-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Okay. Whoever had the idea to only allow one Legion should get officially burned at the stake on the market square of Stockholm. How this makes any sense, is totally beyond me.
- 6
You can get more Legions regardless of size after the Military Reform event.
Okay. Whoever had the idea to only allow one Legion should get officially burned at the stake on the market square of Stockholm. How this makes any sense, is totally beyond me.
Sure. But that only fires after Technology Level 14 (?). In short, I can have more Legions, when I have already won the game. Great work, Paradox, standing ovations.
Legions were designed to be mid>late game. Prior to that, you use levies for quantity and mercs for that extra bit of professionalism to supplement your Legions. Honestly, I quite like it - makes your Royal Guard Legion feel very elite and impactful where it shows up.
- 6
- 2
And we all know how Legions were not a thing before 100 or 150 BC.
If I can play Rome and win the game without Legions, why are they in there at all? To me, this is a total lack of immersion.
If I can play Rome and win the game without Legions, why are they in there at all? To me, this is a total lack of immersion.
- 6
I know right, could you imagine Rome being able to beat the Carthaginians and dominate the Med before Marius?
- 9
- 1
The Marian Legions - the type of standing army that the in-game Legions represents - did not exist before 107 BC, correct. The Consular Legions before that time was a levied army that was disbanded after each campaign.
- 10
Question contains answer.
EDIT:
Instead of downvoting please explain to me, how it makes any sort of sense, that there are two distinct military organizations simultaneously. Either you have an organized force (thats what a Legion is) or you have something else (whatever organisational structure these levies are supposed to represent). But not both.
Last edited:
- 5
A Legion, in terms of gameplay, is a standing army. A Levy, in terms of gameplay, is a levied army. The Legions, before Marius, was a Levied army, not a standing army. It was temporarily raised, and disbanded after the campaign. The Legions of the Punic war, for example, are better represented as Levies in-game, not as Legions, regardless of what they were historically called. As a side note, a Legion was just an organizational unit of men in the Roman army system. Levies were still organized. The Levy/Legion divide is literally just about whether you have the army on permanent retainer, or disband it after it has served its purpose.
So the Levy system DOES in fact represent a Roman Legion of 200BC - just not the same Legions that existed after the Marian Reforms. Those two are extremely distinct from one another.
- 5
In what world is having a standing army with the option to levy/draft/conscript strange. That's...just how militaries work.
- 5
The marian legions were also (theoretically, the roman state was undergoing collapse) disbanded after every campaign. The Marian reforms was about eligibility and organizing the legions. It's the IMPERIAL legions that were long term standing.
- 1
- 1
Because you can't force people to stay under arms long term or they will kill their officers and mutiny. The Romans would do this without forcing people off their farms for decades, I can't imagine what a standing legion would be like if it was filled with people forced to be there for 30 years.
- 1
Monarchies are really only designed to have their single Royal Guard legion (the flipside being that they can get it very early). The Royal Army law is really only there for edge cases, such as a late game Roman Empire.
Republics can access multiple legions more easily, since they only need the military reform chain (which can trigger if they are in range of another country which has had the military reform, it's not just tech).
On the other hand, tribes cannot use legions at all. Even endgame tribes will be entirely reliant on levies.
It's a built in difference between each government type, which reflects a general theme and balance.
In general, relying on levies is not a huge problem. Only a few countries in the game will ever be able to field multiple legions and only one or two are likely to actually have the economy to do so without player intervention.
Also bear in mind that even that royal guard legion can be split into multiple armies, and can get very large if the capital region is populous. A heavily populated capital region can field a legion with hundreds of cohorts.
Republics can access multiple legions more easily, since they only need the military reform chain (which can trigger if they are in range of another country which has had the military reform, it's not just tech).
On the other hand, tribes cannot use legions at all. Even endgame tribes will be entirely reliant on levies.
It's a built in difference between each government type, which reflects a general theme and balance.
In general, relying on levies is not a huge problem. Only a few countries in the game will ever be able to field multiple legions and only one or two are likely to actually have the economy to do so without player intervention.
Also bear in mind that even that royal guard legion can be split into multiple armies, and can get very large if the capital region is populous. A heavily populated capital region can field a legion with hundreds of cohorts.
Last edited:
The Marian Legions saw men enlist for 16 years, and was a standing army. One of the main aims of the Marian reforms were to get away from disbanding the armies after temporary service. Of course, having a standing army doesn't mean the army is always in formation; it just means they're drilling and maintaining readiness throughout the year - that this man's job is "soldier", and not farmer, say, even when there's no campaign currently ongoing.
- 4
I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say. Obviously standing armies existed, you even admitted this yourself.
Legions aren’t forced into service, they are professional soldiers. That’s why Legions don’t cause war exhaustion while levies do.
- 3
You don't make a long term standing army with conscripts. It's a recipe for disaster. Maybe I misunderstood the post I was responding to, but I thought they were saying that the romans could or would make standing legions with conscripts.
A standing army works if they want (for a given value of want) to be there, for a given value of want. Putting people under arms by force for decades, or even for years, can and does lead to mutinies and other serious issues.
The legions under marius and the other republican oligarchs like Sulla or Pompey were mustered out at the end of campaigns. The Senate wasn't unaware of the issues of having their army exist largely under the authority of a single oligarch, their responses was merely just insufficient.
I've read references to "private" Legions - Legions raised by governors and oligarchs without the approval of the senate - being disbanded, but not that the armies post-Marius were mustered out as a general rule. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but literally every source I can find on the Marian reforms refer to them as creating an intentionally standing army to replace the system of conscripting forces for one campaign only, then disbanding them.
Yes, you misunderstood. @Bovrick was saying that most countries with standing armies still used conscripted armies. You don't make a standing army out of conscripts, but you use conscripts to supplement your standing army when the standing army isn't large enough.
It was a direct rebuttal of your point that it's strange that Rome still uses levies, even after unlocking the ability to recruit legions.
- 4