"Size of a "milliaria" cohort in "Hail Caesar!"?" Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Workbench ArticleThe final warband for the Army for Bill.
Featured Book Review
|
Come In Nighthawk | 04 Apr 2020 3:34 p.m. PST |
Am wrestling with how to portray the difference between a "normal cohort" and the larger sized cohors milliaria peditata for "Hail Caesar!"? I am most interested to see how others have tackled this problem! Or has anyone indeed thought about it? I guess it could be that maybe no one thinks it is an issue --- except me???? Most sources on the Roman army assert that the cohors quingenaria peditata counted six centuries of 80 men each (or actually 480 men not "500), while the "1000 strong," or sometimes referred to as "double strength" cohors milliaria had 860 men. In "Hail Caesar!" it is only on page 173 of the basic rules that the authors finally advise that, "if one assumes a typical standard sized unit to be equivalent to a Roman cohort…" A standard unit, as those who play the system know, is reckoned at 16 to 20 models (pg. 16) and should [I am assuming] be mounted and played as "two-deep" or presenting a front rank of eight figures and a rear rank the same, on an overall frontage of 160-200mm (16)… In that the recommended base size for a single infantry model is 20mm square, then a frontage of 160mm indeed suggests this two-deep ranking. SO… what to do with a unit that is half-again as large? Do you "bounce it up" to a "large" unit of 32 to 40 figures (16), that is, taking the literal translation of millaria to mean 1000 men? So then, do you mount 32-odd figures in a two-deep formation -- on a frontage of 320-400mm (16)? OR, do you take the assertions of the authors who, over 100-odd years of experience researching the Roman army, say the cohors milliaria had 860 men? If so, do you mount this unit with "only" 24 figures (16 plus half-again or 8 more figures), on a frontage that is still 160-200mm, i.e., do you mount THIS cohort as "three-deep?" (16)… |
Frederick | 04 Apr 2020 5:26 p.m. PST |
I have always assumed the cohors milliaria were twice the size of a regular cohort That being said all my auxiliary units are conventional sized cohorts |
gamershs | 04 Apr 2020 7:25 p.m. PST |
With both infantry and cavalry I thought that these units may have been used as a scouting/local defense force and not as part of the field army. Used to detect and stop raiders and possibly used to control an area they would be broken into detached units. If an army formed only a detachment would serve with it. |
Damion | 04 Apr 2020 8:40 p.m. PST |
The auxiliary had similar numbers to the Legions. The standard cohort was six centuries of 80 men each giving 480 men. You could also think of a century as consisting of ten squads (contubernium). The first cohort was five double centuries of 160 men each giving 800 men. I assume the point of the double centuries is that the first cohort had twice the frontage of a regular cohort but weren't as deep. |
tabletopwargamer | 05 Apr 2020 4:13 a.m. PST |
I wouldn't have thought any legion was ever at establishment strength for more than about a week. We don't know how they fought, so why are we worrying about representing one minor element of them? If you're really that absorbed by the topic, then just make one unit one stamina and h2h higher. Easy. |
Brownand | 05 Apr 2020 12:23 p.m. PST |
AFAIK the auxiliary didn't had a "first" cohort but all cohorts were independant. I thought the cohors miliaria had 10 centuries of 80 men so 800 men but I can be wrong. A normal cohors would be 24 figures (standard unit), a milliaria then 40 figures or big units. As this in two ranks would be a vey broad front, maybe you can dived it into two wings of 20 figures each. |
Damion | 05 Apr 2020 1:58 p.m. PST |
I didn't say the auxiliary were organised like legions but they do appear to be organised like legionary cohorts including the distinction between the first cohort and the nine regular ones. A cohors miliaria is the equivalent of a double cohort. Look at the numbers, ten centuries of 80 men, that's the same as the first cohort of a legion. The cohors quingenaria is the equivalent of a regular legionary cohort. |
Come In Nighthawk | 05 Apr 2020 10:19 p.m. PST |
First -- my apologies. I somehow transposed a number (or did something!), and I did mean for my "1st [Legionary] cohort" to have 800 men -- "nominally." Second -- I was only making the link (or equation) of the legionary 1st cohort and an auxiliary "double" cohort as do most scholars: Jonathan Roth, for example, in Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 43, H. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1994): 346-362, writing: "Most scholars accept the idea, suggested by Pseudo-Hyginus' description of an auxiliary milliarian cohort, that the first cohort of the legion had five double-strength centuries, instead of the normal "manipular" six-century organization. [FN 109] The total number of soldiers in a first cohort made up of five centuries has been variously calculated as 800 (each century with 160 men) [Fn 110] or 960 (each century with 192 men). [FN 111] I fully accept that few units were ever at "nominal" strength. I'd argue there that accepting a "nominal war-games strength" of 16 figures in "Hail Caesar!" for all "standard" units already covers that "sin." But if by way of argument we assume the units in an army are "on average" fighting at 70% strength, then the normal cohort of ca. 480 men is putting a brave face on it with only 336 men standing in the ranks. By extension then, a miliaria cohort of auxiliaries, or a legionary 1st Cohort in the same straights will be fielding 560 men. That's fully 1.666 times more men and must have some bearing on the "stamina" of such a unit (to use the term from the rules -- IF I am using it correctly??). So, two things come to mind after the useful contributions above to solving this little mystery. First, I guess I wasn't clear in communicating the notion that what I was trying to get at was how I might to convey in the most obvious, transparent, and straight-forward and FAIR way to an opponent, that the cohort she was facing was not your "run of the mill" sweepings of the back-streets near the Lupanar of the empire… Now I could always "forget" to mention they were "drilled," or "levy," to make things interesting. However, I feel that having more men ought to get the unit SOMETHING -- and THAT attribute at least ought to be pretty danged obvious to opponents on the table. If it really does not matter, then WHY are "war-bands" supposed to be fielded as units of over 30 figures in four-deep lines? Why not just have them out on the table exactly the same size as the so-called "standard" units, and just have some visible signification --- maybe put a ROCK in the middle of their movement tray?? But use a REAL rock so the base is "heavy?"" That brings me to my second point. tabletopwargamer noted, "we don't know how they fought…" On that point i would disagree on several levels. There has been barrels of ink spilt on how the Roman army's troopers fought. Not everyone agrees on all points, but there is I would have to say pretty broad agreement. Unless, what he means is "what were these units FOR?" Now that I would agree on -- and will come back to it, but suffice to say for the moment, I don't think we know. I've read a lot over the years (and gone back to re-read some journal articles and book chapters) that seem to avoid asking that question. Instead, these worthy women and men have argued, and still argue about how perhaps the legion's "specialists" were all assigned to the 1st Cohort, and that accounts for the "overage." Except that doesn't seem to be the case. Taking artillery-trained personal as one example, they have been found on unit diplomas assigned to many different cohorts. Were they the "veterans" of the legion, serving out their last four years "under the Eagle?" Except again, there seems to be evidence that if you lived that long, you got pulled out and assigned to a separate corps -- cf. Keppie, in Legions and Veterans: Roman Army Papers 1971-2000, where he notes Tacitus as a source for a detachment of veterans of Legion III Augusta. "The size of the detachment is given as non amplius quam quingenti numero," and while my Latin is verschmaltz I'd put a cup of coffee on that meaning something like, "numbering less than 500 men." Keppie notes that in the second century on average a legion released 100 veterans a year after serving 25 years, the last five served [sub] vexillum veteranorum, so that means such a detachment numbered somewhere around 500 men (possibly 600) [pg. 240]. Most scholars seem to be worried about "bean counting" rather than "sussing out" the rationale for the creation (and sizing) of units. For example, several scholars have tried to reconcile the difference between a "pure" legion of 4800 foot soldiers (taken at 10 cohorts of 480 men apiece) and various literary sources citing a legion as 6000 men, by suggesting the "veterans" made up the 1200-man difference. I won't belabor the point, but that doesn't seem to tally too well either -- see Keppie's arguments above. So, what do "I" think the big cohorts were for? And why would it matter on the gaming table? Staying Power! A few sources I have read suggest that the creation of auxiliary cohors miliaria, by either raising new units, or increasing the size of existing, and the increased size of the 1st (the most elite) cohort of the legions, came about at around the same time. This would be after the reverses in Germnaia, the many disastrous and near-disastrous confrontations with the Parthians, and likewise the reverses in the first year or so of the first Jewish Revolt. Cohorts (what I think of as "battalions" -- despite how British researchers insist on (often) equating them to "regiments") are handy-sized tactical formations. Having a number of "big battalions" on the battlefield as "rocks" around which to steady the rest of the army cannot be a bad thing?? It is in my mind analogous to the steadily increasing of the size of the cavalry force of the army in the 1st Century by the addition of equitata to many cohorts; cavalry detachments that in more settled times increased a cohort's ability to patrol its "beat," but in wartime could be assembled into ad-hoc cavalry units to accompany the army. …there is evidence for the later. Well, my "duo denari." I appreciate the thoughtful remarks of all and sundry. I'll ponder what I am going to do now. Stay safe everyone! |
Damion | 06 Apr 2020 9:42 p.m. PST |
Wouldn't a 6000 man legion represent ten cohorts of 600 each, ie a proper century times six. It's possible those sources may have come up with the numbers by simple multiplication not realising that a century was 80 or that the first cohort was five double centuries of 160. |
gamershs | 07 Apr 2020 9:50 a.m. PST |
In case you didn't know a British "Regiment" was a battalion of the Regiment (representing the regiment so given the title "Regiment"?). A brigade would be made up of individual battalions and it would not be unusual to have different battalions of the same regiment in different brigades. A legion without it's auxiliaries would be very weak in horse and light troops (archers, peltest etc). In mixed unit of mounted (horse or camel) and unmounted I was in the impression that they were used to hold an area and were broken up into detachments. In my 15mm and 25mm early imperial Roman Legions the First cohort has a field size the same as the other cohorts. The extra size was due to the administrative personnel of the legion being assigned to the first legion as a sort of HQ section. |
Damion | 07 Apr 2020 12:24 p.m. PST |
A double century would be a fighting unit. Romans wouldn't go for putting admin into the most prestigious unit in the legion, let alone counting them as fighting men, I also doubt the need for 400 admin staff for 5-6000 men. That would be one administrator per dozen people in a legion. |
Come In Nighthawk | 07 Apr 2020 9:59 p.m. PST |
Should have made clear my aversion (or prejudice, if you prefer) to applying the term "regiment" is two-fold: to my 20 years in the army "west of the pond;" to my subsequent education as a military historian. E.G., in the ACW, American regiments where units of (on paper) 1000 men, tho' by the World Wars, a regiment numbered more like 3000. Subsequent to WW2 the US Army adopted the system of creating "brigades" (along the lines of the British system), numbering between 3000 and 5000 men. We also started, through a tortured abuse of our old regimental system, to mimick the British tradition of actually creating a plethora of battalions of the same historical regiment. My initial tour of duty a very long time ago was in the 5th BN of one such -- the old army never had a 5th BN of anything of which I am aware. I have already discussed some of the arguments of scholars for and against the idea of all the "REMFs" of the legion being "assigned" to the 1st Cohort. I side w/ those who argue that that is nonsense. There are numerous surviving documents to which I alluded showing them dispersed among all the cohorts -- their service in the principia was undoubtedly like the several troopers of my company command detailed to other duties on the post; "borrowed military manpower." Since many were (as I believe the term is used, "east of the pond") "excused duty?" Exempt from fatigues, and many earning extra pay as well. I suppose it is possible that, like the US Marines, "every man a rifleman first," all these "clerks and jerks" might only keep their cushy posts if they excelled at arms on the drill field. Thus being carried into combat in the elite cohort and accounting for its larger size is possible, but I doubt it. It is far more likely they were with the baggage train with their mobile files, or even left as a small guard force in the fortress, with the bulk of the unit files. On the whole, the beneficiarii, might be in the HQ on detail. However others were not even with the legion. Surviving unit records on papyrus show them all over a province: on the governor's staff; collecting supplies; suppressing bandits; and other details. It was not just death due to accident, disease, or occasional combat (big wars aside) that accounted for units being habitually manned at less than full strength. All of those things in my opinion -- and I accept I am expressing an opinion based on the evidence I've seen -- leads me to think if any cohort was kept near full strength it was the elite "First," to form the "rock" I alluded to, around which the rest of the legion would be anchored in extremis. That is why I have been pondering why the Romans would create such a formation -- after all, they had staff keeping records under Augustus right through to mid-century before the addition to this cohort's strength. So, it is also why I have pondered how to "display" it on the table. On balance and after the number of thoughtful replies, I think I have a solution. I am inclined to add 50% more figures to miliaria cohorts. As I base figures singly, and use movement trays, I am going to create two for each such cohort: one two-deep and extended front; one three-deep on standard front. Should make for some interesting games! Thanks for all the interesting comments and ideas!! They have been very helpful. |
|