Multiple generals in legion

[Berkyx]

I hope there wont just a single general for a legion (30-60k army). There should be multiple generals for each divisions in the legion and a great general for all. This way even if there is a rebellion we should atleast have loyal divisions and we can reduce rebellion army this way

 

[LoLLarN]

I am unsure on what they have released about rebellions within the army, if there even is such a feature, which I would like to see.

I would assume that the mechanic if there is one, that it would be based on a % of loyalty or popularity that the armies/generals hold to you personally. Perhaps there is ways of bribing and buying loyalty or just simple changes in laws changing such things as how much or in what way the soldiers will be paid.

Please send me to information that I have missed if there is any.

 

[Nelfe]

Yes I hope they will use more or less the same system than CK2 with a main general for the centre and one for each flank.

I am unsure on what they have released about rebellions within the army, if there even is such a feature, which I would like to see.

I would assume that the mechanic if there is one, that it would be based on a % of loyalty or popularity that the armies/generals hold to you personally. Perhaps there is ways of bribing and buying loyalty or just simple changes in laws changing such things as how much or in what way the soldiers will be paid.

Please send me to information that I have missed if there is any.

They've told that governors and generals can revolt.

 

[LoLLarN]

Yes I hope they will use more or less the same system than CK2 with a main general for the centre and one for each flank.



They've told that governors and generals can revolt.

You are right, I do recall it after you saying it as well. Must have slipped through as soon as I heard it.

 

[solamyas]

Yes I hope they will use more or less the same system than CK2 with a main general for the centre and one for each flank.

MotE's system was better. It have reserves in additions to left, right and center columns. Instead of general of center column like CK2, general of the reserves is the main general of the army stack.

 

[Markus Marius]

I hope there wont just a single general for a legion (30-60k army). There should be multiple generals for each divisions in the legion and a great general for all. This way even if there is a rebellion we should atleast have loyal divisions and we can reduce rebellion army this way

Legions and armies are two different things. Legions typically had between 5000 and 6000 fighting men. Armies were two or more Legions. Legions were the Roman equivalent of Divisions. They made of 10 Cohorts each of 500 to 600 men, similar to todays Battalions.

 

[Scutatus]

Legions and armies are two different things. Legions typically had between 5000 and 6000 fighting men. Armies were two or more Legions. Legions were the Roman equivalent of Divisions. They made of 10 Cohorts each of 500 to 600 men, similar to todays Battalions

This is true, but we should remember that legions did not fight alone. Allies and Auxiliaries considerably enhanced the size of Roman armies. Legions formed the core of the forces, and were meant to be the elite, but the other troops in Roman armies could outnumber them.

We should also note that for the greater part of our time period, between 300 BC - 100 BC , the Romans employed the Polybian Legions, which were usually 4,500 men strong (although larger legions could be raised at times). These 4,500 were comprised of 1,200 light Velites, 300 Equites horse, and 3000 Heavy Infantry divided into maniples rather than cohorts. Maniples were made up of 120 men if Principes or Hastati and 60 men if Triari (10 Maniples of Principes, 10 Maniples of Hastati, 10 Maniples of Triari) for a total of 30 Maniples in each legion.

A standard Consular army would contain two Roman legions and two allied Alae formed from The Italian Socii/allies. The alae were apparently roughly modelled on the legion, but were larger than the Roman legion, with far more cavalry, at 5,400 men. In a standard deployment the Alae (literally "wings") formed up on the flanks of the Roman legions , who usually deployed in the middle, side by side. A picked selection from the alae - cavalry and infantry - would form the Extraordinarii, under the direct command of the Consul. It is noteworthy that with this deployment, a standard Consular army was about 20,000 men - around 16,800 infantry (Of which 12,000 were heavy infantry) and 3,000 cavalry (mostly from the alae)*. With two Consuls, this gave Mid Republican Rome a potential fieldable Consular Army strength of 40,000 men, but in times of crisis - such as in the Punic Wars - this could be doubled to 80,000.

*Note the high strengths of light infantry and cavalry - in a force of 20,000; 4,800 light infantry Velites (or Socii equivalent) and 3000 cavalry! The Legionaries were the famous glory boys - but the cavalry and light infantry together formed a third of the army.

 

[Naldiin]

I hope there wont just a single general for a legion (30-60k army). There should be multiple generals for each divisions in the legion and a great general for all. This way even if there is a rebellion we should atleast have loyal divisions and we can reduce rebellion army this way

Problem: the Roman command structure does not work this way. An army, which consists of several legions, has a single commander (vested with imperium or a legatus). There was no rank of 'legion commander.' A Roman general (the guy with imperium) could delegate command a legion to a subordinate (making them a legatus), but this was at the discretion of the commander, and under the Republic, was not generally a permanent posting. You usually only did this when that legion had to break off and go somewhere else for some reason.

There's simply no equivalent to a 'division commander' in the Roman army of the Republic for you to fall back on. In practice, when a general turned on the Republic, he did so with all of the legions under his imperium, not merely some of them. Armies did not generally split up like that in a revolt. So if you're creating a single, 30-60k formation (3-6 legions + socii in the Middle Republic; 6-12 legions in the Late Republic), you best trust the commander. If he turns on you, he'll turn on you with the entire stack.

 

[Trajan72]

I hope there wont just a single general for a legion (30-60k army). There should be multiple generals for each divisions in the legion and a great general for all. This way even if there is a rebellion we should atleast have loyal divisions and we can reduce rebellion army this way

Legions and armies are two different things. Legions typically had between 5000 and 6000 fighting men. Armies were two or more Legions. Legions were the Roman equivalent of Divisions. They made of 10 Cohorts each of 500 to 600 men, similar to todays Battalions.

I can only agree. Comparing legions with modern armies is totally mischievous. Sorry. There was a legate in a Legion the boss and 6 Tribune who took care of the cohorts but had much to report had rather little. Otherwise, there were massive centurions. I'm the Anish that you legions should not equip with 30-50000 men but that it is a realistic size order of the reality is almost halfway from the game structure ago with the same installs. Well, in the republic that was a little bit different, but sometimes counted there to a legion and various allies.


@ Naldiin

The legatus Augusti pro praetore managed on behalf of the respective emperor, who was nominal governor by his imperium proconsulare, a Roman province, including the command of the troops stationed there belonged. The office was exercised by former praetors or (in provinces where several legions were stationed) consuls.

"The legatus legionis commanded a legion in the provinces where several of them were stationed (in legion only provinces, the legatus took over Augusti pro praetore). As a rule, he was also a former praetor."

The legatus proconsulis was an assistant officer to the governor

(Wiki)

That's not really true. Caesar also had a legate for each of his legions. The best known probably was Labienus, who then even betrayed him.
In addition, it even happened that when it came to big wars, units of legions were withdrawn to participate. It has turned out that never a complete legion was transferred only vexilationen (delegations) of a legion. There is a very interesting book about this (The Legions of Rome).

 

[Naldiin]

That's not really true. Caesar also had a legate for each of his legions. The best known probably was Labienus, who then even betrayed him.
In addition, it even happened that when it came to big wars, units of legions were withdrawn to participate. It has turned out that never a complete legion was transferred only vexilationen (delegations) of a legion. There is a very interesting book about this (The Legions of Rome).

Imperial legati fall largely outside of the time-scope of the game. The ability to designate legati to command legions in that way seems to have been a novelty in 67 BC when it was proposed in the Lex Gabinia that Pompey be given the power to select 15 legates to command different forces over a wide geographic area. The use of legati in this way was not a standard feature of armies of the Roman Republic - it was a unique feature of armies of the Late Republic (and even then, only specific armies of the Late Republic), which was then codified in the early empire.

Note that the entire point of a legatus is that he does not possess any actual imperium (the right of command) himself - he is merely delegated a share of the imperium of the actual commander. The the emperor's case, this was the imperium maius pro-consule which the Senate bestowed.

As for books, in this case I would strongly recommend, instead, Keppie's The Making of the Roman Army. Note that Dando-Collins, the author of The Legions of Rome is not a historian and his work is not, so far as I can tell, generally taken seriously by professional historians. Moreover, his book is focused entirely on the permanent legions, the formation of the first of which are no earlier than Caesar's command in Gaul - thus confined to less than the last century of a game spanning more than three.

 

[Trajan72]

Hmm OK. There could be something to it. I just move in the time of the emperors.
I once looked for the book. Unfortunately, there seems to be no issue in my language, a pity.

 

[Naldiin]

Hmm OK. There could be something to it. I just move in the time of the emperors.
I once looked for the book. Unfortunately, there seems to be no issue in my language, a pity.

Believe me, I know that pain. Most site reports by archaeologists are still published in the language of the country that sponsored the dig. So in order to interact meaningfully with Roman archaeology, you pretty much need to be able to read not only Greek and Latin (primary sources), but also English, French, German and often also Spanish, Italian, and modern Greek.

The best book on the Antigonid Army is in French; the best work on pre-Roman Iberian weaponry and warfare is all in Spanish (though I understand a translation of F. Quesada Sanz's Armas de la Antigua Iberia into English is inbound). And on, and on.

 

[Trajan72]

But I'm a bit surprised that the book you mentioned, which seems to have been on the market a bit longer, has not yet been translated. If that's what you say, then there should actually be interest in making it available to the masses.

 

[Will Steel]

This system only came in Paradox games with March of the Eagles where armies could have 4 generals. Three fought on the front line with flanks, one stayed in reserve.

They updated this system in CK2 to allow not only flanks but units they hold could be equipped with individual commanders. Though I am not sure what the exact criterions for that were.

To hold multiple characters in a single army/legion, Paradox would have to make a return of the MotE system (which was not bad in any way at all, BTW) and make characters able to take up any position for units/cohorts.

Which I doubt will happen at this stage of development.

 

[Trajan72]

If you can assign each cohort a centurion, that's nothing bad. I just do not mind missing a legion of two commanders, even though it was common in the Republic that two consuls were in a legion. However, the two also alternated daily with the command, which was not particularly valuable for the warfare as you could see.
The question is, however, how to implement this in such a game that this change comes about. I do not want to permanently click around the legions to exchange a commander.

 

[Naldiin]

If you can assign each cohort a centurion, that's nothing bad. I just do not mind missing a legion of two commanders, even though it was common in the Republic that two consuls were in a legion. However, the two also alternated daily with the command, which was not particularly valuable for the warfare as you could see.
The question is, however, how to implement this in such a game that this change comes about. I do not want to permanently click around the legions to exchange a commander.

Two consuls were only very rarely in the same legion. You seem to be confusing a legion with an army. Legions rarely fought alone - the consuls each typically had two legions in the Middle Republic. They would, sometimes, pool those forces to form one very large army of four legions. Later armies get much larger - Octavian and Antony march to Philippi with 19 legions. The legion is simply a unit of c. 5000 men (for precise figures, see Keppie (1984) and Dobson (2008) - it shifts over time). So legion != army. The word in Latin for 'an army' is exercitus; for the Romans, this was typically a group of legions.

You could have two consuls in the same exercitus, and then they would either work together, or alternate command.

That, in turn, I think, shows the problem with assigning commanders at the level of a cohort. There are ten cohorts to a legion. So in a very calm year, with two consular armies, you're already assigning 40 of these guys. In fact, the lowest number of legions deployed in a single year after 218 is, to my knowledge, six (in 218, 199, 197 and 172). That's an awful lot of command spots to expect the player to keep track of.

To be honest, as I've noted before - it will make far more sense for each army to be assigned one commander, and most armies will consist of multiple legions.

 

[szmik]

hopefully every cohort (or unit anyway) has its own commander, so you could have a pool of potential generals for armies, different loyalties etc.

 

[SwordOfCentury]

I thought the mechanics both in vanilla an in Roa worked quite well.
There was also a tension if the General chould be rewarded and in the worst case
survive/get injured or get traits.
That was masterfully blended in ROA (thanks Wiz for a really good time with that one!9...

 

[Trajan72]

Two consuls were only very rarely in the same legion. You seem to be confusing a legion with an army. Legions rarely fought alone - the consuls each typically had two legions in the Middle Republic. They would, sometimes, pool those forces to form one very large army of four legions. Later armies get much larger - Octavian and Antony march to Philippi with 19 legions. The legion is simply a unit of c. 5000 men (for precise figures, see Keppie (1984) and Dobson (2008) - it shifts over time). So legion != army. The word in Latin for 'an army' is exercitus; for the Romans, this was typically a group of legions.

You could have two consuls in the same exercitus, and then they would either work together, or alternate command.

That, in turn, I think, shows the problem with assigning commanders at the level of a cohort. There are ten cohorts to a legion. So in a very calm year, with two consular armies, you're already assigning 40 of these guys. In fact, the lowest number of legions deployed in a single year after 218 is, to my knowledge, six (in 218, 199, 197 and 172). That's an awful lot of command spots to expect the player to keep track of.

To be honest, as I've noted before - it will make far more sense for each army to be assigned one commander, and most armies will consist of multiple legions.

That's right, I wasted myself there. If several legions fight together, as you said, there was always a commander-in-chief, the Legate, etc. under stood.

I fully agree with you.