The Levy of the Annual Regular Legio

[Nephele]

Chief roman magistrate during the republican era. Two consuls were elected by the senate every year

 

Nonsense. During most of republican history (i.e., with the exception of the very early republic), consuls were elected by the Comitia Centuriata, not by the senate.

 

Thats perfectly fine with me. Please take it up with the author concerned.

 

Were you quoting from a role-playing book? This is the only Imperial Rome by a C.J. Carella that I've managed to find.

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

In the last couple of 'military' threads, I left out cohort/battalion. Some authors use the TITLE captain to indicate an overall commander, such as Scipio and Hannibal. Now, I am in noway trying to gainsay Caldrail. Let me try to explain myself. Although imperfect, when one tries to explain, (not define), something, a comparison might be used. For example, an atom. One uses balls to indicate the electrons 'circling' a nucleus. This is not nearly correct, but it gets the point over - especially to a novice. The word 'military' is used to indicate both land and naval forces. This is not correct, but it gets the point over. Had 'divisions', as such, existed a few hundred years ago, division/general might have been used to compare legion/legate. A consul's two legions might have been referred to as a 'corps'. How legions were used tactically, suited their times. By 1453AD, I believe that a legion was composed of about one thousand foot. Didn't change the use of the term, (at least by 'moderns').

Edited May 1, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Primus Pilus]

Aside from all the disassociation between modern armies and the legion in this thread, despite the practical value such association can have for simple illustrative purposes, I'm left a bit perplexed as to what the point is.

 

Getting back to the original post of the thread...

 

at the end of spring, the Roman senate convene to commission the annual levy of the army's legiones.

 

after a brief debate, the two oppossing group realigned their patron members,

and most senior patriarch favor the more numerous group to nominate their lead patrician family heir to lead,

 

as the commission of the new army of 4 legio is declare, the appointment of the general is chosen.

 

the baton of the new army of legio was given to the winning group, Scipio [example only]

while the lesser group representative was given the next in command,

 

only the leading patrician family heir is given the army's group of legio imperium,

which ancestor has already lead an army in the early era of Rome.

 

the appointment of the leading patrician:

 

1.Legionis Princeps

2.Legionis Princeps Vice or Alae

 

the appointment of the lesser patrician

 

as Legionis Questor

 

What is the time frame being presented here. The annual "levy" process of the legion evolved as much as the structure and tactical function of the legion itself did over time. What is the source material for the above? Considering the emphasis on Patrician families, I presume you are talking about the earliest legions... perhaps even the tribal phalanx?

 

I've delayed replying directly because I've been trying to find the appropriate source material. I've not had luck in Livy's description of the early legion (in book 8) nor in his earlier books describing the foundation of the Republic. I've also had no luck in Dionysius but I'll admit to only a relatively light perusal. It's definately prior to Polybius, who describes the legionary formation of the middle Republic or Punic War era in his Histories Book 6.

 

Rather than continue down this path, can you provide some background to help me out?

[caldrail]

Were you quoting from a role-playing book? This is the only Imperial Rome by a C.J. Carella that I've managed to find.

 

-- Nephele

 

Yep. Can you guess why?

[caldrail]

In the last couple of 'military' threads, I left out cohort/battalion. Some authors use the TITLE captain to indicate an overall commander, such as Scipio and Hannibal. Now, I am in noway trying to gainsay Caldrail. Let me try to explain myself. Although imperfect, when one tries to explain, (not define), something, a comparison might be used. For example, an atom. One uses balls to indicate the electrons 'circling' a nucleus. This is not nearly correct, but it gets the point over - especially to a novice. The word 'military' is used to indicate both land and naval forces. This is not correct, but it gets the point over. Had 'divisions', as such, existed a few hundred years ago, division/general might have been used to compare legion/legate. A consul's two legions might have been referred to as a 'corps'. How legions were used tactically, suited their times. By 1453AD, I believe that a legion was composed of about one thousand foot. Didn't change the use of the term, (at least by 'moderns').

 

There is a very deep problem is describing another world in terms of your own. Thats how people used to think in the middle ages. By using modern terminology and function in describing something much older and different, you aren't really making it understandable at all. The roman armed forces were organised differently from ours and for that reason need to be studies as they were.

[roman wargamer]

Was there ever an 11th century to a cohort, i.e., the 1st cohort?

 

Help me out here. If there weren't a command structure, how could a legion march anywhere, let alone do battle? Who'd tell the rear guard and flankers where to go?

 

in the late republic... a cohort could possibly number more than 11 centuriae, but not called by number.

 

althought cohort was numbered 1 to 10 in the main body of the legion.

 

centuria was called by name- title, function and position.

 

1 1-centuria of hastatus prior

2 1-centuria of hastatus posterior

3 1-centuria of princeps prior

4 1-centuria of princeps posterior

5 1-centuria of triarii prior

6 1-centuria of triarii posterior

________________________________

7 1-centuria signiferi

 

8 1-centuria of hastatus antepilanus

9 1-centuria of princeps antepilanus

10 1-centuria of triarii antepilanus

11 1-centuria of cursores... light infantry naturally number more than one centuriae in a cohors..

 

but base on this presentation, a cohort could number more than 6 centuriae, and possibly 11.

[Primus Pilus]

Was there ever an 11th century to a cohort, i.e., the 1st cohort?

 

Help me out here. If there weren't a command structure, how could a legion march anywhere, let alone do battle? Who'd tell the rear guard and flankers where to go?

 

in the late republic... a cohort could possibly number more than 11 centuriae, but not called by number.

 

althought cohort was numbered 1 to 10 in the main body of the legion.

 

centuria was called by name- title, function and position.

 

1 1-centuria of hastatus prior

2 1-centuria of hastatus posterior

3 1-centuria of princeps prior

4 1-centuria of princeps posterior

5 1-centuria of triarii prior

6 1-centuria of triarii posterior

________________________________

7 1-centuria signiferi

 

8 1-centuria of hastatus antepilanus

9 1-centuria of princeps antepilanus

10 1-centuria of triarii antepilanus

11 1-centuria of cursores... light infantry naturally number more than one centuriae in a cohors..

 

but base on this presentation, a cohort could number more than 6 centuriae, and possibly 11.

 

Again, where is this information coming from? The honorific titles of Hastatus, Princeps, Triarii, etc. still existed but the late Republican and imperial legions were uniform cohorts. The days of the separately equipped Hastatus, Principes and Triarii had passed. In any case, there is some understandable confusion over the transitional period between Maniple and Cohort and between the early Republican, Polybian and Post Marian/Imperial legions...

 

If you have some interesting information to share, I for one, would love to see the source material.

[Gaius Octavius]

There is a very deep problem is describing another world in terms of your own. Thats how people used to think in the middle ages. By using modern terminology and function in describing something much older and different, you aren't really making it understandable at all. The roman armed forces were organised differently from ours and for that reason need to be studies as they were.

 

The modern regiment evolved from the Roman legion as it, itself, evolved from its earliest forbears in names, functions, and command structures. A company is not entirely comparable to a century. A battalion is comparable to a cohort; a regiment to a legion. Modern air forces and navies are neither explained nor defined in terms of legions, even though Roman naval legions existed. The word 'comparable' does not mean 'equal to'. What blunders have occurred because modern terms have helped to explain the legion? If we had to use the exact same terminology to explain a word, there would be no dictionary. Modern military battle maps use the same symbols to denote unit positions and types as are used to denote Caesar's battles.

 

Taking a practicing idiot, such as myself, and without writing a boring tome, how would one 'explain' a legion? We are moderns. The 'laws' of chemistry have changed, yet the old 'laws' are still used when preparing a student to become a chemist.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

The modern regiment evolved from the Roman legion as it, itself, evolved from its earliest forbears in names, functions, and command structures.

Absolutely not. There is no evolution between the roman legion and modern organisation. The ancient romans based their organisation on the formalisation of the warband, whose loyalty was directly to a leader (although the citizen army did attempt, as did the republic generally, to forestall personal ambition by sharing command). The modern regimental system evolved from the 1600's and owes its loyalty to the unit or nation state.

 

There is no direct connection between roman practice and our own. The classic roman legion as we know it had almost ceased to exist by the late roman empire except in a reduced form, and in any case the romans were increasingly reliant on foreigners for their defence without any roman organisation.

 

Modern military battle maps use the same symbols to denote unit positions and types as are used to denote Caesar's battles.

Thats the first time I've heard that in thirty years of wargaming, and the current symbols we use were drawn up by nato strategists and bear no connection to legionary practice. Can you supply any documentary evidence for the literary use of roman unit symbology? I really would be interested.

 

Taking a practicing idiot, such as myself, and without writing a boring tome, how would one 'explain' a legion?

By studying its command structure, its methodology, and understanding the roman military as an entity unrelated to the modern day in that respect.

 

The 'laws' of chemistry have changed, yet the old 'laws' are still used when preparing a student to become a chemist.

The laws of chemistry are exactly what they've always been. Its our understanding thats changed, and using medieval logic to understand another way of organising soldiers is not going to help.

[roman wargamer]

The Levy of the Annual Regular Legio, how officer and legiones being commission

 

at the end of spring, the Roman senate convene to commission the annual levy of the army's legiones.

 

What is the time frame being presented here. The annual "levy" process of the legion evolved as much as the structure and tactical function of the legion itself did over time.

if we will limit time epoch... in relation to the title of the thread.

it should be of the early republic and before the middle republic begun.

 

initially the praetor could have an imperium.

 

at this time Rome would always have commission 5 legion in a year.

 

one legion is perpetually and constantly existing like a standing army.

the militia urbana protect Rome and always maintain it's legion there.

 

while the 4 legion... was commission annually... train for a few months,

then demobilized at the winter months.

 

the senate convened to nominate the 2 consul; then presented at the comitia centuriata for election,

and finally the comitia curiata will conferred the undivided king imperium to the 2 chief consul.

 

is this information not universally known?

______________________________________________________________

 

the first case of extended tour of service

Siege of Veii

 

to over run the enemy, a siege was propose... causing for the legion to be kert all winter.

salary and pay to the troops was first introduce.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

around 367 bce the practice of giving imperium to the tribunes was abolished...

but later return due to the agitation of the plebians.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

]the first case of extended imperium

The 2nd Samnite War

 

when Rome arbitrarily made Fragellae a colony the second war begin again.

the consul term has already elapse... rather than replaced him,

as pro-consul the imperium was extended.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

the first case of dictator imperium being granted

at the Battle of Lake Regillus

 

Postumius was granted imperium as Master of the People and defeated the Latins.

Edited May 4, 2008 by roman wargamer

[Gaius Octavius]

C., I beg honourable terms!

 

[roman wargamer]

390

after the Gallic Sack of Rome who defeated the Roman phalanx formation legio at Allia

 

the next war and general experimented in dividing the solid phalanx into 3 to 4 division.

 

at around 312 bce, or maybe before,

the old classical legion formation become formally establish

 

the following maniple line become standard

 

hasta.........first maniple line

princeps.....second maniple line

triarii..........third maniple line

 

they are known as the main battle line of the legion.

but battle information suggest that light infatry and allies augment the number and force of the legio.

the light infantry at the front and the allies in the wing.

Edited May 4, 2008 by roman wargamer

[caldrail]

initially the praetor could have an imperium.

Could? Surely imperium was the right to command rather than the actual circumstance of doing so, which was dependent on circumstance. The praetor had the right to command an army limited to one legion. The two Consuls of Rome, were each allowed an army of two legions. The romans however levied men as required. Whilst traditionally the consular 'army of four legions' was enacted every year, they were only called upon to assemble in times of hostility.

 

at this time Rome would always have commission 5 legion in a year.

No, the number of legions did vary sometimes. The Third Macedonian War for instance required more legions, and the Punic Wars involved drafting men to replace battle losses.

 

one legion is perpetually and constantly existing like a standing army.

the militia urbana protect Rome and always maintain it's legion there.

I'm not sure the militia urbana (if that actually existed in the early/mid republic) could be described as a legion. The urban cohorts of imperial times weren't considered so.

 

while the 4 legion... was commission annually... train for a few months,

then demobilized at the winter months.

The citizen army spent very little time training, and this amateur status of roman soldiering was no different to any other hoplte army of the time. Fixed training schedules came in with the reforms of Marius. It is true that armies were trained on occaision and for specific reasons rather than as a general policy, so for instance we see a spartan mercenary training the carthaginian defenders to fend off roman attack at the last moment, not at the onset of campaigning. The servian legions were levied in March and dissolved in October. If they had trained for a few months, what about their enemy? Are they going to wait patiently for the romans to finish drilling?

[Pompieus]

The issue of training of Roman troops during the republic is an interesting one. Polybius says in his description of the Roman military system of the third century BCE that four legions of recruits were levied each year called the legiones urbana (Poly vi.19). Is it not likeley that these units were used as what today would be called "training formations" ? So that when the consuls departed for their provinces (probably in the early summer) they could select trained men from the previous year's legiones urbana to take with them as reinforcements (supplementum) to bring the units already in their province up to strength, or they took the previous years legions with them if a new army was required.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Pompieus

[caldrail]

The issue of training of Roman troops during the republic is an interesting one. Polybius says in his description of the Roman military system of the third century BCE that four legions of recruits were levied each year called the legiones urbana (Poly vi.19). Is it not likeley that these units were used as what today would be called "training formations" ? So that when the consuls departed for their provinces (probably in the early summer) they could select trained men from the previous year's legiones urbana to take with them as reinforcements (supplementum) to bring the units already in their province up to strength, or they took the previous years legions with them if a new army was required.

Its an interesting idea, but there's no reason to suppose the armies of the early and mid republic trained as a matter of course. There's no doubt that some training did occur. marius did not really introduce anything new in his reforms - what he did was formalise and standardise what was already going on on an ad hoc basis in legions already. Thats the important point. Training was not standardised before Marius, that it was done informally and only if the commander thought it desirable. Its easy to fall back on what we know and assume that training is as necessary for soldiering as it is today - well, strictly speaking it is - but back then fighting wasn't unusual, it was part of roman culture and had been right from the start. Whereas today recruits are given intensive training not only to learn and practice military skills until its second nature, but also to change the mindset of the recruit into someone who will perform willingly as a soldier as opposed to the reluctant civilian. For the romans, this change of mindset was hardly necessary. Arguably, the usage of weapons required training as much as today, and again I would agree it would have been desirable, yet the use of weapons wasn't something so alien back then, and remember today the average person rarely becomes familiar with military hardware or its effects. Also the idea of a citizens army is something that assumes the average citizen is a potential warrior. Apart from the amateurism that this naturally entails, you really shouldn't ignore the aggressive nature of mediterranean culture.

 

I'm curious about these legiones urbana. Since under etruscan tradition each city would raise its own forces as an independent defensive army, something the romans adopted themselves, are these leghiones additional troops or the 'army of Rome' itself?