Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Roman Org.

  1. #1
    Aaron Sanderson
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    Ok. Grabbed one of my history books, Yes I did study this stuff, and
    pulled up a couple of org. charts for a Roman legion.

    At the time of Caeser a century had only a couple of people who weren't
    regular troopers. A centurion, who wasn't a promoted trooper but had
    bought his commision. An optio, the second in command; a signifer, who
    carried the units standards; and either a Cornicen or a Tubicen who
    played different types of horns. And had a total of 80 men.

    By the time of the late first century this had grown to 160 men for the
    first five cohorts and 80 men each for the last six cohorts.
    They had also added a rank called Tesseraius, don't know what that one
    does.

    Augustus cut the legions back to a total of 30. In addition to this
    there were many axiliaries which were drawn from local tribes mainly.
    By the time of Constantine things had completely gone out the window so
    it is hard to say how large each unit was. However, there is one source
    that claims the Romans had 150 legions going in the east and 180 legions
    in the west at around c. 395.

    Sorry for the long history lesson, must be habit from way to many
    research papers.

    The recovering Student,
    AmS.

    __________________________________________________ ____
    Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

  2. #2
    Eric Dunn
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    n the west at around c. 395.
    >
    >Sorry for the long history lesson, must be habit from way to many
    >research papers.
    >
    >The recovering Student,
    >AmS.
    >

    Exactly the type of info I was hoping for... :)

    Now, if someone could get us some valid info for what medieval units were
    made up of--of course, I think they were less of a unit--and more of an
    army or "horde" *grin*

    I mean, take the Crusades for example. All those knights running
    around--what was the military make up?

    What about the battle of Hastings--what did each side look like,
    organizationally speaking?

    E

  3. #3
    Richard the Mighty
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    >"150 legions going in the east and 180 legions"
    >
    >330 legions?
    >
    >At between 4000-6000 men per legion[what I vaguely recollect they
    were],
    >that gives Rome an army of 1,320,000 - 1,980,000 I find this numbers to
    >be ludicrously high for the date in question.
    >
    >I myself had always heard it was more along your 30 Legions number,
    >which still makes an army of 120,000 - 180,000 or 600-900 Birthright
    >Units, which is still a large number, hehehe.

    During the time of the battles between Augustus and Antony, there were
    seventy legions, which was reduced to 28 when Augustus took over.

    Another interesting fact is that up until AD 367, a man had to be 6 feet
    tall (although they took 5'10") to join the army! In 367 they passed a
    law which allowed a few units of men 5'7" tall to be formed. So, they
    really could have had a large army if they wanted to, but I don't think
    it would be in the millions.

    Richard


    "I don't want the world, I just want your half..." -- TMBG


    __________________________________________________ ____
    Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

  4. #4
    E Gray
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: lialos@crosslink.net
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 7:43 AM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Roman Org.


    >"150 legions going in the east and 180 legions"
    >
    >330 legions?


    >At between 4000-6000 men per legion[what I vaguely recollect they were],
    >that gives Rome an army of 1,320,000 - 1,980,000 I find this numbers to
    >be ludicrously high for the date in question.


    Hmm, well some of those legions would have been understrength(heck I'm
    fairly sure the late Imperial legions were smaller than older units, maybe
    only
    1000 men), and many may have been "paper" legions, but most of them would
    probably just be units stationed along the frontier to try and keep out the
    barbarians.
    Heck, Valens lost 40000 men at the battle of Adrianople just 17 years
    before the date given before, and still had another 20000 without waiting
    for more units to arrive..

    >I myself had always heard it was more along your 30 Legions number,
    >which still makes an army of 120,000 - 180,000 or 600-900 Birthright
    >Units, which is still a large number, hehehe.


    That number would be correct for many periods, but not all..

  5. #5
    E Gray
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Eric Dunn
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 7:10 AM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Roman Org.


    >n the west at around c. 395.

    >Exactly the type of info I was hoping for... :)
    >
    >Now, if someone could get us some valid info for what medieval units were
    >made up of--of course, I think they were less of a unit--and more of an
    >army or "horde" *grin*
    >
    >I mean, take the Crusades for example. All those knights running
    >around--what was the military make up?


    Well, what you ought to do is go to a book store and look in the Military
    History section and see if you can find a book covering medieval battles
    both during the Crusades and at other times. Mostly though I'd say it
    would be a case of who one was sworn to follow and/or where one came
    from that led to the formation of units.

    >What about the battle of Hastings--what did each side look like,
    >organizationally speaking?


    Hmm, William had 4-7 thousand men, in units of archers, infantrymen
    and knights(in 3 groups), Harold had 7000 men, many half-armed
    untrained peasants....put his trained troops on one ridge, and his
    less trained men on the flanks...other than that I don't know..

  6. #6
    E Gray
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: lialos@crosslink.net
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 8:02 AM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Roman Org.



    >Once again someone with more knowledge than I on this subject will need
    >to correct me[and I'm sure someone will].


    Sorry, we really don't have that *much* information on the battle of
    Tours(or Poiters, some prefer that)..

    >At the Battle of Tours where the Moorish expansion into Europe was
    >halted, weren't there less than a hundred knights on each side? Don;'t
    >know why I am saying this, but the fact seems to stick in my mind.


    Hmm, possible, but I'm fairly sure there were more than 100 men
    involved on each side...

  7. #7
    lialos@crosslink.ne
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    "150 legions going in the east and 180 legions"

    330 legions?

    At between 4000-6000 men per legion[what I vaguely recollect they were],
    that gives Rome an army of 1,320,000 - 1,980,000 I find this numbers to
    be ludicrously high for the date in question.

    I myself had always heard it was more along your 30 Legions number,
    which still makes an army of 120,000 - 180,000 or 600-900 Birthright
    Units, which is still a large number, hehehe.

    Tripp

    Tripp

  8. #8
    David Sean Brown
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    > Another interesting fact is that up until AD 367, a man had to be 6 feet
    > tall (although they took 5'10") to join the army! In 367 they passed a
    > law which allowed a few units of men 5'7" tall to be formed. So, they
    > really could have had a large army if they wanted to, but I don't think
    > it would be in the millions.

    Just kinda curious about the accuracy of this...the average height of a
    man during the time of the roman empire was roughly 5'6"...a man who was
    6' tall would have been considered something of a giant! How did they
    manager to find enought guys to fill up their legions with that kind of
    regulation? Any ideas?

    Sean

  9. #9
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    >
    > Sorry, we really don't have that *much* information on the battle of
    > Tours(or Poiters, some prefer that)..
    >
    > >At the Battle of Tours where the Moorish expansion into Europe was
    > >halted, weren't there less than a hundred knights on each side? Don;'t
    > >know why I am saying this, but the fact seems to stick in my mind.
    >
    Semi-reasonable guestimates put the total # involved per side somewhere
    between 5-10,000 men. Chuck "the Hammer's" army probably had more like
    1,000 of what we would term "knights".
    A note on Tours and halting the Moslem expansion into Europe: IMO, Tours
    was just a skirmish. After all, an arab army of about 80,000, plus a large
    fleet (several hundred ships) etc, besieged Constantinople in 717-18. If
    they had won that battle, then we'd all be speaking Arabic today. That's
    where the expansion into Europe was really halted. A few Franks hardly
    mattered one way or the other.

    Re the below: 100 knights isn't the same as 100 men.
    >
    > Hmm, possible, but I'm fairly sure there were more than 100 men
    > involved on each side...
    >
    >> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
    line
    > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

  10. #10
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Roman Org.

    >
    >
    > >"150 legions going in the east and 180 legions"
    > >
    > >330 legions?
    >
    >
    > >At between 4000-6000 men per legion[what I vaguely recollect they were],
    > >that gives Rome an army of 1,320,000 - 1,980,000 I find this numbers to
    > >be ludicrously high for the date in question.
    >
    Late Roman Legions were more like 2,000 men strong, tops. And the mobile
    portion of the Legion (I.E. the part that would be sent anywhere, as
    opposed to being on semi-permanent garrison duity) was significantly
    smaller (half that # or less).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Roman military terminology (was: le
    By Ryan B. Caveney in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-1998, 12:14 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.