Rantings of a Madman - or Discrepancies in Unit Size

[Correus]

Ave Omnes!!

Before I begin my rant let me point out a couple of facts - 1) yes, I know this is just a game & 2) it could just be I'm a tad bit OCD/anal.

This rant came about from my ramblings in an e-mail conversation I'm having with another forum member as well as some discrepancies I've noticed while working out my proposed Legion.

I'm working up a list of Auxiliaries, infantry and cavalry, for my Legion. Right now I have two Cohorts of Auxiliary Infantry planned - 18 figures each. This is based on various sets of Gaming rules such as WAB, TACTICA, a couple others who's names I don't recall right now as well as what I know of HC (based on the various articles written by Rick in the articles section).

Generally rules tend to make Auxiliary units smaller (not sure about HC but it looks like they can be larger). Historically we know that an Auxiliary infantry unit was made up of 6 centuries, like those in a Legionary Cohort, but had more men than a Legionary Cohort by a tad. So, in reality the Auxiliary Cohorts should be the same size as the Legionary ones if not a bit bigger! On top of this, we also know that the Auxiliary Cohorts became bigger in the mid 1st century AD at the same time the 1st Cohorts of the Legions were increased in size. At this time they became ten centuries strong!! So now I'm thinking I need to beef up my Auxiliary Cohorts.

The same could also be said of the Auxiliary Cavalry. Most rules tend to depict these units in small amounts - 10 to 12 minis at most (at least that's what I've seen). However, an Ala Quingenaria had 16 turmae of 30 troopers for a total of 480; and an Ala Milliaria had 24 turmae of 30 troops for a total of 720!!

Before continuing I will concede that actual unit strength amounts did fluctuate at times. The numbers I'm using are typical.

Rome's Auxiliary units made up 3/5 of it's over all forces yet this is not typically depicted on the table top from what I've seen. Perhaps most of the Auxiliary troops were used for garrison and outpost duties and not in combat. We do know that historically there were typically four Auxiliary Infantry cohorts per Roman army (4 Legions) and verious amounts of Auxiliary Cavalry - not counting the 120 man unit attached to each Legion to be used as scouts and dispatch riders.

All of this being said, and my ratio of choice being 1:20, my Auxiliary infantry units - including archers and such - should be the same size as my Legionary cohorts if not bigger. As to the cavalry, an Ala Quingenaria would have 24 minis and an Ala Milliaria would have 36 minis!

I guess what I'm ranting about is - why are these units typically depicted the way they are when the Legionary cohorts are more proportional? Does anyone else out there see the discrepancies? If we are trying to depict our mini forces in a somewhat realistic manner, shouldn't these numbers change?

Any thoughts &/or suggestions are am I just nuts?

Vale ~

[Big Al]

That's the beauty of HC, you can make the unit sizes the correct size because the game works using units rather than units made up of individuals. Most rules make you spend points on individual figures and gamers would rather spend those points on things like legionaries, so you find that they cater for larger units of legionaries than auxiliaries. At least, that is what I've noticed.

[Invisible officer]

Correus, no need to worry, you are among friends, straitjackets are available

You are correct claiming that the auxilia cohors quingenaria pedita was the same size as a the ordinary cohors legionis (II-X) And the much used Cohors equitata quingenaria had the same number of infantry but 120 horse in addition.
The first cohort of the Legion had 800 but the cohors milliaria pedita had the same strength. And the Cohors equitatae milliaria again in addition horse, 256.

As a sample let's view the army in Britannia around 100 AD.

1 x Ala milliaria
2 x Cohors milliaria
5 x Cohors equitatae miliaria
15 x Ala quingenaria
16 x Cohors quingenaria pedita
1 x Cohors sagittaria (foot archers)
1 x Cohors funditorii (slingers)
31 x Cohors Equitatae quingenaria

3 Legions with 27 ordinary and 3 large cohortes.

Obviously the auxilia was much larger.The foot Auxilia 7 large and 49 small cohortes against 3 and 27 in the Legions , the horse: 12 Alae in the Legions against 388

[Biggus Dickus]

The first cohort of the Legion had 800

You need to read some more books my friend...the first cohort was double strength. That's 960 you are in fact 160 short.
I think it is a well established fact that a cohort is 480 double is 960.

[Phil]

The first cohort of the Legion had 800

You need to read some more books my friend...the first cohort was double strength. That's 960 you are in fact 160 short.
I think it is a well established fact that a cohort is 480 double is 960.

I don't think you're correct.

The first cohort of a legion had 800 men, made up of five double (160 man) centuries.

An auxiliary 'cohors milliaria peditata' (large sized infantry cohort) had ten 'ordinary' (80 man) centuries, again giving 800 men.

'Double' stength here is something of a modern misnomer, and causes confusion. But that kind of confusion goes right back to the empire - a 'cohors milliaria' ought, according to the words, to have had 1,000 men, and a century (from the Latin centum, meaning 100) ought to have 100 men. But, generally, they don't.

Phil

[Invisible officer]

Correct Phil.

Vegetius wrote in the Epitoma rei militaris II 6 that the "ancient" first cohort had 1105 foot and 132 horse. But he also claims 555 and 66 horse for the other nine.
Well, he wrote 300 years later. Many errors, to claim that his statement for the 1st cohort is correct and his repeated numbers for the others wrong would be impossible to proof.

As Phil stated double is just a modern misnomer and Roman designations are often strange. Centuria ~ 100 but in imperial army 80.
Hastati armed with pilum, not hasta and Principes (Princeps = the first) stood in the second battle line. Socialy these are second too.

No contemporary source states why the 1st cohort became larger. Vegetius claim the immunes and other staff to be the reason. But was there a tactical difference? In war they may be part of the line but also back in camp. Just decide what you prefer.

[Biggus Dickus]

The first cohort of the Legion had 800

You need to read some more books my friend...the first cohort was double strength. That's 960 you are in fact 160 short.
I think it is a well established fact that a cohort is 480 double is 960.

I don't think you're correct.

The first cohort of a legion had 800 men, made up of five double (160 man) centuries.

An auxiliary 'cohors milliaria peditata' (large sized infantry cohort) had ten 'ordinary' (80 man) centuries, again giving 800 men.

'Double' stength here is something of a modern misnomer, and causes confusion. But that kind of confusion goes right back to the empire - a 'cohors milliaria' ought, according to the words, to have had 1,000 men, and a century (from the Latin centum, meaning 100) ought to have 100 men. But, generally, they don't.

Phil

........what is it the Borg used to say.............resistance is futile.
1st rule...never, ever, ever stick your head above the parapet....I broke the first rule...
I'm going to burn all my books, and i won't express an opinion again.
The future looks..................................Dull

[Biggus Dickus]

Correct Phil.

Vegetius wrote in the Epitoma rei militaris II 6 that the "ancient" first cohort had 1105 foot and 132 horse. But he also claims 555 and 66 horse for the other nine.
Well, he wrote 300 years later. Many errors, to claim that his statement for the 1st cohort is correct and his repeated numbers for the others wrong would be impossible to proof.

As Phil stated double is just a modern misnomer and Roman designations are often strange. Centuria ~ 100 but in imperial army 80.
Hastati armed with pilum, not hasta and Principes (Princeps = the first) stood in the second battle line. Socialy these are second too.

No contemporary source states why the 1st cohort became larger. Vegetius claim the immunes and other staff to be the reason. But was there a tactical difference? In war they may be part of the line but also back in camp. Just decide what you prefer.

I need to give myself a lobotomy

[mikeland]

Correct Phil.

Vegetius wrote in the Epitoma rei militaris II 6 that the "ancient" first cohort had 1105 foot and 132 horse. But he also claims 555 and 66 horse for the other nine.
Well, he wrote 300 years later. Many errors, to claim that his statement for the 1st cohort is correct and his repeated numbers for the others wrong would be impossible to proof.

As Phil stated double is just a modern misnomer and Roman designations are often strange. Centuria ~ 100 but in imperial army 80.
Hastati armed with pilum, not hasta and Principes (Princeps = the first) stood in the second battle line. Socialy these are second too.

No contemporary source states why the 1st cohort became larger. Vegetius claim the immunes and other staff to be the reason. But was there a tactical difference? In war they may be part of the line but also back in camp. Just decide what you prefer.

I need to give myself a lobotomy

Save yourself the trouble just stick your head above the parapet again... Get it shot off!

[zedeyejoe]

My thoughts, do different unit sizes make a difference to the game - they would in WAB which is the system I have most experience of.

Are the armies being used for playing a wargame version of an historical battle? My contention would be, if the battle is not historical, then no point worrying about units.