"Make up of Roman/Allied Legions at Heraclea" Topic

Hi

I was looking ay Hail Caesar unit stats for battle of Heraclea. Starting point was excellent website of Jeff Jonas:

link

It lists the make up of legiom as:
1200 Leves: Skirmishers armed with throwing spear and javelins.
1600 Hastati: Legionnaires armed with Scutum , heavy throwing spear and swords.
1600 Principes: Legionnaires armed with Scutum, thrusting spears and swords. Half may have light armor.
800 Triarii: Legionnaires armed with Scutum, light armor, thrusting spears and swords.

With 4 legions each made up as above that would total 20,800 full nominal strength.

Presumably this is where the approx 20,000 for Roman Legions come from- it notes that these were at emergency strength, and thus presumably fairly close to full nominal strength.

What would be the make up then of the Allied Legions? Apparently the Allied Legions were not at emergency strength and totalled some 16,800 troops.

Does this mean that for Alled Legions each unit would, on average be at 80% of full nominal strength?

Or does this mean that Allied Legions had less units than Roman Legions when at full nominal strength?

Thanks

James

Remember that each legion is accompanied by an allied formation (ala), so 4 legions actually means 4 legions and 4 alae.

Polybius tells us that the allied heavy infantry are roughly equal in number to the Romans, but there are times when there are more allies than Romans (a 5-4 ratio, for example). The allies also supply three times as many cavalrymen as the Romans themselves.

So, for a consular legion (2 legions plus alae) you are normally looking at something like this:

Leves/velites 1200 x 4: approx. 5000.
Hastati/Principes 2400 x 4: approx. 10,000.
Triarii (if the alae armed them as triarii): 600 x 4: approx 2,500.

I'm not sure where Jeff got his figures for increased numbers of hastati/principes/triarii from for this battle. I think I asked him once but he'd forgotten!

So for Heraclea, with four legions, you are looking at 10,000 light troops and some 25,000 heavy infantry. IIRC the Romans slightly outnumbered Pyrrhus, so in my own scenario for Lost Battles I bumped the alae up to 5000 men each, for about 27,000 heavy infantry all told.

For your other questions: no, alae were not usually composed of fewer men than the Roman formations. It was probably the other way around.

See Polybius 6.26.5-9 for more details. (See link below). I hope that helps!

link

Cheers,
Aaron

Thanks Aaron

Am a relative newcomer to Ancients and most of my background reading has been on Alexander and Pyrrhus, so the Roman side of things is very new to me.

The numbers you quoted for Heraclea total 35,000- not much different from the figure of 36,800 that Jeff Jonas have used.

The numbers of Leves seems to tally- so it is just the Hastati/Principes/Triarii that differ.

The figures you noted are 1,200/1,200/600.
The figures I have seen quoted are 1,600/1,600/800.

Maybe the figures you noted are the standard size of legions, and thus would represent the Allied Legions at Heraclea.

Maybe the figures I have seen quoted are the reinforced Roman Legions that were at emergency strength at Heraclea.

I think that would reconcile the 20,000 for Roman Legions and the 16,800 for Allied Legions at Heraclea.

Thanks- that has cleared up something that was bugging me.

Cheers

James

Didn't an over strength legion keep the triari at 600? Principles, hastati and velites got extra bods but not the triari. Can't remember where I read this. Polybius at a guess.

Agent Brown- if you can find some concrete evidence that would be great (as I said earlier the Republican Romans are far from my area of expertise so willing to listen what you find).

However for the moment taking "normal" Legions as 1200/2400/2400/600 (as noted by Temporary like Achilles quoting Polybius above) works out perfectly for 4 Allied Legions with strength of 16,800.

And taking the emergency strength Legions as 1200/1600/1600/800 (as noted by several sources including Jeff Jonas website Heraclea scenario) works out perfectly for 4 Roman Legions with strength of approx 20,000.

I am happy with that explanation as it reconciles the two totals for Roman/Allied Legions (20000/16800 respectively) for battle of Heraclea.Obviously if there is a different explanation for these 2 totals that would be fine.

Cheers

James

Our best source for Hereclea is from Plutarch as he seems to use Heronomus, whose work has been lost. There is no real way to know how big the Legio actually is. There is only 1 consul named in the battle, suggesting that there is only 1 consular army. The Latins, almost certainly would be as we see them during the second punic wars and beyond. The allied legions are quite possibly hoplites or similar troops. The formations may be somewhat larger than atypical Latin legion. If they are hoplites then it is likely that they did not fight in multiple lines but rather a single line of some depth. The entire army would be somewhere around 20,000 men including cavalry. Romans typically call on other allies as well. They may have had as many as 10,000 other Italian types fighting either as hoplites or in the looser formations of the Oscans, similar to peltasts.

Regardless, it is clear that Pyrrhus did not have more than 30,000 troops, 26,000 of his own plus perhaps another 4,000 Tarantines. Likely the Romans had a similar number.

On a similar note I have a query re Pyrrhus infantry.

As far as I can tell for battle of Heraclea we have firm numbers for Chaonians (3000), Macedonian Phalangites (5000), Tarentine Levy (6000), Archers (2000 – including 500 Cretan Archers), Rhodian Slingers (500), Companions, Thessalians and Ambrakiot Cavalry (3000), Tarentine Cavalry (1000) and Elephants (20).

What I am unsure about is the split of "20,000 Phalangites, Hoplites, and Peltasts (Includes 5000 Macedonian mercenaries supplied by Ptolemy)".

So what is the split of the remaining 15,000 "Phalangites, Hoplites, and Peltasts"? These would include any Epirote Phalangites (including Molossians, Thesprotians and Ambrakiots) plus the mercenary peltasts of the Aetolians, Acarnanians and Athamanians.

For battle of Asculum thanks to Dionysius of Halicarnassus we have a detailed list of Pyrrhus' order of battle for the infantry, but I could nt see any numbers of troops for each unit.

However if I'm reading AMPW 2nd ed correctly there were:
4000 Molossians Phalangites
4000 Thesprotian Phalangites
2000 Ambrakiot Phalangites
4000 Aetolian, Acarnanian and Athamanian mercenary Peltasts
1000 balancing figure??

Does this sound right?

Thanks very much

James

A "standard" phalanx is 16,000 men made up of a left and right wing. So there are 4,000 "other" heavy infantry. Possibly more peltasts/thureophoroi or hoplites. Might even be another contingent of phalangites with pike. You might be able to count Cineas' 3,000 infantry, also probably peltast types in for a total of about 23,000 heavy infantry.

So which of the figures above do you disagree with?

The figures I have mentioned were specific to Hercalea, not a "standard" phalanx. And this is the first time I have ever heard of a "standard" phalanx. Standard to whom?

Alexander had 12,000 Phalangites at Granincus? How does that fit in with "standard" Phalanx?

I am looking to split down in detail the "20,000 Phalangites, Hoplites, and Peltasts (Includes 5000 Macedonian mercenaries supplied by Ptolemy)".

Given that we know what 5,000 are, that leaves 15,000 to detail. The numbers I have taken from AMPW (assuming I was reading it correctly- which is not guaranteed, which is why I asked if anyone to confirm that I had in fact read it correctly) tot up to 14,000, which leaves a remainder of 1,000. Personally I can live with that as a rounding/other difference- close enough for me.

Cheers

James

Hi again James,

Here's the OOB I used for my replay of the battle:

link

It gives a bit of an explanation for where I got the numbers from, but rounds them to fit Lost Battles.

I've just listened to a lecture in which the chap said that all of our sources agree that Pyrrhus had no Italian allies at Heraclea, so it's a bit of a mess :)

For myself, I put the Tarantines in because it seemed sensible to have some there given Plutarch's build up to the battle, but feel free to take them out if you disagree.

Regarding the make up of the legions/alae, I think it was the latter that tended to be larger than the former, but you can do what you like, really!

Cheers,
Aaron

James,

Go here for an explanation. From a slingshot article.

link

I mostly went with Garoufalias… sprinkled with a bit of gamers salt to make a good game scenario. Anybody that says they know which troops were exactly at Heraclea…. or not.. is snorting the goof gas. Personally I think that not bringing the Tarentines that Pyrrhus had in hand to Heraclea makes little sense- especially knowing that he was operating against an equal or larger enemy force. Jeff Champion has a decent pro Tarentine argument in his Pyrrhus book… my posted OOB's are best guesses…one the greatest rewards from gaming has been the responses by email from folks all over the globe that have enjoyed the scenario presented. It was embarrassing though when WIKIpedia cited my page as a source… my gaming site is not really appropriate-- so be aware you essay writers of the WIKI!!.

The overstrength legion theory makes more sense to me than the double consular army (with only one consul) solution that stems from our weak sources…. but the only condition that seems to coincide with the major sources is that Pyrrhus was outnumbered. If the Roman had a standard 20000 or so "normal" Consular army that would not outnumber Pyrrhus (albeit there is some wording that many local allies joined the Roman cause- other than standard alae added to each legion. Some go with an obscure description that there were four Roman legions at Heraclea…. aside from allies… this lends itself to the 40,000 strong number but would count as a double consular army.
Again, not having the details one can make some educated guesses (i.e speculate).

One way to start is to ruminate that the Roman army structure was not as solidified in 279 as later in the Punic and Macedonian Wars, or in the abstract TO&E provided by Polybius as the ideal organic structure. For example at Heraclea there could have been four Roman citizen legions plus two equivalents of alae (instead of four). This could explain the later case of the Daunian legion operating indepently at Ausculum…. even in the Macedonian wars some armies have an extra legion or two that operate independently and often get left off and not tallied by chroniclers when the actual battle happens (for example at Pydna there seems to be an extra legion plus all sorts of Greek and Pergamene and Numidia allies that are not part of the Italian alae structure, and yet the description is such to make it seem only the two Roman legions- and their alae- actually did much of anything).
But in any event my set up was for a game, not a thesis, your mileage will vary. If including any Tarentines at Heraclea gives one hives, then I suggest one remove them and work out another OOB plan.
JJ

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Anybody that says they know which troops were exactly at Heraclea…. or not..

Never a truer statement.

@ Who asked this joker:
Yes if you read the opening paragraph of that article it quotes a Phalangarchia as being 16384 and notes that some Successor armies fielded a Phalanx as approximately 16,000 strong.

In the following paragraphs it talks at how it was initially believed that the 6 Battalions were each 1,500 strong, thus giving the 9,000 Phalangites as noted by Diodoros that crossed over to Asia with Alexander.

But if you carry on reading it notes that the figures of Diodorus exclude the advance force under Parmenion- which would have totalled approx 10,000 mean including a further 3,000 Phalangites.

Thus at some point early on in the expedition it appears that Alexander reorganised the Phalanx Battalions from 1,500 men to 2,000 men. Therefore at Granicus the 6 Taxis of 2,000 Phalangites each would have totalled 12,000 (i.e. not 16,000).

So not sure we can talk about a "standard" phalanx.

@ Temporary like Achilles- thanks- I had looked through your batrep. I was nt sure that we could simply take all 20,000 infantry as Phalangites. After all that is ignoring the Aetolian, Acarnanian and Athamanian mercenary Peltasts!

@ JJ- thanks- your website was an invaluable starting point for me. I have Jeff Champion's book as one of my next purchases (along with the 2 Pen & Sword Successors books).

I'm happy enough with Tarentines at Heraclea. With the extra details in AMPW 2nd ed which I have noted above, I think I am happy enough with approx ODB for Heraclea for both Pyrrhus and Romans.

My main interest in Pyrrhus ODB was to have a sensible long-term target to collect an army toward a sensible mix of various troops. Unless I have misread AMPW then I am think I am close enough- thanks for all the help.

Thanks

James

The main issue for your Tarentines is whether to make them hoplites or phalangites…. but it doesn't really hurt to make them both. Sadly (in this case) they do have a description of their famous 'white shields'… so that makes them one of those unique troops that we have a uniform description for. But white shield phalangites are useful for later Macedonians as well if you stay away from fancy Greek shield adornments.
Otherwise all the troops are useful elements in other games. Various Bruttians, Samnites, and Oscans allies for Rome can switch sides and be used as Italian allies for Pyrrhus. Likewise so can the Campanian cavalry. If one pushes their campaign north then Gallic allies can be added in or even Etruscans, even though these forces were pretty well smacked down just before Pyrrhus arrived. Other useful troops are Sicilian hoplites. I'm someday going to show off my very lovely Gorgon hoplites with Crabby patty shields from Akragas (Agrigentum)… someday soon.

Hi JJ- that was certainly the appeal to me of Pyrrhus force- that ability to morph.

For Sunday Hail Caesar game at Partizan, Keith from Aventine is using them as Hoplites. I think Craig davey has some lovely painted Taranntine Hoplites.

I did think Syracusan Hoplites would be pretty useful- double for a Carthaginian forec IIRC.

Cheers

James

So not sure we can talk about a "standard" phalanx.

Alexander was not a successor and probably did not follow the same organization. Greeks had a love for numeric patterns especially powers of 2. So, it is not surprising that the Hellenistic Successors would use the power of two for any of their formations. 256 for the smallest and 16,000+ for the largest. Like I said, that is not to say that Pyrrhus didn't simply add another 4000 pikemen. Note that at Cynocephelae Philip had a similar sized force including a 16000 man phalanx. Yes, a standard Phalanx. Perhaps standard is a bad word to use. Phalangarchia is actually what it is called. I presume that means Phalanx though I do not speak Greek. Ideal is how the article describes it.

Alexander is using a 1500 man "battalion" while the Successors seem to be using a 1024 man "battalion". The Alexandrian phalanx was 12,000 men (multiples of 15). The Successor phalanx seems to be 16,000 and conforms to the geometric pattern above.

So maybe correct word might be "common" rather than "standard". As in some of the Successors either happened to have 16,000 or they deliberately aimed for it out of their love of mathematics.

Personally I think that Successors would have simply fielded as many Phalangites that they could get hold of. After they were a scarce resource by the time they were being split 3, 4, or even 5 ways between the various Diadochi.

But don't forget that if you carried on reading that article that you linked to it expalined how Alexander probably reorganised his Phalanx battlaions from 1,500 to 2,000 men. So at Granicus he had 6 Battalions of 2,000 men each totalling 12,000 i.e. not confirming to the rigid Phalangarchia that you describe.

And note that I did nt claim that Pyrrhus had 20,000 pikemen- I was merely asking the question, given that we knew of the various nations/units that made up that total, whether we knew the detailed breakdown. And then stated a possible breakdown based on my understanding of AMPW- but I was nt convinced thyat my reading of this was necessarily right and asked if anyone knew anything further.

Anyway we are effectively arguing at cross purposes. I was wanting to ask about specific numbers for a specific battle. You wanted to talk about some idealised standard. Let's leave it at that.

Thank you for the discussion.

Kind regards

James