Cohort or Legion

[Tiger]

I am partnering in a campaign on the Sulla, Marius, Pontic, campaigns and intend to keep a simple blog of the campaign. lets see if manage to record all 39 turns. Anyway I am wondering how you would describe a 6 figure legionary unit would it be a cohort or a legion in campaign terms.

My logic tells me to use the phrase cohorts as there could be 8+ units in a game, although most games would see 6-8 units on the table. Cohorts can feel a bit small scale whilst legions seem to over egg the size of battle.

I accept this is a silly question but hey i am going to spend the best part of a six months playing this campaign!!

[marioslaz]

A cohort was of 600 men. In game terms it should be depicted by 2-3 bases. Anyway a 6 bases unit of Roman legionaries is nearer to a cohort than a legion IMO.

[Delbruck]

I am of the opinion legions during the Late Republic were often severly understrength, especially during the civil wars. Legions of 1-2,000 men probably were not that uncommon during this period. As with more modern armies veteran unit strenght often fell drastically because new recruits were often sent to new units, and new units often rapidly lost strength because the new recruits had difficulty dealing the the rigours of campaign. When Augustus halved the number of legions at the end of the civil wars, this may have relected the weaken condition of the average legion.

If this is indeed the case then your six stand BG may be close the strength of many of the smaller legions.

[Blathergut]

The game feels right if about 10-12 stands rep. a legion...most roman armies field about 24 give or take...which makes a nice feel of two full legions...6 could rep. a partial one...not all of a legion would necessarily fight...i usually have my roman heavies split into two legions, regardless of number of bases...anywhere from 8-12 per legion...6 would be fine...a cohort being one stand almost feels about right.

[Delbruck]

Also, there really is no scale given in FoG. Although the average base can be thought of to represent 100-250 men, I wouldn't be so dogmatic. When refighting dark age battles between Vikings & Saxons an average base could represnt 50 men. In the case of Imperial Romans one could treat a base as a cohort, whatver the average strength may be.

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

The BG is the basic tactical unit in FoG. The maniple was the basic tactical unit in very early Roman armies, the cohort in later ones. So I would say cohort.

A legion should have 10 cohorts plus an alae or two of cavalry and some auxillia, seems about right for a FoG Roman army to be a legion. (Of course legions were usually deployed in pairs, with two commanders, doubles anyone?)

[Tiger]

Thanks for the feedback - at least my question was as bizarre as I first thought. I reckon I will go for chorts and Alae for auxilliaries (later roman armies).

Next question how many elite cohorts could reasonably be justified in a campaign? Sulla's army was the main field army made up of a high number of veterans - I am not convined but other participants are.?

Elite legionaries can average pike win???

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

The Romans typically concentrated their best men into cohorts I, III, and V. With I oversized. So three out of ten seems normal.

An alae is a wing. It goes without saying that an alae is cavalry only. Cohort is probably correct for the auxillia too.

[irondog068]

I treat each Roman unit as a Legion. In my mine it looks better and makes more sense as you can send a whole Legion to do a task hold a flank etc. then sending a cohort. Plus if you have Ceasr there it would make more sense that there whould be Legions in stead of Cohorts.

Having Ceaser there leading a bunch of Cohorts make as much sense as having Rommel out there leading a company of German DAK infantry