible to believe that Livy’s legion ever existed in reality…the whole farrago appears as an antiquarian reconstruction, concocted out of scattered pieces of information and misinformation….One of its underlying features seems to be a strained attempt to establish some sort of relation between the new military order and the five categories of the census classification (Sumner, G. V. The Legion and the Centuriate Organization, The Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 60, 1970).
4) Details about the early third century Roman army are elusive and whilst I could reproduce extensive research posts I have submitted elsewhere on the subject I have no real appetite to re-visit old ground in any detail. Consequently, I will restrict myself to suggesting that although Livy appears not to have considered either the rorarii or accensi as light troops there is good reason to believe that the rorarii were indeed part of the light-armed. The accensi might more properly be viewed as non-combatant supernumeraries. Thus one is left to conclude that the leves distributed amongst the hastati were less well equipped than the rorarii of the ‘fourth line’, who may have been equipped in a similar manner to Polybios’ grosphomachoi (usually translated into Latin as ‘velites’) or that leves and the rorarii were conterminous; both being equipped with only a spear and javelins.
5) With regard to the principes there is no general agreement about whether in the early third century they were still armed with the ‘phalanx’ spear. Dionysios of Halikarnassos (Dion. Hal. 20.11.2) is the only ancient source who states that the maniples of the principes were equipped with such a weapon and whilst there appears to be a growing tendency among modern scholars to accept the reliability of Dionysios’ testimony, so far as I can tell only Nathan Rosenstein (Phalanges in Rome in New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare; Brill, 2010) has highlighted a particularly troubling feature of this account; namely the claim that the principes at Benevetum needed to grasp their dorata (spears) with both hands. Accordingly Rosenstein speculates that the dorata carried by the principes “must have been some type of sarissa” and suggests that this represented a temporary ploy to counter Pyrrhus’ sarissa armed mercenaries. In support of his argument Rosenstein points to Polyb. 2.33.1-4 who describes an example of Roman innovation to counter a specific tactical threat. Whilst, I am not convinced by Rosenstein’s theory I am unable to offer any convincing alternative and I am therefore left to posit the following:
a) The principes (or triarii if in agreement with D. Hoyos, The Age of Overseas Expansion (264–146 bc) in A Companion to the Roman Army ed. Erdkamp; Blackwell, 2007) at Benevetum were equipped with dorata/hastae but Dionysios of Halikarnassos was mistaken when he stated that they were grasped by both hands
b) The passage of Dionysios of Halikarnassos is so flawed that no weight can be placed upon it
c) Rosenstein is in fact correct
6) In view of the above it is possible that at the start of the mod you may wish to include spear and javelin armed leves (no helmet or shield) rather than velites and spear armed principes. For example, there is reasonable evidence to suppose that the better equipped velites were a product of the bellum Hannibalicum (Liv. 26.4.9 contra 21.55.11; Val. Max 2.3.3). Similarly, the transition from light to heavy Roman cavalry equipment may also date to this period (Polyb. 6.25.3-11). The year 211 seems to have been the beginning of a turning point for the Roman cavalry as Livy’s account of the creation of the velites in 211 suggests (McCall, Jeremiah B. The Cavalry of the Roman Republic : Cavalry Combat and Elite Reputations in the Middle and Late Republic; Routledge, 2002).
7) Primary evidence for the arms, equipment and organisation of the socii nominis Latini (Allies of the Latin Name) and the socii Italici (Italian Allies) is scarce. The equipment and tactics of the Romans and Latins were supposedly indistinguishable when they fought one another in 340 BCE (Liv. 8.8.15). However, Livy’s description is probably an anachronism retrojecting the homogeneity of the opposing armies during the bellum Marsicum of 91 -87 BCE (Army and Battle during the Conquest of Italy: Rawlings, 2007). Military homogenisation was most likely the result of a fluid process of interaction that gradually eliminated regional Italic panoplies during the third century. This process included the Roman adoption of equipment and tactics from the Italic peoples, an interchange especially associated with the Samnites (Ined. Vat. 3; Diod. Sic. 23.2 Sall. Cat. 51.37-38; Ath. 6.273). The socii (allies) were presumably organized and equipped in much the same way as the cives Romani (Roman citizens) by the time of the bellum Hannibalicum, “since otherwise it would have been difficult for Roman generals to draw up armies of mixed citizen and allied contingents” (Hannibal’s War: Lazenby 1978).
That’s it for now. I will leave it to the full time mod members to determine what they wish to make of the above
Regards
buc
