Easterling Legions

The Marian Reforms also set unit sizes at 4,800 per legion. They were further subdivided into 10 cohorts with 6 centuries each with 80 men. There were 120 cavalry and around 80 officers. This was later expanded to up to 6,000 men. Centuries were increased to 8 per cohort. Between 2 and 6 legions were grouped together to form an army. Per 4,800 man legion, there would be at most 300 light cavalry, though 120 seems to be the more common number. Now, the numbers ranged between 1,000 to 6,000. But some of of the smaller numbers came from before the professional army and after serious decline. Some of the larger numbers also came from the later stages after the Empire began to decline some. Thus, I will assume the 4,800 figure would be the norm for the Easterlings.   Now, the ten “soldiers” in a group that the mule supported only had 8 actual combat troops. The other two per tent were support staff. This means that the Legion might have been 4,800 soldiers but had 1,200 support staff for a total size of 6,000. With our estimate of 200,00 to 218,000 Spartiates, this means between 33 and 46 full legions grouped into between 6 and 23 armies. This means that the Army at Minas Tirith would at most between 9,600 and 36,000 if Sauron demands only one army be sent there and the rest to Dale. If we remember, the 18,000 number from the movie battle is supposed to incorporate the Southrons as well. As I suspect that the nomadic Haradrim would have a much lower population, I would imagine that the Easterlings would have actually sent 14,400 would most likely be the contingent sent - meaning a 4,800 strong legion as the backbone of the Easterling Army and three being sent as an army. This means that the force sent to Dale (confirmed at 200,000) would be 41 or 42 legions. Probably organized into 6 strong army groups for 7. Now, the Roman Army had 50 legions at its height. With the 42 legion figure sent to Dale and another 3 sent to Minas Tirith, we still get a range within historical limits. Support staff for this force would be between 52,800 and 54,000 strong.

Their armor is a sort of cross between mail and plate armor. Several smaller plates are tied together to form of scale looking armor. They used this to cover their entire body, making them some of the most protected soldiers I have seen in Lord of the Rings. Add in their deliberately intimidating helmet and things are looking pretty good. Their main weakness was from the rear, where they put less armor. It was assumed that attacks from behind would be rare given the tight, large group formations they used. Interesting to me was the wearing of totems and symbols of past victories as part of their armor. Family wealth was worn on them as demonstrations of wealth as well as tools to inspire themselves and scare opponents.   Now, the Easterling shield appears to be very similar to the Roman Scutum. The main difference appears to be a C shape at the top and bottom that make it appear to have horns at each end. Scutum shields were 120 centimeters tall by 75 wide and 10 thick. It was made with two layers of wood and curved inward around the soldier. They had a linen layer on the inside where the soldier held it and a veal leather covering on the outside. A centerpiece and rim along the top and bottom were made of iron. Vine, Poplar, Elder, Willow and Linden were the preferred woods. The outside was decorated to reflect the unit the soldier was a part of. Soldiers would also write their names and that of their generals on the backs of the shields. Officers and cavalry used a more oval shaped, flat shield covered in ox leather.   The curved shape was actually quite useful – to the point I am surprised I do not see it more often. It helped act as a sort of shock absorber. When the soldier was fighting heavy blows to the shield would be a common occurrence. Anything that would help deal with that would be beneficial. The shape would help divert the force of the blow away from the soldier’s body.   The curve combined with the iron rim helped with another important element of scutum use. The top rim helped protect against ax blows and downward slashes of swords. The bottom rim allowed for the shield to be placed on the ground without risk of rocks causing damage. Add in the curve, and the shield can remain upright on the ground without being held. The curve also provided depth against blows coming from above. These had the extra benefit of allowing the shield to be used offensively. The soldier could hold the shield horizontally and punch with it. This concentrated the force on a smaller area that just happened to be reinforced with iron. It also granted additional reach.   A horizontal hand grip allowed the soldiers to march with with their arm down, so their shoulder bearing most of the weight. This made it easier to carry – an important thing to consider for a 10 kilogram shield. Holding it to the side also makes it easier to brace against enemy charges. Just as important is the fact that the enemy has less area exposed when the attack is facing the side of the soldier instead of the front.   So, yeah, the scutum is a very good shield design it looks like. As stated above, the concave portions seem to be the main difference. But bronze was the main metal used by the Easterlings in their armor, so I would suspect the rim reinforcement would be bronze instead of iron. Now, the only major problem the Easterling version is the concave section on the bottom. This would interfere with putting the shield on the ground and the shield punches. The top curve would actually help protect the upper body more, so I suspect that it would be kept but not the bottom.   Standard bearers, officers, musicians, auxilia and even some legionaries wore the Lorica Squamata armor. This was scale armor - the closest the Romans used to what the Easterlings preferred in the movies. It uses small plates attached to a fabric shirt that goes to the wearer’s thigh. Iron was common, but so was bronze - the Easterling’s preferred metal. The individual scales were very thin - .5 to .8 mm. While the surface area appears to vary widely, the 1.25 by 2.5 cm size appears to be the most common. Scales were attached in horizontal rows with wire, then sewn to the backing. It is also possible to use leather instead of cloth.   Normal legionaries wore Lotica Segmentata - their most iconic armor. But mail was used before, during and after the heyday of the Segmentata armor. It must be noted that mail was actually the bulk of ancient armor. So, this equipment set up I propose for the Easterlings appears to be quite plausible.   Squamata was more similar to the scale armor that was popular in the MIddle East. But Laminar armor, which segmentata is classified as, was common in Persia and the Golden Horde. These cultures are also possible inspirations for the Easterlings. So, I would suspect that the harder to maintain and more distinctive segmentata armor would be reserved for legionaires or commanders. The Squamata might be reserved for auxilaries.   The Roman helmets were basically just a half sphere over the head. Out the back is what looks like a visor. Down the sides are cheek guards. These were on hinges so they could fold inwards. A strap was included to tie them close to the face. This meant the cheek guards provided better protection and didn’t flap about in combat. Important elements of these designs are open faces and holes around the ears. This was an intentional design element to allow better visibility and make understanding orders easier. The Romans had the technical ability to make fully enclosed helmets.   Would this be used by the Easterlings? Well, part of the appeal of the Easterling helmet is its ability to intimidate the enemy. But this does not contradict the Roman helmet in practical terms. Red paint, the crescent on top and some bronze stylings would add to this. But the Easterling helmet did provide much better protection due to being more enclosed. We can change it around a little to get the same basic ideas. If the cheek guards were replaced or complimented with a faceplate that attached to the top of the helmet and swung down, the idea could be preserved. The faceplate could have a wide area around the eyes to allow better vision and still have side protection without covering the ears. It would still be able to collapse for better transportation. Now, it would be a little heavier and harder to carry and still not as good as say a full crusader knight helmet. Yet it preserves what it needs to.   Each legion also had 60 pieces of artillery. 20 were stone throwing catapults call orangers. These were primarily used to attack settlements or as general area saturation weapons. Possible flammable materials were used to set the projectiles on fire. 20 Ballista were part of each legion. These were a sort of giant crossbow. The bolt firing equipment was used against infantry. Each century had a scorpio as well. To operate these, legions had 300 artillerymen, and 100 engineers.   Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, op. cit

The Easterling armies primarily used three different weapons. The first two were pole-arms. One was 9 feet long and the other 5 feet. Both had spikes at one end and blades on the other. The longer was an anti-cavalry weapon while the short one was designed for hand to hand combat. Their other weapon was a 3 foot sword designed for both downward slashing and thrusts.   Does this hold up? Well, not if we assume that the Legion is how they would fight. Some modifications appear to be logical. First, the sword mentioned would probably be limited to the light cavalry. That is perfect for their operations. But the traditional Roman Gladius appears to be much better as a heavy infantry sword. Also - if one has a sword, why would one also have a short spear as well? Seems logical that the 5 foot spear would be replaced with the pila of the legions.   But the 9 foot spear would prove useful as a defensive weapon. Traditionally, spears were the main infantry weapon. Tight ranks and a shield wall would go a longer way in stopping a charge. All one would need is something that sticks out a moderately good distance. In Medieval Europe, 6-8 feet was the norm, while ancient Greece had spears that ranged 7-9. So the 9 feet is within the ranges we would expect.   This spear would grant flexibility in defense against both infantry and mounted charges. It could also be used by the Easterlings in their own infantry assaults. Spears were also used in Roman armies to help soldiers carry their impressive loads. Plus, 9 feet is not so long that one cannot put it up and switch to the sword somewhat quickly. Thus, they could switch between sword and spear as situations demanded. Or the gladius could become a simple sidearm like the swords of the Ancient Greek Phalanxes.   The Gladius was the sword used by the Romans as part of their effective equipment combo. It was a one handed sword – critical for soldiers required to have a 10 pound shield in the other hand. A gladius was sharp on both sides but primarily used its pointed tip for thrusting. This meant that it could be more easily thrust out from behind a shield wall. Soldiers were trained to thrust out aiming for the enemy stomach area. The hilts had grooves that the fingers fit into to help improve grip.   There were two main variants used up to the 4th century. The Mainz version has a slight waist running the length of the blade and a long point. It had a 20–22 inch long blade and was 26–28 total. The blade was 2.8 in wide and the whole sword weighed in as 1.8 lb.The Pompeii sword has parallel cutting edges and a triangular tip. Its blade was 18–20 inches by 2 inches wide. The whole sword was 24–26 inches and weighed 1.5 lb. Both had wooden hilts.   Fully outfitted, a legionnaire would also have a dagger, one or two pila and possibly darts. The dagger was mainly a sidearm. It had a 10-12 cm long hilt. The blade was 18-28 cm long, 5 cm wide and 3 mm thick. The Roman Hasta was meant for thrusting. It was 6 feet long and had an iron tip. Though later armies did not use this. It was replaced by the pila. Later troops were equipped with five darts.   The pila was meant to be thrown, with a range of 15 meters. It was a bit longer at 2 meters. The last 60 cm was an iron shank with a pyramid shape. This could penetrate armor and cause wounds in the enemy soldiers. The pila would make shields difficult to use if nothing else - so the enemy troops would be less equipped to handle the charge of the Legionaries. Ideally, the pila would kill the enemy, but the disabiling the shield, distractions and wounds all could be useful outcomes of a thrown pila even if death did not result. This meant it was a pretty useful weapon to soften up enemy formations prior to charges.   The pila came in two sizes and could be used in close quarters combat as well. While there is no confirmation as far as I can tell if the Romans used one or two pila, it seems likely that they at least carried two with them on march. If the general did not feel both would be needed, he could order one be left behind.

For our purposes, I suspect that the commanders would use the segmentata armor due to its superior protection. The would also have the resources to afford it, plus slaves and squires to pass off the tedious upkeep to. It was possible to make the backing for Squamata armor the mail of Hamata. This added much greater protection but cost a lot more and was heavier for the wearer. For similar reasons, the officer corps could handle the expense. The fact that the highest ranking officers would also have their chariots to carry them on the battlefield, the weight might not be as big of an issue for them. We do know that officers would have feather-like scales attached to mail armor. The defensive value has been debated. But it looked impressive and thus could have been good for making officers recognizable to friendly troops and could have had a positive morale effect.   Roman Army Talk Forum: Protection - Which Lorica was best? Archived 2013-02-02 at Archive.today   Part of the success of the legion was not just the quality of the troops - which was high - but also the top leadership. As noted above, the willingness to forego tradition worked in the elite’s favor. They were also more than willing to absorb high losses to achieve their goals. Like the Easterlings, they had the manpower to take massive losses. During the Punic Wars, they lost 50,000 men and still had enough reserves to have between 14 and 25 legions in the field.   Now, the Roman officers came from the Senatorial class - the very top. This was the Roman version of the Spartan class that provides all the Easterling Legionaries. This creates a problem for our melding of the two. One cannot use a higher class to select your officers from when a society's highest class is already providing all the rank and file troops. This class already is universally receiving training from birth to be soldiers. So, how would the officers be selected?   Well, I have already suspected that gladiator games and chariot races would be part of Easterling culture. It is entirely possible that competitions like these could prove the start. Whenever there would be an opening, those who would want the post could then race or fight for it. There is also the possibility of the non commissioned officers being elected by their men, then being selected by the races and fights. But what is more likely than elections (which did happen in Roman Armies) was capturing prisoners for sacrifices or other measures of battlefield prowess.   The Command Staff of Legions generally consisted of a Centurion in charge of each Century. Getting to this rank could come from appointments, promotions from the ranks or even being elected by their troops. Their role was to lead the troops by example and handle discipline. They held important positions in society. In fact, they became eligible for election to public office after their terms. The main requirement was being literate, 30 years old, have served in the army for a period of time and have decent recommendations. Often, promotions came after displays of valor on the battlefield.   Earl S. Johnson, Jr., "Centurion," The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006, p. 580. ISBN 9780687054275   Justin R. Howell, The Imperial Authority and Benefaction of Centurions and Acts 10.34-43: A Response to C. Kavin Rowe., Page numbers of article p25-51, 27p, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 31 Issue 1, Sep2008   The Legions of Rome, Stephen Dando-Collins, pp41, Quercus (December 2010)   Tribunes were the next rank up. While a centurion could be a lower rank, the tribunes needed to be senatorial or equestrian in background. They were administrative positions. 5 held no real power in battle, while the “broad stripe” tribune was effectively the second in command. The lower 5 were officer cadets, recruited from the equestrian class or the centurions. This position granted them the right to be on the senate. Often, they were the staff for the Legion’s commanding officer. The Broad Stripe was more often senatorial.   The Legatus was the commander of a single legion. Due to the plunder used to pay troops, this position could be quite enriching. This was also one of the most respected posts in the Roman Army. They were senatorial in rank, often former tribunes. However, their power meant they had a 2 year term limit. Former consuls (effectively heads of state) would command the 2-6 legion armies. I suspect that the Gondorian Army would keep the same basic rank structure and class elements. The Easterlings, who I feel would borrow more heavily from the legion model, would probably use a promotion from the ranks or duel to handle promotions in this system.   Officers tended to wear their swords on the left instead of the right side. They also wore grieves, something most rank-and-file infantry did not. Helmets also had a crest running from the front to back. They also had their own tents and horses. They could be paid anywhere between 2 and 17 times the rate of the rank and file troops. The top centurion, the Legatus and Tribunes would form the war council with the camp prefect.

Tactically, the sword and shield combination and better combined arms organization allowed the Legion to beat the vaunted Greek Phalanx. Normally, the reach of a spear means it could kill enemies at ranges the sword cannot reach - so one would expect it to win. But the Phalanx had no flank protection, so outside the mountains the legion could just move around and hit from the sides. A Phalanx would thus be screwed. The Scutum allows the troops to deflect the spear easier. Then they can get in close and thrust into the enemy formation. Almost as important is the utility of the gladius and scutum in one-on-one combat. Get a hoplite alone and they are useless. A Roman soldier could still be quite lethal by comparison. Spears are effective in one-on-one combat, but the hoplite one is impractically long for single combat. Problems are compounded by the hoplite training for pure close order ranks and single shields only covering part of the hoplite. Not to say that the Legion didn’t have a hard time against the Phalanx, but it was superior enough to allow for the conquest of Greece.   The Roman Legions relied on heavy infantry in close order formations to fight. Cavalry was mainly light and was limited in number. Light infantry were also rare. This meant that the majority of the legions were heavily armed and armored infantry designed for frontal assaults. Defensively, they aimed to form shield walls as a foundation on which to anchor the rest of their formations. By close order formation, I mean very close. The Roman Legions had 18 inches per soldier facing the enemy. Effectiveness came from this close mass of heavy infantry, high quality equipment and solid and constant training and drill over a long period. One on one fights would probably not go too well for a Roman soldier, but when in groups they were amazing. This is especially true when compared to the average “barbarian” enemies – relying on sheer power, bravery and individual fighting rather than skill and experience in group combat.   It must be noted that the cavalry of the Roman Legions had little to no combat role. Combat cavalry units were limited to the auxiliary formation. Those in the legions were mainly scouts, messengers and officer escorts. As such, they were normally divided up among the different centuries.   Once the enemy was found, movements became more tentative. At this point, sacrifices were made and pep talks given by officers. actions were taken to test enemy reactions and build up troop morale. During this phase, the legions fully put on their armor and formed ranks in total silence. Officers would walk behind the lines and whack soldiers talking or not obeying orders with a stick. The silence was to make sure soldiers could hear orders - a problem given the limitations of the human voice and the noise of the Lorica Segmentata. It did have one major accidental benefit in that it tended to intimidate the enemy. The full line formed could be up to a mile long.   In the later Empire, the opening phase included a bombardment by their artillery, though this was of questionable effectiveness. After this the pila would be thrown at the enemy before a charge to break shields and enemy formations. The front ranks would throw directly at the enemy. Rear ranks would throw over the heads of the front troops. This was normally at a 30 meter range. Closing in as soon as possible after all the pila hit the enemy ranks made reforming lines more difficult. Thus, the infantry charge could more reliably cause a rout. Enemies were then pursued and killed. Once the melee combat was started, the front ranks would conduct short periods of brutal fighting. If inconclusive, the front ranks would retreat to the rear and rest while the rank just behind them would take over. the result was a rapid series of furious and deadly attacks.   Ideally, the battle would be as quick as possible. Roman troops got as much rest in battle as possible while trying to limit the same to the enemy. Granted, there is no escaping the stresses of battle, which intensified as time goes on. Stamina and willpower were essential as a result. The rest periods and training can increase these traits, but eventually one side began to break down. That is the point that goes a long way to establishing winners and losers. The Roman training and tactics meant that the Romans had an advantage, but that does not mean the troops were superhuman. They too had limits and lost battles as a result.   One important element is the fatigue and losses of the front ranks. After a few minutes, the centurion would give the order to rotate. The front rank would retreat to the rear and the second rank would move up. Any fatigue and losses in the front ranks were replaced with a full and fresh line of men. This was continued for the duration of the battle. The enemy got no rest, while the Roman soldiers did. The full force of the legion was thus constantly bearing down on the enemy. We don’t know how that order is exactly given, but I have seen shouted orders, whistles or horns proposed. New recruits were often placed at the front initially so they would be less able to flee. This had the benefit of preserving the veteran units 1) for a critical moment or 2) from danger when they were not needed. Just as ranks within units can be rotated, the units themselves can be rotated too. This is where the main benefits of the three lines come in.   John Warry, Warfare in the ancient World, (St. Martin's, 1980), pp. 70-183   This was aided by the spacing of units. While the later empire Legions do not appear to have used this spacing as much, I suspect that both Gondor and the Easterlings would use a similar system. Gondor due to its Byzantine inspiration and Easterlings as noted elsewhere. The basic idea is that units would form three lines. Each line would have gaps between each unit. The line behind them would be staggered so that the units there would be behind the gaps in the line in front of them. The older, more experienced triarii were placed in the rear to act as a reserve and to block retreat. When the line was moving to engage, they would close the gaps to create a united front. The gaps in rear units would be left open to allow for the first line to retreat if needed.   Should the first two lines collapse, it would “have come to the triarii”. This was a uniquely Roman saying that meant the situation was desperate and it was time for the “adults” to take over. They would form a solid line to cover the retreat of the rest of the army and attempt to salvage the situation the best they could.   This has many real advantages. First, it meant that traversing broken terrain could occur without loss of combat effectiveness. The gaps in the front line could compress or outright disappear as the situation allowed. If front line gaps remained, the second line could surge forward to provide extra punch at critical moments. The relief could and was still provided without gaps with smaller units filtering through the front line as the front ranks fell back in similarly small groups. As one could predict from the description of tactics above, this system allowed for better metering of combat strength. Phalanxes derived their effectiveness from raw, initial shock power. Legions by contrast still had (not quite as) massive power at first that was steadily replenished pressure on the front over the course of the battle. The initial engagement would probably be won by a phalanx, but only the legion would last beyond that. This meant that the key skills of the commander was knowing when and where to commit reserves. The many sub units of the Roman Army allowed commanders to send in troops based on the conditions on their specific section of lines. Almost as important is that these sub units could maneuver independently of the others, which allowed for easier flanking moves. Phalanxes had no answer.   Lt. Col. S.G. Brady, The Military Affairs of Ancient Rome and Roman Art of War in Caesar's Time, The Military Service Publishing Company: 1947- url: http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/romanarmy/   Sieges are something we need to get to here, given the narrative we are talking about. The first step was basically the standard methodical Roman style construction. A fortified camp was set up to house the troops during the siege. Then a double set of palisades were set up with ditches on the outside. This was to surround the city. The inner one was to stop the garrison from attacking the besiegers. The outside kept reinforcements from reaching the city. Watch towers were constructed along the length of the walls and sentries were assigned to man them. Roads were even built to make traversing this network was easier. The ditches could be 20 feet deep, reinforced with iron barbs to discourage assaults. Caesar even diverted a river in one siege to fill these ditches. During this phase the siege towers, artillery and mining tunnels would be built.   When the building was done, the attack began. Artillery would provide cover fire as the towers approached the walls. Soldiers would approach the walls with ladders and battering rams. The goal was not to destroy or take the entire wall - instead their aim was to seize the gate and open it. That would allow the rest of the army to move in much easier. Often, this was led by the cavalry.

So, how was the Roman legionnaire trained? Well, first the qualities of agility, endurance and technique with their weapons were prized. Primarily, this was due to the packed confines of the legion's ranks. They were so tight that training needed to focus on how a soldier would need to 1) use their weapon good enough to kill their enemy while 2) not hitting their allies beside or behind them. The long spears of the Greek phalanx did not require these skills as one just needed to push them forward essentially. But swords - even when thrusting, are not quite as straight forward. Due to the sword being the main weapon in the legion, training focused on it.   But almost as - if not more important - is unit cohesion. Just like with the phalanx, individual soldiers that fled or charged in without their unit could threaten the whole unit. Thus, obedience to orders, discipline, courage in combat and aggression were traits the legion tried to instill in troops.   This would be quite possible given the Spartan style training from birth that the Easterling Legionaries would get.

Such large units were set up to be as self sufficient as possible. This meant on one hand a large number of servants and slaves to handle the labor requirements of the legion. The other was placing more burdens on the troops. The Legionary soldiers were basically also road builders and built fortified camps, making them part time construction workers. Each legion only had 1 mule per 10 soldiers - meaning the troops had to pick up the slack. This single mule had to carry the tent, cooking equipment and a millstone for the unit. This meant soldiers carried all their armor and weapons, plus up to 15 days worth of food (a total of 60 pounds). A stick was given to help them carry their pack and a cloak that functioned as a blanket. Their nickname became Marius’ mules as a result. The result was reducing the baggage train, important in securing the logistics of the Army. The Marian reforms led to an army that prized toughness and pushed soldiers to their limits. I can see this as a very Easterling phenomenon as well.   Legions had 1,400 mules to help carry supplies and equipment. This is apparently on top of the 600 to 1,200 mules assigned to each 10 person group sharing tents. When the troops left for a campaign, it left with its extra supplies carried by these additional mules. 200-300 camp servants, armed as light infantry, would operate this supply train. Their arms and basic combat training meant they could protect the train and the camp if needed. While it would be tempting to suggest that these troops could fill in as the light infantry at the head of the Army in battle as skirmishers, this would be a bad idea. Especially when Gondor’s Rangers would be hoping for such an amazing target as an unprotected camp or supply train.   Entrenching equipment and two wooden stakes to help build the next camp were included in the individual soldier’s pack. 15 days of rations, cooking equipment and utensils were carried by each solider. The tent, a baking oven, mill and spare weapons were carried by the mule. Once the army got to where it was camping for the night, it would build a fortified camp. While still wearing armor. Yeah, they would wake up, eat then put on their armor. Then march all day (carrying 60 pounds) and build a camp and eat. Then and only then would the armor be removed. Yeah, life was pretty tough for them. But I can see the Easterlings copying this as well.   So, when the Legions entered battle, how did they fight? After all, this is what we are looking for. When on the march, the Roman Army would march in several columns. A Tribune would march ahead of the main army with a vanguard of scouts, the cavalry and some light infantry. Beyond the obvious looking for the enemy role this unit fills, they would also locate the location of the camp for the night. In the morning, the troops ate breakfast, packed up and burned the camp down. The Legion would then march another 18-22 miles over 5 hours. Then build the camp again. This was done to avoid the camp being occupied by the enemy. This cycle was continued until the enemy was found. As the march was only supposed to last 5 hours, time was not an issue. The tools and stakes the soldiers carried were meant for this purpose and also saved on time.   This camp was made with a deep ditch and palisade around it. Command tents were concentrated in the center. In the middle of each side was an entrance with streets running into the interior. These would intersect in the middle. Space was set aside for the baggage and the altar. A 60 meter gap was left between the walls and the outer tents. This kept the tents out of missile range and allowed soldiers to concentrate near the walls. Construction took between 2 to 5 hours. The difference was mainly the tactical situation - in dangerous areas more of the manpower was devoted to protection. This naturally lengthened construction times.   The scouting in advance allowed for the camp to be built at the best possible location – dry, clear of trees, available food and water. When properly patrolled, surprise was almost impossible. No recorded case of a camp being stormed could be found. In fact, after the disaster of Cannae, the troops that fled survived after they retreated to old camps.

It must be noted that the conversion of the Spartan social structure to the Roman Legion is not as much of a stretch as one would expect. Especially after some of the Imperial reforms, terms of service were 20 years of active duty. An additional 5 in the reserves was required. Assuming recruitment at 20, one would not be fully discharged until 45. Like Spartan soldiers, the legionaries gave huge amounts of their life to the army. The legions for most of Rome’s history came from the core area around Rome itself. Thus, like Sparta, the military was drawn from a core demographic. Also, there were restrictions on legionaries not marrying until the end of their service. Admittedly, these were hard to enforce and were often ignored. This means both had long serving, highly trained, professional troops considered the best of their times and dedicated their lives to the military. Both drew from some sort of privileged core. While there were differences (such as how that social elite was defined), it does not seem unreasonable to combine the two.   Many of the problems of the recruitment methods used in the post Marian army would not be an issue for the Easterlings. For example, the Romans began to see the rural poor especially become a dominant force in the military. Troops became less motivated by defense of their home and more interested in the pay. At the same time they became more loyal to their generals than the state. However, the Easterlings would be raising from birth a warrior class that has all the political power and land they would be defending. Thus, we can expect some of the structural problems to be less of an issue. The elite nature of the Spartiate class would mean that there would be resistance to the process of barbarization that became problematic for the later Roman Empire.   McCall, Jeremiah B. (2002). The Cavalry of the Roman Republic: Cavalry Combat and Elite Reputations in the Middle and Late Republic. New York: Routledge. p. 101.   Now, the real Roman legionaries came to see themselves as superior to the normal citizens. This arrogance led to the sort of mistreatment of them that one would expect. As a result, the citizens came to look on soldiers with fear and hatred. I suspect that this would be made worse with the Easterlings. After all, the legionaries would be trained from birth to fill their roles, so they would be isolated from the lower classes. Add in the fact they have all the political power and see themselves as having took their positions through their own merits, we can expect this arrogance to be quite bad.   Also, the demands of the legions on society would be severe. In the Second Punic War, a solid two thirds of all citizens were mobilized to fight. in more normal times, 16% to 25% were more common. Rome struggled as so much manpower being sent to the army left barely enough to feed everyone. This was even true when restrictions on criminals, debtors and property ownership were waived. Sometimes children too young were forced in. Twice wealthy citizens were required to send their slaves. We can assume that Easterling mobilization levels are only possible when the society is structured to maximize war mobilization.