"Principes, Hastati and Triari, oh my!" Topic

Generally speaking, how do ancient rules deal with these three groups of early republican roman infantry on the wargame table?

I'm looking at the Renegade figures (which look outstanding). With some they have feathers standing straight. With others they seem to be wearing horse hairs hanging down. Would you intermix the figures in the same unit or use them to represent two different units?

Rich

LOL

just from the title line!

Thanks for the little diversion.

Rich,

I am planning to mix mine (Crusader btw).

Bill – one stifle and counting!

It's "triarii", he said helpfully. Singular = "triarius". (And the other singulars are princeps and hastatus.)

As for rules, all treat them differently. Many say nothing beyond calling one "Regular B" and the others "Regular C", and limiting the ratio, or at least keeping the maxima in a 2:2:1 ratio, which you can do anything with.

Since each "citizen soldier" was expected to buy his own gear, you can certainly mix feathers and crests in the same unit. I would even mix square pectoral plates with other armor too. The only uniformity I would have is in the shields.

Actually the only ruleset/supplement that I know of that attempts to play the manipular sturcture in battle as well as differs between the three types of infantry is WAB: Hannibal & the Punic wars.

I always find it somewhat amusing that WAB is usually condemned as some semi fantasy boardgame by people who play rulesets that do not even come close to this rule ;o) And without making it insanely complicated, that is.

Then again given that WAB has a bow range of what 24" the at this scale it can be represented. As has been done to death before WAB is close to a semi-skirmish game. I don't think it needs to be represented in great detail in other rules.

One thing that's always irritaded me about the representation of triarii is that although they had half the number of troops in the maniples they covered the same frontage as the hastati and principes, just in a shallower formation.
Most rules just have each stand representing the same number of troops but give the triarii half the number of stands making it impossible for them to fulfil their historic role.
When I played DBM I just gave each legion the same number of triarii, hastati and principes (with the triarii based in a single rank in 6mm) and classed triarii as Sp(O) or (I) rather than (S) to represent half the number of troops per stand. Now I play WMA I give the triarii only two hits per stand and no extra attacks (I'd normally give veteran troops an extra attack per stand).
My triarii can now screen the entire frontage of a legion if needed rather than act as an elite fire brigade which seems to be how most/all rules treat them.

"As has been done to death before WAB is close to a semi-skirmish game. I don't think it needs to be represented in great detail in other rules."

Finally I understand why most rulesets skip those pesky historical details. Thatīs just for skirmish ;o)

So if you want to play manipular system you have to either abandon that desire or play a "close to semi skirmish" ruleset (whatever that is…), of which AFAIK WAB is the only one which attempts it (and not bad either, IMO).

Stewart, keep you hands off those damned Romans. I have to come up with something to oppose your successors.

I guess the real question was do I put them all together into a unified unit. Or do I play them as independent units each?

Rich

Independent. Principes and Hastati could almost be the same unit, unless your rule set requires detailed manipular manipulation (always wanted to put those two words together in a sentence). Triarii were armed differently in the early Republic. Long spear (e.g., hoplite type), armor, according to Polybius. They were usually kept as a reserve unit of veterans.

As for the triarii "screening" the whole front of the legion, that is a new one on me. The triarii were used in line of battle with the principes and hastati, but I can't recall anything in Polybius or Livy relating their use in this fashion. Screening is for the velites.

By screening I meant covering the retreat of the hastati and principes, if it came to that, which was their purpose originally. My fault. Bad choice of words.
And yes, the triarii were in the line of battle (third) and had the same frontage as the other lines with half the number of troops. This doesn't seem to be represented in any rules that I've played.

So, if what I'm hearing is correct I could form a single unit with Hastati in the front rank and Principes in the second. Then a second unit to their rear of Triarii. Do most rules consider Hastati heavy infantry in the order of the Principes?

Rich

Yes…for the most part Hastati and Principes are interchangeable.

Singular = "triarius"

I thought it was "Romans go home"

The interpenetration section of the FoG rulebook gives light troops, as might be expected, the most flexibility. It also alludes to special rules for certain heavy infantry types to be included in the pertinent supplements. Great, I thought upon reading this: the Roman manipular system will be accurately represented.

I was disappointed then on reading the mid-Republican Roman list to find that hastati and princeps are supoposed to be merged within the same battlegroup and the passage of lines abstractly repesented. Does anyone know what happened between the publication of the rules and the supplement?
Surely at the level at which the rules operate the three line system needs to be fully depicted.

Follow the money!

Rich

"Surely at the level at which the rules operate the three line system needs to be fully depicted."

The 'correct' answer to that question would depend entirely on the level of abstraction and detail with which you are comfortable. More information on the representation of Mid-Republican Roman legions in FoG may be found in the following threads from the official discussion group for the rules:

link
link
link
link

Cheers,
Scott

I thought it was "Romans go home"

It's "Womans go home".

"And yes, the triarii were in the line of battle (third) and had the same frontage as the other lines with half the number of troops. This doesn't seem to be represented in any rules that I've played."

It is slightly bothersome.

"Actually the only ruleset/supplement that I know of that attempts to play the manipular sturcture in battle as well as differs between the three types of infantry is WAB: Hannibal & the Punic wars."

WMA also addresses it (in a different way). But that's just another 'fantasy' ruleset…

Ars Belli – A FoG HI element represents 3 – 5 ranks, or an average of four ranks; historically the lines of hastati and princeps each deployed at least 6 ranks deep, so is not the FoG representation of the manipular formation too shallow at a total of 6 – 10 ranks?

Henry,

In the Polybian legion, each maniple was comprised of two 60-man centuries, each believed to have been deployed either 10 men wide x 6 men deep, or 12 men wide x 5 men deep. The only time that a maniple might have been 10-12 men deep was while changing lines – if you subscribe to the notion that line exchange was accomplished by moving entire maniples at a time. In any case, during actual combat the centuries would have been deployed side by side, so the line of maniples would have been 5-6 men deep.

In FoG, a single base representing 300 men deployed 5 ranks deep would occupy a frontage of 60 yards. This fits in very nicely with the ground scale implied by the missile ranges. A single FoG unit with 4 bases of hastati/principes, deployed in its typical formation of 2 bases wide x 2 bases deep, would thus represent 5 maniples of hastati deployed 5 ranks deep, in front of 5 maniples of principes deployed 5 ranks deep, representing a total depth of 10 ranks. This seems perfectly fine to me!

Cheers,
Scott

In the situation described in your first paragraph it was the century that was deployed 10-12 men deep when deployed with anterior and posterior maniples, not the individual maniple, which was – by your reckoning – a constant 5-6 men deep. So it would appear that FoG's depiction of the manipular formation is probably valid; to use a rapidly receding colloquialism: 'no worries mate'.

Hi Henry,

Just to clarify, a manipluar legion was comprised of 30 maniples of 120 men each. Each maniple was divided into two centuries (anterior and posterior) of 60 men apiece. With the anterior and posterior centuries deployed one behind the other, the 120-man maniple would have been 60 files wide x 10-12 ranks deep. In the face of the enemy, with the anterior and posterior centuries deployed side by side to remove any gaps in the line, the maniple would now be 120 files wide by 5-6 ranks deep.

As you so aptly say, 'no worries!'

Cheers,
Scott